saying that they would not agree to medical inspection in private schools. You do not go that far. Some of them refuse to answer

Senator DONNELL. With all due respect to you, Mr. Chairman, I heard no witness express himself affirmatively as opposed to the use of public funds for medical examinations.

Senator AIKEN. The testimony will be printed and then everybody can read it and draw their own conclusions as to what the witnesses meant. There is an alarming degree of intolerance.

Dr. McDONALD. I do not see any religious intolerance in this principle because this is a long-established principle in American life. Senator DONNELL. I have just a few questions.

I think it might also be noted that there has been an alarming tendency by numerous individuals toward the violation of the Federal Constitution against the separation of church and state, and I think that is just as dangerous as any such tendency as has been referred to by the chairman.

I would like to say, in all fairness, that I have not attended all these hearings, but I do not recall having heard any witness testify as being in opposition to the use of Federal funds for medical or physical examinations.

Now, I would like to ask Dr. McDonald a few questions. In the first place, I can appreciate the poin that Senators Ellender and Aiken made here as to a possible and probable inconsistency of view. I can likewise appreciate the point that Dr. McDonald makes where he does not see any inconsistency in his view of last year and his view of today.

Now, in that connection, I would like to call attention to this before asking the questions-the bill, Public Law 697 of last year, refers to authority to provide educational facilities by the use or reuse, including disassembly, transporting, and re-erecting of structures or facilities. Up to that point there is nothing in that bill that undertakes to say that title to any of those buildings shall be transferred to the institutions.

Now, the nearest approach that I can find and I have only glanced through this bill this morning to any transfer of title is this language: "Without regard to the provisions of any other laws, said Administrator" that is the Federal Works Administrator "is authorized to transfer to any educational institution any educational facilities provided for such educational institution under this subsection."

But I submit, Mr. Chairman, that there is very great doubt as to whether there is any authority whatsoever under that language to transfer title because that language must be read in connection with the earlier provisions of the act which used in several places the terms, "use or re-use," and therefore I submit, Mr. Chairman, that there is to this extent a difference between the situation of a year ago and the situation as presented by this bill, namely that this bill, S. 971, proposes to appropriate $250,000,000 of grants, as to which there could be no possible question, but that it involves the investing of title to moneys in the educational institution, whereas I take it that there is at least very grave doubt as to whether, under Public Law 697, any title was invested in them whatsoever.

Dr. McDonald, I come to this question: Regardless of whether there is or is not any inconsistency between your position of a year ago and your position today, and as I said, I can see the points that

these gentlemen have made in that regard-but regardless of that, your present up-to-date position as you have enunciated it this morning is, and I quote:

A measure with that purpose would have to be limited strictly to publicly controlled institutions, because tax money should not be used to subsidize directly any privately controlled or sectarian educational institution, either for plant expansion or for general operation.

Is that your position of today?

Dr. McDONALD. That was our position last year; that is our position today.

I presented last year on behalf of the National Education Association approximately the same type of discussion and argument and asked for that kind of legislation, even as today.

Mr. Chairman, I am asking this committee to pass some legislation, to approve and develop some legislation for the compensation, more fairly, of these institutions for the use of their buildings for educating

veterans.

The Congress came out with a measure which we interpreted as being in response to that request. There was no inconsistency in those bills.

Senator DONNELL. Now, Doctor, I appreciate your point. I can see the point on the other side, too, and I am not trying to debate that question. I can see where you make the distinction between a grant of $250,000,000 as a starter, investing title without any question, and a situation in which purely temporary structures were thrown in for the use or reuse by private institutions. I can see that there is a very great distinction.

I can see, also, that the situation of a year ago was one in which a temporary situation, an emergency situation, not of a permanent nature, was envisaged; whereas S. 197 proposes a plan for permanent investing of title and for a permanent policy.

Now, regardless, though, of the inconsistency or the absence of it, I undertake to say that your position is perfectly clear as I see it, that you are opposed to use of public moneys for either of two purposes with relation to non-profit private colleges. First, you are opposed to the use of public funds for plant expansion: point number one; that is correct, is it not?

Dr. McDONALD. That is right.

Senator DONNELL. In the second place, and I quote from testimony, you are opposing it for general operation.

Dr. McDONALD. That is right.

Senator DONNELL. Now, you make a very broad distinction, a very clear distinction, and your association does, as I see it, in these resolutions between the grant of moneys for plant expansion or for general operation and the grant of moneys as compensation.

Dr. McDONALD. Precisely.

Senator DONNELL. And your point is, as I understand it, and if I am incorrect, please correct me---that your Association in the language which you have quoted from it, and in your own statement, is urging adequate compensation to anybody regardless of whether it is private, public or mixed for services or facilities that are rendered and furnished by such individual or institution to the Federal Government. Dr. McDONALD. That is correct.

Senator DONNELL. But you are opposed to the use of public funds as a gift to a private institution as distinguished from a compensation. That is correct, is it not?

Dr. McDONALD. That is correct and I would like, if I may, to make this comment: That that is no change whatever from the tradition of American Education and it is not just the NEA although the NEA does represent, as the Chairman has said, the large majority of educators of this country. We have to say what they think.

Senator DONNELL. Let us leave aside for the moment this question of inconsistency. Last year, you remember, somebody said that inconsistency is a jewel; and someone has characterized it contrariwise, too. But regardless of that, whether you are consistent or inconsistent, the testimony is just as you have stated and as I have outlined in my statement to us, is it not?

Dr. McDONALD. Yes, and we are very much in favor of legislation under which money from the Federal Government in compensation to private and public institutions may be made available so that they, with that money, may make the facilities available.

Senator AIKEN. You would be willing that we would appropriate $50 or $100 per pupil to the colleges for educating the GI, as I understand it.

Dr. McDONALD. For the use of their buildings.

Senator AIKEN. You have no objection to that?

Dr. McDONALD. I think that should be done.

Senator AIKEN. But does not the fact remain that the smaller colleges which at present are getting by on the Federal allowance, would that $50 or $100 per pupil go right into plant expansion? Of course it would.

Dr. McDONALD. I would hope so, yes, because you are compensating them for the use of their plant and they need more plant. Senator AIKEN. You are perfectly agreeable to make that contribution in that matter?

Dr. McDONALD. That is right.

Senator DONNELL. Doctor, in orther words you are perfectly willing to compensate for services rendered. On the other hand, you are not in favor of presenting a check for $10,000 for a private institution to put up a building.

Dr. McDONALD. I do not think it could be done even under the Constitution, even if the law were passed.

Senator DONNELL. Now, Doctor, you say in your testimony that as it is written the bill does not make the purpose of providing compensation clear. May I suggest, on the other hand, that the bill not merely fails to make it clear but, on the other hand, is exactly the opposite, namely, that the bill proposes, as I quote from it, "to aid in financing the cost of educational facilities necessary to relieve such shortage," and provides expressly that funds "appropriated to carry out this section shall not be available for obligation for new projects after June 30, 1948, or for any project which in the determination of the Administrator cannot be commenced prior to December 31, 1948," and so on.

In other words, this bill clearly means that this money is to go for the construction of buildings and plant expansion. Do you not concur with that view?

61399-47-7

Dr. McDONALD. My judgment is that the bill would be so interpreted and for that reason I think it would have to be amended to make its purpose to compensate institutions, otherwise we certainly would not support it; the educators of the country would not be in a position to support it. The resolution of the Association of State Universities would be contrary to it.

Senator DONNELL. So when you refer in your testimony to making it clear, making the bill clear for compensation, you were in effect charitably understating that the bill provides for money for plant construction, were you not?

Dr. McDONALD. I do not think that I would go that far. I think that the Chairman of this committee in introducing this bill intended to provide some means by which the institutions might have a sharing of the costs of their building for the use of veterans.

Now, that is the way I interpreted his purpose and that is the purpose which I should like very much to be served by legislation. I do not think that its purpose would have to be very clearly stated in view of just the kind of discussions we have had here this morning. A year ago we did not have this kind of discussion.

Senator DONNELL. At any rate, regardless of whether or not there is anything in this bill that provides that any of this money can be used to compensate an institution and I do not find anything in here to that effect-this bill certainly does provide funds with which the construction projects may be pursued, does it not?

Dr. McDONALD. That is right.

Senator DONNELL. And you are opposed to that phase of the bill? Dr. McDONALD. For that purpose, yes, sir. The bill would have to be amended.

Senator AIKEN. But you assure the committee that you have not the slightest objection to the Federal Government paying tuition for a GI to attend the college of his choice so long as it is approved and regardless of whether it is a publicly or privately operated college? Dr. McDONALD. We have no opposition to that.

Senator AIKEN. Suppose he is a youngster that is not ready for college-perhaps he has not finished high school. Would you approve of the Government's spending tuition to send him to a private preparatory school? You do not insist that he go to a public high school?

Dr. McDONALD. No; he is doing that.

Senator AIKEN. That is all.

Had you finished. Dr. McDonald?

Dr. McDONALD. I fear that the point I have been trying to make may have been lost in the shuffle and I would like just about a minute to say this: that we hope very much that some measure may be approved under which some compensation can be given to these institutions for the use of their buildings by whatever means is possible. The committee will have to determine those means. But, we do think that that is only right and fair. If a grant-in-aid bill is passed of the nature of this bill, as indicated by its language, then we would have to ask that it be limited to publicly controlled institutions. But the purpose which the bill in our opinion seems to wish to serve in compensating institutions, if that is the purpose, then we would like for it to extend to private and public institutions.

Senator DONNELL. But you are quite clear that the bill must be amended to make that clearly the purpose?

Dr. McDONALD. Yes, sir; very clear.

Senator AIKEN. I want to make this statement before you leave, Doctor, that I would give the publicly owned colleges preference, just as I would give publicly owned secondary and elementary schools preference in giving public assistance. But I think we should realize the hopeless inability of the publicly owned colleges to meet the needs of today; we would have such a tremendous expansion problem on our hands that we would just get bogged down with it. So I believe we are justified in extending temporarily aid for the 2-year period to private schools some aid in order to meet an emergency problem.

Dr. McDONALD. If you could make its purpose clear as compensating for services to the Government, I would say, yes.

Senator AIKEN. I do not think the colleges would care particularly how they got the money as long as they got it.

Dr. McDONALD. The people of the United States would and the educators of the country would.

Senator DONNELL. You regard it as a very great principle at stake, do you not.

Dr. McDONALD. A very great principle.

Senator AIKEN. Thank you, Dr. McDonald.

The next witness is Jesse P. Bogue, executive secretary, American Association of Junior Colleges.

STATEMENT OF JESSE
OF JESSE P. BOGUE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF JUNIOR COLLEGES, WASHINGTON,
D. C.

Dr. BOGUE. Mr. Chairman, I represent the American Association of Junior Colleges which consists of about 450 institutions representing about 325,000 students and I have been authorized by the board of directors to speak officially for the board on matters pertaining to legislation.

My testimony has been in for an ample length of time and therefore I am not going to read it or take any more of your time than is necessary,

I would like, however, to bring out one point which I am not sure has been emphasized. I noticed that this bill calls for an appropriation not to exceed 50 percent. It would be intended, I presume, that it could go up to 50 percent. As I understand it, all the figures that have been presented by experts in various fields of education from the United States Office of Education on through the American Council, and so on, probably indicates that you will need about a billion dollars at least on a conservative basis for some kind of expansion to meet the veteran situation.

Now, if we are going to have only $250,000,000, that is only 25 percent of that amount. I cannot see that it is good business to start out appropriating to anyone up to 50 percent, because your program would not be half completed before your money would be exhausted.

I think it would be much better to have the limit of the money which could be appropriated to any institution, 30 percent. I think, too, that a 30-percent appropriation would be better for a good many institutions.