stipulation in section 103 (b) that where the State is not permitted by its laws to provide its half of the expense for the program in private or sectarian schools, the Federal Government shall, in effect, override the law of the State by setting up and carrying out its own program in such States. We feel that this provision of the bill is inconsistent with others which seem to indicate a determination not to override State and community control of education. We believe, as most of these Federal aid bills declare, that State and community control of education is desirable and should be preserved. We believe that such a conspicuous violation of this principle should not be included in any Federal aid legislation. We respectfully suggest its elimination from this program. To state our conviction positively, we believe that all Federal legislation in aid to education should observe State laws and constitutions in the matter of church-state separation.

We should like to consider, next, the matter of definitions in the bills before this committee. We believe that the American tradition of public funds for public education makes it highly desirable that the word "public" as referring to tax-supported, community-controlled schools shall be used consistently throughout the legislation. We consider the administration bill faulty at this point since it defines "elementary school" and "secondary school" so loosely that the terms would include private and sectarian schools. In this respect the Hill-Elliott bill is superior since it defines the terms as applying specifically to public institutions. Wherever there are to be exceptions in the practice of tax support for public schools only, then these exceptions should be carefully spelled out. There should be at all time meticulously clear semantics on this point so that no aid to sectarian institutions contrary to the original intent of the Congress can be provided.

The wise churchmen who founded POAU more than a decade ago believed that the arrangement of separation as between church and state was a happy one and should be continued. This is the key to understanding and cooperation among the churches in our common culture. These churchmen have on many occasions made clear what we state today-that the holding of the present money barrier against subsidies to any church, is basic to the preservation of the entire principle of separation. We urge the careful consideration of that principle in connection with this and all Federal legislation.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Thank you very much, Dr. Lowell.

I gather from your statement that your organization has no particular objection at this time to scholarships awarded to individuals that are by those individuals used in sectarian schools of higher education?

Dr. LOWELL. We are not, Mr. Chairman, objecting to that at this time, although we are continuing study of this matter. We would, however, insist-and I think I made that clear-that there should be a vigorous and impartial scrutiny of the candidates for these scholarships, and all awards should be made on as strict and careful basis of merit as possible.

Mr. ELLIOTT. You do object to the use of Federal funds in any manner at this point for equipment or supplies or materials in sectarian institutions of higher learning and high schools as well?

Dr. LOWELL. Yes, sir; that is true, because we feel that there is a much more integral tie there between the Federal financing and the State financing in the sectarian institution than there would be in the scholarship program as such where individuals on the basis of merit, mature individuals, would select their own institution.

We are not objecting to that as such at this present time, but we do most emphatically object to the purchase and the provision by the State of teaching equipment, teaching materials, and so forth, which would go directly to the use of sectarian institutions.

Mr. ELLIOTT. But, you distinguish between that situation and a situation where the Federal Government contributes money by way of equipment or otherwise for research projects in atomic energy or medicine?

Dr. LOWELL. Well, we see quite a distinction at that point. Of course, that has been going on, as you all know, for some years, on a strictly quid pro quo basis; that is, the Government provides certain funds for a medical research program, let us say, and this project is completed and the data are delivered, and the thing is done as it is paid for, and we do see a distinction between that and a general kind of grant for materials to be used under the exclusive aegis of the administration of this institution for any of its purposes.

We see quite a distinction at that point.

Mr. ELLIOTT. That gentleman from Kentucky has a question, Dr. Lowell.

Mr. PERKINS. I sat here all through the Federal aid arguments in 1949 and 1950, and watched the religious controversy development on the general Federal aid bill.

Now, I take it from your testimony that you are not opposing any grants the Congress may make available to the States for educational purposes if we provide that this money is to be expended in accordance with the State laws?

For instance, the vocational education program and programs of that type you will not have any objection to grants of that type; would you?

Dr. LOWELL. Let us put it this way: That particular issue would not be within our purview. In other words, whether there is Federal aid to education as such, we have no stand on that one way or another. Some are for it, some are against it, but I will say our position is if aid is given, then we are concerned how it shall be given in these specific situations where sectarian institutions are involved. That is our sole concern in this.

Mr. PERKINS. That is all.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would like to ask Dr. Lowell a question about possible legislation and how his organization would feel about it. As I understand your testimony, if Congress should decide it was in the national interest for the Federal Government to help in the identification of our able young people, and also it was national policy to encourage them to continue their education beyond high school, is it your feeling that the national interest should not be allowed to identify the children in sectarian schools?

Dr. LOWELL. Well, sir, you put that a little bit in a loaded way. I do not think that the counseling program and the testing program with the funds immediately available to the sectarian institutions should be provided.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I do not understand what you say.

Dr. LOWELL. I do not think a direct grant to a sectarian institution of the kind envisaged here should be permitted.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. That is not what is proposed, Doctor. There is no direct grant to the school involved.

Dr. LOWELL. But there is an expenditure of funds within this institution for a program, and that is the precedent.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I think not. Identification of the able student would be a responsibility of the State. As I gather, you have misgivings about section 103 (b) in the administration's bill which would seem to bypass State law on this point. I do not think there would be any bypassing of the State responsibility in determining how to test, what kind of test to use, and in the identification of the children. I am I am quite sure there is no Federal money made available directly to the school for it to conduct its own test of the most able students. This would be a statewide program including both publicschool and non-public-school students.

Dr. LOWELL. Of course, I think a very strong argument can be made for testing everybody, and if we could be satisfied that the expenditure of these funds would be made under the strict administration of State officials, that these examinations, this testing, this counseling program, would be impartially administered and administered under the aegis of the State board, I do not think we would be opposed to it. But we were a little bit disturbed by the language of the bills.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I was just hoping you were not saying because of the principle of the separation of church and state we would not be allowed to identify or encourage able young students because they happen to be going to nonpublic schools.

Dr. LOWELL. We want to encourage everybody we can. On the other hand, there is a great principle which is at stake here, and we have learned in the past that on apparently innocent matters where everyone would agree this is proper, this is right, this ought to be done, then we are hit over the head with that as a precedent for something else which we would not agree to at all. That is our major concern on this testing program. We do not want to be hit with that at a future time and have people say, "Well, we are testing in the schools, why cannot you provide a teaching program in the schools?" Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I can understand your defense of the principle, but you are making major concessions by saying as a practical matter there is not as much danger if we give aid in one form or another to your institutions of higher learning. If you are against something, I think that you might as well be flatfooted against it.

Dr. LOWELL. We are in a way forced into this position because as a matter of fact sectarian institutions getting public funds has commenced. It is going on. So we are really in a position of having to say we believe the present money barrier should be held. We cannot say we believe absolutely no funds should go to these schools. They are going to them, as a matter of fact, in bus transportation and in other ways. It is rather difficult to reverse a pattern once it is commenced.

So we say, let us not extend the pattern. We are really in that position. We believe no further funds should be given advantage

ously by the State to churches, or their schools. We should hold the present money barrier. That is really what we are saying. Mr. ELLIOTT. Thank you very much, Dr. Lowell.

The subcommittee will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, when we will hear the following witnesses:

Dr. Henry Chauncey, Educational Testing Service; Dr. John Caldwell, Association of Land-Grant Colleges; Miss Frances Hamilton, Association for Childhood Education, International; and Congressman Charles Vanik of Ohio.

(Whereupon, at 11:30 a. m., the committee adjourned to reconvene the following day at 10 a. m.)

SCHOLARSHIP AND LOAN PROGRAM

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 1958

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPECIAL EDUCATION

AND SUBCOMMITTEE ON GENERAL EDUCATION,
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a. m., in room 429, Old House Office Building, Hon. Carl Elliott, presiding.

Present: (Subcommittee on Special Education) Representatives Elliott (chairman), Green, McGovern, and Wainwright.

Also present: Representatives Metcalf, Udall, Thompson, Frelinghuysen, Haskell, Lafore, Nicholson, and Bailey.

Staff members present: Fred G. Hussey, chief clerk; Melvin Sneed, minority clerk; Charles M. Ryan, general counsel; Kennedy Ward, assistant general counsel; Russell C. Derrickson, chief investigator; Mary P. Allen, clerk, Subcommittee on Special Education; and Robert McCord, clerk, Subcommittee on General Education.

Mr. ELLIOTT. The subcommittees studying the bills relating to scholarships, loans, work-study programs, and other aids to education will be in order.

Before we begin today I want to take notice of the fact officially that we have as guests of the committee today Mrs. Zelda Hamilton, the principal of Atlantic Township School, Freehold, N. J., and with her is the eighth grade class of the Atlantic Township School.

I would like to say to you boys and girls that we are very happy to have you, and that a part of the congressional process is the holding of hearings in which information is developed about the bills before the committees.

There are 19 committees of the Congress.

Woodrow Wilson once said that the process of congressional government is committee government. He emphasized the importance of the committee and the system of congressional government.

The bills that we are studying today, as I said, have as their purpose the provision of a system of scholarships, loans, and work-study programs for students who desire to continue their education beyond the high-school period.

I would like to say to you boys and girls also that I have had the privilege of knowing your principal since college days, and I think she is a very wonderful person. She was an excellent student. I know that, because I used to teach her at the University of Alabama.

I want you to know the people who are on our committee. On my right is the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Bailey, who is chairman of the Subcommittee on General Education of this Committee on