I might add right here, I am a member of the Board of Trade of the District of Columbia, a member of the Public School Committee, and chairman of the Curriculum Committee. I voted for every proposal to increase the teachers' salaries, and now, with an increase of 10 to 15 percent for all teachers, their average pay is somewhere around $2,700, and it is up for revision to increase the basic pay by act of Congress. I do not know how that will come out, of course.

To repeat, these States are specifically set forth in the report as having no financial need and yet they are expected to take this money and in order to get it, must cause their legislatures to pass an act accepting all the provisions of the bill, S. 181. If the intention is not to eventually have some Federal control of these schools, why give the rich States great sums of money?

WHY FORCE THE UNITED STATES TO BORROW MONEY TO GIVE TO STATES THAT DON'T NEED IT?

There is still a further phase to this condition. Everyone knows that New York State today pays her teachers higher salaries on an average than any other State in the Union, California comes second and the District of Columbia third.

To repeat again, these five States and the District of Columbia have no need of the money which they will be forced to take under this bill. It is believed those advocating this bill will admit that a great majority of the remainder of the States can finance their schools to any extent they see fit. Why then force the Federal Government to borrow $250,000,000 plus and pay 114 to 22 percent interest just to give money to States that don't need it? We must remember that the people of these States will have to, in one way or another, repay this money to the Federal Government with interest. There must be some reason back of this. All indications are that it is for the purpose of getting all the public schools of the United States under one authority.

Going further into this matter, we find that 11 of the richest States, namely, New York, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Massachusetts, New Jersey, California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas get together $123,806,574, 41 percent of the $300,000,000 to be appropriated.

GENERAL FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE STATES

In other words, these 11 States get a little over 41 percent of the entire appropriation. Furthermore, since this bill provides that twothirds of the whole appropriation is to be pro rata to the number of school children and thus approximately pro rata to the number of inhabitants, how can it help in any way to equalize educational opportunities?

Thus this bill tends neither to equalize educational opportunities nor does it meet the President's requirement of school need. In fact, the whole plan is one of centralization of authority, through the Commissioner of Education in Washington, D. C. He is to apportion money partly in the first place by figures arrived at in his office and later by the income as reported by the Department of Commerce. There is nothing in the bill that equalizes education anywhere in the States.

INEQUALITY OF DISTRIBUTION

Pursuing this inequality of distribution of money still further, we find that New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas, three of the richest States in the Union, get $55,696,796 or more than 1812 percent of the whole bill. Thus the bill gives the most money to those who have the most, or as the Bible says, "To them that hath it shall be given."

Along this same line the proponents of this bill are claiming that there won't be any Federal control-that the Government has for nearly 100 years made large grants of land and even money to landgrant colleges, to colleges for the ROTC, the George Deen and SmithHughes Acts, and others. These acts, however, were appropriations of money or property very closely meeting the President's statement of appropriating money "where it is needed and only where it is

needed."

LAND GRANTS TO COLLEGES

There has been a good deal said about the land-grant colleges and that there was no Federal control of them. The first land-grant college act was passed in 1862, and it was particularly the wish of President Lincoln that it be passed. That was because military training in schools other than West Point was pretty largely confined to Virginia, and to some extent to South Carolina, and that was the reason why the leadership in the South, in the Confederate Army, certainly in the ranks of captain and major, was much better than in the northern armies during the first 2 years of war. President Lincoln felt that so keenly that that was one of the reasons for passing those acts.

In addition, the States in the West were going into new regions of agriculture where there were not any mechanical organizations in existence, and so they added they should have courses in agriculture and in mechanics.

Now, that bill was amended in 1866, in 1890, in 1907, and by the Bankhead-Jones Act of June 29, 1935.

As regards the control, I would just like to read three or four short paragraphs:

Expenditures for permanent improvements to buildings, grounds, and farms, such as clearing, draining, and fencing lands, are not allowable from these funds.

The funds cannot be expended for heating or lighting buildings, musical instruments, military equipment, furniture, cases, shelving, desks, blackboards, tables, and lockers.

The salary of the treasurer of the college is not a legitimate charge against the funds and cannot properly be paid from them.

The salaries of purely administrative officers, such as presidents, treasurers, secretaries, bookkeepers, janitors, watchmen, etc., cannot be charged to these funds, nor the salaries of other administrative officers, like superintendents, foremen, and matrons, and the wages of unskilled laborers and assistants in shops, laboratories, and fields.

The funds cannot be used for salaries of instructors in philosophy, psychology, ethics, logic, history, civil government, military science and tactics, and in ancient and modern languages.

Then it says finally:

Expenditures from the funds provided by the act of March 4, 1907, are not authorized for general courses in pedagogy, psychology, history of education, and methods of teaching.

I just cite these because it shows as the years went by the regulation by the Federal Government of what could be done with these funds becomes more and more extensive and more and more exact.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Would you like to abolish the Bankhead-Jones Act?

General FRIES. Beg pardon?

Senator FULBRIGHT. Would you advocate that we stop appropriations under anything like the Bankhead-Jones Act for land-grant colleges?

General FRIES. Not at all. I am not opposed to education where it is needed, and they felt it was needed. The Bankhead-Jones Act extends this appropriation of money to what they call land-grant colleges, to all States many of which were not included in land grants. After the Bankhead Act it was so much money per year to include all States.

I have here in connection with this discussion a table that appeared in the Congressional Record of January 30, inserted by Congressman Dondero, giving excess of income over expenditures, average salary of teachers, and many other things I think of extreme value to anyone interested in this general subject of education, and I am asking authority to have it placed with the committee. That is on page A361 of the Appendix for January 30.

(The table referred to is as follows:)

[From the Congressional Record, Appendix, Jan. 30, 1945]