Generally that part of the shelf lying within State boundaries extends 3 miles to sea. This part is estimated to contain about 27,000 square miles, or less than 10 percent of the total area of the shelf. The "oil for education" proposal relates to the usage of revenue derived from the remaining 90 percent of the shelf, which extends usually to where the water reaches a depth of 100 fathoms or 600 feet.

Existing legislation asserts, as against other nations of the world, the claim of the United States to the natural resources of its outer Continental Shelf. The legislation confirms the title of the States to that part of the Continental Shelf within their boundaries, establishes the jurisdiction of the Federal Government over the remainder of the shelf, and provides for the utilization of its resources.

Through enactment of Public Laws 31 and 212, the principal provisions of which have been set forth in this report, the 83d Congress resolved the current issue of land ownership affecting the "oil for education" proposal. Whereas it was formerly involved in questions of Federal or State jurisdiction, the proposal is now clear cut.

Basically it has become the simple question of whether the Nation should devote to education the revenue it receives from the outer Continental Shelf.

The proposal may be regarded as nonpartisan in that it has been sponsored by Democratic, Republican and Independent Members of Congress.

At least 6 bills and 1 joint resolution introduced in the 83d Congress proposed that all revenues from the outer Continental Shelf be used as grants-in-aid of primary, secondary and higher education. None of these bills was reported out of committee.

The "oil for education" proposal has not been advanced as a substitute for, but rather as a supplement to, Federal support of education. paid out of tax revenues.

The proposal has not been highly controversial within itself. When it was offered as an amendment to a bill aimed at settling the question of Federal or State ownership or jurisdiction respecting lands of the Continental Shelf, objections were raised that consideration of this amendment might defeat the bill. In this connection some Members of Congress declared that the proposed amendment raised the whole question of Federal aid to the States for education.

The proposal has received support from organized labor, educational associations, and farmers and other organized groups. In hearings conducted during 1952 and 1953 representatives of about 40 organizations testified in favor of it.

FAVORABLE ARGUMENTS

Altogether, favorable argument in hearings, in periodical literature and in the Congressional Record is too voluminous for full review in this brief report. The following are a few of the favorable ideas found in these sources.

1. Dedication of Federal land resources to the support of education is one of the oldest and wisest of our national policies. The Ordinances of 1783 and 1787, the Morrill Act of 1862 and other laws, taken together, have dedicated millions of acres of public lands for the establishment and operation of educational institutions, at all levels. The Nation has derived immense benefits from Federal land grants for educational purposes.

2. Education is the basis of a strong and successful democracy.We have outstripped the world technically and managerially largely because we developed a superior system of free education under free institutions. But there are plenty of signs that all is not well with our country, and these signs point directly to our lack of understanding of ourselves and of the world. This lack of understanding has its origin in the inadequacy of our recent provisions for the financial support of education.

3. The "oil for education" proposal is based upon the philosophy of some of the greatest of our early national leaders, and later Presidents.Examples are James Monroe, who urged usage of public land resources to diffuse knowledge, and Abraham Lincoln, who approved the Morrill Act. The present proposal is a challenge to the vision and statesmanship of Members of Congress.

4. It is recognized that dedication of Federal revenue to specific purposes generally might be poor budgetary practice. In the case of the "oil for education" proposal, however, the end justifies the means.-The resources of the Continental Shelf have been providentially made available to meet the grave need of public education for more financial support. Furthermore, there is ample precedent for earmarking Federal revenues from specific sources for specific purposes. A related instance is the arrangement whereby a percentage of the revenue from Federal grazing and mineral lands and national forests has been returned partly for the support of education in the States in which these lands lie. The outer Continental Shelf belongs to the whole Nation and revenues from it should be fairly allocated among all the States for educational purposes.

5. Education directly, greatly, and perhaps decisively influences our ability to defend ourselves as a nation.-During World War II men enough to constitute 40 divisions were disqualified because of physical and mental disabilities clearly associated with lack of education. We face a future world in which our children will be outnumbered 5 to 1 or perhaps even 10 to 1 in unfriendly countries. Our only hope for survival lies in our investment in education to maintain our superior organizational and productive capacity in all fields. Evidence that we are endangering this hope appears in such facts as: (1) that we are spending a larger percentage of our national income for liquor than for public education; and (2) that within the next year about 55,000 engineering graduates will be produced in the Soviet Union but only about 17,000 in the United States.

6. Our educational system today faces the greatest crisis in history.— Our schools are inadequate in number; they are suffering from progressive dilapidation. The school population is increasing at an overwhelming rate. Our underpaid teachers are leaving their profession by thousands in search of employment that will enable them to maintain themselves and their families in accordance with reasonable living standards. Many who remain in the profession are poorly qualified to teach. Because of the low prospective salaries, few people are in training to become teachers. About $20 billion is needed for school buildings. Millions of our children are losing forever their opportunity for proper education. Enactment of the "oil for education" proposal would be like installing an oil well on every campus.

(While various arguments in favor of the "oil for education" proposal have been developed at length in published sources, the argu

ment relating to the need for increased financial support for education has been particularly emphasized and detailed.)

UNFAVORABLE ARGUMENTS

An extensive search of published material relating to the "oil for education" proposal has revealed relatively little unfavorable comment. Arguments discovered in opposition to the proposition have dealt principally with the questions concerning the desirability of "earmarking" Federal funds, the alleged high administrative costs, the need for reduction of the national debt, and the philosophy of Federal aid to education. Following are some of the basic ideas of opposing arguments found in hearings, in the Congressional Record, and in periodical literature.

1. Dedication of Federal revenue to a particular purpose, as proposed, would be poor budgetary practice. Earmarking of funds, if widely extended, would take the control of expenditures out of the hands of Congress. Furthermore, it would make the expenditures for a given year for the specific purpose depend not on the need but on the revenues earmarked for that purpose. The earmarked revenues might fluctuate greatly from year to year, and sometimes the fluctuations might be in reverse to the fluctuations in the need. It would be much wiser to let the revenue from the outer Continental Shelf go into the General Treasury for appropriation by Congress after full examination of the need at the time of the appropriation request.

2. The revenues from the outer Continental Shelf should be devoted to reduction of the astronomical national debt.-There is not much prospect that Congress can ever reduce the tax burden resting on our people unless some way can be found to stop the increase of the national debt. In order to do this, Congress should reduce expenditures by the Federal Government and make provisions for retirement of the debt weighing so heavily on the Nation.

3. The amount of revenue which the Federal Government will obtain from the Continental Shelf has been greatly exaggerated. Taking into account the costs involved in allocating the royalties to the States, the administrative expenditures to carry out the "oil for education" proposal would be excessive. The costs would so substantially reduce the amount of funds available for educational assistance that in the long run the meritorious objectives of aiding and improving our school system would be defeated.

4. There is no advantage but there is a real danger in making the education of our children depend upon the exercise by the Federal Government of a method of financing that is wrong in principle. Let us keep our schools where they belong under the direction of local authority and not subject to remote control from Washington.

CHAPTER V. EDUCATIONAL VIEW OF UNIVERSAL MILITARY

TRAINING

A. NATURE OF THE QUESTION

For a number of years there has been almost continuous controversy in the United States over the issue of congressional establishment of a program of military or national defense training for all or practically all of the Nation's young men. The proposals have been designated by a succession of terms such as "universal military training," "national security training," and "a Reserve forces training program.”

The issue has been many-sided, and at times confused. With no attempt to deal with all aspects of the question, this report reviews the background and points out some of the important considerations from an educational viewpoint.

Some prominent proponents of a universal training program have referred to it as having a strictly military purpose. Other proponents, equally as prominent, have spoken of much more diffuse objectives, such as educational benefits other than military training, health improvement, and personality and character development of the Nation's youth. There has been a difference of opinion as to whether these benefits would be derived from the proposed militarytraining program or whether it would be a deterrent to the attainment of such goals.

During the House debate on the National Security Training Corps Act in February and March 1952, certain Members at various times denounced the proposed program as being neither universal nor military nor even a program primarily for training. Several Representatives also criticized the use of the term "National Security Training Corps."

The bill then under consideration proposed that the Department of Defense give training to practically the entire male population of the country within specified age limits, the trainees meanwhile continuing to be civilians.

On February 26, 1952, the primary purpose of UMT was expressed by the then chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services (Representative Carl Vinson) as follows:

In plain language, the objective and purpose of universal military training is to create a strong, virile, ready reserve of trained young men capable of rapid mobilization should war or a threat of war appear on the horizon.1

Other objectives of the UMT program were set forth in a prepared statement by Gen. J. Lawton Collins, Chief of Staff, United States Army, on January 18, 1952.2 The statement reads in part as follows:

I can assure you the young trainees will receive sound moral guidance * * They will have the benefit of our thorough character-guidance program.

1 Congressional Record, Feb. 26, 1952, p. 1452.

*

2 82d Congress. House Committee on Armed Services, hearings on universal military training, Jan. 15-31, 1952, p. 2431.