STATEMENT OF JOHN C. LYNN, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU, ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN C. DATT, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR

Mr. LYNN. I have with me, sir, Mr. John C. Datt, assistant legislative director, whom I would like to assist me.

Mr. Chairman, with your permission I, too, would like to file this statement for the record and make a few brief comments, and will be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Mr. ELLIOTT. You may proceed, Mr. Lynn.

Mr. LYNN. On the first page we have outlined, sir, or quoted from our current policies of the American Farm Bureau Federation having to do with general education.

The highlights of this policy are simply that we recognize that there is a need for improving our schools, both at the local and at the State and county and college level.

Our 2,600 county farm bureaus throughout the United States are taking some leadership in this endeavor to improve our school. Under these policies we cannot support the legislation that has been introduced to provide Federal aid through the various methods that have been proposed in these bills.

We feel, as I said before, that there is a need, but we believe the local people the States and counties and local communities-can take care of this need.

We have a great fear that if the Federal Government becomes too much involved in this particular field that, like so many other programs, it will tend to take the initiative out of our local people.

Certainly we in agriculture have seen Government intervention, perhaps in our particular field to a greater extent than any other major segment of the population, and we recognize how easy it is through a very simple program to become so greatly involved with continued expanded programs that are initiated by the Federal Government.

Certainly we feel this in agriculture, and we believe there is some danger of this if we depend upon the Federal Government for our general education program and admittedly these proposals that are before you are different in approach than the previous measures.

Throughout this statement, and I am sure the information that we have presented here is not new to this committee, we have attempted to show that our educational program, both at the local and at the higher education level, is making tremendous progress.

I am sure you are very familiar with those facts.

Some have used as a reason for Federal Government intervention in this field the Russian system. This we will not buy at all. We are sure that our educational system is equal and far exceeds and excels anything that Russia might have.

Certainly we have demonstrated in the last few months that we can launch a satellite if we are willing to put forth the effort.

In being opposed to the bills that are before this subcommittee providing for scholarships and so forth, this does not mean that we can rest on our oars. We must go forward in all of our local farm bureaus with the continued interest to improve not only the teaching but the curriculums and so forth, the facilities, of all of our schools.

There is a continued increase in the people who are taking the science courses, based on our best information, at our colleges. There is a tremendous decrease in the number of people who are taking agriculture in the last 2 or 3 years.

We can very well understand this trend.

Mr. Chairman, may I just conclude by saying that we recognize the need for continued improvement in higher education. We believe this can best be done at the State, county, and local level, and we continue to pledge ourselves to work for the improvement of our schools.

Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. ELLIOTT. I recognize the lady from Oregon, Mrs. Green.

Mrs. GREEN. I notice you said Federal intervention. Many of us would rather say Federal assistance. I think there is a great difference.

I think of the letters that I have received only this week from the farm bureau in my own State of Oregon, urging me to do everything possible to have a research department out in the Northwest, this would be financed with Federal funds.

If my memory serves me correctly, when the fire ant hit the State of Alabama, you were in favor of the Federal Government moving in?

Mr. LYNN. Assisting; yes, ma'am.

Mrs. GREEN. But there is a difference, in your opinion, between the Federal Government assisting in a program such as that and assisting in the problems of little two-legged animals, boys and girls that might need some assistance in the schools?

Mr. LYNN. Well, there certainly is a difference. We think the most important assets we have are the little two-legged animals you speak about; but there is a distinct difference in trying to put down the Florida fruitfly and the imported fire ant in Alabama and the intervention of the Federal Government in financing our school program.

Mrs. GREEN. Why do you call it intervention?

Mr. LYNN. It is intervention to this extent: We are now doing it at the State, county, and local level except in the Federal impacted areas, and we support that program incidentally.

When the Federal Government moves in to give assistance or aid, it is intervention; in all the bills that we have seen there is certainly intervention.

Mrs. GREEN. That would be subject to debate, would it not, whether it is intervention or assistance?

Mr. LYNN. Yes.

Mrs. GREEN. But you think there is Federal responsibility when it comes to agricultural problems, but when it comes to educational problems there is no Federal responsibility?

Mr. LYNN. Certainly the Federal Government has some responsibility. It may be that the principal responsibility the Federal Government has is to do some of the things that have been done in calling to the attention of the American people the need for improving their education.

Mrs. GREEN. Why should it not be equally true that the Federal Government should only be required to call the fire ants to the attention of the American people? Why should not the Federal Govern

ment assistance only go to that extent there, that the Federal Government says that the fire ants have invaded this area and we call this to the attention of the American people, the people of this State should do something about it and we call it to the attention of the farmers in the Northwest that there is a need for a research plant or agency out here, and let it stop right there?

Mr. LYNN. Some of these pests that you refer to, the Florida fruitfly and imported fire ants, know no State boundaries and I think the Federal Government does have some responsibility in that.

I think if you will check I think you will find, for example, using the fire ant and the fruitfly, that the State of Florida, the counties of Florida, and State of Alabama, through their own legislatures perhaps did more financially in regard to these things than did the Federal Government.

Mrs. GREEN. You say there are not State boundaries so far as these things are concerned. Are you saying to this committee there is a State boundary, geographical lines as far as ignorance is concerned, or as far as education is concerned, or intellectual achievement, or scientific achievement?

Mr. LYNN. Certainly there is no State boundary, but up to now we have attempted to deal with our educational problems within the States except in the impacted areas.

We submit that we have done quite well, quite well in America in our educational program. Certainly there is need for improvement. Mr. ELLIOTT. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Lafore. Mr. LAFORE. I have no questions.

Mr. ELLIOTT. The gentleman from Montana.

Mr. METCALF. I have no questions.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Thank you very much, Mr. Lynn.

For the record, Mr. Lynn's entire statement will be made a part of the record at this point.

Mr. LYNN. Thank you, sir.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF JOHN C. LYNN, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, AND JOHN C. DATT, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION We appreciate the opportunity of presenting the views of the American Farm Bureau Federation on the various legislative proposals for expanded Federal aid to general education. The matter of education is of vital concern to each of the 1,587,812 farm families who are members of the Farm Bureau.

The 1958 policy of the American Farm Bureau Federation on general education, adopted by the voting delegates of the member State farm bureaus, is as follows:

"We are aware of the need to improve our system of public education and believe that this can be most effectively and adequately met through the utilization of State and local funds and resources.

"We need to develop a greater individual appreciation of the problems of education, including the responsibility of parents for student guidance and selectivity of courses, and greater emphasis on high scholastic attainment.

"An imperative need of our public schools is the establishment of curricula which help students to acquire a true concept of the basic principles and philosophy of the American system of self-government and the competitive enterprise system. We should continue to reappraise the curricula of our public educational system at all levels to see that they meet our present and future educational needs.

"We urge State and county farm bureaus to establish committees to study educational problems.

"We maintain that the control, administration, and financing of our public school system must remain identified with the smallest unit of government capable of satisfactory performance.

"We oppose expanded Federal aid to education. Adequate Federal assistance for school districts experiencing severe financial burdens resulting from Federal projects should be on a grant-in-aid basis. * * *"

The more than 2,600 county farm bureaus in 48 States are giving constant study to the educational programs of their local schools. We recognize the need for continually improving our educational system at all levels.

This policy statement reflects our concern and interest in improving our system of public education. We believe this can be most effectively and adequately done through the utilization of State and local funds and resources, and not through an expanded program of Federal aid to general education.

Our farm people are concerned about the present status of our public education system. With the rapid changes occurring in agriculture, the importance of a sound and adequate education program is of vital importance to them, as well as to those outside of agriculture. Our farmers today, as never before, require the best education possible if they are to be successful.

It is for this reason that our members, through their community, county, and State farm bureaus, are studying the needs of our public school system with a view to improving the curricula and facilities of our schools so that every American youngster may have an opportunity to obtain a good, well-balanced education.

The advent of the "sputnik age" has focused new attention on the status of our public school system. A number of people have cited many weaknesses and many cures. One of the cures advocated is a new and expanded program of Federal aid to general education. These schemes include many things but mainly are directed toward Federal grants, aids, and scholarships.

We do not believe "large sums of Federal funds" will meet our educational needs. There is no special magic in a Federal appropriated dollar.

Basically, we need to develop a greater individual appreciation of the problems of education. In recent years, we have neglected the teaching of some of the more basic fundamental subjects in our public schools. A new Federal aid program will not get at this problem. We believe that perhaps there is a need for a renewed emphasis on some of these basic fundamental subjects. Our people at the community, county, and State levels are better able to study and determine their educational needs and finance a program designed to meet the challenge of the "space age."

The American Farm Bureau supports Federal assistance to areas "experiencing severe financial burdens resulting from Federal projects." For purposes of the record, we would like to make clear that, in our opinion, this type of aid is far different in principle than any nationwide Federal assistance proposals currently under consideration. Arguments in support of aid to these overburdened areas do not question the ability of the area to make adequate provisions for their regular school needs. Neither do they deal with the rights and prerogatives of their doing so. The aid so provided is designed to cover only the added costs which Federal activity has actually imposed upon the area.

There are currently many legislative proposals for expanded Federal aid to general education before the Congress. As we understand it, the proposals under study by this subcommittee include the following general areas:

1. Federal grants-in-aid to the States to expand testing, guidance, and counseling programs.

2. Federal scholarships for colleges and university study. Suggestions range from 10,000 Federal scholarships a year for 4 years to 40,000 Federal scholarships a year for 6 years. Costs would vary depending on the amount per scholarship.

3. Federal grants-in-aid to be used in the teaching of science and mathematics. Funds could be used to help local schools employ additional qualified science and mathematics teachers, to provide laboratory equipment, and to increase the pay of qualified science and mathematics teachers.

4. Federal graduate level fellowships and direct Federal grants to graduate schools.

There are also many other proposals for expanded Federal aid to general education. We will not attempt to list all of them.

The American Farm Bureau Federation is opposed to expanded Federal aid to general education. We would like to cite our reasons for this attitude and

our belief that our existing educational problems can best be handled without the increased intervention of the Federal Government.

Is there a need for a program of Fderal scholarships, both at the undergraduate and graduate level? We do not believe there is.

Two of the main arguments that have been cited for the grandiose program of Federal scholarships are:

1. There exists today a shortage of trained professional personnel in science, engineering, and other critical fields. The way to overcome this shortage is by offering Federal scholarships as a means of getting young people to enter these fields.

2. Many of our young people drop out of school and do not seek a college education because of financial reasons. This is a tragic waste of talent and the stimulus to continue their education would be provided through Federal scholarships.

We do not believe either of these arguments provide a sound basis for the proposed expanded Federal aid to general education programs.

The spectacular increase in our college and university enrollment has justifiedly been called a revolution in American education.

A few figures may illustrate what has happened:

Resident college and university enrollment in the United States

1899-1900_.

1929-30

1957-58

237, 592 1, 100, 737 3, 450, 000

Source: 1899-1900 and 1929-30: U. S. Office of Education, Statistics of Higher Education, 1953-54, p. 7. 1957-58: U. S. Office of Education, release, Aug. 17, 1957. Enrollment in higher education has doubled almost four times since the turn of the century, while the population of the United States has slightly more than doubled.

The college-age group (18-21 years) increased 51 percent between 1900 and 1957 (5.9 to 8.9 million).

Enrollment in colleges, as shown above, increased 1,352 percent (multiplied 141⁄2 times).

A comparison between the years 1930 and 1957 may spotlight the dramatic change that has taken place:

The population of the United States increased (123.1 million to 171.2 million) 48 million, or 39 percent.

The college-age group (18-21 years) decreased (9.0 million to 8.9 million) 100,000, or 1 percent.

Enrollment in colleges and universities increased (1.1 million to 3.4 million) 2.3 million, or 214 percent.

In 1900 about 4 out of 100 young people went to college, in 1930 12 did; enrollment in 1957-58 equals 39 percent of the 18- to 21-year age group. Some of the college students are older than 21. It may be estimated that about one-third of our young people now enter college. Two-thirds of those entering continue until graduation.

For close to 20 years the proportion of our youth going to college or university has been increasing about 1 percent each year. If this rate of progress continues, more than half our young people will be going to college in the 1970's, and three-fourths by the end of the 20th century.

This is not likely to happen-unless the standards of higher education are lowered sufficiently to accommodate virtually everybody regardless of his ability. But the projection of this trend into the future illustrates the spectacular increase in the proportion of our young people going to college, which we have experienced over the past 50 years. This was accomplished under our traditional system of educational responsibility shared by individuals and State and local governments. Some believe that we need to increase our college enrollment because of the reported advances made by the Russians in higher education. But available statistics do not bear out that this is the case.

Here are data which the Office for Defense Management supplied to the President's Commission on Engineers and Scientists in January 1958: Populationwise the U. S. S. R. is 20 percent larger than the United States.

Enrollment in higher education: Fall 1957, United States 3,068,417; U. S. S. R. 1,980,000. (This includes correspondence students in U. S. S. R. but not in the United States.)