I think of necessity pretty much in the way that we will have to leave it up to the various State commissions since there is no Federal standard that is specifically set out. It is entirely conceivable that in Mississippi the definition of need may be different from the definition in New York. The standards of living are different there.

I am saying generally, obviously, and too vaguely, that as of this moment I do not know a tangible handle to describe to you that says 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. I would like the opportunity of giving that some thought and presenting you our views for what they may be worth. Mrs. GREEN. Very good. I would like to have that.

Mr. SMITH of Iowa. I have no questions.

Mr. QUIE. In the early part of your testimony, when you said you are not attempting to meet the situation headon, and then you support the program as laid out in the bill, by not meeting the situation headon do you mean we are not attempting to provide free higher education to everyone in the country?

Mr. CLAYMAN. Really that is what we are talking about, a much broader level of education at the higher levels than these scholarships spell out.

Mr. QUIE. You mean the Federal Government should provide a scholarship program for everyone in America who is able to complete a 4-year college course?

Mr. CLAYMAN. We might have a nice discussion about which agencies of Government should participate. I would assume that all of the agencies of Government would participate, but we would look forward to a day and an era when every qualified person who has the moral and intellectual intelligence level of excellence would be given this opportunity to spend 4 years at a school of higher education if he so desired.

Mr. QUIE. Do you feel also that substantial grants should be made to the colleges and universities to help finance their efforts to take care of these students who come under the scholarship program?

I believe you mentioned grants to the chairman.

Mr. CLAYMAN. I was not talking specifically in that relationship to these scholarships.

Mr. QUIE. You did not mention scholarships specifically. You said completely outside that program.

Mr. CLAYMAN. Completely outside that program and——

Mr. QUIE. And outside the loans or grants for construction.

Mr. CLAYMAN. Outside of the loans for construction. As the farmers back home say, if we had had our "druthers" we would suggest and recommend grants in addition.

Mr. QUIE. For construction or for any purpose the school might want to use it?

Mr. CLAYMAN. For any purpose-for construction, whether they be schools, libraries, or laboratories, or for housing facilities, whether they be needed for upgrading teaching staffs of the universities, anything to fill the great void that now resides in American higher edu cation, and which will grow increasingly deep as the years and the near future spin by.

Mr. QUIE. Would you limit this to tax-supported colleges and universities?

Mr. CLAYMAN. Again this is a constitutional question.

Mr. QUIE. Not necessarily. It is a decision Congress must make as to what should be national policy. The courts can decide whether we are within the limits of the Constitution. If they decide we are not, surely Congress can pass a constitutional amendment to allow the people of this country to change what they may deem to be an error. Mr. CLAYMAN. I suppose I have talked in part in an "iffy" fashion. You have asked an iffy question; so perhaps my comments were about as iffy as your question.

Mr. QUIE. Not too iffy. There are proposals for a $350,000 grant to each college and university connected with the college program. Other individuals prior to yourself came in and suggested we not only give loans for construction of academic facilities but grants as well. So it is not too iffy a question.

Mr. CLAYMAN. My belief is, rather than my firm understanding, that grants are in an utterly different legal category from loans. I would wonder out loud whether this was constitutional in any event. Mr. QUIE. And you also wonder out loud whether it was a wise decision, regardless of the Constitution?

Mr. CLAYMAN. You see what I am trying to do; frankly, except where it is imperative, I am trying to avoid getting too engrossed in this argument for fear that the argument itself will destroy our capacity to move forward even in the limited manner of this bill. So I will address myself to this specific bill. We are for it.

If there is a legal problem which arises, this has to be tested by the

courts.

If Congress in its wisdom decides to go along with grants, then that also will pose a legal problem which the courts will ultimately have to resolve. That would be my answer.

Mr. QUIE. To go one step further, and say we amended the bill to provide for academic facilities grants on a 50-50 basis with the institution, similar to what was suggested yesterday by Dr. Flemming. Would you support such a proposal?

Mr. CLAYMAN. I would not support such a proposal in contradiction to this bill.

Mr. QUIE. No; not in contradiction to it but in the way of supple

ment.

Mr. CLAYMAN. No; the suggestion I have made is in addition to this bill, in addition to these moneys spelled out in the bill rather than a diversification of the money within the bill.

I frankly would have the fear that if this bill were altered in the fashion apparently suggested by Dr. Flemming-I am not familiar with his testimony-we may raise serious questions of a constitutional nature which will deter the progress of this legislation, limited as it is, and which is desperately needed.

Our position would be this: We are for this bill. We are not asking that it be changed in relation to grants. We are saying that this is not enough, though it is wholesome enough. We are saying it is not enough, and we are suggesting that as possible future action this Congress turn its attention to amplifying assistance to the schools of higher education in our country by way of grants.

Mr. QUIE. Do you recommend that those grants be made available to all institutions of higher learning or just those tax supported? Mr. CLAYMAN. I am not prepared to make a recommendation on that score now.

Mr. QUIE. That is all I have, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. GREEN. If I understand your suggestion, you want this an entirely separate piece of legislation after we have disposed of this? Mr. CLAYMAN. Yes.

Mrs. GREEN. You do not want it as a separate title to this bill?

Mr. CLAYMAN. I think perhaps we said approximately this in our direct testimony, but if we did not we would want this and we believe this suggestion should be handled as a separate matter. We wanted to raise the potential.

Mrs. GREEN. Earlier I think you said you wanted this bill expanded. I am glad you clarified that.

Mr. BRADEMAS. The one point that struck me about your testimony was how closely it paralleled that of the university educators who have appeared before our committee earlier in this respect: That you are all agreed that the President's program for aid to higher education is a very modest program indeed, and you are agreed also that it would be fine if we could have some grant money as well as loans. Your views only reinforce those already expressed to our committee that this program is really a minimum one and is in no way a radical or revolutionary proposal.

Mr. QUIE. To find out your thinking on this, suppose we passed the bill as it is? I went to college and graduated from St. Olaf College in Minnesota. Suppose they were about to build as a wing to their chapel some classrooms which would be used for the teaching of religion.

Do you think this should be permissible?

Mr. CLAYMAN. Is St. Olaf a sectarian school?

Mr. QUIE. Yes; it is a Lutheran College.

Mr. CLAYMAN. Is the teaching of religion mandatory?

Mr. QUIE. No; it is not mandatory for non-Lutherans. For Lutherans it is for the first 2 years.

Mr. CLAYMAN. My belief is that if this bill, and I assume it does, considers this as an appropriate facility of the university, then I say so be it. If there be question marks of a legal nature, because this apparently is a very fuzzy area of law, then let it be determined by the courts.

Frankly my thought is this: That if we become preoccupied with and by the legalism then we will never find the motivation to do the job that we know has to be done.

My suggestion is that let us as best we can remove this argument from our conscience and let the courts determine this at the appropriate time.

If it can be said that this bill authorizes that some of the money—I am not 100 percent certain of this can be used to add a wing to St. Olaf's Chapel, and as I recall now they have a magnificent choir, then I say let the money go there. If some good citizen thinks this is in violation of the American Constitution then he has recourse to our courts.

Mr. QUIE. Can you give the same answer for elementary and secondary schools?

Mr. CHAIRMAN. We are not quite in the yes or no area here, as you obviously perceive.

We were for the bill that came before this committee a couple weeks ago, the assistance to the elementary and public high schools. We were for that bill. Had you asked me, and this may be a partial answer-had you asked me had I been testifying on that, should the bill be changed to provide education or support for the parochial schools, too, I would have said we were for the bill if there would be a desire on the part of Congress to pass legislation assisting the parochial schools in the lower levels. Let that be a separate bill, because, as I repeat again, it would be stark tragedy if we permitted this issue and I know it is a legitimate issue-to prevent any progress during this term of Congress. That is why, frankly, I am answering you in the manner I am, which is not as direct as you would like to have me answer you.

Mr. QUIE. I see what you mean. Had there been such a provision in the bill as considered by the general subcommittee, your answer would be the same as the answer in the other St. Olaf example?

Mr. CLAYMAN. I would say it was a constitutional question to be determined by the courts. There are others who would say there was a great moral issue besides the constitutional question which I am not aware of.

Mrs. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Clayton.

The next witness is John F. Morse, the vice president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

Dr. Morse, you have this statement which you would like to have made a part of the record. Do you want this before or after your statement?

Dr. MORSE. In my second paragraph I had planned to ask permission to have it put in the record. I wish to refer to it if I may. Mrs. GREEN. We will wait until that point, then.

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN F. MORSE, VICE PRESIDENT, RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE

Dr. MORSE. Madam Chairman, may I express to you and your colleagues on this committee my gratitude at being given this oppor tunity to testify before you in behalf of title II of H.R. 5266. My name is John F. Morse. I am vice president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, a college of engineering and science, with an enrollment of over 4,000, in Troy, N.Y. I have been closely identified with student financial aid work for the past 10 years, am past chairman of the College Scholarship Service, served as consultant to the Commissioner of Education in implementing the national defense student loan program, and for a time was on leave of absence from RPI to direct that program here in Washington.

I am at present chairman of the Advisory Committee on National Student Financial Aid Programs. This committee was appointed by the College Scholarship Service to keep the higher education community informed on the implications of various proposals, governmental and otherwise, that are likely to have nationwide impact on student aid patterns. I should like to make it clear that this committee does not speak for the College Scholarship Service; for the college entrance examination board, nor do the members of the committee necessarily speak for their respective institutions. They are rather a group of individuals with broad experience at the operating level of student aid programs in many kinds of institutions, and they

are dedicated to the goal of seeing college education brought within the reach of all our able needy young people.

With this background, and in the interests of brevity, may I ask permission to have inserted into the records, the committee's first report on the subject of Federal student aid programs.

Mrs. GREEN. It will be inserted, without objection.

Dr. MORSE. The report was issued on March 15, 1961, but had been drafted prior to the introduction of H.R. 5266. I make this point only because I find it noteworthy that the bill under consideration so closely parallels the principles we felt to be essential if a Federal scholarship program were to achieve its objectives. We drew up a list of 12 such basic principles. Naturally there are a number of minor differences between these principles and the provision of H.R. 5266. But there is nothing in H.R. 5266 which we could not enthusiastically endorse, and nothing in our report that is in conflict with provisions in the bill. I personally believe that if the bill is enacted we will be within reach, for the first time, of achieving in fact what we have long professed to be our national goal-making higher education available to our ablest youngsters without regard to their financial circumstances.

May I now be permitted to be more specific?

(1) I believe there is genuine and great need for a Federal scholarship program. There have been many studies on the economic barriers that exclude our able and needy young people from college. Experts have disagreed on the number so excluded, but they have not disagreed that it is frighteningly large. As college costs at both public and private institutions continue to rise, and as the collegeage population rises even faster, the number of young people affected increases almost geometrically, and yesterday's boldest estimates seem conservative today,

At this point may I interpolate just one remark in view of some of the previous testimony that I have either read or heard? In that so-called basic principle No. 1 in our committee report we state, "At present the extremely able but needy student is receiving ample financial assistance in attending college. The moderately able, moder ately needy student is also obtaining a higher education. The mod、 erately able, very needy student has been overlooked."

In view of the testimony I think I should give a statement as to what our committee means by "moderately able" and "extremely able." If I had written this, I would have said "the brilliant student even though very needy, is probably getting a higher education today." The extremely able student-and now we are talking about not necessarily the top 12 percent but the upper 20 percent-if he is very needy is pretty much overlooked today.

(2) A loan program by itself cannot really meet this problem. It can be the key to the college gate for those whose financial need is moderate, but for the neediest, borrowing to pay the full cost of education is, and often should be, too frightening to be contemplated seriously. I have no direct evidence to support this statement, but I suspect that the national defense student loan program has had great impact on and been a real boon to students from middle and lower middle income groups but has done relatively little for the lowest income group, unless and this is the important point-the loans have been supplemented by scholarship aid.

67829-61-18