Lutheran education, while also pledging our support to that which will insure a quality education for all of America's people. Thank you for allowing me to present my views on behalf of Lutheran schools to the members of this Committe on Ways and Means.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Senske.
Dr. Skehan.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH T. SKEHAN

Mr. SKEHAN. I am Joseph T. Skehan, an economist and president of the National Association of Laity.

I would like to thank the committee personally and for the association for the opportunity to testify.

The National Association of Laity was founded in 1967 to foster reform and renewal mandated by the Second Vatican Council. It has insisted that Bishops provide religious education to all Catholics, not just those in the parochials, and it has opposed "parochaid" as doubly unconstitutional in that it entangles Bishops in the affairs of civil government and our civil government has no warrant to interfere in the internal affairs of the Catholic Church absent compelling state interest, one of which has concerned the association particularly, ridding the republic of racism.

The several tuition tax credit schemes now before the Congress indiscriminately deal with private, secondary, higher, and private and public education, ignoring grave differences between them.

For example, their constitutional problems, the elaborate Federal aid programs now in operation, higher education particularly, budgetary vagueness, the inflationary impact of them. Indeed, they seem to be tailored, several of them, to the disadvantage of the self-supporting student or to the disadvantaged students and probably to aid segregationists either in private academies or so far as parochials are involved.

Senator Kennedy in his succinct and thorough critique of the amendment to the Social Security Act contained in the Congressional Record of November 4, despite comments made earlier this morning concerning the usefulness of the Congressional Record, brilliantly scored this blunderbuss effect disrupting current Federal aid

programs.

Moreover, these plans are tailored to encourage schools to raise tuition by the amount of the tuition tax credit. Perhaps that would not apply to all schools, but certainly it would apply to some, thus fashioning a schools subsidy with no accountability.

Continued reliance on public, primary, and secondary education on the real estate tax base has been challenged by the courts. It would seem to the NAL that public education and its financing should be the primary concern of the Ways and Means Committe on the Federal level rather than subisidies to private religious education.

Most private, primary and secondary schools are admittedly religious and most of the religious schools are parochial under the ownership, management and control of approximately 165 Catholic bishops. In fact, they are diocesan school systems. These bills constitute, insofar as they touch primary and secondary, a thinly disguised effort to subsidize Catholic Bishops under the title of private education with

out explicit provision for any accountability. The Pontiff, his curia, the congregation on education in Rome, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and its agencies on education have consistently and always claimed that the sole aim of their (parochial) system is to have religion permeate the entire curriculum.

In Lemon v. Kurtzman, Meek v. Pittinger and Essex v. Wolman, the latest round of parochial aid bills on the State and Federal levels under the title of "aid to the child" was struck down. What these several tax credit bills attempt under the thin guise of "parent benefit" is to accomplish the same purpose and no doubt would prove to be unconstitutional. I am surprised more emphasis was not given this morning to Grit v. Wolman in which the tax credit in Ohio was struck out.

Let's turn to the character of the parochials and their recent development. When those wanting a product, while enjoying rising incomes reduce their purchases of that product economists refer to it as an "inferior good." The unreformed parochials at the present time may be characterized as "inferior goods."

Father Greeley of the National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago, has clearly shown, and quite consistently over a number of years, that about 80 percent of U.S. Catholics want religious education for their children and they are willing to pay for it.

Moreover, he has shown from census data that the second, third, fourth and fifth highest average income receivers in the U.S. are Irish-American, German-American, Italian-American, and PolishAmerican Catholics. The strange thing is that since 1965 when the various groups who once constituted the old ethnic Catholic groups and who once supported the parochials to a great extent and who now enjoy the highest average incomes, have withdrawn about a third of the students from the parochial schools. Obviously it was not because of lack of income or disposition to support them. There is another problem here of some sort which I have called the problem of the unreformed parochials.

At the same time the nuns removed approximately half of their contribution to the parochial schools. There are undefined problems in that area as well.

Currently the Bishops themselves are involved in an intense struggle with the lay teachers who replaced the nuns in large measure in the schools, trying to deprive them of the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, saying they cannot bargain collectively.

What is very strange here and points to the nature of the problem is that this right is also recognized by social Catholic teaching; and indeed, we point as Catholics generally speaking to the National Labor Relations Act passed by this Congress in 1935 as a contribution in national legislation, with a particular Catholic flavor, the so-called Wagner Act, because it was an implementation of Rerum Novarum in 1891. And sebsequently this teaching has often been stated in Mater et Magistrae et al.

Despite that, it is very strange that those systems controlled by bishops would attempt to deny to American citizens, who happen to be employed by parochial schools-and who knows, this may go to other areas-the jurisdiction and the due process implied by the National Labor Relations Board.

Clearly what laity, lay teachers, nuns, and other elements of the Catholic community want and mean by religious schools is not the unreformed bishop-run schools which these bills seek to finance under the guise of tax credits. It can be demonstrated that the term "religious education" means different things to different groups.

These bills would provide bishops the money from the Public Treasury to further their struggle against various elements of the Cathlic community, to force them to accept inferior goods rather than the proper religious education that they want.

Our two studies in that area indicate that the bishops at the present time spend $100 per child to provide religious education-which is not properly the business of the Congress to consider, but to give some idea of the nature of the problem-$100 per child going to the parochial school, for every dollar spent per child for religious education outside the parochial school-a disproportionate share which concerns many Catholics.

The NAL proposes that it is not the proper concern of the Congress to interfere in these struggles in our religious community by schemes to help finance the bishops in these struggles.

The other side of the coin, the NAL is very pleased that the U.S. Education Act of 1965 allows the Congress to channel funds to any institution which would accomplish its purpose of helping the disadvantaged, to help rid the country of racism, and in that respect is willing to use parochial schools.

However, Dr. LaNoue of Columbia University did a study of some 60 school districts and found that the parochials in those areas were using "soft" statistics to gain eligibility, appropriating State property without warrant, primarily because local enforcement officials were too timid to make demands on diocesan officials. This is a common problem in the industrial Northeast where these dioceses are well entrenched.

If a program can be designed, not necessarily a tuition tax credit but in any way to use the ways and means within the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee to in any way foster a reduction of racism in that State and using parochials, NAL would support such a program, but ask that it be done on a project basis, that there be adequate control and that there be evaluation from time to time to make sure that the objective is being attained. The past experience here has not been too good.

I have listed here on page 5 of our presentation a few incidents of problems that have arisen because arbitrariness and a total absence of due process persist at any level of the parochial school system.

One of the latest is about the head of the Chicago school system, who has just resigned. The question is whether he is protesting the elimination of that school body's constitution by the cardinal 2 years ago when he wanted to dispose of four Catholic schools for blacks and give no reasons and just arbitrarily closed them.

Finally, he resigned. He denies it is for that reason. One can go with such anecdotes.

on

We oppose the tuition tax credit because it threatens an excellent structure. It must be shown that this excellent structure is in some way lacking and cannot be adequately reformed. But in fact if is better

targeted to what appears to be the public policy and public objective. We are opposed to financing of parochials where it means primarily supporting the bishops in their struggle with the Catholic community. We would support any program funding parochials only where it provides further for or fosters a compelling State interest such as the reduction of racism in the United States. Thank you.

[The prepared statement follows:]

STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAITY

The National Association of Laity (NAL) was founded in 1967 to foster the reform and renewal mandated by the Second Vatican Council; it has insisted bishops provide religious education to all Catholics (not just those in "parochials"), and it has opposed "parochiaid" as doubly unconstitutional: for (a) bishops hold no warrant to intervene in civil affairs, (b) civil government, none to interfere in the internal affairs of the Catholic community (i.e., the Church), absent a compelling state interest, e.g., ridding the Republic of racism. (See NAL's brief amicus curiae in Lemon-v-Kurtzman before the US Supreme Court). NAL helped found Public Education and Religious Liberty (PEARL), a national agency of educational, civic and religious bodies devoted to both public education and religious liberty (one of the mandates of Vatican II).

The several tuition tax credit schemes now before Congress indiscriminately deal with primary/secondary/higher, private and public schools, ignoring grave differences between them in terms of (a) constitutional problems, (b) extant, costly and elaborate Federal aid programs, (c) budgetary vagueness and inflationary impact of tax credits, (d) tax and subsidy incidences (tailored to harm self-supporting students and the disadvantaged), and (e) probable aid to segregationists ("private academies"/parochials).

Senator Kennedy's succinct and thorough critique of tuition tax credits (see Congressional Record, Sen. 4 Nov 77 on HR 9346 Soc Sec Amendment) scores their "blunderbuss" effect disrupting current Federal aid programs. (Higher education alone receives ca. $16.5 billion/yr.). President Carter last week invited revision of extant program eligibility criteria to deal with any really justified claims but no tuition tax credits! NAL agrees.

Moreover, these plans are tailored to encourage schools to raise tuition by the amount of the tuition tax credit, thus fashioning a school subsidy with no accountability.

Continued reliance of public primary/secondary education upon real estate taxes has been challenged by the courts; it's financing public education, we believe, that warrants priority treatment from civil government, not subsidies to private religious education.

Most private primary/secondary schools are admittedly religious; most such religious schools are "parochials", under the ownership, management and control of the ca. 165 Catholic bishops (in fact diocesan school systems, often mislabeled "parochials"). Thus these bills constitute a thinly disguised effort to subsidize Catholic bishops under the title of "private education", without even an explicit provision for any accountability. (The "parochial" raises tuition the amount of the credit which the parent pays the bishops' agents; the agent has to account to the IRS. And the bishops gain control of the public monies!

The pontiff, his curia, the Congregation on Education in Rome, the US National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) and its agencies on education have always claimed the sole aim of "parochials" (diocesan school systems) is to have religion permeate the entire curriculum. (See NAL amicus curiae brief in Lemon, supra.).

In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403US602, (1971), Meek v. Pittenger, 421US349 (1975), Essex v. Wolman, 409US808 (1973) et al. the High Court has prohibited tuition grants, "purchased services" and like schemes to channel public taxes to "parochials" under the "child benefit" theory; S. 2142 and H.R. 9346 amendment attempt the same under the thin guise of "parent benefit". The net effect will be to complicate the "parents" annual income tax accounting to the IRS. What can not be done constitutionally by direct means, can not be done constitutionally by these indirect and disguised means (see Grit v. Wolman, 413US901 (1973) on "tax credits".).

INFERIOR GOOD

When those wanting a product, while enjoying rising real incomes reduce their purchases of that product, economists call such a product an "inferior good". Such are the unreformed "parochials" as currently run by the bishops. Fr. Andrew Greeley, National Õpinion Research Center (NOŘC), Univ. of Chicago has shown (a) about 80% of US Catholics want religious education and are prepared to pay for it by supporting religious schools, and (b) from U.S. Census data that Irish-, German-, Italian- and Polish-American Catholics are now respectively the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th highest average income receivers in the US.

Clearly US Catholics are able and willing to pay for religious education. But in the same period, the decade 1965-75, US Catholics took over a third of their children out of the unreformed parochials; the nuns took half their personnel out of them. Meanwhile the competent lay teachers who've replaced them are engaged in an intense struggle with the bishops who are trying to deprive them of their rights as US citizens [an essential right also recognized by Catholic social teaching-see Rerum Novarum (1981), Quaadregesimo Anno (1931), Mater et Magistra (1961) and Pregessio Populorum (1966)] to organize and bargain collectively (see NLRB petition to the US Supreme Court for certiorari to review the 7th Circuit decision denying NLRB jurisdiction in "religious" (read parochial) schools).

Clearly what laity, lay teachers, nuns and other elements of the Catholic community mean by religious schools is not the unreformed bishop-run schools which these bills seek to finance under the guise of tax credits. It can be demonstrated that the term "religious education" means quite different things to the bishops from what it means to laity, lay teachers, nuns etc.

These bills would provide the bishops moneys from the public treasury to further their struggle against elements of the US Catholic-a struggle to force them to accept an inferior good rather than the proper religious education they intend to provide their children and themselves. NAL proposes that it is not the proper concern of the Congress to interfere in these struggles within our religious community by such financial schemes and especially to try to finance one side against the Catholic community.

COMPELLING STATE INTEREST

In the US Education Act of 1965 (USEA65) all parties accepted language which channeled tax funds even to parochials because of the compelling state interest, namely equal educational opportunity for the poor and disadvantaged, particularly for the "inner city" racial minorities. The program failed. The compelling interest was not served.

Dr. LaNoue, Columbia University, studied 60 school districts and found parochials using "soft" statistics to justify eligibility, appropriating state property without warrant, and local enforcement officials too timid to demand and obtain compliance from diocesan officials. If a program could be designed to serve this compelling interest and provide effective controls, adequate financial reporting, specific project definition, local "inner city" input, and evaluation by independent experts, NAL would support such a program, despite the curious history of parochials in this area, because of the very compelling nature of the problem. In the postwar rush to the suburbs most parochials too fled the "inner city". Where they remained, bishops often hampered their service to the “inner city". 1968-20 inner city priests in Newark declared the diocese racist (because of a number of discriminatory practices).

1974-Phila.'s Krol peremptorily closed 5 black Catholic parishes and schools with no consultation, and threatened black parents who asked why with "excommunication";

1975-Chicago's Cody closed 4 black Catholic schools with no consultation and when the school board exercised its legal right to ask why, he summarily took away their constitution.

1976-Boston parochials gained several thousand children fleeing desegregation despite Card. Medeiros' policy not to admit them.

One can list one such anecdote after another to show the aversion of the bishops and their party to serious efforts to reduce racism and serious ethnic discrimination in the U.S.; similarly, to show the intense efforts of large elements