It is the intention of the act to require States to continue to expend from State and local tax sources only so much as is necessary when added to the Federal allotments to attain the specified minimum or national floors. Anv States which have been spending from State and local revenue sources an amount or amounts per pupil in average daily attendance in every local school administrative unit greater than those specified in section 103 may, if they choose, use part or all of the Federal grant either to relieve State and local educational tax burdens or to improve still further their educational programs.

PURPOSE OF TITLE II

Title II has for its purpose assistance to nonpublic tax-exempt schools of secondary grade or less by reimbursing them for not to exceed 60 percent of their actual annual expenses incurred in providing (a) necessary transportation of pupils, (b) school health examinations and related school health services, and (c) purchase of nonreligious instructional supplies and equipment, including books. The case for some financial aid from the National Treasury to nonpublic taxexempt schools has been ably stated in the separate statement of views by myself, Senators Murray, Walsh, and Morse accompanying Senate Report 1497 on S. 181, Seventy-ninth Congress, second session, from which I quote:

"In spite of evidence to the contrary, some people sincerely fear that Federal aid to church-controlled schools would bring about the union of church and state. We have considered this problem very carefully and we have concluded that such a fear is groundless. If it were not, we would be the first to oppose such aid. Another tenet of our democratic belief which we hold to be just as sacred and important as the separation of church and state is that of freedom of religion. Such freedom should not be limited by imposing, in effect, certain penalties on those who faithfully carry out the practice and teachings of their religion. In this connection, also, we must recognize that the Government does not wish to supplant the duty of parents in the instruction and training of their children, but merely wishes to supplement and facilitate it."

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 non-public, tax-exempt schools of noncollegiate grade for an important part of their expense of operation, namely the provision of necessarily pupil transportation services, school-health examinations and related school-health services, the purchase of nonreligious instructional supplies and equipment, including books, to be provided to pupils attending such schools. Such aid from tax sources would encourage the establishment of privately controlled schools of secondary grade or less. Some encouragement to such schools has long been given by existing legal provisions for tax exemption. The provisions of title II carry encouragement one step further by relieving somewhat the competitive disadvantage under which the nonpublic tax-exempt schools at present operate

AMOUNT AUTHORIZED AND BASIS OF ESTIMATE (TITLE II)

On the basis of an estimated 1944 average daily attendance of 2,203,121 pupils in nonpublic tax-exempt elementary and secondary schools the amount annually authorized for appropriation by section 201, i. e., $60,000,000, amounts to approximately $20,000,000 more than the 60 percent of an estimated $30 per pupil in average daily attendance, i. e., $10 for pupil transportation; $5 for health examinations and related school health services; $15 for nonreligious instructional supplies and equipment, including books. The amount of the appropriation authorized should be sufficient, therefore, to provide for reimbursement of expenditures for increased enrollments up to a total of approximately 3,333,333 pupils in nonpublic tax-exempt elementary and secondary schools.

AVAILABILITY OF APPROPRIATIONS (TITLE II)

To qualify to receive Federal-aid funds nonpublic tax-exempt schools or school systems must submit either to the State educational authority or to the United States Commissioner of Education an application for reimbursement together with a report of their average daily attendance and of their expenditures for the aided purposes for which reimbursement is claimed. They must also agree to permit a State or Federal inspection or audit of their accounts of such expenditures.

The purpose of these conditions is simply to safeguard the expenditure of the Federal funds for the purposes specified. No direct or indirect controls of the operations of the schools receiving reimbursement is made possible.

STATEMENT OF HON. PAT MCCARRAN TO ACCOMPANY S. 170

Mr. Chairman, I wish to emphasize that my thought in the matter in increasing teachers' salaries has been to provide a bill as simple as possible so as to negative many controversial points.

My bill, S. 170, contains really seven sections.

Section 1 authorizes the appropriation. Section 2 sets forth a simple formula for the computation of the amounts to be paid to teachers. Section 3 provides for the administration of the fund. Section 4 provides an elasticity for meeting various State systems, and section 5 limits the Federal control of this money so as to guarantee the greatest State freedom in its educational policies. Section 6 provides the method of qualifying by which a State may receive the funds. Section 7 contains definitions, and there is a section 8 which provides for the citation of the act.

I am of the opinion that under this method the greatest good can be achieved with the least expense, administratively, and also that such a method will provide an expeditious vehicle for meeting the present problem.

Returning a moment to section 2, let us analyze this section and see exactly what the provisions are.

The bill provides for payment to a State, who in turn will pay to its teachers a sum equal to $25 for each $100 or fraction thereof paid by the State on the first $1,000 of salary, and $15 for each $100 or fraction thereof, for the next $1,000 of salary, and $10 for each $100 or fraction on the next $1,000, and finally, $5 for each $100 or fraction thereof, on the next $1,000. It will be seen that this increase provision applies only to the first $4,000 of salary received by a teacher. The application of this section, generally, will provide an increase of 25 percent to teachers whose salary is approximately $1,000 per year. It will provide 20-percent average increase to teachers receiving approximately $2,000, or if a teacher receives $3,000, his or her increase will be approximately 16% percent, and finally, the teacher paid $4,000 will receive an increase amounting to approximately 12 percent, making this an average of approximately 18 percent increase to all teachers.

Although quite possibly they are entitled to even more attractive salaries, with such increases as the States may grant, I believe that the percentage increase, authorized by S. 170, will provide the necessary stimulus to the salary of this profession, and thereby it will again begin to attract qualified personnel.

You will note the complete simplicity of this solution to the tremendous problem which faces anyone who would solve the dilemma of bringing our educational system up to where it must be. I believe S. 170 accomplishes this in a manner which is direct and simple, and which will avoid the many controversial features now embodied in most of the pending legislation. Eventually a more complex piece of legislation undoubtedly will be passed in order to meet all of the problems and provide a completely adequate system of Federal assistance to education. In the meantime, however, it is my firm belief that S. 170 can give immediate relief and immediate encouragement to the school teachers of this country. Much has been said and more could be said.

A brief resumé of the history of this country indicates the important part that this profession has played in the development of this great Nation. It is true that never has the teaching profession been looked upon as one wherein a person could amass a fortune. In return for the speculative gains of this profession there has been, however, a certain amount of security afforded to the school teachers which was lacking in many other trades and professions. It seems to me that our economic system has reached a point wherein this security that used to balance, If I may say so, the scales in favor of a teaching profession, has passed, and no longer can the security of a teacher's job out-weight the economic necessities of life.

In an effort to meet the problem of this profession, I have introduced this bill which provides, I think, a simple method of increasing the salaries. It is recognized that this will not achieve uniformity and that the salaries in some States will still carry considerable differentials from those in other States. However, it must not be forgotten that cost-of-living indexes vary somewhat in the same manner as the salaries of the teachers in the various States. I am informed that a study on the cost of living has been made recently by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and when this report is released, it will establish definitely that there is a great difference in the cost of living in the various sections of our great country. I do not undertake to know the reason why. I merely recognize this as a fact, and I drafted my bill S. 170 to provide what I feel is a sensible method of increasing salaries.

I realize that the sums necessary to accomplish this will be quite large. However, when considered in relation to the enormous amount that we have just expended in the greatest war in history, all you might say, for destruction, it does seem to me that we can afford to invest at least this amount in construction.

We all recognize the ideological conflict which is at present gripping the world. If we are to be victorious in our fight to survive as a democratic country, we must see that the teachers in this country are enlightened and aware of the great benefits that our democratic system brings to the world. I am informed that communism flourishes the greatest in ignorance and poverty. We cannot afford to have in our school systems, teachers who are so low in our economic scale of living that they might become subject to the ideologies of communism. One teacher infiltrated with this doctrine will cause more damage to our system, through the influence that he or she exerts upon the growing minds of the children, than millions of dollars spent in propaganda campaigns.

I feel that the future of this country is so dependent upon the citizens of tomorrow, who we all recognize are the children of today, that we must exert every effort to see that this coming generation, as well as the generations to follow, are in the hands of capable teachers who not only teach democracy but are themselves convinced that democracy is the best form of government in the world.

It must be remembered that a school teacher is not made overnight, that even with the minimum qualifications in today's enlightened program, a teacher must spend several years of graduate study in order to be a good teacher. Yet, when we consider that the national average pay for teachers now stands at close to $2,000, it does not follow that a person will devõte years of study and hundreds of dollars to secure an education, in order to receive a salary such as this. If we but look around we find in most every walk of life, that the remuneration received for honest labor far exceeds that paid to the teachers. The teaching profession cannot hope to continue to draw the best qualified, even the naturally qualified, unless it is able to offer at least a fair wage scale.

The rate at which the teachers have been vanishing from the profession in the past 5 or 6 years, is indicative of the seriousness of this problem. I am informed that approximately 110,000 persons are teaching with emergency certificates, which merely means that they are not qualified to teach. Are we satisfied to leave the development of our youth in the hands of people who, not being qualified for the job, are not in a position to recognize the many perils that are being placed in the foot-path of the youth of today?

I have been much disturbed over the recent strikes by school teachers. Although presumably they have this right, it does not seem to indicate a nation, or a country, of the highest degree of law and order, when the school teachers who represent a segment of our population, which, during the entire history thereof, has been considered a conservative, stable group, seem to consider this is their only resort. It is indicative of the dynamite in this problem, when teacher groups are forced to strike, for their action affects not only the Government but is reflected in the lives of the children whom they teach.

If I may return a moment to the bill S. 170, I believe that the provisions of this bill are the least controversial that may be included and still effect the end desired. The bill does provide for increasing salaries. It does it in a manner in which every school teacher can determine the exact amount he or she is entitled to, and would thereby relieve in a great measure, the administrative cost of auditing such payments. In other words, it would be practically self-policing. The funds that are authorized for appropriation by the bill are of course estimates based upon the best information I could obtain with regard to the approximate cost. The cost may be considerably less-and I feel that it will.

In conclusion, let me repeat that this bill is not offered as a perfect solution for the many problems related to educational needs. It is, I hope, a simple means whereby we may immediately inject into the teaching profession some stimulus that will help to carry this great profession over a period of dire distress.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT A. TAFT TO ACCOMPANY S. 472

IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION

It is unnecessary to dwell on the importance of education to the United States and to the Federal Government. It lies at the very basis of all intelligent selfgovernment. This Nation was founded "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Liberty and equal justice under aw must be

continuously secured if we are to carry out the purposes of the formation of this Republic; but neither liberty nor justice can be secured without a widely diffused education. We cannot preserve the Republic at all unless the people are taught to read and to think so that they may understand its basic principles and the application of such principles to current problems. No man can be free if he does not understand the opportunities which lie before him. No man can have equality of opportunity if he has not the knowledge to understand how to use the rights which are conferred upon him.

Furthermore, education is essential to economic welfare. The principal concern of the people today is apparently to increase the standard of living and the material welfare of our citizens. I believe this goal is being pursued too much to the exclusion of other values, but certainly it dominates our national thinking. Any general economic welfare is impossible without education. Unless men understand to some extent the principles of increased productivity, prosperity can be quickly destroyed. Unless men know what other men have achieved and are educated to a desire for the same improvements, history shows that they remain in perpetual poverty. I have always felt that the misery which depresses the mass of people in India and in China, for instance, is due to the lack of education and understanding of the higher standards which are possible.

Furthermore, education is the only defense of liberty against totalitarianism. It may be that intelligent people will be occasionally misled to vest complete power in the state or in a single individual, but without education dictatorships inevitably arise. And by the same token, education may be a dangerous tool in the hands of an all-powerful state. We have seen how Hitler used educaton to change the whole philosophy of German youth until they came to believe in the doctrine of a superior race and totalitarian government. Such a government, in the end, could only have maintained itself by suppressing freedom of education.

EDUCATION PRIMARILY A COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY

Broadly speaking, this country has done a good job in education. It finally became fully committed to the principle of universal free schooling for every child in the United States. Its system was built up on the basis of the development and control of education by each community, so that the parents in each city, town, and county could determine the manner in which their children should be taught. Naturally, the character of education varied throughout the country and was of many different qualities and types. Experiments in method have been freely made and have failed or succeeded after a fair trial. Men differently taught have developed novel and clashing theories which have finally met in the forum of national debate to be passed upon by the entire people. This very variety has promoted a freedom of thought, and consequently a material progress, greater than that of any other country in the world.

This same localization of education has made it in some respects less effective. Some districts have done their job poorly. That is an inevitable incident to local administration, but we may well remember that when a Federal system develops faults, and it always does, those faults extend throughout the entire country on a universal scale. The adoption of a Federal system looks perfect on paper, but in practice it soon develops the inefficiencies of every huge bureaucracy, besides subjecting 25,000,000 children to the particular ideology of a small clique in control in Washington.

The faults of local administration in some districts cannot all be cured, because they are due to the very freedom to make mistakes which is essential to any freedom at all. But in many districts, the failure in education is due to causes which can well be remedied, and in particular if it is due to the poverty of the district or of the State in which it lies. While money is not the only requirement of a good school system, as so many of our writers on public-school education seem to think, it is certainly an essential one. There is a wide variation in the wealth of different States and districts. The income per capita ranges from $484 in Mississippi to $1,452 in Connecticut for the year 1943. The differences between districts in the same State are even wider.

The result is that children in some districts receive a poor education or no education at all. This has been clearly shown up by the illiteracy found in the selective service examinations. Rejection rates for educational deficiency averaged nearly 8 percent throughout the Nation as a whole with a much heavier rate in the poorer States. Even in the wealthier States there was a small percentage of rejections for this cause, possibly because of persons who had come from other States. In any event, we have failed to do a complete job of giving American children equal opportunity due, in part, to causes which I think can be corrected.

NEED FOR FEDERAL FINANCIAL AID

Without question, the primary obligation to educate children under our constitutional system falls on the States and local districts. But I believe very strongly that the Federal Government has a proper function in the field. We are a great and healthy Nation. I believe the people of this country feel that our productive ability is so great that we can prevent hardship and poverty and illiteracy in the United States. Perhaps no nation has ever done so, but the American people think it is possible for us to do it. The Federal Government is authorized to levy taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, and under that constitutional grant has the right to dispense money to the States and local districts for purposes not within the constitutional power of the United States to control or regulate.

Not only are some of the States poor, but States in general have a limited power of taxation. They cannot raise their taxes much above those of other States or their citizens and industries would drift into those other States. The Federal Government's powers of taxation are not unlimited, but we are raising some $35,000,000,000 today, compared to $10,000,000,000 for the States and local districts.

My own belief is that the Federal Government should assist those States desiring to put a floor under essential services in relief, in medical care, in housing, and in education. Apart from the general humanitarian interest in achieving this result, equality of opportunity lies at the basis of this Republic. No child can begin to have equality of opportunity unless he has medical care in his youth, adequate food, decent surroundings, and, above all, effective schooling. It is the concern of the entire Nation to see that the principles of the Declaration of Independence and of the Constitution are translated into reality.

I believe, therefore, that the Federal Government should undertake a system of extending financial aid to the States with the objective of enabling the States to provide a basic minimum education to every child, to the end that equal opportunity shall not be interfered with by the financial condition of the State or district of the child's residence.

EDUCATION SHOULD NOT BECOME SUBJECT TO FEDERAL CONTROL

Certain principles, however, seem to me clear.

The administration of education and control of the school system must be completely in the hands of the State and local administrators. I believe that every Federal aid proposal which has been made accepts this principle in theory. It is admitted that local self-government in education is essential to the preservation of liberty in a country the size of the United States.

The matter, however, is not quite so simple as declaring a principle. Our experience has shown that Federal aid to local activities, even though disowning an intention to regulate and control, may easily bring about such a control. If Federal aid depends upon the discretion of some Federal officer who has the power to withhold funds, human nature is such that he is apparently under a constant temptation to tell the recipients of the money how they must run their affairs. The threat is there, sometimes express and sometimes implied, that if the State Bureau does not comply with Federal suggestions, the money will not be forthcoming. We have seen an example of this in the control attempted to be exercised by the Children's Bureau during the war. Therefore, I believe that the standards should be clearly established in the law, and that the Federal Government should interest itself in only one question, whether the statutory standard is complied with and the money used only for the purposes of the act. If we can reduce the Federal interference to a matter of audit, we may hope to maintain local independence. Fortunately, the tradition of the Federal Office of Education has been one of noninterference, and the office up to this time has preferred to work through the State departments of education.

I have pointed out that Federal administrative officers are inclined to extend their jurisdiction and interference, but we must also restrain the inclination of Congress to do the same. In any appropriation bill, passed long after a Federalaid system is established, it is always possible for someone to offer an amendment providing that the funds appropriated shall not be used for some purpose which happens to be unpopular in Congress. Thus an amendment may require that no money shall be used for education which teaches socialism, for instance. The purpose may be a very praiseworthy one, but the moment Congress imposes that kind of a condition, it may soon impose others and we are embarked on a course likely to lead to complete Federal control.