Senator THOMAS. One side was afraid of the other fellow, and that fellow was afraid of some other fellow?

Dr. Zook. Yes.

Senator THOMAS. Each was afraid that the other would get control of it. That, it seems to me, has been the basis of the opposition through the years that I have been connected with it. It never has been opposed on the basis of real experience or real logic, but merely on the basis of fear.

Senator HILL. Isn't it true also, Doctor, that the more we study this great question, and therefore become more familiar with the facts, more people have come to realize the need, the necessity for Federal aid, but also the more you study, the better we have come to know how to draft legislation to carry out the Federal aid? For instance, if we go back and see some of the old bills first introduced, and then examine the present bills, we have made marvelous progress, have we not, in the matter of mechanics, the machinery, how to do this job?

Dr. Zook. Yes, I should say so. And the incident I stated, the matter of matching, seems to me to be one of those very things.

Senator ELLENDER. In that connection, Dr. Zook, we have before us for consideration four or five bills. Do you discuss all of the bills in your statement, or would you have preference for any of them?

Dr. Zooк. I have not looked at these various bills with that in mind, Senator. I have tried merely to bring up a number of the major issues which seems to me to be pertinent, and therefore I don't know that I feel competent to choose among them.

This conclusion to which I referred a moment ago, I think is all the more important, Senator, because among the institutional members of the council there is a very large number of privately controlled colleges and universities. Ordinarily they have been thought of as perhaps being institutions that it would be most difficult to convince of the need of Federal aid, and yet they, along with these others, are now voting largely in favor of that position.

Might I continue by saying that the representatives of both the organizational and the institutional members of the committee are equally positive that if a Federal aid bill were passed it should not be accompanied by Federal control of administration and instruction in the educational system. On this issue the total vote was 468 to 52, which is even a larger percentage, I believe, than the earlier one.

On the question as to whether a law providing Federal aid should require that this aid be available to private as well as public schools, there was an almost equal division of opinion. The representatives of the organizations voted "yes" 42; "no", 40. The representatives of institutions voted "yes" 199; "no," 204. Total, 241 for "yes" and "no" 244.

I need not tell you that the publicly controlled colleges and school systems, 154 of them, were in substantial disagreement with the privately controlled colleges and school systems, 249, on this matter. The former voted almost unanimously, 91 percent, against Federal aid for privately controlled education, while the latter, 75 percent of them, voted in favor of it. As far as I can recall, that is the chief difference of opinion that comes out in this ballot between the privately controlled group on the one hand and the publicly controlled ones on the other.

Senator HILL. May I ask, was that ballot taken before the Supreme Court decision in the Everson case?

Dr. Zook. The first part of the ballot was taken before that. The institutions voted on this issue after the Supreme Court decision.

Senator AIKEN. In the case of the GI bill college training program passed last year there has been no discrimination between public and private nonprofit institutions, so far as I know.

Dr. Zook. That is correct.

Senator THOMAS. There is not in the soldier education bill either. Private schools may receive benefits also.

Dr. Zook. That is right. Another issue has to do with the question as to whether Federal funds in aid of education should be available for all levels of education instead of for elementary and secondary schools only. The overwhelming majority of the representatives, both in the organizations and the institutions, voted 415 against 77 for this attitude. The results of another question made it equally clear that this should be decided in the Federal legislation, and not left to the States to decide. Of course, from the point of view that I spoke of a little while ago, I would regard that as Federal control, but I feel bound, of course, to report to you the results of this ballot.

Senator HIIL. You are not the head of a college, Doctor.

Dr. Zook. No, sir.

Senator HILL. Naturally, you see the problem from your own viewpoint.

Dr. Zook. I have observed that in life, Senator. I am afraid that is true of educational people as well as others.

The next issue raised the question as to whether Federal funds in aid of education should be made available on the equalization basis only to the approximately 30 States least able to support education, or to all States. The representatives, both of the organizations and the institutions voted heavily in favor of making it available for all the States, 385 to 96. As I understand it, that is one of the important issues which was before your committee here.

Senator AIKEN. One of the practical questions that we have to resolve, Doctor, we have to have votes in order to pass any bill. Senator HILL. You have just been talking, Doctor, about votes, you see, and the results of elections.

Dr. Zook. Yes, sir. Well, I give this to you for what it is worth. It seems to me there is an unexpectedly large proportion of these people who feel that it ought to be made available to all of the States and not merely to approximately 30 of them. I don't know to what extent that same logic will appeal to the Members of Congress. You gentlemen know about that better than I.

Senator ELLENDER. Of course, if that is done, it will require more funds than that now provided, $150,000,000 the first year, $250,000,000 for the third year and thereafter.

Dr. Zook. I would like to make this remark to you, gentlemen: It seems to me that the new basis of supplying funds to only 30 States. in the Union is a departure from other Federal aid laws now on the statute books, and a departure, as I understand it, from other bills that are now being considered prominently in Congress. So the conclusion that I would reach would be something like this: If you people decide that funds should be made available approximately to only

30 States in the Union in connection with this bill, the bills which are now before you on education, I should think you would be under something like the same logical compulsion to take the same attitude with respect to other matters of Federal assistance to State and local agencies. I just simply submit that for what it is worth.

Senator ELLENDER. But one of the most important arguments in favor of Federal aid, Doctor, is on the basis of need.

Dr. Zook. Yes.

Senator ELLENDER. If we should make it available to all States on the formula that it would not make any difference as to need, the probabilities are it would be rather difficult to enact such a bill.

Senator THOMAS. Doctor, is there any State in the Union where the educational system does not need some lifting up? Don't we find illiteracy in the very richest States?

Dr. Zooк. We find a good deal of it in some of the very wealthy States. And I take this position with respect to that matter: you will recall I said something about the sixteenth amendment. I think that if you make this appropriation available to only about 30 States, you are inevitably going to be taking the position that annually we will engage in some kind of hand-out to the poorest 30 States. That, in my opinion, is going to mean that over the years education is not going to secure from the Federal Government anything like the amount of money that is needed in order to set up an effective educational system. If it does happen that some of the wealthier States, because of the difficulties which they have with illiteracy and other things, get some money, then it seems to me that they will be able to substitute the receipts from a better tax, the income tax, for what they have to use at the present time for its support of education; namely, an outmoded real-estate tax. So I reach the conclusion that it would be better, all things considered, for money to go on some kind of an equalization basis to practically all the States.

Senator HILL. If you give it to the States, though, you keep the equalization of educational opportunities as your base.

Dr. Zook. That is right.

Senator HILL. Which, of course, would mean that the poorer States would therefore get relatively more than the richer States, even if the richer States did get some.

Dr. Zook. Yes, sir.

Senator HILL. But you would not depart, would you, from the basic proposition in the allocation of your funds of the equalization of educational opportunities?

Dr. Zooк. No, I would not.

Senator SMITH. That is in line with Dr. Norton's testimony a few days ago, where he indicated to us that it was in order to bring up what is called the unit of education per pupil or per room-bring up that difference between $6,000 in some States, $1,000 in other States, $100 in other States. Would you favor his general thesis of trying to find a mean for those in all parts of the country?

Dr. Zook. Yes; as I understand it. And I may say that he was the author of one of these documents which I have submitted for your consideration.

Senator SMITH. He gave us that when he was here.

Senator AIKEN. I would like to say here that the purpose of the direct appropriation to all the States provided for in S. 199 is an effort

not only to shift the burden of education partly from the shoulders of the States onto the Federal Government, where I believe it belongs at this time, but also to shift the burden of bearing the cost of education from the real estate owner, the home owner and the farm owner, where it rests most heavily today, to all taxpayers. The money would come out of the income tax, the excise tax, and so on, and that can only come through the Federal Government under direct appropriation. That means that New York would receive ultimately under the terms of this bill-which may be somewhat utopian, but it seems to me to be a good objective-New York would receive some $95,000,000 annually, but New York would have to pay her 21 percent of the entire cost, just as she would under any other plan. It would mean that the poorer States would get enough so that it would make it easier for them to reach the minimum requirements. It also means that the wealthier States, such as California, New York, and New Jersey, would have to pay more, but they would get part of it back, and that part that they get back would be used either in bettering their schools still further, or relieving the burden on other taxpayers of their States in furnishing money for the State support of the schools. So I think, if the figures are analyzed, we will find that it amounts to about the same burden on the wealthier States, and perhaps greater benefit to the poorer States.

Senator ELLENDER. What I want to do is to make it possible to enact legislation at this session of Congress, and my fear is that if you increase it much more than what is provided in S. 472, $150,000,000 for the first year, and make it so that a State like New York would get $95,000,000, that would mean an appropriation of a quarter of a billion dollars.

Senator AIKEN. Taking the burden off of the States and putting it onto the Federal Government, I can see where some votes would be lost from economy-minded people who would object to the larger appropriation that would be necessary. I see where some votes would be gained from the 23 States that would otherwise not benefit from the program. I understand that at the present time, with the rising income in certain States, 25 States would benefit from the formula which is proposed in S. 472, and under S. 199 I think that 32 States would get back more money than they pay in, but all would get back some

money.

Dr. Zook. I quite agree that whatever the Federal Government can do toward relieving the local real estate tax situation is altogether a desirable thing to do, but I would like especially to emphasize this fact: I just don't see how we can logically pass a bill here which applies the benefits of which apply to only 25 or 30 of the States, and do something different in the matter of Federal aid with respect to every other piece of legislation that comes up here before Congress, whether it be health or whatnot. If we are going over to this new formula, then we ought to go over to it in all of the other pieces of legislation. That seems to me to be extremely important. Otherwise we continue the chaos that we have had with respect to this matter of Federal aid.

Senator HILL. Do you agree, Doctor, that whatever may be the formula of course, we want the best formula, both from the standpoint of doing the job we seek to do, and also from the standpoint of passing legislation--do you agree that, after all, it is paramount to

60144-47-9

get a Federal aid bill passed and have the Federal Government recognize and accept the responsibility for the equalization of educational opportunities?

Dr. Zooк. That is certainly paramount at the present time.

Senator HILL. Above everything else, isn't it?

Mr. Zook. Well, I don't see why we cannot pass one that we can all regard as defensible.

Senator HILL. I think we want to do everything we can to make it defensible. Of course, we know the history of legislation, that no great major piece of legislation has ever been passed, so far as I can recall, that does not require some amendment, some adjustment, in time.

Senator AIKEN. I think it is entirely possible to get together on the method by which this money shall be allocated to the States, and in such a way that we will not scare people who are economically minded, and at the same time get the votes that will be necessary to enact the legislation. I would like to remind the Senator that under the direct appropriation plan Alabama pays 0.65 percent of the Federal income, and Alabama would receive 2.64 percent of the Federal funds for education. Louisiana pays 0.82 percent of the Federal income, and would receive 1.81 percent, or two and a half times the rate that she pays in, for educational purposes.

Senator HILL. You made some comments a few minutes ago about viewpoint. I must admit that from my viewpoint that sounds very persuasive. [Laughter.]

Senator AIKEN. I am appealing to the viewpoint of the Senators from the twenty-odd States that would otherwise get nothing at all. Senator SMITH. It works both ways, because when we consider the over-all tax budget, how much shall be allocated to education and how much to other things, we have to consider the appropriation for all of them.

Dr. Zook. Of course, may I say, Senator, from my viewpoint education is an extremely important matter, and it seems to me that if the Federal Government is going to admit that there is a national interest in education, we ought not to make the sum so small as to be negligible. Of course, personally I have already said to you gentlemen that I think as much as a billion dollars a year ought to be expended through the general appropriation and upon buildings for some time to come.

Senator AIKEN. I have thought that if the Federal Government paid as much as a third of the total cost of elementary and secondary education in this country, it would be no more than its share, in view of the fact that population shifts from State to State, and in view of the fact, as you have so well pointed out this morning, that the Federal Government now receives 50 times as much of the taxpayers' money in the form of income tax as the States do.

Dr. Zooк. That is right. I will just read briefly then the other three paragraphs on page 8 of my prepared statement. Four hundred and twenty-five representatives, as against 65, voted in favor of requiring that Federal funds in aid of education be distributed equitably for the benefit of minority races in States where separate school systems are maintained. That was the vote. I don't see how it could have been otherwise.