He recognizes that we must accommodate any legislation to what seems to be the prevailing view of the first amendment as expressed in a series of Supreme Court decisions, and this analysis of the realities of the problem has been expressed in the study of the legal department of the National Catholic Welfare Conference that was accepted for the record earlier today.

Now, within that context, it becomes a problem of trying to find a way of doing justice, achieving equality for children attending churchrelated schools, recognizing that, because of constitutional problems, it probably cannot be done in exactly the same way as it could be done with the public schools.

So a way must be found to achieve some equality, perhaps not an exact and precise mathematical equality, but at least approximately equivalent equality, for children attending church-related schools without going head on into the problem of a constitutional prohibition as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Now, that means that, looking at it perhaps somewhat philosophically, the legislative objective, as I believe Cardinal Spellman sees it, is this: To achieve that equality in a way that would give the Federal Government and people of this country the assurance, and again, I think we must qualify that by saying the reasonable assurance, that Federal funds will not be used for the teaching of religion, for the indoctrination of children in the tenets of religion, for the promotion of religious worship or for the construction of any physical facilities designed for that purpose that is more or less philosophically viewed as the objective. The suggestions that Cardinal Spellman has made are designed as measures to achieve that overall aim, at the same time recognizing that these four suggestions may be four of a great number, some of which, perhaps, have not yet even been conceived.

So I would say it is within the context of all of that, Mr. Chairman, that I answer yes to your remarks.

FOUR POINTS-A FRAMEWORK

Senator MORSE. Well, I want to say, Mr. Cusack, that the statement you have just made for this record, from the standpoint of this chairman, is one of the most helpful contributions that has been made in any of our hearings in the past several years.

I do not intend to take time to discuss it in any detail now. I only want to say that in my judgment, these four points which have been outlined here, plus, as you say, other points that may be added to them, such as this matter of shared time that I discussed with Mon signor Hochwalt earlier this morning, and other proposals, give us I think, a framework within which we can act legislatively. They offer some hope for breaking this logjam. Rightly or wrongly, there has prevailed, certainly, within the committee and I think within the Congress, a point of view that there was not available any room for movement or any flexibility in respect to the Catholic position on thi subject matter.

You know how it happens in legislative work. A label or a slogan gets fixed. Each individual attaches his own meaning to the slogan

and the meanings are about as different as there are the number of individuals.

I think we have been greatly handicapped with a slogan that has been attached to this highly controversial issue in the past 2 years. It is known as the all-or-none slogan. It holds that there had to be an identity of aid and there had to be either general aid for all or general aid for none.

I think this involved some very unfortunate misunderstanding and unpleasantries at times.

am not putting words in your mouth or the cardinal's mouth. I am only speaking my own words when I say that I think, if we take this part of your testimony and my question, and your further comment on my question, we have moved down the road this morning toward the possibility of a solution to this problem, or much of it.

My friend from New York will recall that last year he made great contributions in the higher education conference with the House. I want to thank him publicly again, as I have before, for the contributions Senator Javits made in a very difficult conference last year with the House on higher education.

We had a considerable discussion on the matter of categorical grants. Categorical grants are not consistent with an all-or-none approach. We made an approach in that conference on loans, we made an approach in that conference on scholarships and loans. We didn't call them scholarships, finally, but they at least provided for forgiveness of loans. So as far as the financial result to the student is concerned, they amounted to a grant. But that was not consistent, either, with the all-or-none theory.

I think you have been very helpful in giving us something here to tie to in respect to the cardinal's position. That does not mean that I am making any blanket interpretation of his position. But I certainly interpret this position as far removed from any notion of all or none, or identity of programs.

EQUALITY NOT IDENTITY OF BENEFIT

And I go back to and to me, they are key words-I go back to point 1, a program of Federal aid for the nonreligious facilities of church-related schools which might be sufficient by itself to provide full equality of benefit.

I think that gives us a framework in which to work. But also, I don't want you to misinterpret anything that the chairman has said here this morning; it does not mean that I will go along with the implementation of all these principles enunciated by you as constituting points or constituting the various general types of aid programs that have occurred here.

It will take a lot of evidence and a lot of persuasion to get the chairman to ever go along with a tax deduction program, for example, and some other implications of this list of possible aids.

But the important thing is, and I know how important it is from my standpoint as chairman of this subcommittee working with my colleagues, the important thing is that this is not a program, necessarily, which limits us to an identical aid program for church-related schools and for public schools. The cardinal is saying to us in effect, "from

the standpoint of the educational interests that are involved within my jurisdiction, I am pleading for the," to use your language, “I am pleading for full equality of benefit."

Mr. CUSACK. Precisely that, Senator, and within that limitation, the ways of achieving it could conceivably be as many as the ingenuity of Congress could conceive. So long as ultimately the combination of what is made available to children in church-related schools and made available in such a way as not in any way to violate constitutional principles, would add up to this full equality, I am sure that Cardinal Spellman, for one, would be gratified that the children in churchrelated schools have received the justice to which he is so firmly committed and in which he so deeply believes.

Senator MORSE. One other comment for your observation. Before I make it, I want to take up a procedural matter with my colleague from New York.

It will be necessary for the chairman to leave following this comment. I regret it very much, but it is going to be necessary for me to ask the witness to come back at 2:30 to finish his statement.

I have gone over this statement and I want him to finish it in public and not just file it. I shall have to ask him to return unless it is possible for the Senator from New York to remain to hear his statement through. I do not think it will take him more than 15 minutes. I regret I am already 15 minutes late for an official meeting I must go to.

Senator JAVITS. I will stay for a few minutes. I won't be back and I will just let Mr. Cusack wind it up as quickly as he possibly can. Senator MORSE. There is one other statement I want to make for the record. I do so because I think I owe it to you and to the cardinal and to my colleagues to make it.

CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS OF "BLANKET AID"

I also interpret your testimony this morning to say in effect what the senior Senator from Oregon has been saying for quite some time in this country. It is that on the basis of existing Supreme Court decisions, on the basis of the cases which you have referred to, that you recognize that the probabilities are not good that a blanket general aid legislative program for church-related schools would stand the test of the Supreme Court.

Mr. CUSACK. Senator, distinguishing between wishful thinking and reality, I would have to say that I cannot see that at least in the immediate future, there is any prospect that the Supreme Court would uphold a program that did not in some way attempt to accommodate itself to the realization that funds cannot be used directly for the subsidization of the teaching of religion or the promotion of religious doctrine or the financing of religious exercises or the financing of physical facilities in which religious worship would be conducted.

I think that anyone who said to the contrary at this time, at this stage of our national existence and in the present context of what the Supreme Court has said, would be at least less than realistic and perhaps less than frank.

Senator MORSE. That has been my position and I have been very much misunderstood in some quarters. But I have simply said that in

my judgment, that is the position the Court would take. As chairman of this subcommittee, I thought that I had an obligation to work for legislation which I thought would be acceptable within the framework of what I believe the legal doctrines of the time to be. I cannot thank you too sincerely for your complete fairness and the objectivity of your testimony this morning in raising this question.

I think this is going to prove to be a very important part of the transcript. Before I left, I wanted to mention that I wanted to thank you.

Senator Javits, if you will be so kind.

Accept my apology, but I have to go to this other meeting.
The Senator will hear the rest of your testimony.

Mr. CUSACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator JAVITS (presiding pro tempore). The witness will proceed. Mr. CUSACK. If it please the Chair, I could, if the Senator wishes, summarize the balance of my testimony.

Senator JAVITS. I would appreciate it very much, because I am under considerable time pressure, myself.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

Mr. CUSACK. The next topic that my formal remarks takes up is to touch upon the problem of the words "separation of church and state."

As I say in my formal statement, although there should be no doubt about it, I should like to avoid a possible misunderstanding and make it unmistakably clear that Cardinal Spellman's views are in no way intended as an attack upon the principle of separation of church and

state.

On the contrary, what is intended is only to urge the conviction that if a program of Federal aid is to be enacted, there are ways and means of providing equality of benefit for the children in churchrelated schools without doing violence to that principle.

My formal remarks then quote from the recent and well pubilicized statement of Dr. Robert M. Hutchins, President of the Fund for the Republic, in which I thought he did a very fine job of putting in focus the metaphor, "wall of separation between church and state" and pointed out that, unless given a reasonable and balanced interpretation, it is a distortion of the constitutional concept which underlies it. My formal statement then goes on to point out that over the years, and going back to the time which preceded even the inauguration of our first President, leading American Catholic churchmen and leaders of American Catholic thought have time and time again been pointing out the adherence of Catholics to this principle, the principle of religious freedom as part of our American heritage.

I come to 1948, when Archbishop McNicholas made a formal statement on that subject, to me, an unequivocal, firm statement that I do not think is susceptible of misinterpretation if those who are interested will read it. The heart of it is quoted in my formal statement. Now, my statement then goes on to point out that today, after about

we meet in a climate that is quite different from a climate which prevailed in 1961. I refer to the results of the recent Gallup poll, which

showed a shift of public opinion on the subject of the inclusion of church-related schools in a Federal aid program.

Now a majority of those replying hold that any Federal aid should go to help not only public but Catholic and private schools as well. And interestingly enough, and gratifyingly enough, I should say, from my standpoint, the poll also disclosed that the change has come largely from those who are not Catholic.

Now, the statement goes on to say that this change in public opinion mirrors the change in thinking that appears to have taken place among a large section of American intellectuals. It quotes the views of such leaders of American thought as Walter Lippmann, James Reston of the New York Times, Dr. Robert Hutchins, Carl N. Degler, professor of history at Vassar College, and the editors of the New Republic, who have written a series of recent editorials quite favorable to the position that the national interest demands that, in some way or another, we must find a method of including children in church-related schools in a Federal program.

My statement points out that this is just a sampling of the thinking that has contributed to the change in public opinion.

My statement in its concluding passages returns once again to part A of title IV of the Senate bill 580 and points out that we are hopeful that the omission from that part of the bill of children in churchrelated schools will be corrected and brought into line with the President's sentiments as expressed in his special message to the Congress, and indeed, brought into line and into harmony with the stated purpose of the bill itself.

I would like to read just the last part of my statement, the last few

sentences.

We feel that children attending private schools and church-related schools are entitled to the same consideration as children in their neighborhood whose parents have chosen to send them to public schools. These children of public and private schools grow up together, play together, and often pray together; when they become adults, they work together, vote together, pay taxes together, serve together in the Armed Forces of their country, and sadly enough, perhaps even die together in that service.

There seems to be no sound and defensible reason why, by some means or combination of means best left to the collective wisdom of Congress, these children should not all share with at least approximate equality in any Federal program claiming, and I quote the language of the purpose of the bill, "To strengthen and improve educational quality and educational opportunity in the Nation.'

I am grateful to you, Senator Javits, and to the chairman for your patience and forbearance, and as a matter of fact, for your atendance here today, and I am grateful to the subcommitee for the invitation to testify.

On behalf of Cardinal Spellman, I express his appreciation to you and to the chairman and to the rest of the subcommittee.

Thank you very much.

EDUCATIONAL LEGISLATION A PRIORITY ITEM

Senator JAVITS. The Chair would like to thank you, Mr. Cusack, for your testimony. I consider the bills for Federal aid to educa