ferences when he was asked about this sometime after the White House conference.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. He was asked about what, Mr. Hollander? Mr. HOLLANDER. About a program of Federal aid to education. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. His program?

Mr. HOLLANDER. A program. And it was pointed out that it was being urged that the Federal Government needed to get more deeply into this and to put more money into it and the President replied, if I remember the exact quote, "Did they mention the Federal debt?" the implication of his answer being that these things would be fine. if we could afford them. This is precisely what he said in the state of the Union message in 1958, when he failed to recommend the kind of Federal aid program which he had recommended, as I remember, in 1957. And it is unmistakable, sir, from the President's expression on this subject that he regards this as something that would be good to do but will have to wait on the budget.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. This is not waiting. The recommendations do not need to wait on the budget and it will build, as you yourself say, approximately as many classrooms as the Thompson bill.

Again I happen to be old-fashioned enough to be proud of the President's concern about the Federal debt. I happen to have five children and if they do not have to pay off that debt it is going to be my grandchildren and I think it is essential that we remember to keep our heads in this question of Federal expenditures.

On your opening statement, you say you imply again and you said that the President is implying this and that.

We must find some way to stem the deterioration in urban life, the spread of slums and inadequate housing, the debilitating effects of prejudice, the strangling problems of transportation, the persistence of poverty, and of disease, the spread of delinquency. We must find methods to increase the rate of growth of our national economy

and so on.

Of course we do but if it involves tens of millions of dollars in addition to what we are presently spending, I think we have no choice but to think twice and say it is up to some other levels of governments to participate in the solutions of those problems.

For you to come in here and say it is easier, it is more efficient for the Federal Government to raise money for the education system than it is for the local and State communities to do it would be for us to transform the financing of our education system entirely and I would be 100 percent opposed to it.

If that is the only reason we are advocating for a program of this kind. And I want to assure you again for years I have been in favor of a reasonable program of Federal participation in the solution of these problems. And I have every hope that this committee again will agree on something. Far more modest than what you are advocating, which will eliminate entirely any Federal subsidies for teachers. I do not think public opinion is behind you or anybody who is advocating a program of that kind. I think it is going to make it very unlikely that we get any construction aid at all if there is an insistence on your charge that the Federal Government must require real initiative simply to make a beginning toward reducing the teacher shortage and insuring the teachers have proper qualifications. If we

get into the business, at the Federal level, of insuring that teachers have proper qualifications and that we do something real initiative to increase the $4,800 average salary paid our teachers we will get nowhere once again.

And I have sat here on this committee long enough and have seen us get nowhere to want an early agreement on what you may consider wholly inadequate but which would at least be a beginning, a recognition that the Federal Government has a responsibility and it is willing to face up to it. And we are not going to get it by all this talk about the necesity of doing more and all this carp and criticism of what the administration is proposing. There is an essential conservatism here in Congress even now with the Democrats so solidly in control which is going to wreck any program of Federal aid to education unless we cut down and curtail the legislation that we develop.

Mr. HOLLANDER. Well, sir, I would like to refer to what I said at the beginning of my statement, if you please, and that was that this now has come to a point where the people of the United State in Congress assembled, and otherwise, have got to decide what is important to them, where their priorities are. And the only way these priorities can be made effective is if the city councils and county councils and State legislatures and Congress and collective will is expressed to go ahead and do something about these things. We have been talking about them for 10 years. I do not know how many times I have been down here testifying in this committee and other committees to the need for education.

I remember the first time I came down here it was even challenged that there was even going to be a schoolroom shortage or teacher shortage when all you needed to do was look at the number of children born and know what time they were going to hit the schools. The same thing applies to slum-clearance programs. The fact is we are not running fast enough to stay where we are.

If the essence of a program that can command the support of Congress is that it should be inadequate by definition then we are indeed in a very bad way.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Of course we can disagree on what is an adequate program. I do not want you to think I do not appreciate your testimony. I must say I do think the advocacy of hopelessly unrealistic programs because they are so big and they "cover the waterfront" in so many ways and run into what people feel strongly about in this field of education are just contributing to the very dilemma that you refered to, that is, we have had no action in the field that needs action.

Mr. HOLLANDER. Excuse me, sir. If there is anything unrealistic of even $4 billion a year additional for education in a country with a national output which by that time will be $500 billion a year, then I do not understand what unrealistic is. What I am saying to you is that this is a matter of our having the courage and the resolution to adopt and enforce priorities on the allocation of our national resources. Either we are going to spend enough to educate our children or they are not going to get educated.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Are you suggesting we raise $4 billion in additional taxes, you are advocating the tripling of the present proposal?

Mr. HOLLANDER. I would rather see tax revenues raised than a school bill fail or inadequate school bill passed, yes.

As I said here, I do not think it is necessarily any simple arithmetic, Mr. Frelinghuysen, if you think ahead a few years, take a bill like the one you are now talking about, in 4 years it would reach something of the order of $4 billion; is that right?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I do not know which bill we are referring to. H.R. 22?

Mr. HOLLANDER. Yes.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The one you are talking about?

Mr. HOLLANDER. Yes.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The one you are advocating?

Mr. HOLLANDER. Yes.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am certainly not advocating it. Very positively; I am 100 percent opposed to it, but

Mr. HOLLANDER. I understand you are not advocating it, but talking about it.

Mr. THOMPSON. What percentage are you opposed to it?

Mr. HOLLANDER. I only want to make the point that each year that we contemplate the build-up of these needs the country's capacity increases, the economy expands and produces more. Federal revenues will increase, they should be increasing at the rate of $4 or $5 billion a year even without changing the tax rates at all and I am simply here pleading to take some of this increment in this great productive society and instead of using it for bigger and better "this," let us use it for bigger and better schools.

If that is unrealistic then we are really, as I say, on the way to trouble.

Mr. THOMPSON. Actually I wonder if the unfortunate thing that is apparent in this committee is that Mr. Frelinghuysen feels that H.R. 22 is unrealistic because it is too large and he says an unrealistic bill would have little or no chance.

My feeling is that the administration's bill is unrealistic because it is too small and because it is too small it has little chance.

Now, whether we are going to end up somewhere in between the two is a question. It may be if the President, if he were to get legislation involving a dollar more than the administration bill, would not sign it. It may be that he would. I do not know.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. It is not just because the Thompson bill is too large that I object to it and consider it unrealistic. It is because fundamentally I do not think so far as it has been proven so far that the Federal Government has any support for a broad scale subsidy of teachers. If I were convinced of the need and the fact that there is not going to be any way in which that need can be solved at other levels I might be persuaded to venture into something like that. At the moment I see no possible justification for such a program. That is my basic instinctive reaction.

Mr. HOLLANDER. I am afraid, sir, your discomfort is going to increase as time goes on because the situation is going to get worse, not better. We have not discussed here the problem of colleges, which is just a very few years ahead of us. We are still as I am sure you are aware, on the low side of that curve of college-age people which results from the low birth rates during the depression.

now,

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Let us not get off on college problems. I agree there are problems involved and some of these problems will involve the expenditure of money. I am not going to disagree with that and I am not going to disagree that the Federal Government has a very direct responsibility to worry about these problems.

Mr. HOLLANDER. I guess then we are simply in disagreement in the degree of responsibility and the manner in which it should be discharged and on this I simply want to conclude by saying it is our feeling that the responsibility should be discharged by the Federal Government in the first place, as I said, because this is where the developing revenues will come from and in the second place because it is a national problem that should not be left entirely to the States, and it seems to us that the arithmetic of this situation is absolutely inescapable and that a bill of the size and shape and manner of the administration bill, with all respect to you, sir, will simply not do it. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You would rather see no bill at all than something that you consider inadequate, Mr. Hollander?

Mr. HOLLANDER. This is not a fair question to ask.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You say.

Mr. HOLLANDER. I am perfectly aware of the processes of legislation and that the mills of the Congress grind slowly and sometimes exceedingly fine. I am simply saying that I think we will do ourselves very little good by passing a bill of these small proportions and we will be just about next year where we were this year for all our problems.

Mr. THOMPSON. I like your figure of speech, the the mills of the Congress, because it reminds me, and I think are is an analogy in here at least from where I sit, toward the administration bill. Abraham Lincoln's father is alleged to have sent him with some wheat to a miller who was notoriously slow in producing the flour and young Lincoln apparently watched this fellow for some time and it was coming out terribly slowly. He thought he would jibe the fellow and he said, "You know, I could eat that flour as fast as you can turn it out."

The miller thought that he had him trapped and said, "How long do you think you would be able to do that"?

Whereupon Abe said, "Till I starve to death, I reckon."

So I think that is the essential question here. Is this administration bill one which we can eat until we starve to death our educational system?

Mr. Brademas, do you have any questions?

Mr. BRADEMAS. No.

Mr. THOMPSON. We thank you very much, Mr. Hollander.

Mr. HOLLANDER. Thank you.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I, too, personally would like to thank you,

Mr. Hollander. As usual, you are a stimulating witness.

Mr. THOMPSON. I see that Miss Sally Butler, the director of legislation for the General Federation of Women's Clubs is here.

Will you come up, Miss Butler, and if you will identify yourself to the clerk, you may.

Miss BUTLER. Thank you.

Mr. THOMPSON. You may read your statement or present it in any manner in which you choose.

Miss BUTLER. Thank you, sir.

STATEMENT OF MISS SALLY BUTLER, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATION, GENERAL FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS

Miss BUTLER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Sally Butler, the legislative director for the General Federation of Women's Clubs.

And I am here, of course, making the statement in the name of our President, Miss Chloe Gifford.

I am going to read not all of it but give you a few sidelights on it and then turn the statement in.

But I think it is important for this committee and others reading this to know that the General Federation was chartered by the Congress itself. It is, of course, a nonpartisan, nonsectarian group.

It is composed mostly of the women who are the wives of men like you, it is a cross-section of the country. Many have little children, the banker's wife or the man that delivers the milk, the wife might be a member of this club. I tell you that to give you a crosssection of the people there.

During the 68 years of existence of this organization, among other things education has been one of the vital things which the women have worked for. So our process in achieving the things that we want comes through convention action, national convention action.

Now, actually the resolutions that are passed at these conventions are submitted by people from the field every often. They may be submitted by the national officers and they are studied by a legislative committee. They they are sent to the clubs for their approvals or disapprovals and then they are voted upon in the Congress.

So I have given you a statement, and as I say, I will not take your time to read it, presenting you the resolutions that have come down through the years starting back, I think, as early as 1908, where the women declared how important is education, and ask for-you can read that I would not like to take your time. I would not mind reading it but I know time is of the essence.

Mr. THOMPSON. We found, Miss Butler, on the last page an indication of your position, and I see that it supports Mr. Frelinghuysen. Miss BUTLER. I want to tell you this, Congressman Thompson, we do no support any bill.

Mr. THOMPSON. I see.

Miss BUTLER. And we never do in any. We support the principles as we have, as you know, in other legislation.

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes.

Miss BUTLER. And what we say in summation is that we urge you to favorably recommend this legislation and work for the enactment of a law, you see. We do not tell you which law.

Mr. THOMPSON. We appreciate that. We are trying very hard. Miss BUTLER. We feel that any bill coming before Congress will have perhaps amendments to it. So as a group that is the type of legislation that we are interested in. We do think it is vital, that we have proper schooling, that the teachers are properly paid, of course, and that there are plenty of classrooms.

We believe that the Federal Government must help when the States cannot.

I think when you read that you will see that we have resolutions saying just that.'