2. The passage would open the gateway to ever-increasing demands for more and more funds until the whole decentralized system of public education would be destroyed and replaced by centralized-federalized direction with all of the dangers that such education control has demonstrated in other lands. 3. The bill is fantastic in many respects and therefore deceptive in the light of the purposes set forth in the introduction. To accomplish the objectives proposed would require an appropriation many times the size of the amounts called for in this bill. The introduction says one objective is to eradicate illiteracy. That is fantastic. It makes about as much sense as would a bill written to eradicate unemployment. Just as there are always people who do not wish to work and will not work so there are people who do not wish to study and learn, and will not do so. Besides such an over-all objective would require billions instead of millions. 4. This bill is put forth as a means of equalizing educational opportunities but it proceeds to violate that noble sentiment by establishing in the main what amounts to a teacher's salary subsidy. Why would not policemen, firemen, park employees, and other community servants be able to demand a Federal salary subsidy with equal propriety? 5. This bill is drawn to establish an over-all distribution of funds among all of the States. What possible justification is there for distributing Federal funds in New York, Illinois, and all of those States which now show huge treasury surpluses? Illinois, for instance, has recently reported a surplus of between six hundred and seven hundred million dollars. I have recently received reports from the treasurers of a majority of the States and most of them show surpluses. According to Senators with whom I have talked there has been no official request for such Federal aid from the States themselves. This is a gratuitious proposition conceived and sponsored by a small professional group with special interests involved. 6. Supplementing the objection just stated I should like to emphasize that this bill is sponsored by a group that is not at all representative of the parents and the taxpayers. It was not even representative of the school teachers until the interests of the teachers was aroused by the introduction of this salary subsidy. Using this as bait paid officials of NEA and their affiliated State organizations have put on a membership drive soliciting members on the basis of this proposed salary increase. Consequently this proffered inducement has developed wide support among the teachers but it came only after this strategy was adopted. Further, it has been my observation, that those who testified for this bill were in the main groups who have supported the pump priming policies of the "new order" and who have been corralled for this purpose through the efforts of the small paid group of professionals who are turning heaven and earth to get a Federal aid bill passed. Many of those who have been brought to Washington to testify for this Federal aid to education proposal are Government employees whose salaries and expenses are paid by the Government-others are CIO groups whose large income is derived largely through a Government-sponsored check-off-and others have undoubtedly been provided 'expense arrangements by the NEA or its affiliates. In brief, if an investigation were made, it would probably be found that there has been very little support for this bill that did not derive from such related sources as I have mentioned. 7. The National Board set up by this bill is clearly intended to be a smoke screen for the real source of power that would be made effective through this act. The National Board would serve not to exceed 60 days in any one fiscal year. Now how could any such Board members acquire sufficient familiarity in that time with the issues and problems involved to be able to use good judgment in reaching independent decisions in the vast and complex matters involved? It simply couldn't be done-nor do the proponents of the bill expect that it will for the bill goes on to say, "The United States Commissioner of Education shall serve as Secretary of the National Board and as administrative officer, and through the United States Office of Education shall administer the several programs authorized by this act." That lets the cat out of the bag. That explains everything. 8. S. 717 opens the gate essentially for the distribution of funds to nonpublic schools. Section II (d) says, "In making any such determination the Board shall take into consideration the extent to which the burden of the educational needs of the State are borne by nonpublic schools." This part of the bill would open up at least three genuine problems. (1) A national program of determination by the Board (which serves for only 60 days out of a year) would by its complex nature and its wide ramifications present an overwhelming job which no 60-day board could handle. (2) This would invite all kinds of political wire-pulling and pressure-group activities. (3) It would also at once create issues involving controversy and bitterness in many communities. 9. Section II (b) would place in the hands of the Commissioner the annual sum of $1,500,000 to be used at his own discretion through State authorities for "survey or other studies pertinent to the best use of the funds received under this Act." What does that mean? Could not these reports be used for propaganda in the form of emphasizing greater and greater need for Federal aid? Could not this vast sum in the hands of a politically minded Commissioner be used in many ways to promote schemes and personalities? 10. Section II (c): "The National Board shall cause an audit to be made of the expenditure of the funds under this Act by each State authority." Then it goes on to say that if "The National Board finds any such funds have been wrongfully expended certain withholding penalties shall be executed." This places in the hands of the National Board (which we have already seen is in reality the Commissioner) a withholding penalty if, in his discretion, he shall determine that any of the funds have been misused. This, it would seem, places another leverage of political control in the hands of the United States Commissioner. Any such audit should be made by the Treasury Department. 11. Section II(g) says: "The National Board shall publish annually a full and complete report showing the extent to which educational opportunities in the United States have been equalized through the provisions of this Act." Then it goes on to say that such report shall show "the accomplishments of the respective States through the expenditures of such funds." It requires no stretch of the imagination to understand that here is a powerful instrument of control over the State agencies in the hands of the Commissioner at Washington. An unfavorable report on any State authority's management of the fund would practically ruin him. Naturally he would wish to avoid unfavorable reports and would be amenable to a strong-willed Commissioner under such impending possibilities. This would, therefore, give the Commissioner great political leverage. 12. Section II (h) says: "The National Board is authorized to make such rules and regulations in conformity with the provisions of this Act as may be necessary to facilitate its administration." In connection with that I should like to insert a copy of an opinion that I have received from two leading attorneys in Chicago. It follows: "Under the provisions of S. 717 the Commissioner of Education acting through the Board is an administrative officer of the Government. He is empowered under its terms to make findings of fact. Under the rulings of the United States Supreme Court the conclusions of fact of an administrative body or officers, when subjected to judicial review, must stand if there is any material evidence tending to support his conclusions, and this even though the court may find that his conclusions are contrary to the weight of the evidence. In support are the following citations from the Supreme Court of the United States: Helvering v. Strickler (307 U. S. 277, at 299) (review of decision of Board of Tax Appeals). Kessler v. Strickler (308 U. S. 32, at 34) (review of findings of Directors of Immigration). Leach v. Carlile (258 U. S. 138, at 139 and 140) (findings of Postmaster General. "Supervision" and "control" will not arise out of the inherent nature of the act itself. The names objects will be brought about more subtly with the bait of Federal largess, such as the prospect of increased funds for the local political authorities to spend, increased salaries of teachers and other employees, and other seductive perquisites. The desire to curry favor with the benefactor is bound to operate on the minds of the beneficiaries. They will serve as the unwritten and sub rosa "control" and "regulation." These untoward pressures will be incapable of proof in proceedings for judicial review, while the conclusions of the Commissioner will be immune from attack, except as above stated." 13. Section 5 provides that: "A State may use not to exceed 1 per centum of the funds received by it under this Act to assist in paying the expenses of the State department of education necessary for the efficient administration of the funds received under this Act: Provided, That such work shall include cooperation with the United States Office of Education in furnishing the Commissioner of Education such factual information as may be useful in the compilation of essential educational data, and assistance in the preparation of plans for the location and construction of buildings for educational purposes." Would not this indicate that the whole outlook on the part of the sponsors of this bill is to go all the way-curriculum, buildings, teachers' salaries—and even dominating through "partial" expenses, the State departments. Those who may innocently think that this Federal-aid project is just an incident should study this bill carefully. Any person familiar with politics and bureaucratic trends today can easily understand that here is the beginning of full domination of public education by the Federal Government. 14. Section 7 (d) says: "The term 'nonpublic school' means any school not operated for profit which complies with the minimum educational requirements of the State." This opens the gate wide-too wide. 15. The economic and social opinions expressed during the last few years. During the last several years we have been alarmed at the social and economic trends of opinion as expressed by many of our leading educators, especially those who are closely associated with this Federal-aid proposal. Those views have shown strong convictions favoring greater Government ownership and control. Those views have emphasized a lack of confidence in our free-enterprise system. This trend has caused much concern among the millions of representative citizens engaged in enterprise, and consequently the character and nature of this proposal is so clearly in the direction of more Federal control that it is unacceptable to fully 95 percent of the groups whose sentiments have been tested. For the reasons given in this testimony we urge that this bill be rejected. 16. We have here a bill that proposes to appropriate $550,000,000 each year, with such potential designs as would quickly boost this appropriation in large measure to cover ever-increasing demands. This whole matter of huge new appropriations should be considered in the light of our Federal fiscal condition. We will end this war with a Federal debt that will be so huge no one can comprehend its size or its implications. The interest alone will be stupendous. Beyond that we will have a heavy load in carrying our disabled veterans, veterans' widows, and other expenses of that nature. We will have to continue to maintain large armed forces. We will have a big job of reconversion and readjustment. We will be called upon to help in necessary rehabilitation duties outside our own land. No one can see or understand what faces us. Certainly this is no time to be uselessly increasing our debt and tax burden. If there are a few States that are willing to confess that they cannot properly perform their educational obligation to the citizens of that State, then let there be written a bill to provide for help in specific instances and specific places, but let us hear no more of this over-all scheme to throw millions into States that do not need it. For the reasons given in this testimony we urge that this bill be rejected. Miss ADDIE WEBER, -Washington, D. C. UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, MY DEAR MISS WEBER: After reading over S. 717, I find that I am in complete accord with this bill to equalize educational opportunities for all classes of people, regardless of race, color, or creed. I know also that this bill will help tremendously in the urban and farm areas throughout the country. Speaking in behalf of my fellow members of the United Steelworkers of America, whom I represent in both the Burlington and Mercer Counties, I find that this bill is urgently needed and ask that my views in support of this bill be presented to the Senators of my State. Sincerely yours, FRED A. CLARICI, National Representative, United Steelworkers TRENTON, N. J., April 10, 1945. Hon. H. ALEXANDER SMITH, Washington D. C. DEAR SENATOR SMITH: The Central Jersey Industrial Union Council passed a resolution at its last regular meeting supporting S. 717. We ask you to please use your influence to have this bill taken out of committee and be placed on the floor for action. Very truly yours W. FRANK GALLAGHER, President. Miss ADDIE WEBER, Washington, D. C. UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, DEAR MISS WEBER: I am in full accord with S. 717 to equalize educational opportunities throughout all the States of this great Nation. This bill should be passed so that all American children may have the opportunity to have a liberal education whether they live in rural or urban districts in any State of the Union, regardless of race, color, or creed. As a national representative of 10,000 steelworkers in the central Jersey area, I urge that you do all within your power to assure passage of this bill. United States Senator, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR: The Mercer County Central Labor Union, at its regular meeting held Friday, April 6, 1945, had before it for its consideration, S. 717, which provides for Federal aid and equal opportunities for children in our school system in communities unable to furnish such education and health facilities. We believe this is one of the most important pieces of legislation that will be considered at this session and we urge you to have the Senate Committee on Education report favorably on this bill. We further request that you give this bill your personal support. JOSEPH LANDGRAF, President. Attest: T. J. BURNS, Secretary. To Whom It May Concern: NEW JERSEY STATE FEDERATION OF LABOR, The New Jersey State Federation of Labor most urgently requests the passage of S. 717. After a study of the contents of the measure we are convinced it is a sound piece of legislation designed to render assistance to those most in need of educational opportunities. Very truly yours, LOUIS P. MARCIANTE, President. THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY OF NEW JERSEY, Hon. H. ALEXANDER SMITH, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: As a labor leader in my county, I urge support of the Federalaid bill, S. 717, to equalize educational opportunity. I like the unique features of the bill providing services to all children, including parochial-school children, such services as health and others that are not of a strictly educational nature but contribute to the social, moral, and health welfare of the children, and guaranteeing that part of the money will be used for teachers' salaries, which, in many cases, are notoriously substandard. I think this bill would serve the best interests of the country if passed. Respectfully, KENNETH W. O'DELL. Hon. H. ALEX. SMITH, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. TRENTON, N. J., April 9, 1945. MY DEAR SENATOR SMITH: As chairman of the joint Political Action Committee of the A. F. of L. and CIO of Mercer County, I want to appeal to you to vote favorably on S. 717 for Federal aid to equalize educational opportunities. I believe that this is an excellent bill and will be of great benefit to the American people and should, therefore, be passed. Yours truly, GEORGE PELLETTIERI. UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Trenton, N. J. Re S. 717. Senator H. ALEXANDER SMITH, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Amalgamated Local 731, United Auto Workers, CIO, heartily endorse labor's bill for Federal aid, S. 717, to equalize educational opportunity. The passage of such bill would mean a great step forward for education in our country. Fraernally yours, MICHAEL C. PINTO, UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Hon. H. ALEXANDER SMITH, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. HONORABLE SIR: The United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America of Trenton, N. J., heartily endorse the Federal-aid bill, S. 717, now before the Senate Education Committee. These local unions particularly like two features of the bill. One is that the bill guarantees money for raising teachers' salaries. These are even substandard in some areas, so that the passage of the bill is exceedingly important. The other is provision for services for all children in noneducational matters, such as health, etc. We urge the committee to report the bill out favorably, and urge your support and vote. Respectfully yours, JOHN SPAIN, Jr., Business Agent. |