of a number of organizations including the American Council on Education, the National Education Association, one or two of the farm groups, some of the representatives of religious groups. I do not recall all who were present but there were a number of others present.

The A. F. of L. committee discussed these principles, and frankly wanted advice. All present were consulted. At that time the committee went on record-and I do not mean that the nonlabor organizations concurred. However, we all sat together and we did agree, on purpose, although we did not concur on method, that a program which gave aid for all children would best meet the desire for equity which we find in the hearts of most of the men and women who have presented

our case.

We did not concur and no vote was taken on how to proceed. We did agree that we would all strive to find a way to work together.

The 1942 convention of the American Federation of Labor adopted such principles. I did not attend the 1942 convention of the American Federation of Teachers.

However, at the Christmas executive council meeting of the A. F. of L. we went on record as accepting the invitation of the National Education Association to meet with them to see if we could come to an agreement on procedure for we all are interested primarily in securing the best possible legislation. Hence, we agreed on trying to secure joint action.

Following that meeting, we met in the National Education Association's headquarters in the spring of 1943 with some NEA leaders. Following this meeting, another and larger meeting was held. Present then were the representatives of the CIO, the A. F. of L., the NEA and the AFT. We again realized that there were differences. We recognized the fact that there was an emergency program and a permanent program before us in one bill. I think all present were sincerely interested in working out a program for the child. During these conferences, seeking some sort of agreement, the representatives of the NEA proceeded to have a date set for hearings on their bill. To us that was a serious breach.

However, I can well understand that persons not in the labor movement would not realize the seriousness of such a procedure but to us in the labor movement there appears to be a serious breach of good faith if during a negotiation one side walks out and takes independent action. It is just not our way of doing business and those gentlemen here present who have worked with labor groups know how we feel about that. However, we attributed this action to their not understanding our procedure, and we continued to try to find a way to work together, even though S. 637, the bill which they had introduced, has not been endorsed by any convention or any organization. It differed very greatly from S. 1313 which I think was the bill before that. We felt that the NEA had a perfect right to do that, in fact a duty to do it, to meet the need as they saw fit, as conditions changed.

However, even after their bill had been introduced and hearings had been arranged we still hoped for joint action and we all agreed "We shall not fight your bill and we shall expect you not to fight ours."

That agreement was entered into and on many occasions it was reiterated. And until we were attacked we did not inform our coworkers of the nature of the dispute.

Senator SMITH. Might I ask if 637 which you referred to was the ancestor of S. 181?

Miss BORCHARDT. Yes, Senator.

Senator SMITH. It was the same bill?

Miss BORCHARDT. Yes; Senator, it is. Since the hearings have started the supporters of S. 717 have tried to present their case; why we oppose S. 637 and why we support S. 717. But until today that has been a little difficult. The friends of S. 181 here in the Senate seem to have centered their opposition more on who supports S. 717 than on its contents. I am reminded of an old legal adage often repeated by Frank Hogan, late president of the American Bar Association, "If you have a good case, fight your case. If you have a weak case, fight opposing counsel."

We have been fighting our case.

In 1943 there was inserted into the hearings on S. 637 statements of the A. F. of L. the CIO and the AFT in support of the principle of Federal aid.

Gentlemen, we stand today for those principles.

Senator JOHNSTON. I would like to hear from you the principles of this bill.

Miss BORCHARDT. They have been given by previous witnesses Senator. I have referred to them in comparing the two bills but I should be glad to go over them again, if you wish.

The question was asked us as to how this bill came into being and that has been asked repeatedly here.

Senator CHAVEZ. As you proceed detailing the history of the bill, you might be able to give the Senator that information.

Miss BORCHARDT. Yes, I will; I should be only too glad to do so. S. 181 makes two-thirds of its funds available for an emergency but it does not define the emergency; we ask for a permanent program. S. 181 does not seek to protect the interest of the classroom teacher. We do.

It makes possible using Federal money in place of State and local money in paying the teacher his salary. The "permanent fund" has no requirement whatsoever, regarding the maintenance of present salaries paid by the State or local county. To secure the permanent fund the State must maintain its total education budget unless the State, through no action of omission or commission on the part of said State, has its revenue reduced.

That would appear to be a water-tight safeguard but the truth is that practically every State's income is being reduced almost daily now, for the Federal Government is adding to the budget of the States, but is actually in effect therefore reducing them. Therefore, as the Federal Government reduces its contribution to the States the States are automatically relieved from maintaining their educational budgets as a condition for receiving aid from the funds in S. 181. We think it is not good government. Because the income is reduced through no act of omission or commission by the State.

We wanted protection for the teacher. We wanted a definite sum! set aside for teachers' salaries.

Senator JOHNSTON. You say some States would reduce their budgets. Do you mean to say that some States have reduced their budgets?

Miss BORCHARDT. No; I do not mean that they have but that S. 181 would make it possible for them to reduce their educational budgets,

Senator, and then use the Federal money from S. 181 in place of State money for educational purposes. You see, by having the Federal contribution reduced, the State's income is reduced.

Senator JOHNSTON. All of it comes out of the taxpayer; does it not? Miss BORCHARDT. Yes, Senator; but what I am saying is that the State budget would be reduced by the reduction of the Federal grant to the State and that would automatically relieve the State of the responsibility of maintaining its educational budget.

Senator CHAVEZ. You mean it would be reduced by the contribution of the Federal Government?

Miss BORCHARDT. Yes, Senator. Actually it was a distinguished member of this body who pointed this out to me and I do not question the soundness of his judgment. The facts are implicit on the face of the bill.

But to return to the history of the bill. I was in Boston as the proceedings of the Boston A. F. of L. convention show, until the day before the vote on S. 637 on the floor of the Senate. We wanted to protect the teachers' interest in that bill. I gave material embodying the principles adopted by the A. F. of L. convention action to a number of the Senators and I found two attitudes among them. They were divided; those who opposed Federal aid in general said they did not want to offer any amendments for the offering of amendments implied support of the principle and those who favored Federal aid said, "We are not going to get action on this bill by this Congress but let us keep as many votes as possible just on the general theory."

One of the Senators inserted in the record material which I gave him and as the record shows, he said, "This is the material which a representative of the A. F. of L. brought to me." That material was inserted in the record. Then, as the record shows, he said he was putting in also "other material which my office has sent to me."

As you know when the Langer amendment was offered the bill was resubmitted to the committee. The American Federation of Labor, the American Federation of Teachers, had nothing to do with that amendment. They did not ask for its introduction and did not ask for its support. I state that categorically because there has been so much misinformation sent out by the supporters of S. 637 on that point also. I do not question either the wisdom, the judgment, or the high-mindedness of anyone who offered the amendment and supported it. I am simply stating our position. However, after the defeat of S. 637, the A. F. of L. and the A. F. of T. realized that a bill like S. 637 could not pass and plans were made to have a bill prepared, which we felt could be passed. A set of principles was restated by the A. F. of L. and these were adopted at the New Orleans convention. I think Mr. Woll or Mr. Googe, one or the other, has put in this action of the convention into these proceedings. The action of the A. F. of L. was to ask for Federal aid for education for every child regardless of race, creed, or color. The delegates, I believe, took those words literally and seriously. The convention instructed the committee on education to prepare a bill embodying these principles and press for its adoption.

The drafting of a bill in a democratic organization is a slow and involved process. The A. F. of L. has a cumbersome machinery of committee referals. Votes must be taken all along the line. The machinery of democracy is complex. It meant that the principles

went first to the convention. They were unanimously adopted by the convention after they had been very thoroughly discussed by a convention committee composed of at least 50 delegates from all parts of the United States.

The convention instructed its legislative committee to proceed to have a bill introduced. Consultations were held with many people. A tentative draft was prepared. I want to say quite frankly, Senator, because you have asked this question, that I saw this bill in its typed form at every stage before it was introduced. After the final draft of the bill had been endorsed by the A. F. of L., their leaders decided to ask two outstanding leaders in the Senate to sponsor it: Senator Mead and Senator Aiken; a Democrat and a Republican. Both of these men have fine records of constructive, liberal leadership; both are determined to do everything possible for the American child. Both received the formal written request, from the A. F. of L. to introduce the bill.

Senator SMITH. When you speak of the principles being adopted by the A. F. of L., does that include every principle involved in this, including the nonpublic schools, or does that come later?

Miss BORCHARDT. No, that does not come later, that principle was adopted by the A. F. of L. Senator. That principle was first adopted by the A. F. of L., in the twenties. It may have been earlier but I know that in the late twenties that principle was adopted. The A. F. of L. is very zealous in guarding the ideal of free practice of religion.

Senator SMITH. Was that the chief difference between your labor group and the NEA?

Miss BORCHARDT. The NEA bill does not have any safeguards for teachers' salaries. It provides no educational standards. It provides no services for the child. It does not take care of the individual student in need. It does not recognize that the Federal Government's educational building program, coming from whatever funds it may, should be administered by State authority. It hasn't the over-all features of which Dr. Zook spoke, as essential in any program for educational reconstruction. And it has none of the safeguards which we hold essential.

Senator SMITH. Am I correct that the NEA opposes the inclusion of the nonpublic school?

Miss BORCHARDT. That the NEA will have to testify to. I will testify for my own group but I cannot te stify for an organization of which I am not a member.

Senator MORSE. Later, I would like to have you, if you will, tell me why you think S. 181 makes it possible for the State to reduce its budget the amount of the Federal appropriation.

Miss BORCHARDT. Well, it simply says, that the excuses under which the State may reduce its budget, and still get Federal funds are: "Act of God or through no act of the State legislature or failure of the State legislature to act," and there cannot be an act of omission or commission by the State legislature in reducing the State's educational budget, when the Federal Government reduces its wartime contribution to the State. That is not an act of a State legislature or a failure of the State legislature to act. It is an act of the Federal Congress.

73384-45-pt. 2—21

Senator JOHNSTON. So you think the State ought to reduce its budget?

Miss BORCHARDT. On the contrary, Senator. The fact is that S. 181 would permit the State to get the Federal funds even if it cut teachers' salaries. That is what we do not like in S. 181. You see we definitely do not have the loophole in our bill.

Senator JOHNSTON. There is no need for the appropriation if the State is going to cut its budget.

Miss BORCHARDT. Exactly, Senator. It would be very poor government not to prevent it. We certainly believe that and I am so grateful to you for pointing that out.

Now gentlemen I should like, if I may, to discuss the provision for the trusteeship, in S. 717.

Senator Donnell, your question of the propriety of a trusteeship is a question I simply cannot understand. As an attorney, Senator, I do not think the word "trustee" is a bad word. On the contrary, it has a highly honorable connotation to every attorney.

Senator CHAVEZ. It expresses faith.

Miss BORCHARDT. Yes; I cannot quite understand why the word "trustee" should be regarded as highly objectionable. However, we are not wed to the word. We are not in any way insisting that that be the language but only that the purpose for which it is provided shall be met. As one of the labor leaders has expressed the thought:

We have to find a legal means through which the child who is trudging in the mud to go to the school that his parents selected for him may get to that school; that the child who goes to a school that his parents selected for him may have, if the school is poor and many of these private schools are very poor, may have the money to have the roof fixed; that the child who is hungry in any school may be fed.

We think that is sound. You may differ. We may be too zealous in our concern for every child but, Senator, we would rather err in protecting every child than sin in neglecting one.

Senator SMITH. You are taking the position there that the Federal Government should assume responsibility which heretofore we have considered the States were happy to assume in taking care of their own children and you are going to judge whether the State has done that adequately and if you say it has not you will do it?

Miss BORCHARDT. I do not quite agree with you.

Senator SMITH. Well, I wanted to get the issue clear in the record. Miss BORCHARDT. All right. Let us get the issue clear. Heretofore the Federal Government has, in many, many instances, granted aid to individuals within a State, afforded protection to individuals within a State when the State has not done so and we, in the labor movement, have fought for a recognition on the part of the Federal Government of its responsibilities for the general welfare and its concern for the protection of the rights of the individual citizen. I think you will find the labor movement united in saying the individual child is a very, very rich heritage, the richest

Senator SMITH. We all agree with that. There is no question about it. It is the question of the right way to deal with it.

Miss BORCHARDT. That is right. Our position is that when a State passes a law or fails to pass a law which permits of the exploitation of any child, that the Federal Government has not only a right but a