Discussing the historic memorial and remonstrance against religious assessments of Madison, who was also the author of the first amendment, Mr. Justice Rutledge said: "In no phase was he more unrelentingly absolute than in opposing State support or aid by taxation. Not even 'three pence' contribution was thus to be exacted from any citizen for such a purpose. Remonstrance, paragraph 3 * * * Madison and his coworkers made no exceptions or abridgements to the complete separation they created. Their objection was not to small tithes. It was to any tithes whatsoever. 'If it were lawful to impose a small tax for religion the admission would pave the way for oppressive levies.' Not the amount but 'the principle of assessment was wrong.' And the principle was as much to prevent the interference of law in religion' as to restrain religious intervention in political matters. * * * "In view of this history no further proof is needed that the amendment forbids any appropriation, large or small, from public funds, to aid or support any and all religious exercises.' Mr. Justice Jackson, in his separate dissenting opinion, stated very clearly and emphatically: * * * "I agree that this Court has left, and always should leave to each State, great latitude in deciding for itself, in the light of its own conditions, what shall be public purposes in its scheme of things. But it cannot make public business of religious worship or instruction, or of attendance at religious institutions of any character. There is no answer to the proposition more fully expounded by Mr. Justice Rutledge that the effect of the religious freedom amendment to our Constitution was to take every form of propogation of religion out of the realm of things which could directly or indirectly be made public business and thereby be supported in whole or in part at taxpayers' expense. That is a difference which the Constitution sets up between religion and almost every other subject matter of legislation, a difference which goes to the very root of religious freedom. * * * 11* * * Religious teaching cannot be a private affair when the State seeks to impose regulations which infringe on it indirectly, and a public affair when it comes to taxing citizens of one faith to aid another, or those of no faith at all. * * * If the State may aid these religious schools, it may therefore regulate them. Many groups have sought aid from tax funds only to find that it carried political controls with it.” Lest it be said that I have been relying solely upon the dissenting opinions of the Supreme Court, I turn now to the Court's majority opinion in the same case. The Court said: "The first amendment has erected a wall between church and State. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." The only reason why the Court, by a majority of one, upheld the expenditures in the New Jersey parochial school bus case was that there, in the Court's opinion: "The State contributes no money to the schools. It does not support them. Its legislation, as applied, does no more than provide a general program to help parents get their children, regardless of their religion, safely and expeditiously to and from accredited schools." [Italics supplied.] (It Whether the Court's majority or minority was correct in their respective views as to the effect of the public expenditures in that case is unimportant here. should be noted in passing, however, that the closeness of the division in the Court and the vigor of the dissenting opinions raise grave doubts as to whether the majority's view that it is constitutional for public funds to be used for the payment of transportation of children to and from parochial schools will stand. As Arthur Krock said, in the New York Times for February 11, 1947, in discussing this decision: "The vigor with which four Justices of the Supreme Court today dissented from the legal reasoning, historical interpretation and final conclusion of the other five in the New Jersey case concerning publicly paid transportation of children to Catholic parochial schools suggests that * * * this is only the beginning of a grave judicial controversy.") What is directly relevant to the bills under consideration is the agreement of all the members of the Supreme Court that public funds may not, under the First Amendment, be contributed to, or used for the support of, parochial schools. Yet that is precisely what title II of S. 199 proposes to do. Its sponsor, Senator Aiken, in explaining the bill, has said (Congressional Record, January 15, 1947): "The bill proposes frankly to face the public-private-church-school issue through a plan which would authorize the use of tax moneys collected by the Federal Government from all the Nation's citizens to reimburse nonpublic, tax-exempt schools of noncollegiate grades for an important part of their expense of operation * * * Such aid from tax sources would encourage the establishment of privately controlled schools of secondary grade or less." And section 6 (B) of S. 472 would permit the same unconstitutional use of Federal tax moneys, on a more limited scale, "In any State in which funds derived from State or local revenues are disbursed to nonpublic educational institutions * * * "" The theory has been advanced from time to time in support of public aid for parochial schools that the aid was given to the children rather than to the schools. That this theory is false has been clearly shown by Mr. Justice Rutledge in his dissenting opinion in the Everson case, supra, and by numerous courts that have passed upon the question. It is significant that the majority of the Court in the Everson case did not adopt this theory in justifying its decision. When this contention was advanced in New York to justify the action of a board of education in supplying, at public expense, nonreligious textbooks to parochial schools, it was stricken down by one of the highest courts in the State (Smith v. Donahue, 202 App. Div. 656, 195 N. Y. S. 715; 1922), which said: (* * * The defendants say that books and supplies * * * are furnished * * * to the children attending the schools, and not to the schools. Even though we accept the statute as meaning that the books and supplies are to be furnished to the pupils, and not to the school, we think the act plainly comes within the prohibition of the Constitution; if not directly in aid of parochial schools, it certainly is indirect aid." Similarly, when the New York State Legislature, during the war, appropriated moneys to the State war council for the "care of children whose parent or parents or other person or persons having care of such children and with whom they reside is or are engaged in war work," the question arose as to whether any part of these funds could be used for a child-care project operated in a denominational school. The State attorney general held (1943 Opinions (N. Y.) Atty. Gen. 118): "It is my opinion that the maintenance of a child-care project in a parochial, talmud torah or religious school building, even though outside school hours, would be in direct violation of section 4 of article XI of the New York State Constitution. This is true whether the program is conducted by religious school or parochial authorities, private social agencies or public authorities. "No public money may be used in aid or maintenance directly or indirectly of any religious instruction." In the Everson case, the payments were made not to parochial schools, but to the parents of pupils attending such schools. Yet even there the majority of the Court said that the State's action "approaches the verge" of its constitutional power. The provisions of title II of S. 199 and section 6 (B) of S. 472 exceed the constitutional power of Congress because they definitely provide for payments of public moneys to parochial schools. Your committee should, therefore, strike these provisions from the bills. In conclusion, I wish to urge upon you once more the great need for Federal aid to our public schools. Let us not be penny-wise and pound-foolish in gambling with the future. Federal expenditures now for education will pay dividends in the form of decreased appropriations in the future for combatting subversive activities, for penal institutions, for the curbing of juvenile delinquency and for various other social services. A failure of our public educational system would undermine the very foundations upon which our American system of government rests. We simply cannot afford to let that happen. Respectfully submitted. UNITED PARENTS ASSOCIATIONS OF NEW YORK CITY, INC., Senator AIKEN. The next witness is Mrs. Stanley G. Cook, representing the National Congress of Parents and Teachers. We will be glad to hear you this morning, Mrs. Cook. STATEMENT OF MRS. STANLEY G. COOK, LEGISLATION CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF PARENTS AND TEACHERS, INDIAN HEAD, MD. Mrs. Cook. Thank you, Mr. Chairman., I appreciate appearing here. I am a local member of the Parents and Teachers Association just 30 miles south of here at Indian Head, Md. Also, I have served as legislation chairman of the Maryland Congress of Parents and Teachers, as well as the National Congress of Parents and Teachers. It was because of this particular question of Federal aid to education that I first became interested in the parent-teacher movement, when I found from my personal experience that there were inequalities of education which I had never dreamed of in my younger days when I went to public school, and I became interested in the parent-teacher movement because it was through this that I thought I might work more for the benefit of opportunity, especially in the State of Maryland, to which I moved some 18 years ago. I found when I came to the State with a 5-year old boy that the educational opportunities there were not as good as I had received in my native State of Ohio some 30 years previous. So I became immediately interested in this problem, and I am very happy to represent an organization which for many years has believed in Federal aid to education. The National Congress of Parents and Teachers, an organization dedicated to the service of children and youth, has a membership of more than 4,000,000 men and women in 27,000 local associations in the 48 States, the District of Columbia, and Hawaii. Concern for the children of America is the basis for our every action, the wellspring from which our best efforts continue to pour forth. Truly the parent-teacher organization is vitally interested in children-their education, their health, and their need to become selfsupporting citizens of a great democracy. When these young people of ours take their places in the business, agricultural, industrial, and professional life of the Nation, we want them to be thoroughly prepared for their tasks. We want them to be law-abiding men and women of strong character and good morals whose contribution to civilization will be meaningful and inspiring. We want the security that comes from knowing we are rearing a generation of healthy, well-educated citizens. We realize, of course, that each individual cannot be endowed with extraordinary physical stamina or superior mental acuteness. However, we believe that each person-the weak, the strong, the slow, the brilliant must be given all the healthful advantages that medical science can provide and all the education he is capable of absorbing. Then each in his own way may not only find his rightful niche in a democratic society but may, in turn, help to make that society more democratic. Other nations, bidding for world leadership, are already working to broaden the bases of their educational structures. Great Britain has inaugurated an enlarged program for public education, which we understand will require 6 to 7 percent of its annual national income. At the same time it is said that Russia is planning to spend 17 to 20 percent of its national income on all phases of education. Senator AIKEN. That includes adult education. Mrs. Cook. I might say that our organization does not support the educational program which Russia is providing. In the United States less than 2 percent of the national income is spent on education. Is this not a puny investment for a great nation to make in its future? We parents and teachers of America praise these other countries for their efforts in this direction, for we realize full well that only through democratic education can true peace be achieved and maintained. However, in our desire to commend other nations for their foresight, let us not be shortsighted about our own country's need for improvement along the same lines. We must make sure that American children keep pace with all children the world over. Because we have had a high standard of living, because we have led the world in providing a free educational system, we have perhaps become a bit too smug and satisfied. Yet a glance at recent statistics on education reveals some appalling inequalities. We do not have nearly enough schools to educate adequately all those who want and are entitled to an education. Teachers by the hundreds of thousands have left the profession. Others with their backs to the wall, financially speaking, have resorted to strikes as their only means of maintaining standards to sustain their professional self-respect. We have surely come to a sorry pass when the men and women to whom we entrust the training of our future citizens virtually have to beg for a decent living wage. The time has come when we must realize that without Federal aid to public, tax-supported schools we never shall be able to solve our educational problems. It has been pointed out that 60 percent of all Americans today are living in States other than those in which they were educated. I think, Senator Aiken, you have fortunately called attention to that previously. Education thus became a national problem. The people of one region cannot afford to be indifferent to the needs of education in other localities. Statistics show that some States have twice as many children per 1,000 population as other States. And, unfortunately, these are not the wealthiest States. If some States were to spend all_ their normal revenue for education they still could not support their schools as well as the average school of the Nation is supported. Their children will never have equality of educational opportunities unless the Federal Government helps pay for the schools. Therefore, as a Nation-wide organization, we believe that it is necessary for the Federal Government to appropriate funds to supplement those funds raised by local and State governments to provide adequate educational opportunities for all children and youth. To that end, we have set up very definite policies with respect to Federal aid for education Our policies are as follows: 1. We believe that Federal funds should be appropriated for the purpose of equalizing educational opportunity among the several States, with provisions insuring (1) distribution according to need, such need to be determined on the basis of established facts, which shall serve as a foundation for a specific formula for apportionment; (2) maximum local and minimum Federal control; and (3) encouragement to the States to put forth their highest efforts to equalize educational opportunities within their own State boundaries. 2. We support the principle that any such funds appropriated by the Federal Government should go to public, tax-supported schools only. Senate bill 472 is an equalization bill appropriating Federal funds to States with distribution according to need, such need being determined on established facts. The bill also provides that the control of education be kept in States and local communities with a minimum of Federal control over the funds. Under special provisions in the bill, States are given encouragement to equalize educational opportunities and put forth their highest efforts. These special provisions are: A just and equitable distribution of Federal funds for minority races where separate public schools are maintained; the requirement that a State must spend 2.5 percent of its annual State income for public elementary and public secondary school education in order to receive the full amount of Federal aid; and a stipulation that the average monthly salaries paid to teachers from State and local funds be no less than the average monthly salaries paid as of February 1, 1947. Federal funds are to be distributed through the United States Office of Education to the State educational authority with definite specifications that there be maximum local control of education. All these provisions in S. 472 are in accordance with our policies. However, one principle upheld by our organization--namely, that Federal funds should go to public, tax-supported schools only-is violated in section 6 (B) of S. 472. This section reads: No provision of this act shall be construed to delimit a State in its definition of public education: Provided, That the funds paid to a State under this act shall be expended only by public agencies under public control, except that in any State in which funds derived from State or local revenues are disbursed to nonpublic educational institutions for expenditures for any purposes for which funds paid to such State under this act may be expended, funds so paid to such State may be disbursed to and expended by such institutions for such purposes. Our organization agrees that no State shall be delimited in its definition of public education, provided that funds paid under the act shall be expended by public agencies under public control. We interpret the first part of that section to mean that if any State has considered in its program of public education a kindergarten at a lower level, or junior college at a higher level, it may expend Federal funds for those purposes. However, the exception made in this act for some States which distribute State tax moneys to nonpublic educational institutions is clearly a violation of a principle for which the National Congress of Parents and Teachers stands. the Therefore we urgently request that the members of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare amend this bill by striking out the exception made in section 6 (B). With such an amendment, National Congress of Parents and Teachers will give Senate bill 472 its wholehearted support, and also to title I of the bill which you have sponsored. Senator AIKEN. If it appears necessary to retain section 6 (B) in order to get any bill through at all, what would the position of your organization be? Mrs. Cook. I think we probably would not support such a bill, because we believe that the public school system should be strengthened and maintained, and that all funds that are used for other purposes, other educational purposes public tax moneys used for those |