sacred duty to concern itself with the welfare of the child, while protecting and maintaining the State government.

Senator SMITH. I do not know what you mean by exploitation. I would agree if there were an exploitation of the child that protection of the child is sacred to our whole set-up but we have a difference of opinion between the Federal responsibility and the State responsibility.

Miss BORCHARDT. Do you not wholeheartedly favor the social principles of the social security law? Under this law there is a FederalState cooperative program for the common welfare.

Senator SMITH. I do not feel this is the place to discuss that. We have taken the position right along we are not the witnesses. We are trying to get in the record what your philosophy is and I am not trying to embarrass you.

Miss BORCHARDT. Our position is that when the State does not provide for the individual child's well being that the Federal Government must make the means available whether those means are negative or positive to protect and promote the welfare of the individual child. We do feel that in preventing child labor, in giving aid to crippled children, and in many other acts, that the Federal Government quite definitely has assumed a proper responsibility.

Senator SMITH. That implies, of course, that the Federal Government must set up some sort of agency to determine whether a given State, in its own sovereign right, has taken care of the child properly and if it has not, then the Federal Government steps in and these funds are passed on to the trustee. I just want to get the issue clear. Is that your position?

Miss BORCHARDT. May I state it as we see it? The Federal Goveernment asks the State to report. It is not investigating. It asks the State to report whether the State can, under its laws, make the benefit from Federal funds available to every child in need of them, and if the State reports that it cannot do so, then the Federal Government supplies the machinery through which that aid may flow for all children which the State cannot or will not help with its own funds. That is our position, Senator.

Senator SMITH. That is a reasonably fair statement, I think. The principle of equalization of educational opportunity I find myself very sympathetic with that. I think there are some very poor sections of our country where I am entirely happy to see the wealthier sections contribute to those areas, but that is a very different matter from that which we are discussing and from some of the other things you have touched on. I think you have made your position clear. I just wanted to bring out what the issue is here.

Miss BORCHARDT. Thank you, Senator.

Now, as to the trustee: In the first place we should note that a trustee is provided in S. 181 also. There must be an officer of trust in every State to receive and disburse Federal funds made available in the act. S. 181 provides for a trustee who shall be a State officer. S. 717 provides for two trustees; one who shall be a State officer and one who shall be a Federal officer. That latter provision was written into the bill to provide a means for channeling Federal funds for children in nonpublic schools who, because of State law, cannot get the benefit from Federal funds once they are mingled with or become

State funds. This provision is no secret. It is openly stated. It is written in the bill, that means are provided for taking care of the child whose needs are not met by the State. We do hope that, above all else, that the child's well being is protected. I know, Senator Smith, of your knowledge as a student of political science and of your interest in seeking to find a means through which the individual human being may be served. We just plead with you to find a means to make this possible, in a bill for Federal aid for education.

The question has been raised here several times as to whether our membership was informed as to what is in the bill. They have been kept informed continually. In the first place, the report restating our principles was read to our convention in 1943. I am not going to read this report to you now, but I do want to state that not only was it read to our convention, it was placed in the hands of every delegate. Furthermore, a representative of the National Education Association was present and took with him a number of copies. I want to quote only one sentence:

We must honestly and openly analyze the question of Federal aid to schools supported by religious organizations. Shibboleths should not replace critical

thinking.

The CHAIRMAN. Miss Borchardt, do you wish to have that made a part of the record?

Miss BORCHARDT. I should like to have the part of the report dealing with the Federal-aid bill, if I may, inserted in the record, because there has been a question as to whether our organization had been informed about this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well, it will be placed in the record. (The material referred to is as follows:)

[For immediate release Wednesday, a. m., August 18, 1943]

REPORT OF THE WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE

(By Selma M. Borchardt)

No bill, now before Congress, providing general Federal aid for education will become a law. This is a fact in spite of the other fact that there is urgent need for immediate aid if our schools are to be maintained at this time.

Teachers of America have been reading reports and expounding theories on the need of Federal aid for education and on the absolute justice inherent in their appeals for such aid. It is time we stopped simply talking about the needs of our schools and accept the fact as proved that many State simply cannot raise the funds to finance education in the State, and that we start directing our attention to a critcal evaluation of the proposed means and methods through which the program of Federal aid is to be financed and administered. We must stop believing that the legislation is around the corner simply because someone says so, and start asking ourselves, quite seriously, why the legislation has not been enacted when the need for it is so glaringly apparent.

The record shows that for the last 25 years the American Federation of Teachers and the other teacher organizations have pleaded for Federal aid for education. Yet, actually, we are no closer to the enactment of this legislation than we were 25 years ago. We should frankly face the facts as to why this program has made no progress.

In 1918, when the first proposal for such legislation was made, the record shows that the A. F. of L. the A. F. of T., the NEA, and the General Federation of Women's Clubs were asking for a law which would create a Federal Department of Education and would give Federal funds which would grant aid on a State-matching basis. The reason then given was that the World War had shown that a large number of illiterates in this country need education, and that many foreign born here needed to be Americanized. This was the basis of the

appeal in 1918. In that bill specific allocations were made for elementary and secondary education, for the war against illiteracy, and for other specific causes. Gradually, year by year, as the hearings show, through the years, supporters of the principle of Federal aid have changed their reasons for wanting the legislation on practically every point involved. First, the supporters of this legislation made the request for a Department of Education; then they dropped it. Next, they dropped their original request for State fund-matching programs; and then they condemned this formula. They dropped, picked up, and dropped again provisions for specific allocation of funds for specific levels and kinds of education. They urged the allocation of funds on a basis of school population, on a basis of total population, on a basis of need, on a basis of a weighted formula combining the other methods; and then dropped this formula. They first ignored the need of protecting the Negro's right to share in the benefits of a Federal program; then they opposed the right on a basis of State's rights; then they supported it half way; then opposed it; then supported it. They have supported bills, including the present set-up for vocational education, and they have deleted it. They have included, excluded, and included provisions for schoolbuilding programs. At first, they ignored the question of aid to Catholic schools. Then they opposed this principle. Then they tacitly accepted it. Then they opposed it again. It is to be observed that this principle was most ardently opposed while many of these same opponents were endorsing WPA educational programs which aided private groups, and while they were urging support for NYA which made direct grants to Catholic schools.

In a dozen more ways it can be shown by the printed record in the hearings on bills before Congress that the teachers of America have been led to endorse first one thing then another often in rapid contradiction; that lay groups who accepted the word of educators have likewise followed a policy of endorsing "the bill that gives help to the schools" without first making a critical evaluation of any bill in relation to any similar bills or by evaluating any bill on its own merit.

The vast majority of the supporters of the principle of Federal aid have adhered to a policy which has been vacillating in principle, opportunistic in tactics, and fatal in practice. As a result, the program has actually not advanced one bit while the teachers have been told that the legislation is on the way-for the last 25 years.

While certain teacher groups have perhaps been a little more inconsistent than others, not one group in this country has consistently adhered to a well-planned program based upon a critical study of the entire problem.

The American Federation of Teachers has done its share of vacillating, but at least during the majority of these years, since it has supported the principle of Federal aid, it has given teachers a frank picture of what the real situation at the Capitol is. It has since 1929 up to the present in almost every year asked for separate legislation for permanent aid and emergency aid, and it has critically evaluated Federal aid bills before Congress; those it supported and those it opposed. Its program has been slightly more realistic and, hence, slightly more fruitful. It was the American Federation of Teachers which led the victorious fight in 1935 for setting aside specific relief fund for education. (See the Congressional Record of March 20, 1935, p. 4062, for the speech by Senator Bronson Cutting, that great statesman who made and won the fight for us.) It has, this year, urged active support for immediate emergency aid. We all know that the immediate need for Federal aid is urgent. We know that well over half of the. teachers of America got less than $1,500 per year. That salary is our standard for a bare basic minimum. We know that teachers are not going to stay in a classroom at salaries from $600 to $1,200 a year when their pupils who leave school without training are paid twice that sum for routine jobs. We know that even though thousands of teachers would like to stay in a classroom even at low wages, that they simply cannot do so because the wages offered are not enough to buy food to live on. Teachers are compelled to leave the classroom to earn enough to live today. Schools are closing because States cannot at this time pay teachers the salary which would keep them in school. Cost of living has gone up-far beyond the Little Steel formula allowance. Many teachers had no increase between Pearl Harbor and January 1942—an increase which the formula

assures.

Teachers' salaries have increased less than 8 percent from 1939 to 1942, while the salaries of industrial workers in general have increased 37 percent and the income of farmers (proprietors) has increased 134 percent during the same period. And we must remember that this low percentage increase in teachers'

wages is to be considered in light of the fact that 66,000 teachers receive less than $600 a year and that 360,000 teachers receive less than $1,200 a year. It is indeed no wonder that there has been a 21 percent turnover in teaching jobs in the last year; that 13,000 classrooms will not open this fall because there are no teachers for them, and this in spite of the fact that war emergency teaching permits have been issued to 30,000 nonqualified persons. No one can deny that emergency Federal aid is vitally essential to the welfare of our country. It is our responsibility as American citizens to do whatever we can do properly to get emergency aid for our country's schools. The Congress should assure such aid immediately with but one safeguard: That such funds be honestly spent for the general purpose for which they were given, that is, to maintain our schools during this emergency.

There are three ways in which this emergency could be obtained. First, through the enactment of substantive law which would authorize the appropriation of a fixed sum for immediate emergency aid wherever it may be needed. This program is embodied in the bill sponsored for the A. F. of L. by Representative Jerry Voorhis of California at the request of the A. F. of L. This bill (H. R. 2160) provides emergency Federal aid to the States to enable them to keep the schools open now and to render other necessary aid for school children. The bill provides aid only for the emergency and sets up certain safeguards for the administration of the funds within as well as among the States. One of these safeguards is a provision requiring the public announcement of the plan of distribution of funds within the State before the distribution is made. We can all well appreciate the importance of being informed of the plan of distribution of funds in time to express our opinion on such a plan.

The second method is through a deficiency appropriation provided for in a deficiency bill or placed as a rider on any other appropriation bill.

The third method is that of having allocated to the schools, at this time, funds already available through the Lanham Act for emergency aid to the States in the promotion of the war effort.

The American Federation of Teachers supported the American Federation of Labor bill (H. R. 2160) and, in addition to this, has made a fight for both the second and third methods of getting emergency aid. Thus far no hearings have been held on the Voorhis bill. No effort was made to have this bill introduced into the Senate at the last session because we entered into a gentlemen's agreement with the NEA that they were not to have their bill, the Thomas-Hill bill, introduced into the House and we were not to have our bill, the Voorhis bill, introduced into the Senate. It was hoped that by such tactics we could more readily come to a point where we could both be supporting an agreedupon form of bill acceptable to all groups concerned. However, the NEA had introduced into the House, during the closing days of the session, its bill, and we shall proceed to have our bill introduced into the Senate as soon as Congress

reconvenes.

To be very frank on this question, it must be stated that there is practically no likelihood of action on either of these bills by the House Committee on Education although there is, according to the poll of the House committee, a greater chance of action on a bill for emergency aid than there is for action on a bill providing permanent aid. An example of the attitude of the House committee may be shown in the fact that, even though the bill providing for Federal aid for the maintenance of nursery and child-care centers passed the Senate and several Government agencies were urging action by the House, the House committee, when it met to consider the bill, did not muster a quorum, and hence there was not even a consideration of this bill by the House committee. There are many reasons involved in this, and it is likely that the absence of the members of the committee from committee attendance was not accidental nor due to indifference. It is considered likely that their absence indicated definitely their disfavor of the administrative provisions in the nursery, child-care center bill, as it passed the Senate, and their desire not to take hours in a busy legislature period to consider a measure, the administrative provision of which would have provoked lengthy discussion and probably not have brought forth further results during the closing days of the session. Further reference will be made in this report to the child-care center bill. However, this point is made here simply to show the lack of likelihood of consideration by the House of a far more extensive bill providing Federal aid than the simple one which they would not consider for action. This report is made so that we may realize what the actual legislative situation is, in order that we may realize that House action at this

time is not likely on either the Thomas-Hill or the Voorhis bill. It certainly does not help the cause for which we fight to ignore the true picture of any phase of any battle, and to be told that if we send post cards, letters, telegrams, or what not to Members urging immediate action on a bill-the administrative principles of which are anathema-will not change the situation and will not produce results.

The American Federation of Teachers made a fight for both the second and third methods above mentioned. In an effort to get funds appropriated through a deficiency appropriation or otherwise without supporting substantive law, we have thus far made no progress. However, we did urge the increase in a fund for emergency war aid to the States through the Lanham Act which had already given some aid to schools, and we can report that the Lanham Act has been extended and that an additional $200,000,000 has been added to the appropriation. It is now our duty to seek to have, through administrative procedure, a plan established and executed through which the schools would share properly and adequately in the administration of these funds at this time, for no emergency need pertaining to the war effort is greater than that of the schools of our country. It is recommended that our locals confer immediately with their proper administrative authorities in their respective communities, and then, in cooperation with such administrative authority and with the support of the trade-union movement in that community, join in making the appeal to the Federal Works Administration to obtain immediate emergency aid which may be needed in that community at this time to maintain the schools. Full, practical information for delegates is available here.

At this time we should also direct our attention to a restudy of the proposal for permanent Federal aid and decide on the principles involved in this important proposal to which we will commit ourselves, and then draft a bill containing these principles. Yet, before we proceed further to discuss the subject, we should express appreciation for the rich contribution to public education which Senator Elbert Thomas, of Utah, has made, his devotion to the cause which has kept the fight before the public, and his support of the principles of equitable sharing in America's opportunities.

A wise approach to obtaining aid would reemphasize the fact that permanent aid cannot be obtained on an emergency basis. We should also realize that we shall get nowhere trying to slide through an essential permanent measure on the argument supporting an essential emergency bill. We should, therefore, direct our attention not only to the enunciation of principles of education but to a study of how the program to implement these principles is to be financed and administered. We must actually understand that the proper administrative principles of Federal-State programs involve immediately a careful consideration of Federal-State-local fiscal relations.

The long-range problem of raising funds for the maintenance of our schools is not alone a problem of Federal aid; it is a problem of integration and coordination of Federal-State-local financing. It is well to restate the fact that we recognize that immediate emergency need must be met by immediate emergency aid. It is for this reason that we have recommended immediate emergency aid for the present and that we urge a well-defined basis of coordination of planning for the permanent program.

Local and State financing in themselves should have critical attention. First of all we must direct our attention to local and State financing before we consider its relation to a Federal program. While we are justified in asking for an annual $8,000,000 Federal grant-in-aid for New York City to help it run its schools in the emergency, we certainly cannot justify a permanent Federal grant-in-aid to New York City-because the city does not have a sound tax and disbursement program. Likewise, we should not ask the Federal Government to help maintain unsound State financial programs. Something is seriously wrong with New York City's financial planning when it cannot support its own schools. So, too, when a town in Illinois must close its schools and when cities in Ohio and Pennsylvania and in other rich States threaten to close theirs, something is seriously wrong in State financing. Local programs of revenue, heretofore largely predicated on the general property tax and of late supplemented by a socially and economically unsound sales tax, must be drastically revised; new sources for local taxes must be found. Similarly, the State revenue sources have been limited by custom, tradition, and statute.

Some States even now have no income tax and, among the States having an income tax, the law varies considerably, accentuating the inequities of taxation