powers. The question-" the words there are "verged upon." The question is, how close can you get and still be constitutional? In the brief time remaining, all we can do is make certain assertions which to us seem to state the proper interpretation of this problem.

First of all, we believe that Federal aid is necessary and that it can be supplied to the States without Federal control.

Secondly, we object to any financial aid, direct or indirect, to private schools. We support health and safety protection for all children, including those that go to private schools, and States must recognize private schools if they meet certain standards, providing adequate education, but parents who choose to send their children to such schools must pay for this privilege.

It is asserted that section 6 (b) of Senate bill 472 is to avoid Federal control. We assert that it is a mixture of at least three legal questions: Federal control, establishment of religion, and concern for the general welfare. We could ask an impertinent question, perhaps, on this matter of Federal control. Section 7 (a) of S. 472 sets standards for the use of Federal funds for States, which may not separate schools for different races. It requires the use of funds on a per capita basis. This is fine. It is as it should be, but it is a change from the policies in some States which use State funds for separate schools on an unequal basis. Is it not Federal control to require the use of these Federal funds in the States on an equal per capita basis, and would it be any more control to assert that only public schools shall receive the benefits of Federal funds, regardless of the policy in the State?

In view of this, we say that we will support public education, using the resources of local communities, States, and the National Government, and we will work against State laws which permit the use of public funds for private schools.

We are critical of the Supreme Court decision which makes legal the use of tax funds for certain purposes. We are unhappy about the provisions of 6 (b) of S. 472, yet we will and we do want to support Senate bill 472.

We raise questions about section 6 (b). We realize that they are questions which must ultimately be answered, not in the Congress of the United States but in the several States and in the courts. Congress could help us by expressing a point of view, by discouraging further verging upon constitutional prohibitions, and, if it chose, to omit section 6 (b). But whatever happens, the church group intends to work for Federal aid to education, to support public education and to oppose any State laws and court decisions which violate what we believe to be constitutional prohibitions on the establishment of a religion. We will seek to build up and not tear down what we believe to be important, one important aspect of our democratic life, that is, a wall between church and state in the field of education.

Senator AIKEN. Are there any questions?

Senator ELLENDER. Mr. Keehn, I imagine you would be willing to let this matter rest with the courts, and as you have just indicated, I think you should direct your efforts to seeing to it that the States themselves do not make it possible to use public funds for private schools, nonpublic schools. I would say that in my State of Louisiana we have a constitutional prohibition against the use of public funds for private. schools, and I am in agreement with you that we should not foster that

here, but I do not see how that is possible unless we transfer the control from the State back to the Federal Government. That I do not believe you would want to do.

Mr. KEEHN. No, we would not. And I agree with you that this is essentially a State problem. If this provision had been omitted from the bill, section 6(b), we believe it would set a good example, we might say, to the States.

Senator ELLENDER. Even though it were eliminated, it would not prevent the States from utilizing these funds for that purpose.

Mr. KEEHN. No, it would not, and it could not.

Senator HILL. Let me ask you this question. Have you read the decision of the Court in the New Jersey bus case, Everson versus Board of Education of the Township of Ewing? Have you read that decision?

Mr KEEHN. Yes, I have.

Senator HILL. You notice that the Court concludes the decision with these words:

This Court has said that parents may, in the discharge of their duty under State compulsory education laws, send their children to a religious rather than a public school if the school meets the secular educational requirements which the State has power to impose. See Pierce v. Society of Sisters (268 U. S. 510).

I take it you have no disagreement as to this part?

Mr. KEEHN. No, we do not.

Senator HILL. And the decision goes on:

The

It appears that these parochial schools meet New Jersey's requirements. State contributes no money to the schools. It does not support them. Its legislation, as applied, does no more than provide a general program to help parents get their children, regardless of their religion, safely and expeditiously to and from accredited schools.

I take it you disagree with the Court on that?

Mr. KEEHN. We think it does, in effect, do more than that, yes. I think in Justice Jackson's dissenting opinion he says that while it is obviously the intent, in part, to provide for what we might call the general welfare of children who are going to these schools, by such statutes, nevertheless, it is also true that some children would go to those private parochial schools in many cases who otherwise would not go to such schools. That is, it is an encouragement to them to go to private schools rather than to go to the public schools; and that, we believe, borders upon a more direct kind of aid to those private schools. And I think that in the New Jersey case it should be also pointed out that the only schools that are so qualified under the statutes of the State are certain Catholic schools. A large number of other private schools are not encompassed at all within the statute or within the decision of the Court on that matter.

Senator HILL. The Court concludes by stating:

The first amendment-meaning, of course, the first amendment to the Federal ConstitutionThat

The first amendment has erected a wall between church and state. wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. New Jersey has not breached it here.

You do not agree, then, with the conclusion of the Court? Mr. KEEHN. Well, we would simply say, without trying to question the high court of our land, that we would again refer to this phrase which the Court itself used in the decision, namely, that this statute in

the New Jersey case verges upon the constitutional limitations of the powers of the State government. Now, how close can you verge and still be constitutional? We think that even the Court had some serious questions in its mind about this matter, and we think that is proven further by the four distinct opinions. It is a very complex and controversial question. We do not believe this is the place or time to be dogmatic about this, but we do seriously want to underline this problem as something that we are concerned about, making, however, our primary emphasis, as I have said in answer to Senator Ellender's question, that we realize that this is a State problem essentially. And more than that, we would still like to leave the effect of our testimony. to indicate that we are for a program of Federal aid to public education. We cannot stress that too much.

Senator AIKEN. Mr. Keehn, if it should develop that the enactment of any Federal aid to education legislation depends upon the inclusion of the provisions of 6 (b), would the Congregational Council still oppose it?

Mr. KEEHN. No, we would not oppose the bill finally on that point. Senator AIKEN. I thought that would be your decision. Furthermore, you are probably familiar with the situation in New England, in my own State of Vermont, which has a great many private schools that are private schools in name only. They are the old academies established originally by the churches, the Baptist Church, Congregational Church, Methodist Church, and some parochial schools. In many cases they serve as the public high school. I can name many instances where, if it were not for these private schools which receive public support, pupils in such an area would have to go as far as 20 miles to the nearest public high school. In such cases don't you believe that public aid is warranted? I live about a mile from a private school which is non-sectarian, and 14 miles from the nearest public high school. Isn't it better for the local community to pay $100 a year tuition for the children who attend that school than it is to pay $100 tuition and send them 14 miles and pay transportation, and be assured that they will not have the opportunity to study that they would have if they could attend a school in their own town, although the school is technically a private school?

Mr. KEEHN. The key word, Senator, I think is "technically", is it not?

Senator AIKEN. Well, this particular school is actually a private school, a non-profit private school, exempt from taxation.

Mr. KEEHN. Our answer to that, in part, is that we believe that Federal aid is necessary to that the State may build up a really adequate and inclusive program of public education. That is one of the real objectives behind the whole program of Federal aid to education, as we understand it.

Senator AIKEN. Since there is no Federal aid, the percentage of pupils attending private schools is rapidly increasing, from the very fact that the public schools are just so bad that in many localities, anyone who can afford to do so, takes his children away from the public school and sends them to the private school.

Mr. KEEHN. Let us hurry up and pass this bill, Senator.

Senator AIKEN. Over 10 percent of the children are now attending private schools, and it is anticipated that that number will rise another

5 percent in a very short time unless something is done to improve the caliber of the public schools. That is the situation in my State.

Mr. KEEHN. That is true even more so in other sections of the country, I think.

Senator AIKEN. It is not the same kind of problem, but the deterioration of our public schools, as some of the witnesses have indicated, is really serious.

If there are no further questions, that is all, Mr. Keehn. Thank you for your testimony.

Our next witness scheduled this morning is George J. Hecht. Will you identify yourself, Mr. Hecht, tell us whom you represent, and proceed with your testimony?

STATEMENT OF GEORGE J. HECHT, PRESIDENT, PARENTS'

INSTITUTE, INC., NEW YORK. N. Y.

Mr. HECHT. Senator Aiken, my name is George J. Hecht. For 20 years I have been the publisher of Parent Magazine, which is a magazine of more than a million circulation for mothers and fathers on the rearing of children from crib to college.

I also publish a dozen other magazines dealing with family life and child welfare, also magazines for children, including a magazine called School Management, which is the largest circulation magazine for school administrators.

Gentlemen, if children were cattle they would be getting a much squarer deal from Uncle Sam. The Federal Government appropriates many times as much money for the welfare of cattle, hogs, and other farm animals as it does for the education of children. Furthermore, while the Federal Government appropriates nothing toward the salaries and training of teachers, it votes annually many millions for the education of farmers and for agricultural extension work to be sent to every State in the Union to teach farmers how to care for their cattle. The total funds appropriated and available for the United States Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year 1946 were $2,300,000,000. The total funds appropriated and available for the United States Office of Education for the same fiscal year were a little over a million and a half dollars, which is about one-fourteenth of 1 percent of what the Department of Agriculture appropriation is.

For research activities alone of the Bureau of Animal Industry more than $10,000,000 was appropriated for the Department of Agriculture, as compared with the total appropriation for the Office of Education of $1,600,000. Then the Department of Agriculture also gets $25,000,000 for extension work throughout the 48 States, and about $5,000,000 for agricultural economics, and $19,000,000 for Forest Service, and $36,000,000 for soil conservation. And remember that for the Office of Education only $1,600,000 is appropriated.

The Nation can rightfully be judged by the care and education that they give their children. How can America continue its leadership in world affairs if the next generation grows up badly educated, all because too little money was appropriated in many of the less wealthy States where they have more children than they have money? For our Nation to survive and prosper, adequate schools must be maintained, and living wages must be paid to teachers, wages sufficiently

high to attract and keep well-qualified and trained people for the vitally important job of teaching future generations.

Simply because a State does not have any big industries in it, or does not have wealthy people who can be taxed for local school support, is no reason why essential activities such as schools, should be underfinanced.

In other fields the Federal Government steps in and provides money so that vitally important activities can be continued. The Federal Government provides virtually all money needed to fight forest fires throughout the Nation. If we were dependent upon State appropriations for forest fire prevention, there would hardly be any forests left in the United States, and large areas of our country would be burned over and arid, unbelievable dust storms would sweep from the poorer States that do not provide for forest-fire protection, over to the wealthier states which do provide for it. So the Federal Government provides ample money for all the States to provide for adequate forestfire protection. Uncle Sam seems also to be more interested in trees than in children.

In some States as much as $6,000 per year is spent for education per school classroom. In other States less than $100 per year per classroom is spent. Remember those figures, $6,000 or more in some States; less than $100 per year per classroom in others.

Federal aid for education is nothing new to the United States Government. In the history of the United States well over 100 Federal-aid-for-education bills have been passed, but there never has been any Federal aid for education where it is needed the most, namely, the aid to the elementary schools. There is Federal aid for agricultural colleges and for home economics and for other vocational courses. The Government also provides for school lunches, and yet there is no aid for the education where it is needed most, namely, among the little children. Thousands upon thousands of children in the Southern States are not going to school at all because there are no teachers. Either there isn't any money to pay the teachers, or the amount of money is so small that no teacher will take the job. situation is a national scandal. These conditions cannot be permitted to continue.

The

Of course, education is the job of the State, but if the State cannotfinance the job alone, or even if they just haven't financed it adequately by themselves, is the Federal Government to permit this vital job to remain undone? If the States do not provide money to protect their forests, the Federal Government steps in and provides money to see that this is done. Will the Federal Government lay back and say it is not concerned with whether or not the children are educated if they happen to live in States which cannot or do not provide adequate money for the education of children?

I wish to record myself heartily in support of Federal aid to education, Senate bill 472, with, however, the following three changes: 1. The $40 minimum foundation school program for elementary and secondary education now proposed in the bill should be increased to $50. The proposed $40 foundation program is just too low to provide adequate educational facilities. Even $50 is not anywhere near enough. It ought to be much more.