eral assistance for school construction and teachers' salaries. The matter of education is of vital concern to each of the 1,576,462 farm families who are members of the Farm Bureau.

The more than 2,600 county farm bureaus in our organization 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, and our members are actively working at this task. By serving on local school boards, making tax studies, taking leadership in needed school district consolidation, serving on county farm bureau local school study committees and in many other ways we have sought to improve our educational system.

The importance of education to farm families is reflected in the following 1959 policy of the American Farm Bureau Federation on public schools, adopted by the voting delegates of the member State farms bureaus:

As farmers and ranchers we have a vital interest in our public school system. We recognize the importance of constantly improving public education so that› it will more adequately meet our needs.

We need to develop greater individual appreciation of the problems of education, including the responsibility 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 appraise the curricula of our public educational system at all levels to see that they meet our present and future educational needs.

Farm Bureau opposes expanded Federal aid to education because it involves the increased control and eventual domination of our public school system by the Federal Government. Proper financing of, and increased interest on the part of individuals in the public school system at the local and State levels are necessary if we are to avoid an expanded program of Federal aid to education. The public must recognize its responsibility in this connection.

The American Farm Bureau Federation should assist and encourage State and county farm bureaus in a study of such problems as taxation in connection with school financing, school building needs, development of proper curricula, adequate teachers' salaries, including a merit system of pay, evaluation of subject matter in textbooks, and school district reorganization.

In order to encourage a careful study of the public school system as outlined in our policy and to develop action at State and local levels to insure the best possible education for our young people, the American Farm Bureau Federation is this year going to conduct two national farm bureau conference-workshops on education. The main purpose of these meetings will be to help and encourage our State and county farm bureaus to increase their participation and effectiveness in local school matters.

Each year we have attempted to analyze our activities in the development of a better system of public education. We have mentioned the national conference-workshops that will be held in 1959. These are the result of several meetings of leaders from State and county farm bureaus and their desire to take additional leadership in trying to solve our educational problems. The results, we are confident, will help us do a better job.

We have cited our concern and active interest in seeking ways of improving our system of public education because we believe this can most effectively and adequately be done through the utilization of State and local funds and resources. We do not believe it is neces

sary to launch out on a new program of Federal aid to general education.

In this respect we are in basic disagreement with the various legislative proposals before your subcommittee. Rather than a new program of Federal aid, we believe the States and local communities will continue to provide adequate schoolrooms and improvement in teachers' salaries.

On previous occasions we have outlined to this subcommittee and other congressional committees our opposition to various proposals for expanded Federal aid for school construction and teachers' salaries. In 1957 the farm bureau opposed the passage of H.R. 1 which would have provided Federal aid for school construction. A year ago we voiced our opposition to similar proposals. We have in the past cited several reasons why there was no neeed for this particular legislation, and the Congress has consistently supported this point of view.

We know of nothing that has changed to warrant either a temporary or permanent program of Federal assistance for school construction or teachers' salaries. In fact, there continues to be a constant improvement.

Anyone who has had the privilege to travel throughout this Nation must be impressed by the new schools that are being constructed in almost every community. Counties and communities throughout the Nation are spending unprecedented sums for new schoolroom construction, and efforts are being made to increase teachers' salaries and to improve the overall conditions of our schools. Local people understand this challenge and will meet it through local taxation, without Federal assistance and without Federal controls. Federal aid could slow down this process by taking away some of the initiative to improve their own schools.

The U.S. Office of Education reports that 71,600 schoolrooms were completed during the 1957-58 school year. They also report that 68,440 instruction rooms are scheduled for completion during the 195859 school year. This indicates that the construction of schoolrooms continues at a high level. Certainly this large number of new schoolrooms indicates that we are building the needed classrooms very rapidly without Federal aid.

In addition, the Investment Bankers Association of America reports that the amount of school bonds sold by States and local educational agencies for the financing of public elementary and secondary schools continued to be very high. In 1958 $2,314,458,000 worth of school bonds were reported sold. This indicates that school bond sales are remaining at record levels.

The continued large number of new schoolrooms being constructed and the high level of school bonds sold indicates that local people are making the necessary improvement in our education system without a new program of Federal aid.

We have not attempted to comment on the various bills before the subcommittee because basically the farm bureau is opposed to any legislative proposal that would provide an expanded program of Federal aid to education regardless of the approach. However, we have studied S. 2 and S. 1016, the two main proposals before the subcommittee. We note with a great deal of interest the amount of Federal funds that would be made available. S. 2 would provide

about $1.1 billion the first year and cost approximateley $4.7 billion annually in the fourth and succeeding years. This is on the basis of $25 per child grant the first year and raising to $100 per child grant in the fourth and succeeding years.

We do not believe large sums of Federal funds is the answer to our educational needs. There is no special magic in a federally appropriated dollar. In our opinion the instigation of Federal aid to education in the form of assistance for school construction and teachers' salaries will actually prove to be a great disservice to our public school system. The result of intervention by the Federal Government could be to stymie initiative on the part of the local people who might get the impression that if they wait long enough the all-powerful Federal Government will come in and assist them.

We will build more schoolrooms, pay our teachers better, and improve the education of our children if we promote local initiative and continue to finance our schools through local effort.

The public school system of this country is the envy of the world. The unprecedented progress that has been made in our public education system has been accomplished by State and local effort. Local control of our school system has made it possible for programs to be developed to fit local needs. A temporary or permanent program of Federal aid for school construction and teachers' salaries, by necessity, would involve Federal control over our public education system.

Farmers and ranchers do not want and are vigorously opposed to having their school systems dominated by Federal regulation from an all-powerful centralized government.

Farmers and ranchers recognize the dangers of too much dependence on the Federal Government. Government aid means Government controls. The maintenance of strong, independent, and responsible State and local government is imperative to the preservation of self-government and individual freedom.

The American Farm Bureau Federation views with considerable concern the picture of Federal intervention in an increasing number of fields which were formerly the responsibilities of State and local government. With the Federal debt at an alltime high, with the need to balance the Federal budget in order to avoid more inflation, we think that citizens throughout the Nation are becoming more and more conscious of the fact that they don't get something for nothing from Washington.

It is becoming increasingly clear that inflation is our most serious economic problem. Farmers and ranchers have experienced in recent years a price-cost squeeze. Since increased costs rather than reduced receipts have been the principal element in this squeeze, farmers are determined to work aggressively for a balanced Federal budget. They know an unbalanced budget is a major factor contributing to this inflationary threat which should be a concern to all citizens.

Continued inflation only results in cheaper dollars, which means we are able to obtain less for our local tax dollar spent in the field of education as well as other areas.

We shall continue to study the problems of education through our farm bureau organization at the local and State level and work

for programs that will meet our present and future educational needs.

We appreciate the opportunity to present our views on this matter. Senator YARBOROUGH. Mr. Biggs, were you here while Senator Martin of Iowa was testifying?

Mr. BIGGS. Yes.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Did you hear his testimony?
Mr. BIGGS. Yes.

Senator YARBOROUGH. He testified that, in his opinion, this stimulation of aid to education was the most important and pressing nondefense spending need of the Federal Government.

What do you put in the category of the more important spending needs of the Federal Government other than national defense?

Mr. BIGGS. We are certainly not opposing national defense. We simply want to make it clear that we believe that Federal aid would mean Federal control. We in Pennsylvania have experienced such on a State level.

About 4 years ago I was a member of a committee established to develop a sales-tax program, of which 80 cents out of every sales-tax dollar in Pennsylvania went for schools, health, and welfare. The sales-tax program delegated to specific control to the State. However, since passage of the tax certain persons in our State contend that the State should assume certain local responsibilities. Last week I opposed a State legislative bill that would have given the State the authority to decide where the building sites for new school construction would be.

In other words, this piece of legislation does not indicate that there will be Government control, but our experience in the past has been that any such legislation leads to Federal control. We in agriculture have experienced a lot of that.

Senator YARBOROUGH. This bill S. 2 specifically prohibits Federal control, does it not?

Mr. BIGGS. This present bill, yes.

Senator YARBOROUGH. On page 2 of S. 2 you will notice, beginning at line 17, that it is stated:

The Congress strongly affirms that the control of the personnel, program of instruction, formulation of policy, and the administration of the Nation's public elementary and secondary schools resides in the States and local communities. The Congress also affirms that a major portion of the responsibility for financing the costs of these schools resides in the States and local communities.

Then, in the next two paragraphs, it is pointed out the handicaps they suffer.

The objection has been raised that that is a mere declaration of policy and that a declaration of policy would not control the administrative action despite the declaration of policy. There has been experience in the past with officers reaching out for powers beyond the mere declaration.

So, in order to meet that, in this bill you will find, on page 8, if you have a copy before you of S. 2, beginning at line 20, there is not only a declaration of policy but an express provision in the proposed law, section 11, that:

In the administration of this act, no department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States shall exercise any direction, supervision, or control over policy determination, personnel, curriclum, program of instruction, or the administration of any school or school system.

You have a mandatory prohibition within the proposed bill itself against any such control as you have expressed concern over.

I wanted to point that out because I understood you to say that the proposed law was silent on this subject.

Mr. BIGGS. I would like to call on Mr. Datt to answer this question, if I may.

Senator YARBOROUGH. If he cares to make a statement, he may.

Mr. DATT. We recognize the bill contains the provisions you indicated. It also contains provisions in various sections whereby authority is given to the Commissioner of Education for the allocation of fiscal funds to the State under which they would be required to meet certain criteria before the Commissioner could allocate funds.

Then there is also the section, section 9, having to do with labor standards, which provides that—

The State education agency shall give adequate assurance to the Commissioner that all laborers

and so on have been paid wages under the Davis-Bacon Act.

We feel that, even though the bill says in these two sections that there shall not be any Federal control, it does, by its very nature, provide the authority for control by giving the Federal Commissioner of Education the power to allocate funds only after certain requirements are met by the States.

Senator YARBOROUGH. That provides that in building buildings, if they are built with Federal funds, the wage scale for the laborers building the building will be determined on a certain formula.

Do you find any conflict with the provision that

no department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States shall exercise any direction, supervision, or control over policy determination personnel, curriculum, program of instruction, or the administration of any school or school system.

Mr. DATT. I would comment by saying that under this section, as far as labor standards are concerned, you have Federal control in the sense that the Federal Government, if they are going to invest Federal funds to build schools, establishes certain labor standards. This is probably correct, and we would probably agree that if the Federal Government is going to do this, they should have something to say about it. This is where we feel that there is the Federal control feature.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Do you think that is going to control curriculum, personnel to teach, program of instruction, policy determination of how to run the schools? That is what the law expressly says the Federal Government shall not do.

Mr. DATT. I doubt that you would get into that problem as far as the labor standard section is concerned, but you do run into that problem when you refer back to these other sections which requires the Commissioner of Education in allocating funds, to obtain from the State education agency certain information. Some of the sections require that the State education agency do certain things before they receive funds.

Senator YARBOROUGH. You think the Commissioner of Education would violate section 11 of the law, if the law were passed? Mr. DATT. I am not sure I would agree he would violate it.

39997-59- -21