miserably low salaries. We respectfully submit that it is only through Federal aid that all of the States could approach a level to help them meet the current education crisis.

I would, therefore, call to your attention again the frequently applied policy of using Federal funds for a program of direct Federal aid to promote the general welfare. We all know the history of our Nation's policy on this point. I shall not go back to the ordinance of the Northwest Territory and to the other early movements; nor even to the Morrel Act and the many other 18th and 19th century acts in support of a program of Federal aid for education. I shall go back only to the early years of the 20th century. It is interesting to note that almost immediately after the enactment of the Federal income tax amendment to the Constitution, the people within the States, and not just the States themselves, felt justified in asking for grants through which they, the people, could share directly in the benefits they then felt entitled to enjoy because they had individually paid money into the United States Treasury. Today, when the Federal income tax is a very heavy one, the people feel even more strongly than before that they, each one of them in every community, has a right to share in the benefits which Federal money given to their States for their use would assure them. It is also interesting to note that during the first quarter of the 20th century one of the first fields through which direct grants in aid were given to the States was in the field of education. We in the labor movement are proud that the record shows that Senator Hoke Smith worked in the office with Sam Gompers to plan the first Federal aid to education act. The act planned by these two great social leaders has grown until today it is a basic force for the well-being of our people. It is also interesting to note that immediately after the adoption of the woman's suffrage amendment, that one of the most important programs for Federal aid for the welfare of our Nation's children was adopted: theh Sheppard-Towner Act. It was called the baby bill, for through it the Federal Government made available direct grants to help protect the health and welfare of mothers and children. It is a matter of social history of which we Americans may well be proud that after the enactment of the Federal income tax amendment and the adoption of the woman's suffrage amendment that the Nation's first concern was to bring the benefits of these amendments to the children of the Nation. It is this approach which brings us before you today to continue our plea for direct grants for education.

It is to be noted that while the people have sought to share in these benefits they have, at the same time, zealously guarded their right to administer the program which these funds made available. This is a principle observed as strongly today as it has been throughout the years.

We emphasize the feeling on the part of the people of their right to share as individuals in benefits which, in a sense, they have directly purchased. This position by the people is in contrast with certain proposals now being frequently proposed in the Congress. There are movements which would seek to give to the States a rebate from the taxes paid from each State. Obviously, a tax paid back to a State loses the dimension of personal service payment. We would further point out that while all citizens in all the States pay the same scale of taxes under the Federal income tax that the payment by States in no sense affords the individual the right to share equitably in proportion to his payment into the Federal coffers.

We recognize that education is a national responsibility but that the administration of education is a State responsibility. However, the Federal Government must meet its responsibility by effecting an equitable plan of allocation of funds its receives among the States. The State then must administer the funds allocated by the Federal Government in keeping with the broad general purposes for which the funds were allocated, but under State laws. It is only through a program of allocation of Federal funds among the States that educational opportunities for all may be more nearly equalized. In the Murray bill, S. 2, and similar bills which have been introduced by other Members, there is a weighted formula for allocation and distribution of funds which assures an equitable sharing not only among the States, but within the States. The value of a program of grants over a program of loans, even at a low interest rate, lies in the fact that the States which can least afford a greater outlay or a greater commitment for future expenditures (that is, the poorer States) are the States which most of all need the direct grants at this time. We cannot favor a plan which asks all States to purchase bonds with an interest rate, no matter how low, which in effect places a relatively heavier burden on poorer States and incidentally on poorer people, than the program would impose on richer States and richer people. We know that local, State, and Federal taxes in relation

to one another need careful study. Labor has long advocated a synchronized Federal, State, and local tax program. We share with many other good ciitzens indignation over the fact that some States, even richer States, do not exact adequate taxes from their citizens to enable them to maintain good schools. We trust the time is not far distant when a synchronized-Federal, State, and local-tax program, void of loopholes, will be the prevailing law.

However, in the meantime, our children's needs in every State must be met now. Matching programs and programs based on bond issues simply are not just, and cannot actually help equalize educational opportunities for all people among all the States. We would again emphasize that many States and many local communities have reached the statutory limit on their borrowing power and could not avail themselves of a Federal benefit, underwriting further bond issues. A matching program is never a fair program for under such a program the States least able to match a Federal grant are more greatly in need of the grant.

We would next point out that while a crisis exists at all educational levelselementary, secondary, and college levels that the Federal Government has given far more generously to higher education than it has to the States for the maintenance and proper conduct of elementary and secondary schools. We are delighted that the Congress has seen fit to give money for aid to higher institutions of learning. We hope they give more. We are alarmed when we find Members of Congress not as interested in a college housing program, for example, as is necessary today. We supported the National Education Defense Act through which aid comes for instruction. We were particularly pleased that Congress in giving aid for college instruction to help equip men in the field of scientific and technical studies, also recognized the need, in at least one field, of the basic importance of the study of the humanities in any well-rounded education program. We share, with the Congress, an appreciation as to the national defense value in time of peace and in time of a threat to our national security for the development of scientific knowledge and research. We trust that more money will be given to the colleges not only for improving scientific knowledge, but also to encourage cultural, nontechnical education in the liberal arts and the fine arts.

However, we would point out that a national program which gives proportionately far more for higher education than it does for elementary and secondary education is not a sound program, unless and until the elementary and secondary schools of our country are equipped with qualified professional personnel to train children and youth to take full advantage of a college education. And further we would submit that the opportunity of all properly qualified youth who wish to study at a higher level to go to college should be broadly available. However, it is by our national neglect of the elementary and secondary school today that we are at a great loss in human values, neglecting a generation which should be equipped to enter college.

Frankly, it seems ridiculous that Congress should appropriate thousands of dollars for training in guidance and counseling programs, and fail to appropriate money to assure classroom teachers for the children for whom they are supplying these guidance and counseling programs.

We would further point out that even in the so-called scholarship program enacted into law by the Congress last year there were no scholarships made available to help youth get his college training. We are glad that loans were made available. We trust that more loans and some scholarships will continually be made available. However, we would emphasize that as further aid is allowed for the college student, a program which we heartily endorse, that full attention should be given to the fact that children and youth must be prepared for college in safe schools manned by professionally qualified teachers, before they can take advantage of college training.

We would finally urge that the action granting aid to the elementary and secondary schools be given the highest priority for through granting such aid now we can best help train and equip children and youth in institutes of higher learning, who will help us realize the highest ideals and traditions of our country. Each year's delay now deepens the crisis, and penalizes our children and our country. We plead for action now.

Frankly the issue today is not must there be Federal aid for education. Every informed citizen knows that such aid is absolutely essential to the national welfare. The basic questions are to what fields in education should the aid be given, what formula of distribution is the most equitable and third, and perhaps the most vital, what political questions are involved and must be met in order to make it possible for this legislation to have a fair chance for con

sideration. We are frankly sensitive to the problems and implications involved in all of these issues. We recognize the idfficulty which confronts each member of this committee and of the Senate in determining the program through which to serve the Nation's children and youth. It is because of the high moral caliber of the men who have lead this movement in the Senate for years, for the many men who have sought ways and means of securing action even at the risk of destroying their own political future that we come and plead for action now. We feel that the quality of those who are seeking to serve our children is so high that we may count on them at this time to get action now.

Miss BORCHARDT. May I say at the outset that I am very happy to appear before a Senator who has, as a member of a school board, courageously and effectively fought for better schools and better paid teachers. We hear from the people of Detroit much of your splendid record, and we are glad now to have the continuing efforts at the national level.

It is good that you are on a committee where there are so many members who, like you, have so richly contributed to the welfare of our Nation, particularly to the welfare of America's children at all levels.

The very fact that here we have Senator Murray continuing to introduce the bill, who introduced the bill some time ago for us for increasing teachers' salaries, and Senator Hill, who is practically a symbol of aid for schools and public health, continues to be here and to battle.

The American Federation of Teachers, as you know, is the largest entirely voluntary organization of class room teachers in this country, and, as such, we come with a social purpose.

For months, for years you have heard witnesses tell you of the shortages of classroom teachers and the professionally qualified teachers, and you heard Pete Schoemann tell here for AFL-CIO of the shortages. As these figures appear in the formal statement, I am not going to take your time here to read them.

I would say, however, Senator, that we agree with the previous speaker on two points. We agree that the shortage of classrooms is being reduced. We agree also and would emphasize that the State has the responsibility for the administration of its schools. On those two points we agree completely.

We would, however, question when this improvement is to be at such a level that we will not have thousands of children denied a decent place to come to school. We would also question how some of the States can act quickly if there are no taxable resources there. We know that real estate taxes are certainly not to be raised in most of these places where the need is greatest, and we know that constitutional limitations in many States would make the process of bringing the aid a short one.

So we would ask that during the period of adjustment the Federal aid be recognized as a basic essential in national defense.

We would also point out that while the figures quoted here for the action of school board associations are correct, a survey shows-and not only one survey; there have been five surveys made that I know of, perhaps more that the members of the boards of education throughout the country represent only 5 percent of the trade unionists of this country; in other words, that only 5 percent of the members are people who have bettered America through the trade union movement. That to some extent, and we would say to a very great extent, reveals what is happening in this whole movement.

May I at this point have your permission to get from our locals throughout the country statements, with direct quotations showing the exact source of their statements, or where the local chambers of commerce and the State chambers of commerce have opposed pay for teachers, and similar statements? I should like permission to submit them to the subcommittee.

Senator MCNAMARA. We would be glad to have that information. Miss BORCHARDT. I would also point out that the Committee on Intergovernmental Relations made a very extended study. We are not questioning the factual findings, but we seriously question the deductions on those findings, and we have repeatedly, as professional people and as trade unionists, emphasized the fact that the findings of that committee and of similar committees that followed them have not been in the best interests of America's children.

May I next point out to you-and I am not going into history hereyou have had that given to you and could recite it back to us much better than we can give it to you the growth of the Federal aid movement. But we would point out two points to you in that conneetion.

Since the beginning of the 20th century, when the Federal income tax was made a part of the basic law of our country, the people have contributed directly to the Federal Government. From the beginning of that movement, following the adoption of the income-tax amendment, there grew the demand for a return of benefits to the people directly for what we had paid directly.

It is very interesting to us that one of the most extensive of the early Federal-aid programs adopted at that time was the vocational education program. I am very proud to say that that bill, as history reveals it, was drafted in the office of Sam Gompers with Hoke Smith sitting at his side. It is that type of social partnership of which we as Americans are very proud.

Then came women's suffrage just at the close of the first quarter, and the first thing that the women's groups united on was the baby bill. People of all denominations, people of all parts of the country and the women said the children are the first of the Nation's business. It is that as a background on which we now build and plead for an emergency program.

I do not want to compare it with Russia. I am not interested in what the dictatorship does except that we are prepared to meet their threats by constructive action and leadership which we trust they will accept later for the common good.

We had for sometime asked for separate bills after 1945. You remember there was a terrific blowup and everybody was accusing everyone else as to why this bill had not passed, and some very unkind things were said, whereupon we decided, all right, let's consider each proposal on its own merits. We asked for five fields to work in: Aid to public-school construction, aid for public-school teachers' salaries, aid for health and welfare of all children no matter where they are or what they are.

May I digress to say that bill was introduced in 1949 by Senator Paul Douglas and passed the Congress with the joint leadership of Senator Douglas, Senator Hill, and Senator Taft. It is the type of movement which we need and should inspire us to carry on.

We asked also for money to eradicate adult illiteracy, and for scholarships and loans.

We have seen some of that coming nearer and nearer, but here we are now asking for this immediate, direct Federal aid to promote what we believe is the most critical point in the Nation's welfare. That is the aid for the children of our country now, and not at a time years later when another generation will have lots of other responsibility.

We recognize the fact that there should be a very definite recognition of the relation of Federal, State, and local taxes. We have long advocated, and you have made some very challenging talks on the need of such a synchronized program which would make all of the people share in the responsibility, and all of the States share. We are very happy to note the fight you have made against loopholes in the tax bill. It is the sort of constructive approach which has such a great value and is so pertinent at this time.

We would again urge a revision of the tax program, Federal, State, and local relationship, devoid of loopholes to help make this fund, which is needed, a reality.

We would point out at this time that a crisis exists at all levels of education, elementary, secondary, and college levels. But we deplore the fact that the Congress has given attention to only one level. We are happy, very happy, that they have given the necessary aid to the colleges, but, Senator, we cannot develop what we want to develop at the college level unless we give the children at the elementary and secondary levels every possible opportunity to get into a college and develop their latent and evident talents.

We would point out that a national program which gives proportionately far more for higher education than it does for elementary and secondary education is not a sound program unless and until the elementary and secondary schools of our country are equipped with qualified, professional personnel to train children and youth to take full advantage of a college education.

Further, we would submit that the opportunity of all qualified youth who wish to study at the higher level, to go to college, should be broadly available.

I am going to brag about one other thing. That is, when the GI bill was first prepared you may remember it provided that the military personnel should have the opportunity to go to college as directed by top brass over them, and made to take the courses that they felt were best for them. We led the movement at that time, and we are very proud of our record, to strike all that out from the bill and show that the man who has served in the Armed Forces makes his own decisions as to how to improve his lot under the conditions of going to a properly standardized institution. We are proud we made that contribution at that time.

We are still very eager to have a better and more extended scholarship and loan program. We are very happy that the members of this committee have indicated their hearty approval of aid for a college housing construction program. It is desperately needed, and we want it to continue. But we do not want an either/or program. We do not want it said that we want aid at the college level but not at the elementary and secondary levels. That is not consistent nor in keeping with the best of American tradition.

We would finally urge that in granting aid at all levels, the elementary and secondary schools be given a first-class trial, because we must start to build at the bottom level and grow from there. know that in this committee we have many friends. We also know

We