The fact that the Metcalf bill covers both the school plant and teacher shortages makes it the most comprehensive approach offered to date. Parenthetically, I wish to point out tht another school construction measure which I have also introduced in no way conflicts with the Metcalf program which I am happy, of course, to be a cosponsor of. Rather, it supplements the Metcalf bill by providing for a general authorization for Federal financial assistance to build schools with no amount specified.

If the issue is going to be joined to monetary considerations, I think then that it is important to point out that the present position of the administration is based on false economy. To economize at the Nation's expense, at the expense of both parents and their children, is a classic example of sophistry.

Federal expenditures for assistance to education would be the soundest, safest investment the Government of the United States could make, for it would bring in dividends from the Nation's economic, cultural, and social progress that would ensue.

Not to invest in an adequate school program is a dangerous risk that I do not believe this country can undertake.

Mr. Chairman, may I say in parentheses that we hear over and over again of the need to balance the budget, and of the somewhat sacrosanct figure of $77 billion. If $77 billion meets the Nation's needs, it is an adequate figure. If it does not meet the Nation's needs, it is an inadequate figure, and if it is necessary to meet the Nation's needs by closing the loopholes in our tax laws, such as there are many in existence, it would seem to me that the administration might put a little effort into coming up with how these loopholes may be closed in order that we can finance the educational and other fundamental needs of this country, including some of the things that the chairman happens to be very much interested in.

Mr. BAILEY. Does the gentleman think that the action taken yesterday by the Federal Reserve Board, upping the interest rate, would result in upping the interest rate on future bond issues that are issued by school districts that are in a position and still have bonding capacity to issue those bonds? Won't that interest rate cost the school boards of the Nation more money than the Federal Government is offering to give them in the administration's bill?

Mr. ROOSEVELT, I would certainly agree with that. I cannot tell you how shocked I was to read of it, and not only will it hinder the school districts in raising money and cost them a good deal more money, but I believe I would like to predict that you will see that it will cost the Federal Government more money also when it finances its own necessary needs. It will not be long before we are asked in the Congress to raise the present statutory limit which I believe is 414 percent on Federal securities to a higher figure, directly as a result of the action taken yesterday by the Federal Reserve Board. deplore it, Mr. Chairman.

I

The "economy" brigade, and I use the term economy in quotation marks advisedly, in the administration has its supporters, of course. Prominent among these is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I only wish that this organization would declare that it objects to Federal aid to education because it does not want to see the money expended, rather than using the old bromide that Federal aid means Federal

control of education at the local level. Neither the intent of the supporters of the Metcalf proposal nor the intent of the measure itself is to bring Federal policy into school administration, curriculum, and so on. I have an idea, Mr. Chairman, that the chamber of commerce in its heart really knows this.

I think the chamber of commerce ought to have the courage of its convictions to tell the American people and their schoolchildren, now attending half-day sessions or crowded into classrooms like sardines, that Federal funds should not be spent to help them because it would upset the economy, and create inflation, and ad infinitum all of the other hobgoblins that we hear about.

At least the education bill now before the committee could be argued then on its merits, its real effect on the economy and fiscal policy, rather than becoming the means to evade the central issue by using it as an example of Federal usurpation of local education.

But since this perennial argument is still with us, I think it might be well to note in brief fashion that Federal aid is not a new nor a startling concept. A check into history, a cursory check, will prove this. Such a check would show, for example, that Federal aid has existed in one form or another since the year 1785, 2 years before the adoption of our Constitution. Other facts, of course, are that in 1930 the Federal Government aided in the building of many needed schools, under the WPA program. In 1940 more aid was given under the Lanham Act-in the 1950's Public Laws 815 and 874, which continue the principles of the Lanham Act, and under which aid is given for the construction, maintenance, and operation of schools in federally impacted areas.

Mr. Chairman, can the opponents lay claim, much less prove, that any of these measures resulted in Federal control of education? The answer is clearly "no".

In addition to the need to meet the Communist challenge by educating our young people, in adequately constructed, well-spaced facilities, with a sufficient number of well-qualified and sufficiently wellpaid teachers, I think that there is another compelling reason for enactment of Federal legislation that will permit this objective to become a reality. This reason is a positive one. I say positive, because it is not based on our reacting to another nation's actions, but rather the reason stems from our concept that a free, well-informed citizenry, is the prerequisite for the survival of democratic institutions.

This is a part of our thinking. This is a part of our heritage, no matter what our political affiliations may be. This whole concept was set forth with clarity in 1830 in a plea for public education prepared by the Philadelphia Working Men's Committee, and I would like to quote it.

The original element of despotism is a monopoly of talent which consigns the multitude to comparative ignorance, and secures the balance of knowledge on the side of the rich and the rulers. Then the healthy existing of free government being rooted in the will of the American people, it follows as a necessary consequence of a government based upon that will, that this monopoly should be broken up and that the means of equal knowledge, and the only security for equal liberty, should be rendered by legal provision the common property of all classes.

Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that our concept of the importance of public education will be implemented by the passage of legislation

based on this concept, and I believe that this is the concept and will be the result of the bills proposed by Congressman Metcalf.

I wish to thank the committee, and you Mr. Chairman, for your consideration in allowing me to come and express my sentiments.

Mr. BAILEY. The Chair wants to congratulate the gentleman from California for his excellent presentation. Should the committee succeed in getting legislation on the floor of the House of Representatives, I sincerely hope that you will deliver the same speech you have offered in your brief today on the floor of the House. It is very effective.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Thank you.

Mr. THOMPSON. I take it that you are committing that much time on debate to our friend from California.

Mr. BAILEY. That is right; in advance.

Mr. THOMPSON. I hope when that time comes he will yield to his friend from New Jersey, who thinks that he ought to do the same thing.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I too, Mr. Chairman, want to thank our distinguished colleague from California for his eloquent and excellent state

ment.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BAILEY. Thank you, Mr. Roosevelt.

The Chair notices the presence of our colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Johnson.

Mr. Johnson, are you prepared to testify?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir, I am.

Mr. BAILEY. Will you come forward.

STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

Mr. JOHNSON. My name is Byron Johnson, Congressman from the Second District of Colorado.

For a long time I have been interested in matters of grants-in-aid, equalization, and school finance. I might say to the chairman that several years ago I did some staff work on aid-to-education proposals in a previous Congress, and that I did a monograph on the principle of equalization applied to the allocation of grants-in-aid. I mention this only to make my position clear to the committee.

I might say further to the chairman that 4 years ago I became a member of our State legislature, and served on its education committee. I lived through the headaches of a significant revamping of school finance, school aid, and school district organization for the State of Colorado, as a legislator and during the past 2 years as the Governor's administrative assistant.

Therefore, my comments should be considered in the light of that personal background.

I might also admit to having been a teacher, but in a private college, and therefore not interested in this in any personal manner.

I think that there are several points that need to be recognized, not only by this committee but by the Congress, if we are to secure proper legislation with respect to the financing of our public schools. For too long, Mr. Chairman, we have assumed that somehow the capital cost

was an accidental and temporary thing. We have assumed that once it was met that then our continuing problem was merely one of school operation. This may be a heritage of the little red schoolhouse in the center of the township which it was my privilege to attend in the later grades. But it does not fit our growing population and modern urban areas.

The fact of the matter is that with respect to all but a few of the smallest school districts, capital costs are a never-ending and continuing cost of the operation of a school district. Therefore it seems to me the first thing we need to recognize is that we cannot solve the capital problem by some quick move and then turn our backs on it. We must recognize that the schools of America will continue to need new buildings as population grows, and rebuilding as they wear out. This makes the capital program a continuing one.

A second thing we need to recognize, Mr. Chairman, is that as you meet the capital needs by building these new classrooms which the administration and the American people recognize that we need, we must not lose sight of the fact that operating costs will surely follow. Many State legislatures in recent years have been embarked on a program of increasing their capital plant at their State universities, and their State hospitals, and their State prisons, and the people have recognized the need for these improvements.

We are little slower to recognize that once we have built the new facilities, we then need staff personnel, and we need utility services, and that costs of government mount after the capital costs are met in order to meet the higher operating costs that follow.

A third proposition that must be generally recognized is that growth is a continuing fact of our modern life. The chairman will remember that during the war years, many people assumed that the increase in the birth rate which became so evident after 1940 was a temporary condition, and we tended to blame the war. We know now, Mr. Chairman, that the increase in the birth rate is a social phenomenon that may perhaps simply reflect the fact that income increased in the 1940's and 1950's over what it had been in the 1930's. There is certainly a trend toward larger families.

The American population is almost exploding. We have current figures suggesting that we are nearing 175 million people, against a figure during the last census, less than 10 years ago, of 150 million people. There are seven people today for every six there were at the time the last census was taken, and most of these people are not immigrants. They are children, born to our own people during these years. The increase in school population which is painfully evident in many districts, including my own, is not going to let up, Mr. Chairman. As a matter of fact, I have had to warn my people that if they think they have seen growth because of the wartime boom and postwar boom in babies, they should remember that these babies today are being born to the children of the depression. Wait until the children who were born after 1940 begin the process of family formation, and that is about to happen because they are now of marriageable age. And if we think we have seen growth with respect to school needs, Mr. Chairman, in the past 15 years, putting it in the vernacular, you ain't seen nuttin' yet.

Mr. THOMPSON. Will the gentleman yield at that point?

It has been called to my attention that even at the present rate, by 1960 4 million children a year will be entering the school system, at the present rate.

Mr. JOHNSON. But you see, you have the children now being born to the classes of babies born in the 1930's, that numbered roughly 212 million persons, and therefore making roughly 1 million new families per year currently by class. Now we will shortly be moving into the 312 and 4 million children per year group, which will make 11⁄2 to 2 million family formations per year, and given both the increased number of families and the general increase in size of families, we blind ourselves to the facts of life, Mr. Chairman, if we assume that our problem is a temporary problem.

Growth is a continuing phenomenon. Unless there is some profound change in the social structure of the American family and the habits of the American people and their wishes with respect to family size, we can reasonably anticipate in just a few more years that we shall have a whole new cycle of school expansion to go through.

We have been through the grade school doubling, and we are in the process of doubling our high school plant, and we are in desperate need in the next few years to virtually double our collegiate plant to take care of the bulge we have already experienced since 1940.

But as those children get married and have children, we can anticipate as certainly as we can project the phases of the moon, that we will have a much greater growth in the years ahead.

Therefore it is important, Mr. Chairman, that we provide some reasonable tax base, and some reasonable financial device by which our schools may continue to be built and be operated.

That brings me, Mr. Chairman, to my fourth point. It seems to me that the American people must recognize that the general property tax is the only satisfactory tax available at the local tax level. We cannot expect school boards to administer sales taxes or income taxes on a satisfactory basis. Property is the only great tax base that can easily be tapped by local schools,

But they must share this tax base, Mr. Chairman, with the cities and the counties and the other units of local government, for these too have difficulty in making great use of other sources of funds. And this same population growth not only effects the demand for schools, it also effects the demand for water systems, sewage disposal systems, highways, streets, hospitals, jails, city halls, fire stations, parks, recreation areas, and the whole host of public services with which we are familiar. All units of local government are crowding that same tax base to meet a demand for increased capital, and they are crowding that same tax base to meet a demand for increased public service personnel.

This is an inescapable consequence of growth. It is only compounded and not created by any inflationary forces which have been operating in the past few years.

Mr. BAILEY. The witness will, I think, agree that the competition for other activities other than your school activities makes it difficult in demands on the State legislature for grants for other purposes, and makes it difficult to get State aid money for school construction.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, if you were sitting any closer, I would think that you were stealing quite a bit of this from me, and that you had been reading my notes.