Under the provisions of section 205(b)3 of title II, a student who has obtained a loan can obtain forgiveness of 50 percent of that loan if he or she goes into public school teaching. The obvious reason for this provision in the original act was to encourage students to become schoolteachers. It seems only fair that the same opportunity should be granted to those who go into private schools. I am aware of the fact that the vast majority of our school training is handled in public schools. In fact, of the 1,574,000 elementary and secondary schoolteachers in America today, 1,366,884 are in public schools and 207,116 in private schools. In other words, 87 percent of our teachers are on the public payrolls.

However, private schools also perform an important public service, and there is no reason why those who are employed in such institutions should not receive the same advantages that the public schoolteachers do.

Since the Defense Education Act only began in 1958, there are no adequate figures available as yet to show what percent of those receiving loans go into school teaching. Most of the loan recipients are still in school. However, of 120,000 loan recipients last year, 52,000 indicated that they intend to become schoolteachers. When, and if, they do, they will be eligible for a cancellation of half of their loan payment. I do not have the figures which indicate the percentage who would go into private versus public schoolteaching, but if we assume that the ratio is the same as the present ratio for those engaged in private and public schoolteaching, we can guess that approximately 6,800 students receiving loans last year would potentially benefit from my bill, whereas they are now excluded from this section of the act.

In the interest of fairness, I think there is no question but what these changes should be made. These loans are granted to all needy students who can qualify, regardless of whether or not they are going into teaching, and whether they go into public or private teaching. There is no reason why a mathematics student who obtains teaching employment in a privately supported institution should be discriminated against in obtaining his partial loan cancellation when a colleague may have obtained his job in a public school and received such a benefit.

Concerning my amendments to titles V and VI of the National Defense Education Act, the Commissioner of Education is authorized to arrange, through institutions of higher learning, institutes to train teachers in the fields of guidance, counseling, and testing in the case of title V and language development in the case of title VI. Under the provisions of the act, teachers from public schools who attend these institutes may receive up to $75 per week while in attendance, plus $15 per week for each dependent for the period of his attendance.

Again, there is no reason why a public schoolteacher is in any different circumstances than a private teacher in attending these institutes. It is interesting to note that the number of private schoolteachers who attend the institutes is very small compared to the public schoolteachers attending. For example, since the program began, only 140 private schooolteachers attended the counseling and guidance institutes, while 5,730 public school enrolees attended. This is a ratio of only 2 percent private-to-public schoolteachers, whereas as I indicated earlier, private schoolteachers make up 13 percent of the total elementary and secondary teaching staff. The reason is obvious. The public schoolteachers get a stipend and the private schoolteachers do not.

I think the discrimination contained in the act is obvious, and I hope that Congress will correct this discrimination this year. I urge the committee to favorably report S. 622 to the Senate.

Senator MORSE. Our next witness will be Dr. C. Stanley Lowell, associate director of Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Dr. Lowell?

Dr. LOWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(The complete statement of Dr. C. Stanley Lowell is as follows:) STATEMENT BY C. STANLEY LOWELL, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF PROTESTANTS AND OTHER AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

I am the associate director of Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an organization of some 150,000 members in all the States and with chapters and committees in most, an organization that maintains close liaison on church-State matters with major Protestant denominations. While we are a predominantly Protestant group, our membership includes Catholics, Jews, and persons of no formal religious faith. All are invited to join who believe in the American tradition which separates State and church, a tradition articulated in the first amendment to the Federal Constitution and in the constitutions and laws of 48 of our 50 States. We construe separation in terms of a money line between State and church: we oppose use of public funds or public instrumentalities of any kind for the benefit of any church, since we believe the true genius of religious activities lies in the area of voluntaryism.

We detect in S. 1726 additional benefits for church elementary and secondary schools and some widening in categories of aid for church colleges. We shall comment on these in detail. We should like to state, in general, that we note always the issue of constitutionality in connection with aid to these institutions. There seems to be rather general agreement that the constitutionality of even indirect forms of aid to church schools and colleges is in doubt because of previous proscriptions of the Supreme Court against such aid. Also to be considered are the many State laws and constitutions with their far more specific prohibitions in this area. After all, any Federal spending programs in aid to education would have to be geared into the States' procedures.

We have heard it stated that the Congress should abdicate its responsibility in regard to the constitutionality of aid to church schools and let the Supreme Court decide the matter. We protest this reasoning, primarily because a court test of the constitutionality of these forms of sectarian aid appears highly unlikely without a built-in proviso which we do not find in this legislation. It is our opinion that as a result of the Court's reasoning in Mellon v. Massachusetts a taxpayer's suit to test these features of the law would be ruled out. How much more solemn, therefore, is the responsibility of the Congress to uphold the Constitution faithfully in the matter of church-state separation.

There is, we believe, a direct and forthright way to resolve the question of constitutionality. It is so obvious that we confess surprise that to our knowledge it has never been proposed in these discussions. Why do not the proponents of aid for church schools seek a constitutional amendment which would enable such legislation? The first amendment could be repealed and a new amendment could be sought which would specifically empower Congress to legislate in this area of financial aid to church schools. Fortified by such an amendment there would be no question about the constitutionality of any aid to church schools which Congress might approve.

Therefore, we challenge the Roman Catholic bishops to take the direct approach. Let them put their demands before the American people in an honest plebiscite. It is our opinion that they would be overwhelmingly defeated. The American people have no desire to tamper with the tradition which has wisely separated church and state at the money line.

We raise no objection to Federal aid as such or to any bona fide plan of merit scholarships. But we are concerned lest this legislation breach our historic wall of separation. There are powerful organizations in our society which would like to impose the complete support of sectarian schools upon the Public Treasury. Therefore, proposed modifications of the National Defense Education Act should be carefully scrutinized.

Our anxiety over this legislation (S. 1726) is in part inspired by reported amendments that will be sought. Reports indicate that a number of Senators intend to seek modification of this bill to permit loans under section 305 not only for equipment for science, mathematics, modern foreign languages, and physical fitness, but also for private school buildings themselves, regardless of their sno cific use for scientific and other approved purposes.

There are reports that others will seek grants for construction of buildings in which religion would presumably not be taught, and even for the salaries of teachers engaged to teach nonreligious subjects. Cardinal Spellamn, chief spokesman for the Roman Catholic Church, has publicly endorsed legislation which embodies these very proposals. We want to register our emphatic protest against any effort to enact such forms of sectarian aid into law by slipping them into the Defense Education Act. We hope this committee will vigilantly reject any such attempt. We agree with the Washington Post in its criticism of such proposals as an indirect and unconstitutional assault upon the separation of church and state. The Post said:

"There is a valid distinction between equipment which can be used only for specific purposes in which the Nation has a vital interest and classrooms that could be used for general purposes. The Supreme Court has specifically ruled that public schools may not be used for religious instruction. If the proposed compromise were voted, would Congress require supervision of science, mathematics, and foreign language buildings at church schools to make certain that they would not be used for religious purposes? Could the clergy teach or speak in such buildings? * * *There seems to be no safe way of intermingling what the Constitution and sound public policy have kept separate.

It will be recalled, Mr. Chairman, that our organization objected to loans for teaching equipment in church schools when it was first proposed. We opposed it, for one reason, because assistance in such categories would be cited as precedent for assistance in broader categories. The proposals now being made indicate the soundness of our warning. They indicate, too, that the time has come to call a halt to sectarian erosions of our tradition of separation.

We are opposed to any deal with any church which would imply that the people of the United States in order to secure public tax grants for education must turn over part of those grants to any church school. The use of public funds for buildings for sectarian schools at the elementary and high school level would be at best a risky venture. It would be impossible to distinguish between sectarian use and an nonsectarian use if one wing of a school could be built at public expense and called a modern language wing, and then be used for general school purposes.

We are happy that the revised bill does not propose outright grants to sectarian schools at the secondary and elementary level for ordinary construction or ordinary activities.

We note that physical fitness in the proposed bill (S. 1726) has been added to the purposes in the original National Defense Education Act for which tax funds can be granted, which formerly included science, mathematics, and modern languages. We understand that under this new law minor remodeling of school space is to be paid for by loans to private schools for physical fitness. We wonder whether sectarian schools under the revised section 303 may do a considerable remodeling of school classrooms and auditoriums, for example, for basketball courts and their eqiupment.

In regard to national defense fellowships in institutions of higher learning, we suggest that title IV should be amended in such a way that no fellowships may be granted for theological training.

We note that under title IV of the existing legislation fellowships have been granted for this purpose. For example, three fellowships in Biblical studies were granted to students in Emory University, a Methodist institution. Five fellowships were granted to students in Union Theological Seminary, New York City, an institution whose sole function is to train clergymen for the teaching or preaching ministry. The fields of study listed by Union are significant : Biblican theology, practical theology, religious education, homiletics, and religion and psychiatry. How can there be separation of church and state in a country where the Government pays for the training of the clergy?

We wish to raise a serious question concerning the amendment to section 404 relative to the payment to institutions of higher education of supplementary amounts beyond fellowship grants. In the present Defense Education Act, section 404, the supplementary grant of a maximum of $2,500 per year to the institution is payable only if the cost of the new graduate program is "reasonably attributable" to the scholarship winner. This provision prevents outright grants to colleges which may not actually have improved their programs because of the scholarship grants. We accept the principle of merit scholarships if that principle is rigidly adhered to.

But we question the whole policy of grants to colleges if they are sectarian colleges. When taxpayers are asked, as they are asked in this modified bill, to make outright supplementary grants of $2,000 and $2,500 to colleges for running expenses we believe that sets a dangerous precedent if the institution happens to be a sectarian college. If we can legally grant outright public donations to a college which is completely owned and controlled by a single church, where are we going to stop? Yet, when you read page 11 of the proposed amendment to the Defense Education Act, contained in S. 1726 you will see that even the precautionary limitations of the law have been removed on grants to sectarian colleges, and it is no longer necessary for them to prove that they are spending extra money reasonably attributable to the scholarships which are granted. We question such a change. We question, indeed, the whole concept of supplementary grants where church institutions are involved, since they are not aid to the student, but are direct grants to church colleges.

It would appear that this concept of Federal spending will lead to a demand for similar grants to parochial high schools on the plea that it is just as constitutional to make such grants to high schools as to colleges. Recall that Cardinal Spellman declared in 1949:

"We are not asking for general public support of religious schools

Un

der the Constitution we do not ask for nor can we expect public funds to pay for the construction or repair of parochial school buildings or for the support of teachers, or for other maintenance costs * * *."

According to the legal memorandum which the cardinal is now circulating, he does ask for Federal aid to his denominational schools in practically all these categories, pleading precedents that he argues point to more substantial forms of aid. It is evident that in the matter of aid to church schools one thing always leads to another, and more always leads to more.

Why should not the money which is paid for the cost of higher education for successful students be limited to the scholarships themselves? Why pay anything at all to the institutions? If the cost of giving a student higher education is $2,000 plus $2,500, why not appropriate the whole amount to the student and let him pay it over to the college? We do not oppose the concept of fellowship grants to worthy students when the scholarships are awarded on a strictly merit basis, even if they are realized in sectarian colleges, but we do question the constitutionality of outright grants to schools which are organically connected with churches. We suggest that there are three tests to apply to such colleges. Are they owned outright by a religious organization? Are any members of their controlling boards chosen by a religious organization? Is there announced purpose a sectarian purpose? If outright grants are made to institutions of higher learning which fall into these categories, it seems to us that the Constitution is being evaded.

TESTIMONY OF C. STANLEY LOWELL, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF PROTESTANTS AND OTHER AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

Senator MORSE. Dr. Lowell, I am delighted to have you here. I remember with favor our meeting before when you testified on S. 1021. You were a very constructive witness then, as I know you will be today, and I am delighted to have you with us today.

Dr. LOWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.

My name is C. Stanley Lowell. I am the associate director of Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an organization of some 150,000 members in all the States and with chapters and committees in most, an organization that maintains close liaison on church-state matters with major Protestant denominations.

While we are a predominantly Protestant group, our membership includes Catholics, Jews, and persons of no formal religious faith. All are invited to join who believe in the American tradition which separates state and church, a tradition articulated in the first amend

ment to the Federal Constitution and in the constitutions and laws of 49 of our 50 States.

We construe separation in terms of a "money line" between state and church; we oppose use of public funds or public instrumentalities of any kind for the benefit of any church, since we believe the true genius of religious activities lies in the area of voluntaryism.

We detect in S. 1726 additional benefits for church elementary and secondary schools and some widening in categories of aid for church colleges. We shall comment on these in detail.

We should like to state, in general, that we note always the issue of constitutionality in connection with aid to these institutions. There seems to be rather general agreement that the constitutionality of even indirect forms of aid to church schools and colleges is in doubt because of previous proscriptions of the Supreme Court against such aid.

Also to be considered are the many State laws and constitutions with their far more specific prohibitions in this area. After all, any Federal spending programs in aid to education would have to be geared into the States procedures.

We have heard it stated that the Congress should abdicate its responsibility in regard to the constitutionality of aid to church schools and let the Supreme Court decide the matter. We protest this reasoning, primarily because a court test of the constitutionality of these forms of sectarian aid appears highly unlikely without a built-in proviso which we do not find in this legislation.

I note, Mr. Chairman, in some of the legislation that has been proposed relative to aid to church schools there has been such a proviso. I do not see it in this bill here, S. 1726.

Senator MORSE. I am glad you mentioned it so we can make it perfectly specific. It is in the Clark-Morse bill.

Dr. LOWELL. That is correct.

It is our opinion that as a result of the court's reasoning in Mellon v. Massachusetts, a taxpayer's suit to test these features of the law would be ruled out. How much more solemn, therefore, is the responsibility of the Congress to uphold the Constitution faithfully in the matter of church-state separation.

I note in the Washington Post this morning, Mr. Chairman, an article, "Merged Bill on School Aid Pushed Again." And in this article the reporter, Richard L. Lyons, asserts that there is still an effort underway to tie into one of the major bills, that is either the administration's school bill, the general bill on aid to schools, or to the Defense Education Act extension, some form of substantial assistance for church schools.

Our position would be, Mr. Chairman, that we very strongly urge that any compromise amendments to this bill S. 1726 under discussion or to the administration's general school aid bill should be emphatically ruled out.

We would certainly reject any arrangement which would compromise our principle of church-state separation in this legislation. Senator MORSE. I happened to read the newspaper article this morning, and I think you are entitled to a statement from this chairman, because I always try to be fair with all in doing business with this committee.