Page images
PDF
EPUB

The present offensive for Federal aid to and control of the Nation's educational facilities is the heaviest ever mounted and it must be met with a courageously sound proposal incorporating the principles of individual freedom and personal responsibility.

I am fully aware that a growing student enrollment has made it difficult for some localities completely to overcome classroom shortages despite the expenditure of considerable amounts of money and effort. I am also conscious of the fact that teachers' salaries have lagged behind those of other professions and vocations, causing some qualified instructors to resign from teaching to enter more highly paid occupations, and making it difficult to attract qualified replacements.

However, recently published school statistics dealing with pupil population, enrollment, teachers, and public school expenditures are most revealing. Between 1950 and 1960, public school enrollment increased by 44.4 percent; during the same period, the number of teachers in elementary and secondary schools increased by 51.9 percent, thus reducing the pupil-teacher ratio to 26.4 to 1, as compared to 27.8 to 1 in 1950. But while pupil enrollment and the number of teachers were increasing in these ratios, total expenditures for public elementary and secondary schools increased by more than 150 percent.

It is quite obvious from these figures that the States and local communities have been making enormous, and effective, efforts to meet their school needs. Wherever the problem of need for additional classrooms has not been solved, it has not been due to any reluctance on the part of the local community or the State to find and expend the necessary funds.

In view of the willingness of the State and local communities to keep pace with growing educational needs, the Congress should reject the wasteful and undemocratic measures to appropriate for school aid billions of Federal dollars extracted from the States only to be partially funneled back to them again with strict limitations on the use to which these funds may be put.

I believe the alleged evil plight of our schools has been grossly exaggerated and that the magnificent efforts of our States and local governments to find the money to meet school needs has been largely and purposely ignored.

These efforts represented the quiet response of millions of "forgotten Americans" to the educational problems arising in their communities. The job was done without fanfare by the people who meet their responsibilities on a dayto-day basis. It was not a result of prodding by nationwide pressure groups, and I believe it stands today as a monument to the efforts of a free people, working with initiative and enterprise in their own communities, to meet the problems of those communities as they arose. This is where the big job of meeting the Nation's educational problems has been accomplished up to now, and this is where the job, rightfully, should be finished.

I say "rightfully" because it is the morally correct place and it is the constitutional place. There can be no question but that Federal intervention in our educational system through aid programs is unconstitutional. It is the fashion these days to say that responsibility for education "traditionally" rests with the local community-as a prelude to proposing an exception to the tradition in the form of Federal aid. This "tradition," let us remember, is also the law. Education is one of the powers reserved to the States by the 10th amendment to the Constitution. Therefore, any Federal aid program, however desirable it might appear, must be regarded as illegal until the Constitution is amended.

I feel the role of the Federal Government with respect to education must be directed toward helping our people to help themselves where the need existsand without the direct intervention of the Federal Government. That role, as decided by Congress, must recognize first and foremost the danger of centralized control over the vitally important area of life encompassed by the education of our children. Then, it must take account of the actual need that exists for expanding and augmenting the facilities that we now have for meeting the Nation's educational needs. Finally, it should use the power of the Federal Government to place at the disposal of the people and the States and local government the means to handle the needs that may exist or arise.

To translate this role for the Federal Government in education, I have introduced in this session of the Congress an education program that I believe will answer all the requirements for improving our schools in constitutional

manner.

My proposal would provide the means for solving additional school problems, if they really exist, but it would leave the determination of this highly debatable

question where it properly belongs-with the States and local communities and not with the Federal Government. The basic problem, if there is one, is financial. If State and local governments in some parts of the country are unable to keep pace with their school needs it is because the Federal taxing powers have preempted State and local sources of revenue. Hence, the proper approach is to compel the Federal Government to restore to the States and localities at least a portion of the tax resources it has taken away. This is precisely what my measure would do.

The proposal is a simple one. Every homeowner, every owner of real estate in the United States pays a real property tax to his local community government. In most cases, a substantial part of this tax is used to meet the primary and secondary school needs of the community, whether for new construction, maintenance, teachers' salaries, or other past or current school costs. I would merely provide that every taxpayer who pays a school tax on his real property or as a part of his real estate tax, shall after having calculated the amount of the Federal income tax which he must pay Uncle Sam, be permitted to subtract the full amount of such school property tax, or such proportion of it as will result in a total additional tax benefit to these taxpayers of between $3 and $4 billion. Under existing Federal income tax law, State and local school taxes are deductible from gross income but the amount actually saved by the taxpayer depends on his Federal income tax bracket. Thus, for example, a taxpayer who has paid $200 in school taxes as part of the local real property on his home, and is in the 20-percent Federal income tax bracket, realizes a saving of $40. My proposal would retain this present practice but, in addition, would permit him to take a $100 credit against what he owed Uncle Sam, that is, against his net Federal income tax. Consequently, instead of a saving of $40, the homeowner under my proposal would save $140 of the $200 he paid in school taxes on his home. Of course, if the taxpayer's school tax were less than $100, he would be permitted to save, altogether, no more than the actual amount of his school tax. This tax credit would be available to real property school taxpayers whether they itemize their Federal income tax returns or take the standard deduction. Now let me list the advantages of this approach as follows:

The tax benefits provided would go directly to approximately 40 million taxpayers, including about 34 million homeowners who with their families constitute about 90 percent of our population.

With the Federal Government completely excluded from the program, there would be no danger of Federal control over education. Depending on State law, each community itself, or the State, would be the final judge of how much more it would spend on its educational needs.

The funds made available to the taxpayers are greater than the sums contemplated under any of the Federal aid to education measures now receiving serious consideration; greater even than the sums recently recommended by President Kennedy's Task Force on Education headed by President Hovde of Purdue University.

Because of the complete exclusion of the Federal Government, there would be no expanded bureaucracy, no Federal administrative costs, and every dollar of tax money thus made available would purchase a full dollar's worth of school aid if the community decided to expand its expenditures for education.

Inasmuch as the tax resources of every State and locality would be substantially increased under this proposal, each would have ample funds to provide for its own school needs as it chooses, for none know better what these needs are than the citizens of the States and localities themselves.

The so-called richer States would not be required to help finance the school needs of the allegedly poorer States, for under my proposal every State would have sufficient funds to meet its school needs out of its own resources. Rich State A would not be required to pay to the Federal Government in taxes twice or three times as much as it gets back in Federal school aid while poor State B was receiving back in Federal aid two or three times the amount of tax money it paid as its share of financing the Federal school aid program.

Under any of the proposed Federal aid measures, those States which have fully met their school needs and would not, if given a free choice, expand their school facilities during the next few years, would nevertheless be compelled to pay their share in Federal taxes to finance the program. The only way these States could recover any of the money thus extracted from them under these various programs would be to accept the Federal grants and use them to expand their school facilities. The result would be the highly uneconomic

and wasteful extension of school facilities in many areas where such extension is unnecessary and where other more urgent needs exist and must perforce remain unsatisfied. Under my proposal, the use made of their money is not dictated to the taxpayers by Washington; it is determined by the taxpayers themselves, i.e., by the parent, the citizen, the local school board, and the community.

Any objection to my proposal based on the assertion that it would bite into the Federal Treasury is equally applicable to any of the other measures presently under consideration. I believe that mine would lead to a good look at the Federal budget and the discovery of many items of less importance, or of no importance, that could be readily eliminated with no ill effects for the public welfare.

If unemployment does not decrease and business continues to falter because of the lack of confidence engendered by spendthrift promises of the Democratic platform, my proposal will provide the necessary tax relief which some of the proponents of expanded Federal aid programs assert to be necessary to stimu. late the economy.

The preemption of State and local tax resources by the Federal Government would be diminished and, thus, an important step would be taken in contracting big central government and strengthening State and local government.

Senator MORSE. I shall at this point insert in the record a column by Ralph McGill of the Washington Evening Star of August 9, 1961, entitled "Soviet's New Schools Program, 20-Year Plan To Serve Communist Aims Expected To Be Little Read in United States."

I am going to read three short paragraphs into the record, in addition to inserting the entire column, because I think they are particularly apropos to the hearing today. They are as follows:

There is today a justified concern with Communist advances. But we are fools indeed if we blind ourselves to the fact that the most successful weapon the Soviets have is a system of education which, while slanted toward their needs, nonetheless gives to every child a chance at education.

Does this country have any less responsibility to educate all its children; to find the most able to serve us?

Mr. Khrushchev and his successors will have reason to be grateful to those who sabotage and delay Federal aid. In a time when we are seeking to ferret out the enemies of freedom, let us not overlook some of the more obvious and blatant ones.

(The article by Ralph McGill follows:)

[From the Washington Evening Star of Aug. 9, 1961]

SOVIET'S NEW SCHOOLS PROGRAM-20-YEAR PLAN TO SERVE COMMUNIST AIMS EXPECTED TO BE LITTLE READ IN UNITED STATES

(By Ralph McGill)

Under section 5 of his massive manifesto, Mr. Khrushchev devotes a very considerable space to education. It is too bad that this cannot be read by State legislatures and by the politically provincial-minded Members of the Congress. We, the people of this country, will ignore the new Communist manifesto to our peril. Yet, it is quite likely the document will be less read here than anywhere else. That it will have a profound effect in those countries rather glibly described as underdeveloped or emerging, is unquestioned. It is a program tailor made to appeal to a country confronted with the desperate need to overcome illiteracy, poverty, and to find a lever with which to move mass inertia. The Communist peoples are informed by Mr. Khrushchev that technology and science will be an increasing part of the future. Therefore, under subhead "A" of his manifesto, we read:

"In the next decade compulsory secondary, general, and polytechnical 11-year education is to be introduced for ALL [capitals mine] children of school age.

"Secondary education must furnish a solid knowledge of the fundamentals of the basic sciences, an understanding of the principles of the Communist world outlook, and labor and polytechnical training in accordance with the rising level

of science and engineering, with due regard to the needs of society and the abilities and inclinations of the students.

"In view of the rapid progress of science and engineering, the system of industrial and vocational training should be improved continuously, so that the production skills of those engaged in production may go hand in hand with their better general education in the social and natural sciences and with acquisition of specialized knowledge of engineering, agronomy, of medicine and other fields. ***

"***There must be a considerable expansion of the network of evening schools which provide a secondary education in off-work hours. ***”

This is the gist of the Soviet school plan. It is, of men and women who will best serve Communist objectives. There is no concealment of this fact. candidly stated.

It is

What about our system? Will we not also have an industrial future? The key word in the Soviet's plan is "all." All children will be required to take secondary education. Those whose talents and abilities reveal the superior performer will go on to the various institutes (colleges) to become doctors, scientists, engineers, teachers, artists, et cetera. Others will be sent to the polytechnic schools to develop superior skills to enable them to copy with the new techniques of production, and with those yet to come.

One of the most serious problems of the Kennedy administration is to develop a program to care for the millions of unemployed who are the victims of neglect in the past decade or so. Perhaps 50 percent of our jobless are lacking in skills required for today's jobs. Many are not well educated enough to take training. Yet, we have a Congress which has defeated Federal aid to education. We have men, themselves cogs in local situations, many of which are corrupt, who oppose Federal aid on the false and hypocritical premise that it will weaken local government.

There are States in the Nation (and not all are in the South) which, for two generations and more, have given their children second-rate education. The Southern States, which spend the least per pupil and pay teachers less, continue to try and maintain two generally inferior segregated systems instead of taking what money they have and building the best possible one to meet the needs of their children.

There is today a justified concern with Communist advances. But we are fools indeed if we blind ourselves to the fact that the most successful weapon the Soviets have is a system of education which, while slanted toward their needs, nonetheless gives to every child a chance at education.

Does this country have any less responsibility to educate all its children; to find the most able to serve us?

Mr. Khrushchev and his successors will have reason to be grateful to those who sabotage and delay Federal aid. In a time when we are seeking to ferret out the enemies of freedom, let us not overlook some of the more obvious and blatant ones.

Senator MORSE. As to the procedure of the hearings themselves, the chairman wishes to announce that he is a strong supporter of public hearings on important pieces of legislation, and that he intends to provide a reasonable opportunity for such hearings on this bill.

He wants the record to show that we are late in the session. The chairman has sought now for quite some time to get hearings on these higher education bills, but early sessions of the Senate have made it impossible to hold hearings, solely, and only, because there are those in the Senate who have insisted upon applying the rule of the Senate that no committee hearing can be held unless there is unanimous consent given.

Senator CLARK. Will the Senator yield?

Senator MORSE. The Senator yields.

Senator CLARK. I think the record should show that that insistence has largely been confined to this committee, and that our colleagues, who refuse to permit this committee to meet, nonetheless are quite willing to have other committees of the Senate meet at the same time.

Senator MORSE. This is the point the chairman wanted to make. He wants to emphasize, and he is glad to have it emphasized by the Senator from Pennsylvania, that so far as this chairman's knowledge is concerned, this is the only committee which, for quite some time in the past now, the rule of the Senate has been regularly applied. The rule of the Senate has been applied by Republicans and not Democrats. Let us put the record straight. The fact that there have not been hearings on higher education by this subcommittee, prior to this time, is because there have been Republican objections to hearings while the Senate has been in session.

I want always to keep the record of any hearing I preside over completely factually straight. That is the record to date.

In view of the fact that we have been unable to hold hearings until now, the Chair announces that hearings will be held, that they are going to be expeditious hearings. They necessarily are going to have to be shorter than they otherwise would have been. I do not intend to have an opportunity for the Senate to pass on higher education legislation defeated this session by a time element.

There is sufficient time, and we can make a record. We will make a record which will be an adequate and reasonable one, but will not be one of prolonged hearings.

The Chair announces now that he is going to apply, except for the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and senatorial witnesses, rigidly a 10-minute limitation on the statement-in-chief of any witness before this subcommittee.

He will provide an opportunity for any witness before this subcommittee to file a longer statement. It is also true that a member of this subcommitte will continue to have the right to examine a witness at whatever length the member of the subcommittee may wish.

The Chair, however, files at the very beginning of this hearing his fervent hope and plea that members of the subcommittee will confine themselves to brief examination of these witnesses.

Why does the chairman so rule? There is not a man on this committee who does not know this case pretty well. We will be helped by the supplementary information that this record will provide. But I will be very much surprised if any of us will find our knowledge on this subject matter greatly enhanced by these hearings. I am, however, always willing to learn.

I am going to apply the rule of 10 minutes to witnesses. I am going to conduct, unless reversed by a majority of my colleagues, and I do not expect a reversal, hearings for a few days and then I am going to close the public hearings.

The record will be kept open for 4 days for the filing of rebuttal statements. It will then be closed. I hope to have a higher education bill on the calendar of the Senate the week after next, at the latestearlier, if I can.

With that announcement of procedure, I now welcome Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Ribicoff to this subcommittee and say for the record, as many on this committee have heard me say in executive conferences in recent weeks, that I do not know of anyone in the whole country who has been a more dedicated public servant so far as education legislation is concerned in this session of Congress than Secretary Ribicoff.

« PreviousContinue »