already stated we favor separating the two principles into separate bills. But in addition to the confusion which comes into the bill because it does try to merge two different bills into one, there is also a need for clarification on a number in the distribution of Federal funds. There is much language in the bill about having the Board "take into consideration" this and that; there is also a statement that the distribution is to be made "with due regard" for certain principles in this question. Later there is the reference to Federal court decisions which are to be guides in effecting distribution. However, there is no date given regarding these decisions, nor is any case specifically cited. The "s" on the word "decisions," the failure to use dates and definite case citations made this extremely important principle in the bill a very vague and confusing one, especially if we are to regard the bill in light of permanent legislation and a not permanent Supreme Court. On numerous points, the language of the bill is equally as confusing. May I say, gentlemen, that we in the labor movement have learned by said experience, that we must concern ourselves with the language of a bill just as much as with the avowed purpose of the bill.

We therefore urge you gentlemen to act favorably on both principles: Permanent Federal aid and emergency Federal aid but to act on them separately. We repeat our request for an objective standard of distribution in any plan for permanent aid, that plan to be written into the bill itself. We believe that the emergency aid should also be administered in keeping with a well-thought-out standard, but that the very nature of emergency demands greater flexibility in administration; but that on one point there can be no objective standard, no flexibility of administration: That all citizens share equally in the benefits of funds for public education, and that no discrimination against any group because of race, creed, or social status is to be tolerated.

We plead for both emergency and permanent Federal aid for education, quickly and fully given, because we plead for America itself.

STATEMENT BY LOUIS WIN RAPEER, PRESIDENT OF THE RESEARCH INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D. C.

I urge the passage of this bill, and object only to the small amount of money requested for so gigantic a task. When we speak of our democratic school system for all children and youth, we usually refer to the schools and the child-welfare work provided in a few wealthy spots of the United States. Actually, a very large proportion of children and youth are without adequate, and even defensible, schocling, health provisions, and food; they are denied equal opportunity from the day they are born; and the 2 out of 5 of our young men being rejected for physical defects are only symptoms of long national neglect of the Nation's childhood. Our district and State method of paying for the upbringing of the young simply does not work; and the injustice falls on those defenseless ones whom a wise and a far-seeing democracy would bring up to the highest possible level of personal and social efficiency.

We face decades, not a few years, of stern preparedness for defense and offense. Since the downfall of France, American schools have had imposed upon them an entirely new aim and duty-to provide effective upbringing of soldiers and mothers of soldiers. Hitler started his youth-developing agencies a generation ago; and the kind of world situation we face demands total preparedness from the foundations up. Meeting this new aim of all agencies for rearing sturdy and educated children and at least the 31 millions of school age is a vast and expensive task. A billion dollars a year would be insufficient; and it must come from the Federal Government. The bill asks for only the cost of three or four battleships to meet emergencies, not enough to implement effectively this new aim of democratic schools.

If we don't get this Federal aid started well now we shall probably never get it started, for the stern prospect is war and a kind of war that robs all nonmilitary expenditures. The same hand that gives away billions, hundreds of ships, and then stuffs vessels full of costly war products probably to be sunk can use a cleaver on small expenditures for the next generation. To offset this tendency, the Nation needs legislators who will not only support the President but press forward on the youth front and thus invest in our own flesh and blood, whereas now we are gambling on too many unpredictables where the utmost caution should be the rule. While Congress is almost in the habit of voting billions, a half billion is none too high for this bill.

Educators are gentle folk who make poor lobbyists, politicians, and fighters for the Nation's children. They have failed in the task proposed in this bill for decades because they couldn't rouse Congress to the terrible inequalities curable only with Federal help. Give them your support in this emergency.

STATEMENT OF CATHRINE CURTIS, WASHINGTON, D. C., NATIONAL CHAIRMAN, THE MOTHERS NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

We seriously doubt there is a member of this committee-or of the Congresswho may read this statement without paying at least a silent tribute to his mother, who taught him not only how to talk, but also the primary fundamentals of reading and writing.

The mothers of this country are the primary teachers of our children. It is from the mother that the child learns how to make known its wants-first by sounds and later by words. The mother, with loving and diligent care, teaches the small fingers how to hold a crayon-then how to move that crayon across the paper, making letters and then forming them into words, thereby laying the foundation for all education we may later acquire.

In view of this, it is not surprising that any proposal bearing upon our educational system should be of vital interest to the mothers of this country. They have aided in establishing that system first in the home and later in expanding it to its present position of world leadership.

They have watched, with considerable anxiety, the innumerable attempts made particularly during the past decade to destroy the influence of the home in the child's education, by placing all educational direction under centralized Federal control. All such attempts in the past have been defeated, due largely to the rightful opposition of the mothers.

Today, when the mothers of our country are heartsick over this drive toward foreign war involvement, carried forward under the guise of "national defense,' they now are compelled to face a new attack upon our educational system by the forces of bureaucratic centralization and educational regimentation under the false front of "to strengthen the national defense."

We oppose this proposed legislation on several grounds.

First: It is a series of contradictions. In section 1 of S. 1313, it sets forth under the caption "Finding of Fact," that the Congress finds there is a serious situation existent in the educational field due to the national-defense program, whereby the States are unable to provide the necessary educational facilities required by large increases in population in some communities as a result of national-defense projects.

Yet, in section 4 of the same bill, the special board which S. 1313 would create in the Federal Security Administration, is authorized to conduct studies and surveys to determine the needs for funds to meet this situation. This, to us, seems a definite admission that such needs, if any, are not at present known to the Congress, despite the statements set forth in section 1.

In addition to the foregoing specific instructions for surveys to determine such, if any, additional educational needs, section 11 provides further appropriations for apparently similar studies and surveys under the direction of the Commissioner of Education.

Considering the provisions of these two sections as against the alleged "Finding of Fact" in section 1, we contend they establish there is no such finding of fact now available that establishes the need for such legislation.

Despite the apparent discrepancies of the above-cited sections, this bill would appropriate from the Federal Treasury the sum of $300,000,000, for the present fiscal year, and for each fiscal year thereafter.

There has been considerable reference of late years to the horse-and-buggy days and practices of those days, all of which have been held up to ridicule by proponents of so-called modernized, streamlined present-day proposals. Yet, study of this proposed legislation cannot help but compel the realization that it falls into a classification which can only be aptly described by a horse-and-buggy days quotation:

"It puts the cart before the horse."

Congress is asked by this proposed legislation to appropriate a large sum of taxpayers' money, $300,000,000 for alleged needs, with the provision that the needs, if any, are to be determined after the money is appropriated:

There is another interesting thought necessarily developed by the wording of this proposed legislation. The mothers of this country have been led to believe

the present national-defense program is an emergency one, not of a permanent nature. Yet, this bill declares it is to meet a national-defense need-but provides for permanent, continuing appropriations. Does this signify that soon we are to be told the so-called national-defense program is not of an emergency, but of a permanent nature?

Second: While the bill declares in section 2 that the proposed Federal aid to education is to be given without Federal control over the educational policies of States and localities. * * *. Section 13 quite apparently contradicts this

language.

We are convinced that any liberal interpretation of section 13 will enable definite and absolute Federal control over the educational policies of States and localities.

Further, we are convinced that such liberal interpretation of this section will enable those who are seeking to destroy our form of government through introducing the teaching of un-American doctrines into our schools, to circumvent all State legislative restrictions against such teachings. We can see no other reason for incorporating subsection (b) of section 13 in this bill than for such purpose.

In addition, subsection (a) of section 13 grants the all too customary bureaucratic power to write rules and regulations for the administration of the proposed legislation. The mothers of this country are only too familiar with the results achieved under such previous grants of regulatory power to certain types of bureaucrats, and cannot but view the grant of any such powers over our educational system with great alarm and trepidation.

* *

Subsection (c) of section 13 also apparently refutes the claim of proponents of this legislation that it will not be used to establish centralized bureaucratic control over our educational system. If the Federal Government is to retain title to school buildings and equipment constructed or bought with funds appropriated pursuant to this act *then we are fearful such title control will be used by Federal bureaucrats to dictate just how such buildings and equipment will be used. There is too much evidence available to establish that such title control has been so used in the past in relation to establishing Federal control over purely localized activities.

Third: Section 1 declares this legislation necessary to provide needed funds because of the burdens already imposed upon property taxes from which public schools are largely supported. It is readily recognized that the present tax burdens on property already are enormous. But can proponents of this legislation give any assurance it will not increase this now too heavy burden on property? What does $300,000,000 represent in relation to present taxes on property— both as to producing general revenues as well as school revenues?

This amount is equal to 7.3 percent of the gross revenues of all the States for the year 1937, according to United States Department of Commerce figures. It further represents 20 percent of the total Federal revenues produced from general property taxes in the year 1936 and is equal to 127 percent of the total levies of general and selective property taxes by all 48 States in 1937.

As to school revenues, it is equal to 15 percent of the total amount spent by all 48 States in 1936 for all public and elementary education and represents an increase of 17 percent in the per capita educational costs of the States for the same year. We are convinced this proposed legislation comes to the Congress in direct contravention of constitutional provisions for such legislation. This bill provides for an appropriation and the recognized constitutional procedure for appropriation bills is to have them originate in the House of Representatives. Yet, as of this date, no record of such a bill can be found as having been proposed in the House.

There is a bill that already has passsed the House, which unquestionably provides for increased financial needs of educational districts that may be traced to the national-defense program. This is H. R. 4545, passed by the House of Representatives May 9 of this year, which appropriates the sum of $150,000,000 for the use of the Work Projects Administration, to care for housing, sewerage, educational, and other needs caused by localized expansion due to nationaldefense projects.

Please note, the House has determined that $150,000,000 is sufficient to meet not only national defense increased educational needs, but also housing, sewerage, and other such needs while this bill asks for an outright, continuing grant of twice that amount only for alleged educational needs.

On behalf of the many mothers' groups throughout the country whose activities are coordinated by the Mothers National Executive Committee, we recommend as follows in relation to S. 1313:

The action by the House of Representatives on May 9, 1941, in adopting H. R. 4545 providing for any Federal financial assistance the States may require for increased educational facilities due to national-defense projects places S. 1313 in the class of a nondefense appropriation bill and since the President has urged Congress to keep all nondefense appropriations to a minimum, this bill should be rejected by the Committee on Education and Labor.

We further recommend that the Congress name a special committee to investigate and study the alleged inability of the various States to provide required finances for their own educational systems. Such a committee, we believe, should be composed of not more than five Members of each House of Congress, not more than three Members of each House to be of the same political party.

Such investigation and study should include proper provision for open hearings for the benefit of the public and should reveal the need, if any, for Federal financial assistance to State and local educational systems. If such need should be established, it should be provided in the form of loans to the States from the Federal Treasury with the specific provision that such loans are to be repaid the Federal Treasury, within a definite period, from the proceeds of special taxes to be levied by the States for the retirement of such loans.

MEMORANDUM ON S. 1313, BY BOLIVAR PAGÁN, RESIDENT COMMISSIONER FROM

PUERTO RICO

I consider S. 1313 an excellent measure. As applicable to Puerto Rico, it will give a most favorable encouragement and needed aid to public education there.

Since the establishment of the American regime in Puerto Rico 43 years ago, the island has shown great progress in education. The largest item, more than one-third, of our yearly insular budget has been devoted for public education, but there is a need of expending three or four times more than the amount now appropriated to meet a desirable goal.

Puerto Rico is overcrowded with a population of nearly 2,000,000 inhabitants, over 500 square mile. The percentage of children under 20 years, about 50 percent of our population, is increasing considerably every year. The economic conditions of the island do not allow to do all we need for educational facilities. Approximately 300,000 children remain out of school, due to lack of funds for buildings, equipment, and teachers.

Puerto Rico has very rapidly assimilated the American civilization. The Puerto Ricans are intelligent and alert, aiming to live and think on the common American standards of living, hoping to remain always an American community. The help provided in S. 1313 will be greatly beneficial and encouraging.

On behalf of the nearly 2,000,000 loyal American citizens of Puerto Rico, I earnestly request and hope that the Senate Committee on Education and Labor will give a favorable report to said bill.

STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR ON S. 1313

The American Federation of Labor first approved the principle of Federal grants-in-aid to State educational programs in connection with vocational education. We officially began working for vocational education in 1907 and were one of the chief sponsors of the Smith-Hughes Act enacted in 1917. The Federation in 1918 approved the principle of Federal leadership in education and endorsed legislative proposals to create a Federal Department of Education headed by a secretary who should be a member of the President's Cabinet.

The decisions of our annual conventions have approved the principle of Federal grants to States for education, first as an emergency measure and secondly, as a way to further our permanent program. In 1934 we urged Federal emergency aid for public schools and for special educational programs. In 1937 we urged Federal grants for education to be allocated in the various States, and we have continued to urge this method as the practical way to provide equal educational opportunities for all. We believe that Federal aid is necessary to maintain equal educational opportunities in this defense emergency, and urge legislation to safeguard our public school system and to provide for the children of those parents who have gone into areas of defense production where educational facilities do

not exist or are overtaxed. However, we believe that the provision to meet emergency needs should not be the basis for a permanent program, and we respectfully submit that this bill should be limited to emergency purposes only.

The provisions of the bill are obviously drawn to meet emergency needs. For example, the Board of Apportionment is given only a few vague suggestions as guidance for apportioning money to the States instead of a specific formula: The provisions allowing 53 percent of allotments to be used for other purposes than actual instruction of pupils might be permissible during an emergency but not desirable as a permanent provision.

It would, of course, be difficult to prescribe standards for the emergency problem of extending educational opportunity for the increased population in localities of military training centers and new and expanded defense production centers, but with respect to permanent education provisions definite and objective methods of measuring equality of opportunity can be devised.

We believe the bill is defective in not including qualifications and term of office for the Board of Apportionment. The term "national defense" is so vague and may be so all-inclusive that we believe such emergency appropriation should be reconsidered each year in the light of developments and changing needs.

MEMORANDUM BY FORREST B. SPAULDING, LIBRARIAN OF THE DES MOINES PUBLIC LIBRARY AND CHAIRMAN OF THE FEDERAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION

The American Library Association, which I represent, is a national, professional organization with a membership of over 15,000 in the United States alone which represents practically all of the important library interests in the country. Through action of its council and executive board taken in May 1936 and reaffirmed in December 1940 its Federal relations committee is authorized to seek Federal aid for library extension through legislation and otherwise.

The American Library Association was one of the first organizations to approve the recommendations of the Reeves report and has through its Federal relations committee, and through individual members, actively supported the HarrisonThomas bills for Federal aid to education in both the Seventy-fifth and Seventysixth Congresses.

Although our particular interest has been in the provision for rural library services such as were included in title 3 of the bill S. 1305 in the Seventy-sixth Congress, we nevertheless, reaffirm our interest in and support of the present measure, S. 1313.

Statements made by Mr. Carl H. Milam, secretary, American Library Association, and myself at hearings, before a subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor, United States Senate, Seventy-sixth Congress, on S. 1305 (March 3, 1939) are on record, (pp. 162–168) and are reaffirmed at this time.

Mr. Milam and I both regret our inability to be present at the hearings scheduled for April 28, 29, 30, 1941.

BOARD OF EDUCATION, DUCHESNE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Duchesne, Utah, April 17, 1941.

Hon. ELBERT D. THOMAS,

United States Senator, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR THOMAS: Today I received a copy of your Senate bill, S. 1313, which aims to strengthen the national defense and promote the general welfare through the appropriation of funds to assist the States and Territories in meeting financial emergencies in education and in reducing inequalities of educational opportunities.

What can school men do to help promote the passage of such a worthy piece of legislation?

Was it your intention that the bill should include financial help to school districts who have Indian children attending school and where Indian lands do not pay any taxes for the support of public education?

The Duchesne County Board of Education wishes to congratulate you on your work for the advancement of education to every corner of America.

Sincerely yours,

W. J. BOND, Superintendent.