in relation to the over-all picture. Then, too, the recognition of the need for adequate support of education by the State, insofar as the State is able to finance its own program for an equitable intrastate equalization program, must be pressed. Furthermore, a failure to coordinate local, State, and Federal tax programs, has resulted in an inequitable distribution of the tax burden. The problem of coordination of Federal-State financing has of late become even more complicated by the growing extension of Federal payments of aid in lieu of taxes, by the problem of the taxability of Government contracts under State and local sales and use taxes. We certainly cannot ignore these questions of revenue in planning Federal-State-local support of our schools. An equitable system of Federal aid must be built upon a full consideration of both how the money is to be raised and how the funds are to be allocated and distributed-both within and among the States. Our attention in considering this legislation must also be directed to the problems of administration involved. We have often reaffirmed our support of State control of public education. Would this principle prevent our supporting questions of national minima entirely? We, as an organization, have joined our parent organiation, the A. F. of L., in asking for aid to enable States to maintain a minimum entrance salary of $1,500 for teachers; we ask for statutory guaranty that the Negro share equitably in a Federal grant-in-aid. Are we to abandon these minima? Are we to support other minima? Length of a school year? Compulsory school attendance laws? Or would establishment of such minima be a violation of States' rights? Are we simply to ask for more money, or for more money to do certain jobs better? In general, we would probably subscribe to the principle that educational financing is definitely the joint problem of Federal, State, and local authorities; that school administration is a State function with perhaps certain Federal minima. We must honestly and openly analyze the question of Federal aid to schools supported by religious organizations. Shibboleths should not replace critical thinking. "Union of church and state," "taxpayers' rights to share in public funds," "public control of public property," "unconstitutional use of public money for education," are examples of the glossed-over sayings of both sides. Let us analyze those four slogans-two from each side. Actually, Federal, State, and municipal governments all contribute to the support of thousandshospitals conducted by religious organizations of every denomination. Chaplains of every denomination serve as commissioned officers of our armed forces. WPA, NYA, PWA, and FWA all have given public aid to institutions supported by various religious organizations. But church and state are no closer together than they were when our Constitution was written. Now, to look at the other side-taxpayers obviously do not receive their share of public service in terms of what individuals or private groups may privately ask; public grants in a democracy are made by properly elected authorities, through administrative machinery provided by law. Taxpayers' rights are not to be materially recognized in terms of personal demands, but in terms of public needs. To go hack to the other side of the argument, "Public control of public property" is essential and no one can properly question the right-and indeed the duty-of public authorities to safeguard the expenditure of public funds, to establish minimum standards for their use, and to audit the accounts setting forth their use. Beyond that, "control" for public or private projects would need careful consideration. And finally the fourth point: the constitutionality of the use of the Federal taxing power for State aid has been established at law (Fratlingham v. Mellon), and firmly established by extended usage as necessary for the public good in a federal union of equally sovereign but unequally materially endowed States. These shibboleths bring us nothing but confusion. Let us study the entire question of public grants in support of privately conducted enterprise, fully, from every angle, and reach a conclusion to which we may adhere as a fundamental principle of public policy in all its applications. It is one of the principles to be considered in connection with the drafting of a bill for permanent Federal aid for education. The place of vocational education in relation to the general program of Federal aid demands our attention. On this point, as well as the other points thus far mentioned, the position of the A. F. of L. should give us worth-while guidance. To summarize this whole question of Federal aid, your Washington representative recommends: 1. That we support in principle and in fact legislation to grant Federal aid for the emergency and for a permanent program. 2. That the two forms of aid-permanent and emergency-be sought in separate legislation. 3. That until legislation for substantive emergency aid can be enacted that we instruct our locals to seek aid through the funds available through the Lanham Act. 4. That we prepare a bill granting permanent Federal aid for education; a bill which would be based upon (a) Full consideration of State and local financial resources, potential and presently operative. (b) Adequate State support of education insofar as the State can give such support and an equitable intrastate equalization program. (e) Coordination of Federal-State and local financing of education. (d) A recognition of the rights of each citizen in a publicly financed program, conditioned by a recognition of the needs of the community and by sound public policy. (e) The recognition of the need of establishing certain national minima while preserving the right of the State to administer education. (f) A desire to develop a realistic vocational program, sound in educational theory and practicable in actual labor-industry usage. (g) An equitable plan of distribution of Federal funds among and within the States for all levels of education in a manner to give the greatest service, safeguarded by the necessary controls, in the public interest. Miss BORCHARDT. Similarly, a report along the same lines was presented at the 1944 convention. The convention adopted a very general statement of granting aid, "without discrimination because of race and creed." A preliminary draft of the bill was considered and approved by the executive committee of the A. F. of L. That draft had all of title III in it but it did not have the aid for nonpublic schools in title II. After the bill was introduced, the bill was sent immediately to every local organization in the country and to all the officers. A copy was also sent to every central labor union in the country. The question has been raised as to whether our members were told that the bill gave aid for nonpublic schools. First, they had sent them the bill itself. Then on March 13, which was almost immediately after the bill was introduced, they were sent a news letter which specifically referred to the aid for nonpublic schools. The CHAIRMAN. The bill was introduced on March 8. Miss BORCHARDT. Yes; and March 13 the news letter went out. In that letter the bill is analyzed, and I would like to call your attention to this statement Senator SMITH. You are referring to an analysis of S. 717? While 75 percent of the money is expressly earmarked for public school teachers' salaries, the same section expressly prohibits the use of any of this money for the payment of funds to the trustee for salaries to persons not in public schools. You see, the trustee is definitely referred to as the person through whom Federal funds may flow for aid for nonpublic schools and for children not in public schools. You see that there is no question about the fact that the information was furnished. This magazine, The American Teacher, is sent to every member of the organization, so there is no question of their having had full information to supplement the facts printed in the bill itself. We do try to work through a democratic process. I grant you at times decisions are made hurriendly as legislation changes hurriedly, but this article does show an effort was made to keep the membership informed. Furthermore, and I want to call your attention to one other statement, where we say: S. 181 grants no aid for needy students and limits aid-and limits aid for services to students in public schools. S. 717, while prohibiting the use of Federal funds for instructional purposes in the nonpublic schools, does make aid available for services, stipends, scholarships for all children that is in italics without discrimination for race and creed. In other words, the provision for aid for nonpublic schools is set forth both positively and negatively, and surely if teachers have read material sent them and know what they are reading they know what is contained in the bill. Our witnesses have given you the history of our movement to support the public schools; to aid the children in all schools, and indeed those not in school. We have cited statistics and acted in support of the method through which we seek to make this aid available. We now add to the facts our plea that you gentlemen consider above all the well being of every American child and provide a means for serving him. That, gentlemen, concludes our case except for one quotation, a very significant quotation, from a decision, which expresses the A. F. of L. philosophy on Federal aid for children in the nonpublic schools far better than I could possibly give it. So I quote: Freedom of conscience was one of the blessings of liberty sought to be secured by constitutional separation of church and state. These principles are historical and fundamental. Yet it is quite true that while liberty is to be maintained at the price of eternal vigilance, such vigilance should include within its scope the common welfare of those who have the right to view educational opportunity as one of the "blessings of liberty." It is the control- of state and church of one over the other that our Constitution forbids. The recognition by each of the isolation and influence of the other remains as one of the duties and liberties, respectively, of the individual citizen. * * The constitutional barrier which protects each against invasion by the other must not be so high that the state, in discharging its obligation as parens patriae, cannot surmount distinctions which, viewing the citizen as a component unit of the state become irrelevant. The state is under duty to ignore the child's creed, but not its need. That, gentlemen, is the decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Mississippi in making funds available for the purchase of books and other materials for the children in the parochial schools. The citation is W. M. Chance et al. v. Mississippi State Textbook Rating and Purchasing Board. It is the Supreme Court of Mississippi, No. 34417. The opinion was rendered February 24, 1941. We plead, gentlemen, for the actual recognition in practice of the principle of religious freedom as expressed in the dicta of the Supreme Court of the United States in the decisions already cited and as expressed by the Supreme Court of the State of Mississippi, here quoted. We rest on these facts. I should be very happy to answer any questions. The CHAIRMAN. Any questions? Senator MORSE. I would like to discuss with the witness just a moment the provisions of S. 181. Miss BORCHARDT. Yes, sir. Senator MORSE. Section 6, subsection 3 (b), at the bottom of page 6, starting with the words: The funds appropriated under the authorization of this act. Miss BORCHARDT. Yes; and I would direct the Senator's attention then to page 10 to the proviso. Senator MORSE. Yes; that is what I want to come to. Miss BORCHARDT. There it is stated: or other circumstances over which the State has no control. The language on its face appears to refer to a flood, or other act of God. However, as has been pointed out to me and I regret that I do not have the citation here-that citations can be had to support action which would hold that a State has complied with the limiting or conditioning clauses of the act if its budget is reduced not only by an act of God but also, if the reduction in the State's total income is effected by a reduction in the Federal grant made to the State and not by the action of the State. It was a Member of this body who first pointed out this fact to me-that as the State has no control over the grants made to it by the Federal Government that therefore there is "no act or failure to act by the State's legislature if its total income is cut by a reduction of the Federal grant." In some cases the grants of the Federal Government for war purposes to the States have been enormous and the reduction will be a very material reduction in the State's income. Such reduction of State income does legally give the State a loophole for reducing its educational budget, and still be eligible for the Federal funds granted under S. 181. Senator MORSE. I think that is pretty clear that it is a proviso clause and it is the language of limitation and I think when we read it from the four corners one condition precedent is that the State, before it is entitled to any Federal money under this bill, shall have contributed or shall have budgeted the amount spent for such purposes in the fiscal year ended 1944. That is the standard? Miss BORCHARDT. That is intended by Congress no doubt, but not stated in S. 181. Senator MORSE. The State cannot get any contribution unless that appropritaion has been made. That is the minimum standard. Miss BORCHARDT. How about this delimiting proviso, Senator? Senator MORSE. Exactly; that is my point. Miss BORCHARDT. I mean the delimiting proviso on page 10, "or other circumstances over which the State has no control." That "other circumstances," as I have said, would certainly be subject to review. In some cases, the Federal contribution has amounted to almost onethird of the State's income, that is, in grants to the State for war purposes. Whether such a material reduction would affect the State's budget sufficiently to justify its cutting its education budget would certainly be a question which had better be clarified before a bill is adopted. Senator SMITH. Would you not admit that could be very readily amended if that is a danger without throwing the whole bill out? That seems a minor matter of language. Miss BORCHARDT. Not minor, Senator; we pointed to this loose wording as one of the provisions in S. 181 that we think does show the need for amendment. Senator MORSE. I am glad to have your point of view. I think, as a matter of a legal proposition, it is strictly a limitation and would not be subject to that interpretation. Senator DONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I hear the clock striking 12, which is the hour the Senate is to convene. I desire to ask Miss Borchardt some questions, but I do not think it is possible to do that and be in the Senate, also. I should like to have permission to defer my examination. Senator MURRAY. Would it be possible for you to make your examination this afternoon? Senator DONNELL. Yes. Senator MORSE. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? I am not going to object to the meeting this afternoon but it so happens, however, that during the last three or four meetings of the committee I have not been able to be here because of conflicting committee meetings. I have an important conference today with the Navy Department and, of course, I will have to be excused from the floor and I am anxious to ask some questions on this bill. I wonder if the transcript of the record which has been made will be made available to the members of the committee before we vote on the bill? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. The hearing will be printed as quickly as possible. I do not know how long that will take. We have the typewritten transcript available. Senator MORSE. If it would be possible for the secretary of the committee to check the record which will show when I have been here and when I have not and make available to my office typewritten copies of the testimony that I have not heard I would like to read it. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; the clerk will do that. Senator DONNELL. Mr. Chairman, although the committee may convene this afternoon at 2 o'clock and I shall be here, it does seem to me that the meeting of our committee should not involve a conflict of duty. I do not mean to imply that I have duties that I know of on the floor but I should like to be there for the consideration of any matters that come up. The CHAIRMAN. Î would be glad to continue the hearing until tomorrow morning. Senator SMITH. I would prefer that. Senator LA FOLLETTE. I think that would be wise because I would not be surprised that there would be call of the calendar. The CHAIRMAN. We will meet tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. Senator LA FOLLETTE. I would like to make a brief statement for the record. I have been very much embarrassed because I have not been able to attend the hearings on these bills. That has been due to conflict. |