Page images
PDF
EPUB

Whether we like it or not, that is one of the practical problems that the proponents of action have to face. Our basic problem now is to design a program which will not run into quite as intense opposition as it did in previous years.

Mr. FOLEY. I appreciate your view, Mr. Frelinghuysen. In fact, I have studied your personal comments in the record for recent years. You, along with everyone else who is interested in seeing that these programs become immediately enacted, I am sure, felt with deep regret the vote in July 1957 when this compromised program had finally reached an area where it could have been passed, and should have been passed, but was defeated, I believe I am safe in saying approximately five votes.

I believe your vote was one in support of the program. When I say I am sorry to be here, I am sorry that we would have to be here, that we would have to be beating, what I consider to be a dead legislative horse, something that was up in 1956, something that was up in 1957, something that everybody recognizes should have been done many years ago.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I do not want to recognize the horse is dead yet, but it is the advocacy of what is in your bill that I think will kill it at some point.

I am really worried and I am wondering how sincerely you feel we must include a teachers' salary subsidy.

It seems to me that will kill it on the floor. You say we have explored the need. Well, there has not been much exploration for the necessity for Federal action to subsidize teachers' salaries, not so far as I have been on this committee and it is

my
seventh

year now. I wonder if you have any justification as to the necessity for Federal subsidies to Maryland teachers' salaries? Do you happen to know what the average salary is? Do you happen to know whether it is a question of the State of Maryland sitting on its hands or the community sitting on their hands and refusing to participate or is there some kind of need that cannot be met except through Federal action?

Mr. FOLEY. I can make a quick answer and I am speaking from an overall standpoint, relying on this impartial report of Business Week, which was, I believe, a fair study and a rather through investigation of the school needs.

I take my position basically from that particular report and I have included that in my previous statement.

Again I will present those particular facts to you for the record in a supplemental report.

If you are asking for my opinion, I would say this: This Business Week report points out that since 1904 not only the economic status of the teaching profession, but more importantly, the social status of the teaching profession in our society historically has been reduced and it is to restore the social status along with the economic status of profession to the place it occupied in previous generations that this adjustment in salaries is necessary.

I am convinced of the need. I am convinced of the need for Federal action in this area. I am convinced that the Murray-Metcalf bill makes proper provision for the States themselves to decide, do we want to use the money for construction? Do we want to use the money for instruction?

37378-59-16

This is something that the States decide themselves. But I believe that the need is pretty self-evident from all the sources, impartial and otherwise, that I can get together, for attracting more people, keeping them longer in the schools, and making this a very satisfying personal profession from the standpoint of life's work as weil as economically rewarding.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. But to toss your own quotation from Business Week back to you, I will read the statement that says:

The main reason for the low pay scales is that school boards all over the country have dragged their feet in a desperate effort to hold down taxes.

That does not say there is no need that cannot be met at some level other than Federal. That, in itself, would seem to indicate that if there is any Federal obligation it would be to help them not drag their feet, to encourage them, or require them if they are to get Federal assistance, to do more than they have.

You are suggesting, as I understand it, that we do not have to worry ourselves about the capacity of the local school districts to solve their own problems, because there is a problem, you say, the Federal Government must answer it.

I would think you would say, or you might say just as well that instead of a billion dollars a year, as your bill would propose the first year, we would go immediately to $4,700 million a year because the problem is serious and we need to double salaries, or whatever your argument is.

I don't know why you have the gradual buildup. Why not put it in at a 4 or 5 billion dollar rate in order to see to it that some amount will get down to teacher salaries? Is it not true that you may be short-circuiting what seems to me to be basically a local responsibility as to which it is essential that we be careful when we start Federal programs of this kind.

Mr. FOLEY. This last comment you made was about Federal control of the local school districts. I am very happy to report that the language that is contained in the Murray-Metcalf bill insofar as I have read it and discussed it with the constituents in my district, is very well worded.

So in this Murray-Metcalf bill this ancient shibboleth, if I may call it, Federal control of the local school districts—and I am against Federal control, has founded, I say, from the standpoint of developing language which insures against such control in the Murray-Metcalf bill, a formula, a description, and a provision which insures against it.

But let us get back to the point you make. Let us get back to the question that the local school district should solve this problem itself.

Let us get back to the, as I quoted myself, “The local districts have been dragging their heels.” Our answer to that is this: as Federal officials we say "Local school districts, you have created this problem because you have not taken the leadership, you have not spent the money. Therefore we as public officials are going to sit back and point our finger at you, saying you are the cause of it; therefore you will be the solution to the problem."

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Is that an improper role for us to point the finger at other levels?

Mr. FOLEY. Then I think we should also ask ourselves the question, what can we do about it? Let us look at the children who are being victimized by the stupidity, by the ignorance, by the greed, by the reluctance of these local school boards.

Let us look at them not only as citizens of the State, citizens of the county, citizens of the township, citizens of the municipality, of the town. Let us look at them also as citizens of the United States and let us look upon them as charges or wards or problems that we as public officials should have, that anything that affects them as citizens of the United States concerns us and if the Federal Government makes a finding, and I am taking your word for it, sir, that it is because of the local school district that this condition exists, then it is up to the Federal Government to take proper action and if money is the solution to perpetuate the values, I am for the money from the Federal Government.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. My whole point hinges on the word you slipped in, and I do not know whether it was inadvertent or not, proper action. Is it not a good question what is the proper action for the Federal Government? Is it not to see to it that there is a reasonable effort made at other levels than the Federal Government, that the Federal Government should not step in and take the entire financial responsibility for something that could be done and has been done more or less over the years at either local or State levels ?

Mr. FOLEY. Getting back to your own comment, sir, I think you said this: that there has in recent years been bona fide sincere legislative efforts by members of this committee, by Members of the Congress, to arrive at an agreed formula, an agreed solution in that instance in 1957 to the classroom need.

That formula came out was, as you recall, an effort-income formula, the index.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We will never get an agreement between the proponents of Federal action in this field if you insist on mixing aid to teachers' salaries with what might otherwise be a reasonable program for construction assistance.

Mr. FOLEY. Do you not agree that that is merely a prediction on your part?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. It is a prediction based on sad experience in the past with considerably less ambitious programs than this and with considerably less possibility of Federal control over what might be developed as a result of a program of this kind.

Mr. FOLEY. From your standpoint, since it is a prediction, is this problem of teachers' salaries a question of principle or a question of money that is creating the problem, that in principle we should not help the State with teachers' salaries or it is going to cost too much money?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. There is a very basic question of principle which I think needs to be explored before we assume there is any necessity for Federal action.

Your quotation from Business Week shows no necessity. It just says the local level has been dragging its feet.

I am saying if we do have a Federal program it should be to try to get the community on their feet again and not taking over and saying, “We are going to take over what you are reluctant to do."

Even if the program is a billion dollars a year your own State would only get a total of $19 million.

Perhaps, if the past were any guide, two-thirds of that would be allocated for the construction of schools and it might be 100 percent.

So you are not going to actually solve your problems even with a program of this scale, but you are establishing very basic principles which may lead to a considerably less reliance on the local levels because taxes are heavy, of course they are, and an increasing reliance on the Federal Government, and I think we might look well before we advance in this territory.

I am not saying that they do not have any or under no circumstances would have any responsibility to help out in teachers' salaries, but I think it certainly is going to make it a much more complicated bill to justify on the floor of the House than it would be if we had that eliminated.

Mr. FOLEY. I concede with you that the Murray-Metcalf bill that came up in the year 1958 and which introduced, I believe, for the first time, the proposal to assist with teachers' salaries, is something new, but at the same time if there is a need in our society, and I am firmly convinced there is such a need, that this Congress is a responsible agency and two generations have demonstrated responsibility, this committee and the subcommittee is the responsible agency, and if the need is there, even though there might be torturing of consciences, maybe it needs 2 more weeks of hearings because you want to explore this business in principle.

But if you are satisfied after exploring the needs, that the Federal Government should help the States, help the local communities, help raise the standards of the teachers to induce your children and my children and our neighbors children to think in terms of a teaching profession or a teaching career instead of some other career, I am for the 2-week delay, but I am also for decision and action this year on this important point.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Foley, one further question:

Because of your sponsorship of a particular bill, may I conclude that you would be opposed to the previous approaches that have been used which would require some kind of effort on the part of local or State communities, some kind of necessity for a matching in order to qualify for Federal funds, in order to stimulate the providing of additional funds that your bill as set up does not have ?

Mr. FOLEY. I thank you for the asking of that question. No; it does not mean that I am opposed to a matching fund theory or an effort index formula or a need formula or an income formula. I am for that program that will get through the Congress this year.

If it means that we go back to the formula that was accepted by a very fine majority, not majority, but a very fine group of Congressmen in 1957, I am for that. I want action taken.

I will accept in my humble judgment such amendments as are necessary to make sure that the schools and the teachers this year get Federal assistance.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am glad to hear that, Mr. Foley. Does what I assume is your indirect criticism of the administration program mean that you would not support that if the committee should report it out?

Mr. FOLEY. I will vote very frankly, if that comes up, I will vote against the Eisenhower program because it is delaying the solution until next year.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. If you look at it there is no delay until 1961 involved if we should pass the legislation. This program would begin immediately.

Mr. FOLEY. The point is I will vote against it in the Committee of the Whole, but if it passes in the Committee of the Whole, I will vote for it on the final vote of the House.

Mr. BAILEY. Mr. Foley, I note that you have taken a position in support of the Metcalf-Murray bill. To what extent have you gone into the provisions of the proposed administration bill?

Mr. FOLEY. I have not seen it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BAILEY. It might be of interest to you to check when you are getting this additional material for filing in the record. I know your district fairly well, the five counties in your district and with the possible exception of Garrett County I doubt if there is a single district from your congressional district, a single school district, that has exhausted its bonding capacity.

Unless there is such a district, and there might be one or two in Garrett County, there would be no benefits accruing to the State of Maryland from the administration's bill. They will be completely excluded.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The State of Maryland, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. BAILEY. Yes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Every State will have some benefits, sir.

Mr. BAILEY. I would not know how if there was not some individual school district that had exhausted all of its bonding capacity. There may be some counties in Maryland that would qualify.

It is just possible, and if I were the gentleman from Maryland who was testifying I would check my district carefully to see if there would be any benefits in the administration bill for your district.

Mr. FOLEY. I will do that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BAILEY. Unless there is some district that has exhausted its present bonding capacity it will not qualify under the administration bill.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Your feeling is whether or not there is a need that the Federal Government should assist ?

Mr. FOLEY. No. I say there is a need. If there were no need, I would not be here today.

I have been following the debates, I have been following your statements.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I mean in your congressional district you are talking about. Mr. Bailey suggested there is no need as defined on whether they have reached their bonding capacity and, therefore, no Federal funds would be available under the administration bill.

I am asking you, if there is no need because you have not reached your bonding capacity, do you still feel there is an obligation of the Federal Government to help you?

Mr. FOLEY. If I may allude to a word that we used, the people in our county, in our district, are not provincial. We are talking about a Federal law to meet a Federal need. The Federal need is a nationwide need. If a particular school district, a particular county in our

« PreviousContinue »