10098 school districts reporting data to the sub- committees showed 137,000 children whose parents are employed on Federal Property. It was estimated that these reports were from two-thirds to three- fourths complete. Applying the correc- tion factor there would be approximately 200,000 school children in this category at $40 per child which is one-half the local cost. This is a total of $8,000,000 in this category, BECTION 4A. SUDDEN AND SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE TN SCHOOL ENROLLMENT OCCURRING IN THE FUTURE It is believed there will be very few if any such increases next year and that no funds need be provided in this cate- gory for next year. SECTION 45, SUDDEN AND SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN ENROLLMENT OCCURRING IN THE PAST This is the most difficult category to estimate in terms of number of children or total cost. It is believed that most school districts eligible under this sec- tion were covered by the Wier bill this year. Also, it is known that a large number of school districts eligible under the Wier bill this year will be eligible un- der sections 3A and 3B next year. It is believed on the basis of this information that $3,500,000 will be sufficient to cover the schools in section 3B. Total: The total of the estimates for the several sections as set forth above amounts to $32,000,000. STATEMENT REGARDING ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF FUNDS NEEDED UNDER H.R. 7940 FOR THE 1951 FISCAL YEAR Consultants to the committee work- ing on this bill have estimated that $32,- 000,020 of Federal funds would be needed to carry out the provisions of H. R. 7940 for the 1951 fiscal year. The subcom- mittee and the full committee have con- sidered it to be a reliable estimate. It was based on reports by affected school districts, reports by the various Federal agencies directly concerned and by first- hand inspection of the situation in many school districts. There is attached a de- tailed statement of the basis for the esti- mate. The estimate for each section of the bill follows: Estimate by sections of the bill Number Bee. of chil- dren Amount Payments for land re- moved from the tax rolls since 1038 8A...| Children residing on Fed- eral property. 8B...{ Childron whose parents are employed on Fed- eral property. © |$1, 000, 000 293, £00 |18, 060, 000 200, 000 | 8, 000, 000 4A...| Sudden and substantial |..2....... 0 . impacts occurring in the future. 4B...| Fudden and substantial () 8, 500, 000 impuots o¢curring in the 6.2... children residing on Fed- 7, £00 | 1, 800, 000 eral property for whom no school agency {x re- sponsible or js able to provide education. 1 Not known, The estimates as shown above were discussed with representatives of the Bureau of the Budget before being sub- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE mitted to the committee. Subsequently, the Bureau of the Budget sent a letter to the committee counsel stating that it felt the cost of the bill might approximate $40,000,000 instead of $32,000,000. The only difference in the two estimates is that the Bureau of the Budget used a cost figure of $100 per child from local funds. This is based on the national average of $200 per child total cost, of which about $100 comes from State funds and $100 comes from local funds. The $32,000,000 estimate was based on a cost of $80 per child instead of $100. The former is based on actual reports to the subcom- mittee by the 410 affected school dis- tricts. The subcommittees that studied this problem believe that the $32,600,000 estimate is the more reliable. H. R, 7940 proposes to consolidate into one program Federal assistance for cur- rent operating expenses of schools af- fected by Federal activities, funds for which have been heretofore appropriated to and administered by six different Fed- eral agencies. The six different Federal agencies reported to the subcommittee that they spent $12,078,696 for current operating expenses for federally affected school districts the current fiscal year. The budget requests for this purpose for these same agencies, for the 1951 fiscal year as reported by the Bureau of the Budget on June 23 is $4,913,717. This budget estimate for the 1951 fiscal year does not include $7,050,000 appropriated for the 1950 fiscal year to the General Services Administration. No budget re- quest for this program was made by the General Services Administration for the 1951 fiscal year because it was expected that funds would be included in the proposed bill, H. R. 7940. The $4,913,717 included in the 1951 fiscal year budget, when added to the $7,050,000 formerly appropriated to the General Services Ad- ministration, amounts to $11,963,717 which is almost as much as was expended for this purpose in the 1950 fiscal year. The expenditures for the 1949-50 fiscal year for current operating expenses of schools affected by Federal activities as reported by the various Federal agencies and the amounts included in their re- spective budget requests for the 1951 fiscal year are shown below: Fisca} vear expend- itures Budget Agency requests, 1951 National Defense Es- tabhshment: Department of the ween eee e nee 41$1, 651, 400 Department of the avy... , 1, 226, 317 Department of the t Foree......-- 597,004) 994,603) 500, 000 Corps of Engineers (ely functions)..] 210,000) 464,000} = 709, 000 Atomie Energy Com- mission —_off-reserva- tion schools. ..-.2..--- 217, 207 81, 600 30, 000 Dopartment of the In- terior’ Bureau of Reclamation... . 255, 380) 631,622} 800, 000 General Services” Ad- ministration: Com- mercial facilities serv- WO eee eee 6, 863, 802] 7, 050, 000 0 Total.......2....- 8, 071, 078/12, 232, 696) 4, 013, 717 The above table shows that H. R. 7949 will require approximately $20,000,000 JULY 18 more Federal funds in the 1951 fiscal year for assistance to schools affected by Federal activities than was expended for this purpose in the 1950 fiscal year. The reasons for this increase are as fol- lows: First. The Wherry-Spence housing program for military personnel now get- ting under way will place at least 23,350 more school children of military per- sonnel on Federal reservations next school year than there were during the school year which has just ended. Ac- cording to reports from the Defense Es- tablishment the cost for these additional children is estimated to be $2,350,000. This expenditure was not required for the 1950 fiscal year. It is pointed out that the budget re- quest shown above for the National De- fense Establishment for the 1951 fiscal year is $4,077,717. The National De- fense Establishment reported to the com- mittee that there would be 77,000 chil- dren living on Federal property under its jurisdiction during the 1951 fiscal year and that the estimated cost under H. R. 7940 would be over $11,000,000. This $11,000,000 estimated of the cost for the 1951 fiscal year is to be compared to the budget request of $4,077,717 for the same purpose for the same year. Second. It is expected that the Wherry- Spence housing program will also place an additional 10,000 children in com- munities located adjacent to Federal reservations during the 1951 fiscal year at a cost of $400,000 a year. This situa- tion is new this year. Third. Funds appropriated to the De- partments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force for the 1950 fiscal year were not sufficient to provide, as authorized by law, the local share of the cost of edu- cating children living on Federal reser- vations. In some cases only three- fourths of the required amount was paid and in other cases the investigating com- mittee was told the allotment was only one-half the amount authorized. In a number of cases school districts eligible for these funds received no assistance be- cause funds for them were not included in the budget request of the Department for the year and no funds were appro- priated to cover these costs. The Navy Department particularly made no pay- ments to a number of eligible school districts. Shortages of funds occurring because of these circumstances were sometimes made up by tuition payments by parents, raffles, rummage sales, cake bakes and similar money-raising devices. It is be- lHeved that several miliion dollars were provided for school purposes from these sources. Fourth. The Corps of Engineers has authority from Congress to provide school assistance only to those school districts affected by designated certain specific rivers-and-harbors and _ ficod-control projects. No such authorization was given to other such projects where a serious need existed. H.R. 7840 proposes to include all districts where a serious need exists and where there is a Federa: responsibility. Fifth. Public Law 3806, known as the Wier bi:l, authorized assistance for the
1950 1950 fiscal year to a restricted number of schools on a deficit financing basis. That is, Federal assistance was not given only to some school districts that had a heavy Federal impact because they did not show a deficit in their maintenance and opera- tion budget for the fiscal year and were not eligible under the terms of the law. H, R. 7940 proposes to meet the Fed- eral responsibility on an equal basis for all schools regardless of whether or not a deficit exists for the year. Sixth. No assistance has ever been provided in the past for children of em- ployees of National Parks or National Forests, except for ‘Yellowstone Na- tional Park. All these situations are brought under H. R. 7940 where a Fed- erally caused need and a Federal respon- sibility exists. Seventh. The subcommittee received considerable testimony to the effect that there would be an increased number of school districts in serious need during the 1951 fiscal year and in the future that did not need help in the 1950 fiscal year because of expansion in or progress on reclamation projects. The subcom- mittees also received testimony to the ef- fect that the Bureau of Reclamation under its existing authority had been un- able to provide help to a number of school districts during the 1950 fiscal year that were in need of aid because of Federal activities. H. R. 7940 would include these schools. Eighth. No provision has been made in the past to assist school districts finan- cially overburdened by a loss of tax rev- enue due to Federal acquisition or own- ership of certain properties. H. R. 7940 provides for payments to such school dis- tricts where the financial loss has been substantial. It is estimated that $1,000,- 000 will be required for these payments. SUMMARY To summarize the situation, H. R. 7940 would require the expenditure of approx- imately $20,000,000 more than was ex- pended for similar purposes for the 1950 fiscal year. The reasons for the in- crease as outlined above in detail, are briefly that H. R. 7940 attempts to elim- inate the inequalities that have existed in the past on the several different pro- grams; to provide help to school districts in urgent need but not eligible in the past; and to meet an increased need caused by defense and other programs that have been authorized by .Con- gress; such as Wherry-Spence housing for military personnel and expanded reclamation and flood-control projects. The general content of this statement has been discussed with representatives of the Bureau of the Budget. (Mr, Bartsy asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend his remarks and include certain statements and data prepared by himself.) Mr. McCONNELL, Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes. Mr. MURRAY of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCONNELL. I yield. Mr. MURRAY of Wisconsin. I should like to-know for sure where it is we take care of the Indian children that are go- ing to public schools, Where ia it in the bill? I want to be sure it is in the bill. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr.McCONNELL. I think the gentle- man will find it is covered on page 37 under the definition of the term “Fed- eral property” and on page 38 under the definition of the term “child.” Mr. MURRAY of Wisconsin. The reason I ask that question 1s that our distinguished friend from Oklahoma, who is chairman of a subcommittee of his committee, has been dealing with this same problem. If that is taken care of in this bill, there will be no necessity for him to have further hearings on that 11, Mr. BARDEN. If the gentleman will yield, may I say that a very distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Srrrp] was quite active on this bill, and I am satisfied Oklahoma is pretty well taken care of. Mr. MURRAY of Wisconsin. I am not interested in Oklahoma, what I am interested in is the school district in my district in which there are 80 Indian and 110 white children. The school district is paying the expenses for all of them. I want to know {f this bill provides pay- ments for those 80 Indian children who use the public school. If it does, it will not be necessary for me to bother my distinguished friend from Oklahoma to ask him to give us consideration before his committee. Mr. STEED. They will be exempted. If you will read the paragraph on page 88 under the definition of the term “child” you will see that the present In- dian educational program is specifically exempted from this bill. Mr. MURRAY of Wisconsin. Then we had better go ahead. Mr. GOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCONNELL. I yield. Mr. GOLDEN. I have a problem in my district in Kentucky where many thousands of acres are being flooded by the construction of a dam where land 1s being submerged under a lake 110 miles long, flooding half of some of the coun- ties down there. That land will per- manently be removed from the tax rolls of all the school districts affected. Will this bill cover that situation? Mr. McCONNELL. We have tried to deal with that situation. I think it is covered, at least that is what we in- tended. If you will consult with some of the local agencies, have them discuss it with the Administrator, I think you will find it is covered. Mr. GOLDEN. Since 1938 there has been a large acreage acquired by the Federal Government for the national forests in several places in Kentucky. In fact the Federal Government now owns more than a million acres of land in Kentucky. Would it apply where that large acreage is taken out of the school district for the national forest? Mr. McCONNELL, Yes, but of course your school district may get some pay- ments from these forest lands. Mr. GOLDEN. They get 25 percent on the sale of timber. Mr.McCONNELL, Yes. That amount would be deducted from the amount they get under this bil], The money they received from the forest and min- eral Jands and so forth would be de- 10099 ducted from the moneys they receive under this bill. Mr. Chairman, I think at a time when the world is in turmoil and strife it is very gratifying that we can agree among ourselves in a committee which in the past has seen considerable argument among its membership. The Republi- can minority group on the committee are particularly pleased that they have had the opportunity to join with the majority in bringing this bill before the membership. I know I speak on behalf of that minority membership when I pay tribute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Bartey], and also to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Burxr)]. I have heard very little today about the activities of Mr. Burke who is chairman of one of the two subcommittees. I served on the subcommittee with Mr. Burke in various trips to different com- munities in the eastern part of the United States. It was a joy and privilege to serve with him, All through the delib- erations on this bill I found the most splendid spirit on all sides—a desire to make good, if you will, on a moral obliga- tion of the Government of the United States. I will admit when we are con- sidering the problem of general Federal aid to education there is an honest dif- ference of opinion. But I cannot see how there can be any difference of opin- ion or argument over the general objec- tives of this bill. We may differ as to the methods that we have used or will use. We are not infallible. There are more intricate sit- uations involved in this matter than most of you may realize. It has been technical all the way through. There have been many laws in the past which have taken care of these situations and our problem has been to consolidate the laws and set up a workable method of handling this over-all problem. We think we have done well, but we are human beings and subject to error. If experience under the act proves that we have erred in some way, I am sure a later Congress will make the necessary changes. Briefly, in order to get a better picture of this than might be obtained by reading the entire bill, I would like to summarize, if I may, what I consider the main situations to contend with due to the impact of Fed- eral activitics. Under this bill we recognize our re- sponsibility for the activities of the Fed- eral Government in connection with certain defense efforts, and so forth. We also set forth the method of meeting the financial burden imposed on the school districts affected by the activities. What are the main types of impacts that we considered? No. 1, Federal acquisi~ tion of real property since 1938. By the acquisition of real property, we recognize that we have deprived a community of a certain amount of their tax money, and we seek to remedy that. No. 38, the impact where the chil- dren reside on Federal property, and live on Federal property. We provide compensation for that type of activity, because taxes for local school purposes are not available to the local community. Also the impact where children live off of Federal property but their parents
10100 work on Federal property. nized that situation, Finally, we considered where there has been, because of the activities of the Federal Government, carried on directly or through a contractor, a sudden and substantial increase of school attend- ance in a particular local school dis- trict. That might have occurred before June 30, 1950, and after June 30, 1939, or it may occur hereafter—that is, from June 30, 1950, onward. If it has oc- curred in the past and the increase still continues there from past activities, that is the families have not gone back to their former local districts, even though the Federal activity in that district has lessened, we provide for a 5-year period of decreasing the amount of payment, in order to enable a readjustment of the situation locally. Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCONNELL. I yield. Mr. DONDERO. There is one more impact I do not think the gentleman has mentioned. That was the impact caused by the effort of the Federal Government in the recent war where, because of the activities in an industrial center like De- troit, with which I am famillar-—— Mr. McCONNELL. I am describing that right now; where there has been @ sudden and substantial increase in school attendance due to Federal activi- ties carried on by the Government di- rectly or through a contractor, during and immediately after the war ended. That describes the condition in the dis- trict you mentioned. It provides that they will have a 5-year period in which to adjust this situation. I realize that the Korean outbreak will probably cause a reactivation of many of those districts which were so active before and during the last war, and that will change them into a different category. However, we have provided that the situation in your district will be taken care of, with the thought that the increase during the war will be settled during the period of the remaining 5 years. Mr. LODGE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCONNELL, I yield. Mr. LODGE. The gentleman is mak- ing a very interesting and excellent statement. As the gentleman probably recalls, in the bill last year provision was made, by implication at least—it was not in the bill but it was mentioned in the report—for the area in Texas which was affected by the move or trans- fer of a plant from Stratford, Conn., to Dallas. It resulted therefore that the people of Stratford, who were already suffering from unemployment as 4 result of the Government-sponsored move, were also being taxed in connection with this program due to the sudden employ- ment conditions created in Texas. I gather from the material that I have at hand that this particular area in Texas is no longer receiving funds under this program. Is that correct? Mr. McCONNELL. I do not know what they are receiving in this particu- lar district. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCONNELL, I yield. We recog- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. LUCAS. I recall 4 discussion last year at the time we had this same legis- lation before us. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Lopace] very well de- fended his situation as it existed then at Stratford. In this bill we have taken care of that Grand Prairie schoo] district. I am sure that the gentleman from Connecticut does not want the children who moved to Texas from Connecticut to be without education, notwithstanding the fact they do have the privilege of living in Texas. The people who pay the taxes in the Grand Prairie school district need this assistance, and this bill does provide some aid to that school district. Mr. LODGE. If the gentleman will yield, I would just like to point out to my friend from Texas that most of those who are working in this plant in Texas are from Texas; certainly three-quarters are from Texas. I simply call attention to the fact that when this plant was located in Connecticut the little town of Stratford received no aid whatsc :ver from the Federal Government; the citi- zens of Stratford felt that they could rely on themselves. I do not see any mention here in this bill about Strat- ford. I know Connecticut is included with respect to East Hartford and Groton, and that these two localities were not included last year; so I gather from that, that the increase of Federal activities in these two localities had been such as to result in a change in the situation. Mr. McCONNELL. Yes. I may again suggest as I did previously here to an- other colleague from Connecticut that the various local school agencies in Connecticut may possibly get relief under section 4 (b) of the bill. I think some of them may find that they are en- titled under that section to some assist- ance for a period of time in a decreas- ing amount. Mr. LOVRE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCONNELL. I yicld. Mr. LOVRE. The gentleman is to be complimented on the very vivid descrip- tion that he has given of this bill but I would like to ask him a question with reference to subsection (3) of section 1 of the bill which will be found on page 19 and which reads: Such agencies provide education for chil- dren whose parents are employed on Federal property. Does this provision take care «f school districts in the vicinity where dams are being constructed by Army engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation alonz the Missouri River? Mr. McCONNELL. If they are chil- dren from work camps or labor camps they would not be considered. Mr. LOVRE. In the particular case I have reference to a number of Federal employees have been called to Pierre, 8. Dak., to work on the Oahe Government project. The number of children that have been brought into the city is tre- mendous on account of this project and which has caused an undue hardship upon the Pierre school district. For that particular reason I am interested to know whether or not this bill covers that particular case, JULY 18 Mr. McCONNELL. I would ask the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Burxel, to answer that question. I may say to him that the question has been raised whether in the case of a reclamation project which brings large numbers of children to the area—does the loca] school dis- trict get compensation? I answered that if it were a work camp proposition they would not be included. Mr. BURKE In the case of reclama- tion projects, flood-control projects and so forth, temporary provision is made for the education of the children while the project is under construction. Mr. McCONNELL. What might be considered a work camp, Mr, BURKE. The Federal employees, provided they come up to the require- ments of the qualification sections in the formula, would automatically come un- der the bill; but labor camps as such— that is, farm-labor camps, are not in- cluded in the bill. Mr. McCONNELL. I would say then that the situation described goes beyond the labor-camp idea and comes under a different set-up, therefore is included un- der this act. I think that is true. I think you could safely say the group you have mentioned would be definitely in- cluded and that the school agency would receive compensation for the education of the thousands of children you have mentioned. Mr. LOVRE. I am happy to receive that information. I would like to read a brief report from the school district of Pierre, S. Dak., to show the urgency of this legislation, which reads as follows. During 1947-48 Lincoln School was 60 per- cent over normal capacity, McKinley School was 10 percent over normal capacity, and Washington School was 26 percent over nor- mal capacity in number of students attend- ing. The school census just completed shows an increase of 29.6 percent of 6-yeal-olds over the 1947 census and an increase of 8.8 percent of 7-year-olds over last year. I urgently request the passage of this legislation. Iam happy to have the information. Mr. CAVALCANTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCONNELL. I yield to the gen- tleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. CAVALCANTE, I am in favor of the general purposes of this bill, but Iam a little disturbed in the method that is set up in the bill for determining the amount of payments to be made to the local educational agency. Mr. McCONNELL. Under what im- pact? Mr. CAVALCANTE. On page 31 of the bill there is provided certain chil- dren not to be counted. Mr. McCONNELL Yes. Mr. CAVALCANTE. I refer to sub- paragraph (A). Mr. McCONNELL. That is for sec- tion 4. Mr. CAVALCANTE. Here is the thing that disturbs me. Suppose that we have a local educational agency in Tennessee that has 500 children, and a local edu- cational agency in Pennsylvania with 500 school children, but in the State of Ten- nessee 200 of those school children are in parochial schools, and in the State of
1950 Pennsylvania all 500 are in public schools. This bill as drawn would give the local agency in the State of Tennessee the advantage of 500 children and be paid on that basis, although in fact they only have 300 to take care of, whereas the agency in Pennsylvania has all 500 of the children in the public schools. Does the gentleman not think that is unfair to the local educational agency in Tennessee or any other place in the United States where that situation may exist? Mr. STEED. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCONNELL. I yield to the gen- tleman from Oklahoma. Mr. STEED. May I call the gentle- man’s attention to the fact that these children are based on average daily at- tendance and unless they were in the public schools they would not be counted. Mr. McCONNELL. It applies to edu- cational agencies where they are provid- ing free public education. Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCONNELL. I yield to the gen- tleman from Mississippi. Mr. WHITTINGTON. The gentleman has answered that this bill provides for forest areas where the Government ac- quired those areas and for flood-control reservations after 1938; but in many, many cases and in many States forest areas and in some cases flood-control reservations were acquired prior to 1938. What provision in this bill would be made for assistance to those areas? Mr. McCONNELL. This applies since 1938. Mr. WHITTINGTON. Although con- ditions might be similar. Mr. McCONNELL. The “since 1938” date was really to take care of what has been in this country the main Federal impact. The war really brought us the major impact on our school systems dur- ing and since that time. We sought to deal with acquisition of Federal prop- erty since the war impact rather than go back and become involved in situa- tions which as a whole produced a minor impact throughout the entire country. Mr. WHITTINGTON. But millions of acres of forest land were acquired dur- ing the depression prior to 1938, and they will not be provided for under the provi- sions of this bill. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania has expired. Mr. ELLSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my col- league, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Stockman], may be permitted to extend his remarks in the Rrcorp at the con- clusion of genera] debate on this bill. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oregon? There was no objection. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky {Mr. Morton]. Mr. MORTON. Mr. Chairman, as has been pointed out, this bill comes from the Committee on Education and Labor with a unanimous vote. I wonder if the Members of this body understand the full and complete significance of that ac- tion. It might well be O tempora. O CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE mores. Maybe it Is the sign of a peace, that we are seeking in this world. If we look at the form sheet, which is the racetrack man’s way of talking about past performance, on this distinguished committee for the past year and a half, we will find that our present action is a reversal of form, We have had bills be- fore our committee which have been somewhat controversial. I mention only four: Repeal of Taft-Hartley, minimum. wage, FEPC, and Federal aid to educa- tion. I do not think you can put four more controversial measures before one committee. It has resulted in a rather interesting performance in that commit- tee. Our votes have been 13 to 12. We are almost a chronic 13~12 Club; not the same 13, not the same 12, but we man- age to end up 13 to 12 on every amend- ment or almost any bill that comes be- fore us. We have what the horse racer terms a lot of early foot. You know, cer- tain colts and fillies have early foot; they stay on top for the first quarter mile and then fold. Our committee is like that. We bring out a bill in a big hurry, then we bring it to the floor, and then we have a substitute for it, and there it goes, This committee has not yet passed a single piece of legislation. I hope this bill that comes to you unanimously will find different treatment here on the floor, We do not want any 13 to 12 finish here. You know, we had a bill up the other day—I do not think it will become law now in view of the world situation— to reduce excise taxes on tickets to South Pacific. It is not the excise tax that bothers one in getting tickets to South Pacific; it is the scalper or the speculator. But, you can save a lot of money if you can get in on an executive session of the Committee on Education and Labor, that would make South Pacific pale, and there is no excise tax there, I assure you. For that reason Iam indeed happy to come before you now as @ member of that committee with a unanimous bill. My good friend and colleague from West Virginia (Mr. Barrey] and my good friend and colleague from Ohio [Mr. Burke] have labored tirelessly not for the last 2 or 3 weeks but for the last 8 months in gathering the information that was necessary so that your commit- tee could sit down and objectively ap- proach this problem. It has been an ob- jective approach. It is a difficult ap- proach. About 150 Members of this body have school establishments within their districts that are affected by Federal im- pact. It has been difficult to take an ob- jective approach beceuse each problem is different, but the committee has at- tempted to be objective in this and to create legislation that will be permanent and that will discharge the obligation of the Federal Government and that will not favor one against the other. First, in order to be objective, we have assumed that the Federal impact is against the local taxing unit, not the State. There you see immediately devel- ops a condition that might be considered anunfairness, Certain States contribute more statewide to current operating ex- penses than other States but, after all, the impact its against the local taxing 10101 unit, and we have confined our efforts to that relief. I argued against the whole idea of this bill when it first came up on the theory that my chamber of commerce or your chamber of commerce wants any Fed- eral installation it can get. They will come up here and lobby and try in every way to get Uncle Sam to build a factory in their town or put an Army post near their town or put in a Navy airfield or something of the kind. I said that if they are that anxious for the installation, why can they not assume the responsibil- ities that go with that? In the case of the big cities that is true. In the case of the big cities the impact {s not enough to bring them under this bill. But in the case of these outlying communities, where half a county, as is the case in a district adjacent to mine, is taken over by the Federal Government, and where hundreds of children are brought in, how can that county meet the obligation of educating those children? The respon- sibility is right here in the Congress. We pass legislation to accentuate this impact without a thought for the children. We passed the housing measure known as the Wherry-Spence bill, which turns over some of the housing problems on these Government reservations to private en- terprise. We thought it was a good thing. It was a good thing. Most of us voted for it. But what about the children who live in Wherry-Spence housing? Where are the tax moneys coming from to educate those children? That is one of the points we have attempted to solve in this bill. We have been handling this problem on a piecemeal basis for a number of years. I think the last night we were in session last year an emergency stop-gap bill to take care of the situation finally got through. Now we come in with an objective bill that takes care of it per- manently and take care of whatever may lie ahead in the next year or two. As the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Batter] pointed out, he has already had a telegram today from someone that knows there is going to be a new impact in her school district by September as the result of the Korean situation. Here is a bill that settles the problem once and for all objectively. All of us are not getting what we want, but the measure before us is fair to all, and dis- charges the normal, natural, and real ob- ligation of our own Government. Mr. NELSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield. Mr. MORTON. I yield to the gentle- man from Maine. Mr. NELSON. Does this bill include the children of employees at a Veterans’ Administration Hospital that live off the post? Mr. MORTON. It will if they meet the other qualifications, in other words, if the impact is there. If you put a Veterans’ Hospital in my district, which has a consolidated school district cover- ing a@ large city, it is not going to make a sufficient impact—and there is one there—to bring my district in. But if you put a Veterans Hospital and bring 100 children into a district in which there are only five or six hundred children, then they qualify under what we call
10102: category B, living on private property, working for the Federal Government, and the payment is 50 percent of the local school obligation, Mr. NELSON. Suppose the hospital already exists, with 100 children. Mr. MORTON, It qualifies, under the bill. Mr. NELSON. A Veterans’ Hospital does not come within your exclusion in section 9 of the real property used to furnish services to the local area; is that correct? Mr. MORTON. It is my understand- ing that a veterans hospital, and I ask the chairman of the subcommittee to correct me if I am wrong, is not a serv- ice to a local area. In our concept 4 veterans hospital goes further than be- ing merely a service to a local area. Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MORTON. I yield. Mr. KEATING. Would it not be a fair characterization of this piece of legislation to say that it is more scien- tific in determining the school districts which are to be assisted than the tempo- rary measure which was before us last year? Is there a difference in the method of determining that? Mr. MORTON. Yes; there is a differ- ence in the method of determining that. There is a distinct difference because in the legislation we had last year it re- quired a local community to show a defi- eit before they could get any moneys. It might be a good thing if it was carried to the Federal level but in certain of our States it is against the law to show @ deficit. If they show a deficit some- body goes to jail. So obviously these dis- tricts could not get any benefit. Mr. KEATING. When the bill was be- fore us last year I was opposed to it. Could the gentleman point out the differ- ences in this measure which would lead one to reach any different conclusion on this bill as compared to the one which was here last year? Mr. MORTON. It seems to me the major difference is that the bill last year left it as a matter of trading primarily between a government bureau and a local school district. This sets out a specific formula in law, if it becomes law, which directly outlines the responsibility of the Federal Government, and in that way meets the obligation of the Federal Gov- ernment without making it a matter of trading or bargaining between the Gov- ernment bureau and the local school districts. I might also add that the bill last year only took in certain segments of the obli- gation because for years we have in- cluded in our military appropriations for the Army, Navy, and Air Force, Ma- rine Corps, and so forth, the amount which the Secretaries of the various military establishments paid to these school districts to meet their obliga- tions. Then under the terms of the Wier bill, as passed last year, other funds were made available to meet other obli- gations. The whole thing was a hodge- podge with money coming from five or six different directions, inadequate in some districts and perhaps more than adequate in others. We tried to con- Solidate all of that into one logical pack- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—-HOUSE age which recognizes our responsibility as a Federal Government and which does provide for the education of these chil- dren who would not otherwise be ade- quately educated. My. KEATING. Then presumably if this bill were enacted and the authoriza- tion contained therein were to become law, it would result in a reduction in the appropriation in the armed services bill for so-called Federal aid to education? Am I correct in that assumption? Mr. MORTON. It would result in a reduction of about $6,000,000 in the vari- ous armed services appropriations bills— yes. Mr. KEATING. Ihave not heard the figure stated before, but could the gen- tleman give us the over-all cost of this bill now before us, that is the annual cost? Mr. MORTON. The committee's esti- mate is $32,000,000 per year at present. The Bureau of the Budget estimated $40,000,000. But the Bureau of the Budget fails to take into account the fact that we are excluding the big cities. They multiplied the average cost of lo- cal education by the number of students, which cost is about $100. They did not take into account that we are excluding the big cities. So the average cost that we get under this bill is about $70. We took about $75 or $80 to be on the safe side and come up with the figure of $32,000,000. Of course we cannot esti- mate what that cost will be in the light of present conditions. We do not know how much of an impact there will be the next year in the various districts. Mr. KEATING. Is the exclusion of the larger communities based upon the fact that they are capable of absorbing the cost of this education, whereas the smaller communities are unable to do so? Mr. MORTON. To an extent; yes— to a greater extent on the fact that the impect is different. If you bring 5,000 children into the city of New York, you do not have the same impact as when you bring 500 children into Chitling Switch. There is where you have a real impact. So, if they meet the formula of im- pact, then they come under the bill. It so happens that the big cities do not meet the impact formula. Mr. KEATING. What administrative agency is to determine whether the needs are met or not? Mr. MORTON. The Commissioner of Education. Mr. KEATING. Is his decision re- viewable by the Federal Security Agency Administrator? Mr. MORTCN. He comes under the Federal Security Administrator. Mr. BARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Burke]. Mr. SASSCER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr, BURKE. I yield. Mr. SASSCER. I would like to ask the gentleman one brief question. As TI understand this bill, a military establishment must have been installed subsequent to 1939 in order to qualify under the bill. Is that correct? Mr. BURKE. Only insofar as it ap- plies under section 2. which is the sec~ JULY 138 tion that provides recompense for the Joss of real-estate tax. No matter where the children intended to be benefited under this bill may live they would be covered if all qualifications are met, for instance if the children live in an estab- ishment that has been in existence since the War of 1812, and if the num- ber of children coming from that reser- vation amounts to a sufficient percentage to otherwise qualify, the establishment then would qualify and the local district would receive the amount of money pro- vided for according to the formula in the bill. Mr. SASSCER. Take a concrete case, The Fort Meade Reservation was estab- lished prior to 1938 or 1939, or any other installation that may have been a small installation but established prior to that time, but it has expanded since 1938, would they be precluded because the in- stallation was established prior to 1938? Mr. BURKE. No. They would be qualified to the extent of the expansion of the real estate itself. They would also be qualified if there is a sudden and sub- stantial increase that may have occurred, if they were otherwise qualified under section 4 (a) and (b) of the bill. Or they would be qualified under section 3 if the conditions provided for in that section obtained. Mr. VORYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BURKE. I yield. Mr. VORYS. Paragraph 3, section 1, has one requirement that the Agency provide education for children whose parents are employed on Federal prop- erty. Also, there must be a sudden and substantial increase in schoo] attendance as a result of Federal activities. That does not mean that all of the sudden and substantial increase in school attendance has to come from the children of par- ents who are employed on Federal property? Mr. BURKE. No. The sudden and substantial increase can occur as the re- sult of the establishment of the installa- tion that brought about such sudden and substantial increase. Mr. VORYS. For instance, we have a school district east of Columbus where, due to the fact that we have a naval installation and the Curtis-Wright fac- tory, a part of which has been leased for other purposes, there has been a sudden and substantial increase in school attendance that has nearly bank- rupt the school district, but I am not at all sure that all of the children have parents who are employed on either of those agencies. It would appear to me that unless the bill intends, it is merely to provide for the children whose par- ents are employed, and we have there a case of a sudden and substantial in- crease. Am I correct in my interpreta- tion of the bill? Mr. BURKE. I believe you are. Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BURKE. I yield. Mr. MICHENER. I wish to inquire about the Detroit area, Willow Run, the Kaiser-Frazier plant, and that part in my district where we have this real prob- lem. The gentleman, as chairman of the subcommittee, was up there and
1950 made an investigation. Is the condi- tion which the gentleman and his com- mittee found existing in that area dealt with in this bill? Mr. BURKE. Yes; section 4 (b) was written largely to take care of that sit- uation; and I may say that the pattern set not only by the Willow Run but by the Livonia and Warren Township sit- uation on the other side of Detroit was a practical factor in the determination of its writing. Mr. MICHENER. I thank the gen- tleman for having taken care of that situation. Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BURKE. I yield. Mr. HERLONG. I am in favor of this legislation and want to take advantage of this opportunity to commend the gen- tleman and the entire subcommittee for the excellent work they have done on this bill. Mr. BURKE. I thank the gentleman. I want to take the time remaining, short though it is, to say that it is with a great deal of satisfaction that I come before the House recommending this leg- islation; and I do want to pay tribute to the Members of the House who served on the subcommittee with me, the gen- tleman from Minnesota [Mr. Wier], the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Prr-~ kins], the gentleman from FPennsyl- vania [Mr. McConnetz], and the gen- tieman from California (Mr. Werpe.]}. I believe that both subcommittees had a tremendous job to do. We, ourselves, did not realize in the beginning the mag-~ nitude of the responsibility with which we were charged. Soon after our hear- ings began we became fully aware of the great problem with which we were dealing. I cannot close without paying tribute to the local and State school authori- ties for their magnificent cooperation with us in our work. The information they furnished us in our hearings and the cordial welcome we received in our various school visitations greatly aided the subcommittees in this arduous work. The Nation owes these people a Gebt of gratitude for the fine spirit and the great work they have performed in taking care of the educational needs of American children under exceedingly difficult circumstances. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. DonpErRo]. Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Chairman, the subject of education was discussed on this floor on a day long ago in a some- what humorous vein. While it has no part of what I intend to say, I want to read to you a few lines from the Con- GRESSIONAL RECORD of June 8, 1866, being @ colloquy that took place between a Member from Connecticut and a Mem- ber from Maine. This colloquy took place during the debate on a resolution offered by Representative James A. Gar- field, of Ohio, to establish the Office of Education. It reads as follows: Mr. Huppary of Connecticut. Will the gen- tleman yield for a question? Mr. Pree of Maine. Certainly. Mr, Husnagp of Connecticut. I ask the gen- tleman how many people there are in Maine who can neither read nor write. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr, Pree o: Maine. About half as many people as there are in Connecticut. Mr. Hussaxp of Connecticut. There are none in the State of Connecticut who can neither read nor write except those who come from Maine and other foreign coun- tries. Mr. HALE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. DONDERO. I yield. Mr. HALE. What reply did the gen- tleman from Maine make to that re- mark? Mr. DONDERO, The gentleman from Maine, Mr, Pike, said: We educate our foreign population. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of this legislation. I think the committee has done a splendid piece of work. Ever since the late years of the war and every year since the war Congress has been called upon to appropriate sums of money to take care of distressed school districts throughout the United States. This bill seeks to remedy that and pro- vides a formula whereby the distressed districts can come before a proper com- mittee of Congress or the Commissioner of Education, make their wants known; and, if their case is just, receive aid and support. I think we all owe a debt of gratitude. To the committee I want to pay my trib- ute to the subcommittee headed by the able gentleman from Ohio (Mr. BurkKE] who came into my district to study the situation there. The distressed districts were mostly in the metropolitan areas of large cities or centers where the United States Government located or es- tablished its greatest effort in the pro- duction of war material. Detroit, Mich., was one of those areas. In that area is located a school district known as Li- vonia Township District where the peo- ple exhausted every known remedy to provide the financing of school facilities for the increased number of children who came into the district as a part of the great influx of workers in factories providing munitions of war in the recent conflict. This bill will meet that prob- lem. On page 29 of the bill the remedy is provided for Livonia school district. I believe the Warren Township and Cen- ter Line districts in Macomb County, not in my congressional district, will come also under subsections (B), (C), and (D) on page 29 of the bill. Their remedy, I think, exists in those lines of the pro- posed legislation. The committee is to be commended. I hope the bill will pass without a dis- senting vote. I am supporting the bill. I know it will provide a solution of the problem of education in that great in- dustrial district; the metropolitan area of Detroit. Mr. BARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indi- ana (Mr. Jacozs]. Mr. JACOBS, Mr. Chairman, as a member of the full Committee on Edu- cation and Labor I wish to add my voice to the tributes that have been paid to both of these subcommittees that studied this problem. I want to compliment the members of those committees for the ob- jective way in which they approached this matter, their painstaking labor and their skill, They had the answer as to 10103 the facts in every section of the coun~ try when the full committee met to con- sider the bill. I believe that the House can rely upon their judgment and rely upon the pro- visions of this bill as being near to fit- ting the needs of the problem we are considering as could possibly have been accomplished, I wish to pay my com- pliments to the chairman of the subcom- mittee, the gentleman from West Vir- ginia LMr. Barer], to my colleague from Ohio [Mr. Burks], and to the members of both subcommittees who have been of great assistance to the members of the full committee. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. JACOBS. I yield to the gentle- man from Indiana. Mr. WALSH. Mr, Chairman, I strong- ly support this bill and believe it is much needed legislation, though very frankly it will not help in my district. As the Representative of the Fifth In- diana District, I take a natural pride in my home district. I represent one of the wealthiest agriculture districts in this Nation. There is not an unfertile acre of land in this large area. Many times we have had the international Corn King within our borders. Also my district is heavily industrial; one of the largest plants that General Motors has is lo- cated in my home city of Anderson, Ind. The payroll of industry for my district is one of the heaviest in this Nation. We are served by at least 20 railroads and 4 of the arterial railways of the Na- tion cross our territory. Now, just what is my purpose in shout- ing the praises of my home district; doI have other than a natural pride in its splendor? I will tell you why. If any district in this Nation did not have a vchool problem, it would be mine. But I can tell you today, Members of this House, that this outstandingly rich and bountiful section of our country has dozens of schools unfit and unsafe for our children. We have schools with outside toilets, we have two- and three-story schools without adequate fire protection and escapes. We have schools with broken window panes covered with card- board; we have still others that do not have water fit for our children to drink. This, Mr. Chairman, in a rich and power- ful section of our country. Disgraceful? Yes; I hang my head in shame. Can we do better? Yes, but with difficulty. The cost of local government has almost reached the saturation point, but some- thing must be done to relieve this situa- tion. Only last year one of the great metro- politan newspapers of Indiana made a survey of the school situation in rural southern Indiana, a slightly poorer— agriculturally—part of our State. I wish I had these articles to show the Members of the House here today. Typhoid-in- fected water supply; fire-trap school buildings; poorly paid teachers, yet In- diana ranks at the top in school systems. God pity those States at the bottom of the list. Today, in fact last year, this House should have been enacting a full and complete program of Federal aid to education. This bill today is fine, but it is a poor substitute for a truly needed Federal-aid program for education, Our
10104 teachers in this Nation are the poorest paid professional group in the country and yet they do more than even the par- ents of the child in molding his char- acter. At a time when we are doing our all to fight communism and its dastardly hold upon nearly one-half of the world today, we refuse to pass legislation that will train our young people to think for themselves. A trained mind can recog- nize the fallacy of Communist propa- ganda and ideology. Ignorance breeds hatred, contempt, prejudice, intolerance, and disloyalty. In this great Nation of ours, we have reached the point where an uneducated child in one State is an equal problem to us in another State. We are one Nation united, not 48 sepa- rate ones. The education of your children and mine, I have four, is the responsibility of all of us. This Congress is derelict in its duty in not enacting legislation to relieve this problem. Unfortunately ao religious issue has been injected into the fight. This has caused a feeling of dis- unity and mistrust to generate. I feel that the orponents of Federal aid to education purposely injected this into the fight. Americans—Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish—lay aside this intole~ance of spirit. The problem of our children is one common to all faiths. I believe a program could have been enacted that would have been acceptable to all groups if just a little of the Golden Rule had heen applied. Mr. Chairman, we need trained teach- ers, paid a far higher wage; we need new schools, we nced healthy and strong citi- zens to face the problems of an uncer- tain tomorrow. Mr, MORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Case]. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I want to add my word of ap- preciation for the work of the commit- tee and subcommittees which are respon- sible for this legislation being before us. Some years ago a number of Members of the House introduced Identical bills, not identical to this one, but we all intro- duced a bill which sought to deal with this problem. But we found that the problem was so large and our bill so broad in its scope it was inadvisable to press for its acceptance at the time. We sought to deal with the problem of the children of all employees on Federal res- ervations, national parks, naval and military establishments, and institutions of various departments and agencies. Because of the complexities of the problem that developed in the considera- tion of that legislation we then and since have resorted to the passage of tem- porary legislation through the years to continue the Lanham Act programs. Then, in the appropriation bill for the War Department about 3 or 4 years ago on my motion in subcommittee, we in- serted a clause that made it possible for a branch of the Military Establishment to contribute as much as $100 per pupil where the resources available to a school district were insufficient to provide ade- quate schooling in an area where a milf- tary installation existed, That amount CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE proved insufficient and in subsequent years, the amount was increased to $120 and $140 per pupil per annum. The problem was acute in my mind because in my district an isolated ord- nance depot placed several hundred echool children in a rural school district where there were fewer than 25 tax- payers. Obviously the farmer parents of a very few children should not be re- quired to provide schooling for several hundred—in fact they could not. This was one of two or three instances which made the problem clear to me. The basic authorizing legislation for the Navy carried an authorization for appropriations schooling in connection with naval establishments. There was no similar authorizing legislation for the Army, except for the clause we wrote into the Army appropriation bill, and that applied also to the Air Force at the time when the Army and the Air Force were together in the War Department. So, this has been a problem for some- time. And this is the first tame we have had an opportunity as a House of Repre- sentatives to consider a bill which deals with the comprehensive problem. It is due to the fact that this committee and its subcommittees have held these hear- ings in various parts of the country that the complexities of the problem could be resolved into a bill that would not be too burdensome for the Federal Government and yet make an honest approach to meeting the problem as it appeared in the different phases of Federal activities. So, I do appreciate what has been done here. I would, however, like to ask one or two questions about the bill. I have in mind one country school district where 11 out of 17 pupils attending a country school come from the employees of a national park, and where the parents of the 6 children who reside in the school dis- trict have to pay the taxes at the pres- ent time, or have had up until this year, to provide schooling for three times the children of the taxpayers. Does this bill cover their situation? That land was acquired prior to 1938. If a member of the committee can clarify that point, I would appreciate it. Is there a prospect that that situation will be covered by this bill also? Mr. STEED. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, if the school dis- trict has 10 or more children from a na- tional park, that is, of parents working in a national park, they will be included in this bill. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. In this instance, then, it appears they should come in, since there were 11 according to the last information Ihad. Of course, the point of merit is that this number was twice the number of children com- ing from the homes of taxpayers Next, may I ask what the bill does in regard to Indian children or children of employees working on a Federal Indian reservation. Mr. STEED. Indian children are ex- empt. Employees of the Indian Bureau are considered the same as any other Federal employee. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. That is, whether they are white or Indian chil- en? JULY 13 Mr. STEED. Yes. The present In- dian educational program is not dis- turbed by this bill. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. I thank the gentleman for the information and yield back the balance of my time. Mr. BARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Okla- homa [Mr. Srezp]. Mr. STEED, Mr. Chairman, from the remarks made up to now I am sure that by this time we are aware of the fact that this isa popular bill and should pass the House without any difficulty. I want to just take a few moments here to add a point or two that I think the Recorp ought to include. First, I would like to say that while we are passing out all these bouquets, I think it is only fitting and proper that those of us on the majority side pay our respects to our minority members on the committee for the very fine cooperation that we received from them. Their in- terest in this legislation was equal to ours, and it was through their complete cooperation that made this difficult job more easily accomplished. I also would like to say that I think the Members of the House would like to know that most of the members of these two subcommittees who worked on this bill are men who have no projects in their districts affected by this bill In- sofar as most of us are concerned, it was a labor of love, and we were trying to carry out a task assigned to us by the committee. I think it is important for you to remember this in your attitude toward this legislation, This bill, or some similar bill, must become law in this Congress, else there are going to be probably better than 300,000 children, of people either in the Federal service or involved in the Fed- eral service in this country, who will not receive an adequate education during the coming year. The advantuge of the morale factor of these famihes, particu- larly those in the armed services, of hav- ing an adequate school program for their children, needs no explanation by me, because I am sure you are aware how important it is throughout all these es- tablishments for these families to have those facilities. One point I want to emphasize {is that as we traveled throughout the coun- try inspecting these various establish- ments we found this one thing every- where we went: The Iccal communities where these establishments are found have made a gallant and a gigantic effort to meet this problem without calling up- on the Federal Government. We found communities that are literally bankrupt- ing themselves trying to meet this prob- lem. We found that in no case were the local people trying to shift their burden on the Government. The only reason they were asking for help was be- cause they had problems it was impos- sible for them to solve. We found that where the coming in of a Federal project brought a great economic advantage to a community, only in the larger cities did it bring enough advantage to offset the damage it did to the school system. Any other subdivision of Government had a different type of impact than the schools. It is for that reason that we
1950 think the Government owes an addition- al responsibility to the local school dis- tricts where these establishments have come in. I want to make clear here that we ex- empted the present educational program carried on by the Office of Indian Af- fairs because we felt that that program involved some things that were not strictly in the field of education. There is a welfare program that goes with it. We did not want to disturb at this time what is being done for the Indian citizens of the country through a program that is already working very well. I think that the factors of cost in this bill, if you would like to know them, are these: The estimate of $32,000,000 for the cost of this bill under the present scope of Federal activity I think is gen- erous. I doubt if the actual cost will be that high. I should like to call your attention to the fact that already under existing law we are paying something like $17,000,000 to the various local school districts of the country. Most of this increase from the $17,000,000 to $32,000,000 was put into the bill to cover this problem being cre- ated now by the Wherry housing pro- gram, where we have something like 70 housing projects being built on Govern- ment reservations under that program, and where many tens of thousands of children will come into eligibility who have not been up to this time. I think it ought to be pointed out thai this is in a way sort of a Hoover Commission action itself, because here we are trying to join together a type of work already being carried out in one form or another by eight or nine Govern- hae agencies. I urge passage of this ill. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Montana [Mr. D’Ewart}, Mr. D’EWART. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the committee for giving me this time. I am not a member of the Committee on Education and Labor but I am a member of the Committee on Public Lands, which has made a long and extensive study of what to do about taxation where because of ownership of public lands or because of acquisition of land by the Federal Government the local taxing institutions are not able to survive. This bill deals with one phase of that large, over-all problem, and I think the members of this committee will be the first to admit that it is true. Some of our Western States are owned by the Federal Government up to 60, 70, or 80 percent, In my own State the Federal Government owns 38 percent of the land, thereby causing a very difficult problem with regard to taxation. This bill does not solve the problem with regard to Indians. It does not solve the problem with regard to roads or the policing problem as a result of loss of taxation and the need still existing to support those functions. It does not solve those problems. In part, however, it does solve the school problem. There is still a great deal more to be done. The Indian problem, as it has been brought out by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Steep], goes beyond the extent of this bill. It is something which CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE will require special legislation. I have been advised by members of the com- mittee, as well as by the staff of the committee, that this legislation, if en- acted into law, will not disturb certain legislation which we have passed here- tofore, such as @ law to provide for edu- cation in Yellowstone Park and educa- tion of children at Boulder Dam and at Fort Peck. Our committee has consid- ered various bills and dealt with educa- tion in certain localities under certain conditions. We have tried to provide, either by building schools or by making funds available to provide education for these children. It has been the policy of our commit- tee where possible to provide for these schools, such as at Boulder Dam, by using not funds out of the Public Treas- ury, but rather income from the proj- ect. In the case of Boulder Dam and in the case of Fort Peck we use income from power revenue for the purpose of educating these children. In the case of Yellowstone Park we use income obtained as @ result of fees charged visitors to the park, for the education of the children there. Our committee felt, where it was pos- sible to do that, it would be better than to use the funds out of the Treasury. Under this bill the funds come as 4& direct appropriation out of the Treasury. I think this bill is necessary, but I think the Congress should recognize that it only solves a part of the over-all problem which we have to face as a result of the lack of a tax base because of Federal ownership and acquisition of lands by the Federal Government. I hope we can take up that problem in the new Congress and perhaps find an answer which will be more helpful as re- gards not only the schools, but also the roads and police protection and other matters. Certainly this is a good bill. It de- serves the support of the Congress. But we still have much further to go than this bill. I think the committee has done a good job with this bill. But I hope in the next session we may be able to go on from here and reach other school problems and other problems which come about as a result of loss of the tax base throuch Federal ownership and Federal acquisition of land. Mr, BARDEN. Mr, Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minne- sota [Mr. Wier). Mr. WIER. Mr. Chairman, it was my privilege and pleasure to be a member of the Burke subcommittee. We started out on this mission of investigation for the purpose of curing a very, very bad situation so far as the need of Federal help to these impacted districts were concerned. I might say to you that we started out by going up into the area of Boston, Mass., where we had a meeting for 3 days. From Boston, Mass., We Came back to Washington and held meetings here for the States of Maryland and Vir- ginia. From here we went to Charleston, 8. C., Norfolk, Va., up into the Detroit area, down to Louisville, down to Dayton and down to Atlanta, Ga., and to Jack- sonville, Pla. Those are the centers where there was a really serious problem of Federal 10105 impact. We usually spent 8 days in a major city of the area. To the meetings which we held we not only invited the State administrator of education, but we invited all of the administrators of the affected areas of the school districts as well as the military officials that were involved, in the respective school dis- tricts. It was by this process that we got down to the grass roots of the prob- lem. We used yardsticks. We at- tempted to find out the revenue of the school districts, the cost of the school districts, the teacher lond. We tried to find out what money, if any, they were getting from any other Federal agencies. It was very discouraging to find that there was an assumption that the three military agencies, the Air Force, the Navy, and the Army, where they had these military reservations, had funds sufficient apparently to make a per capita appropriation to the school district, and so take care of the children off the reser- vation, but we always found that those sums varied. We found that the Air Force was doing a better job of making contributions to the schoo) district, the Army was second; and in many cases where there was a naval installation, we found that the Navy had not yet made any contribution to the school districts to which they send so many children. I want to dramatize this fact a little. This bill will offer no relief to the State that I represent or the district that I represent—Minnesota. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WIER. I yield. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. It seems to me that in Hennepin County and Anoka County you had a large con- centration of people who were engaged in war work. Will the gentleman say whether or not this bill will cover that? Mr. WIER. In my district, in the city of Minneapolis, during the latter part of the war years we had two school dis- tricts affected; one at New Brighton, Minn., where the Federal Cartridge Co. employed about 12,000, and another at Farmington, where the du Pont chemi- cal works was constructed. For about a year and a half those plants partici- pated in the Lanham Act, but since the deactivation of those two plants and the taking over by the University of Minnesota of one of them, it has elimi- nated them from sustenance, because the State of Minnesota has supplemented somewhat the needs for those school districts. So last year the school dis- tricts were supplemented by State edu- cational funds. So there will be none under this act. So I speak here with- out any hope of any of this help to the State of Minnesota, on the basis of what I now know. Prior to coming to the Congress, I put in 9 years as a member of the Minneapo- lis School Board. Living in that little area of education, I thought Minneapolis had had some very ereat needs for a better standard of education, for better facilities, and more needs for those kids who attended our city schools, But upon going into the field throughout the South and the East I want to say to youl am sure if every Mcmber of the Congress
10106 could see some of the educational facili- ties which our committee witnessed out at the school house, out where they were in session, in addition to the hearings we held in the Federal buildings, I can assure you that I saw more fire traps where the kids were on a temporary basis—had hired a wooden shack in some communi- ties and had taken over some old bar- racks—it has been an act of God that we have not lost a lot of children being educated in those fire traps that became emergency school houses. In addition to that, the needs for con- struction are very important, because that is more primarily needed than maintenance and operation. We have hundreds of schools in this country, im- pacted by the Federal Government, that are part-time schools—one class in the morning and another in the afternoon, with class loads running from 40 or 50 to 55 children, crowded into these shacks that are unfit for the education of these children. So I join with my colleagues on the committee in the thought that there is going to be great accomplish- ment; and many unsung heroes in the field of education who will benefit in these Federal impact areas will breathe a sigh of relief when they receive word that President Truman has signed this bill, because this is the only thing that is going to save them from continuing and increasing problems. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. ToLLEFson]. My. TOLLEFSON. Mr. Chairman, at the risk of sounding just a little bit monotonous I want to join with the other Members of the House in expressing my appreciation to the Committee on Edu- cation and Labor, and particularly to the members of the subcommittee that handled this legislation. I especially want to pay my tribute to the chair- man of one of the subcommittees, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Bartey]. I know that the chairman of the committees and subcommittees of the House have spent a good deal of time and worked hard upon the bills which have been assigned to them for study and consideration. I think I take no credit away from any of them when I say I doubt if anybody in this House has de- voted as much time, attention, study, and hard work to a bill assigned to him as has the gentleman from West Vir- ginia (Mr. BareEy] to the bill which was assigned to him and which has been un- der consideration here. I think perhaps that in my congres- sional district there are more school dis- tricts affected by Federal activities than there are in other congressional districts in the country. By reason of that fact I have been tremendously interested since coming to Congress in this type of legis- lation. AS a@ consequence I dare say there has scarcely been a week in this year that I have not talked to the gentle- man from West Virginia (Mr. Bartry] about the progress of this legislation. I have talked to him in the committee room or on the way to and from the committee room; and, invariably, he has carried under his arm a whole stack of material dealing with this legislation. I want to compliment him highly. I think CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE he has made a tremendous contribution toward the solution of a problem which has been of great concern to various school districts throughout the Nation. I believe the committee also is deserving of a tremendous amount of credit for finding a workable and a worth-while so- lution to this problem. As the Members ‘of the House know, we have considered similar legislation for the past 4 years; and while it has afforded a great deal of assistance to needy school districts, it has not been wholly equitable; there have been some inequities. As you know, that legislation was designed and based on the theory that the deficits of the various school districts should be taken care of by the Federal Government in those areas where there has been Federal impact. As has heretofore been mentioned on the floor, there have been those States which have prohibited deficit financing; and, as a consequence, those schools were not able to obtain assistance. In addi- tion to those areas there are other school districts which did not seek to qualify under that legislation, yet they were just as much entitled to help as some of those which were receiving assistance. This bill, therefore, as I have said, is a con- tribution, a real contribution toward the solution of a genuine problem; and I want to compliment the committee for the work it has done. Mr. FERNANDEZ. Mr. will the gentleman yield? Mr, TOLLEFSON. I yield. Mr. FERNANDEZ. I understand that in States that use the equalization sys- tem, or in States like mine, where the State distributes money for operation and maintenance or maintenance on an assistance basis, those districts which have an impact would still enjoy this help notwithstanding the fact that the State distributed money statewide for operation and maintenance of schools, Mr. TOLLEFSON. I may say to the gentleman that the legislation outlines a formula for qualifying for benefits, and if any particular school district meets those qualifications it is entitled to assist- ance, as I understand the situation. If I am in error the chairman or some member of the committee will correct me, I hope. I think perhaps for the sake of the Recorp I should state two specific illus- trations indicating the need for this type of legislation. I refer to two specific school districts in my area. One of them had a population of some five thousand people just before the outbreak of the war. During the war the population in- creased to about 16,000. Most of the new people came to work in war indus- tries. There was not sufficient housing to take care of them; and the Federal Government recognizing that fact stepped in and acquired land upon which it erected Federal housing. These work- ers lived in these housing projects and yet made no contribution to the school district by way of direct tax. The hous- ing projects were tax exempt. The Fed- eral Government clearly had an obliga- tion to assist the school districts which were burdened with additional pupils who sought education in the public schools, Chairman, JULY 13 In another school district 80 percent of the pupils who attend its school live upon a military reservation adjoining it. Clearly in that case there is an obliga- tion and a responsibility on the part of the Federal Government to take care of the impact from that Federal activity. The formula enunciated in this bill, I believe, is a very, very fair one. As one of the gentlemen who preceded me has indicated, if there are any inequities, if there are any errors, surely succeeding Congresses can correct them. This leg- islation is excellent and is.much needed legislation. I trust that the vote in favor of this bill will be unanimous, Mr. BARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Murpocx]. Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to join with my colleagues in congratulating the committee for bring- ing in this splendid piece of Icgislation. I especially want to congratulate Chair- man Bartey and his colleagues who made studies in the West. It was a great satisfaction to me to have the subcommittee under the chair- manship of Congressman BalLey hold hearings at Phoenix, Ariz., on November 8 and 9 last year. Fortunately the en- tire Arizona congressional delegation ap- peared the first morning of those hear- ings in order to impress upon the com- mittee our great interest in your study. The place of holding the hearings was also fortunate, as I remarked at the time to the committee and indicated that the Isaac School on the outskirts of Phoenix was a good illustration of conditions born of war, which the committee had set out to investigate. You saw that the Isaac School plant was overcrowded and was in the midst of an extensive newly built addition to the city of Phoenix, and I pointed out that 10 years before one might have stood in front of the school administration building and looked toward the south and west without seeing a single resi- dence less than a mile away. The com- mittee saw the conditions and studied the causes of such conditions and we are happy that the bill before us is offered as a legislative remedy for such and similar conditions. In the State of Arizona we not only have crowded school districts recently built near war plants, but we also have isolated communities on Federal reser- vations, especially irrigation projects, which the gentleman from Montana mentioned a moment ago. The Com- mittee on Irrigation and Reclamation has been studying the school problems at such dams as Hoover Dam, Grand Coulee, and Parker Dam, and have passed legislation as a remedy. In ad- dition to such school needs on that type of reservation, we also have the problem of education of Indian children at our public schools on the fringes of Indian reservations. While this bill does not furnish an entire solution, I believe it is a beginning and is a step in the right direction. This is a significant measure and may justify the many months of la- bor which have been put upon it. Not the volume of legislation but the far-
1950 reaching effects of even one piece of effective legislation is what really counts. Mr. BARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mary- land (Mr. Sasscer]. Mr, SASSCER. Mr. Chairman, I have not seen a piece of legislation in recent years come to the floor of this House that has been given more careful and thor- ough study than this bill. Apparently in their studies the members of the com- mittee have brought forth legislation which under its various chapters en- compasses the problems of nearly all counties effected by Government instal- lations. The members of the committee have labored long and carefully and those of us representing impacted areas are indebted to them. Iam for this bill and I am glad to know that {t will pass today. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Rees]. Mr. REES. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the committee, and especially the members of the subcommittee in charge of this legislation, for the thor- ough manner in which they have studied the problems involved. I want to fur- ther commend the subcommittee for its explanation of the legislation before the House today. I am especially interested in section 8 of the bill, which seeks to compensate school districts in reasonable amount for the cost of educating children who, be- cause they reside on tax-exempt Federal property, do not in effect pay their own way. This legislation does not relieve the local school districts of their full re- sponsibility in the support of education in their respective localities. It is in- tended to assist the support of education where the Federal Government is the owner of the property where the chil- dren reside, The legislation is fair, it is equitable and should be supported. Mr. STOCKMAN, Mr. Chairman, the situation with respect to those schools which are located in the vicinity where Federal activities are now under way is very acute, and I urge that favorable ac- tion be taken on H. R. 7940, which would give greatly needed relief to these areas. The increased populations which have come to eastern Oregon in connection with the construction of McNary Dam and with the operation of the Army ord- nance depot ir the same vicinity have placed such a burden on the schools of Hermiston, Umatilla and Stanfield, that these communities are suffering undue hardship under the impact, and the chil- dren are not getting the educational ad- vantages to which every American child is entitled. These communities have made every possible effort to carry the educational load themselves. They have bonded themselves to the limit allowed under the law and they have carried on community projects to raise funds to provide buildings and equipment and teachers for the influx of children. In a letter to me from the superin- tendent of the Hermiston public schools dated March 9, he advised me that one- third of their 1,400 students are children of Government workers at McNary, or CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Ordnance, and that this abnormal school condition has been going on for 10 years in these schools. He said, and I quote from his letter: Many of these students from juniors on down have not had 1 year of schooling under normal conditions, They have been “church basemonted,” “double shifted,” “hallway classed”, “bus standeed”, until they actually do not know what a normal educational set- up is. In a letter from this same superin- tendent dated February 22, 1950, he states that— Our growth in the high school will go from 820 this year to between 425 and 450 next year. It is extremely unsatisfactory to double-shift high-school students. We will require a minimum of from six to elght more rooms to handle this size group. There are no churches or other buildings close by large enough to handle this many classrooms. The only available space anywhere near this size is across town in the new Masonic hall and the old dance pavilion at the fair grounds. Using these would require a shuttle-bus arrangement which will be very expensive, Many of these children will continue to go to school there after the construc- tion of the dam is completed, as they are ehildren of permanent employees at the am, The enrollment at Ordnance js also of @® permanent nature, as that plant is activated and with the war situation what it is, it stands to reason the activity there will be increased. The enrollment at the Umatilla schools has increased from 145 in 1945- 46 to 538 in February 1950. Such in- creases can be taken care of in no way except by aid from the Federal Govern- ment, whose activities have caused the increases, It is only just that the Gov- ernment should make an effort to solve the problem which has arisen because of Government activities, and I urge pas- sage of this bill. Mr. BARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my gratitude to the members of the committee, to the chairmen of the subcommittees, and also to those who with great pains and care assembled some 2,500 pages of data on this bill. To the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Mc- ConneELL], I pay my tribute and ob- serve that there is no finer member to work with. Also the minority members have been most cooperative. All of the members of my committee, both Re- publicans and Democrats, have worked hand in hand and I am grateful to them for the cooperation they have given. I also appreciate the reception the House has given this bill and I hope it will pass by unanimous vote. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair calls attention to the fact that the committee substitute is to be considered as an origi- nal bill, All time having expired, the Clerk will read the committee substitute for amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Be tt enacted, ete— DrcnagaTron or Poricy Srcrmon 1. In recognition of the responsti- bility of the United States for the impact which certain Federal activities have on the local educational agencies tn the areas in 10107 which such activities are carried on, the Con~ gress hereby declares it to be the policy of the United States to provide financial asaist« ance (as set forth in the following sections of this act) for those local educational agen- cies upon which the United States has placed financial burdens by reason of the fact that— (1) the revenues available to such agen- cies from local sources have been reduced as the result of the acquisition of real prop- erty by the United States; (2) such agencies provide education for children residing on Federal property; (8) such agencies provide education for children whose parents are employed on Federal property; or (4) there has been a sudden and sub- stantial increase in school attendance as the result of Federal activities. Feverat Acquistrion or Reat Property Src. 2. (a) Where the Commissioner, after consultation with any local educational agency and with the appropriate State edu- cational agency, determines for any fiscal year beginning after June 80, 1950— (1) that the United States owns Federal property 1n the school district of such local educational agency, and that such property (A) has been acquired by the United States since 1038, (B) was not acquired by exchange for other Federal property in the school dis- trict which the United States owned before 1989, and (C) had an assessed value (deter- mined as of the time or times when 80 ac- quired) aggregating 10 per centum or more of the assessed value of all real property in the school district (similarly determined as of the time or times when such Federal prop- erty was so acquired); and (2) that such acquisition has placed substantial and continuing financial burden on such agency; and (8) that such agency is not being sub- stantially compensated for the loss in rev- enue resulting from such acquisition by (A) other Federal payments, or (B) increases in revenue accruing to the agency from the carrying on of Federal activities with respect to the property so acquired, then the local educational agency shall be entitled to receive for such fiscal year such amount as, in the judgment of the Com- missioner, is equal to the continuing Federal responsibility for the additional financial burden with respect to current expenditures placed on such agency by such acquisition of property, to the extent such agency is not compensated for such burden by other Federal payments. Such amount shall not exceed the amount which, in the Judgment of the Commissioner, such agency would have derived in such year, and would have had available for current expenditures, from the property acquired by the United States (such amount to be determined without regard to any improvements or other changes made in or on such property since such acquisition), minus the amount which in his judgment the local educational agency de- rived from other Federal payments and had available in such year for current expendi- tures, (b) For the purposes of this section— (1) The term “other Federal payments” means payments in lieu of taxes, and any other payments, made with respect to Fed- eral property pursuant to any law of the United States other than this act. (2) Any real property with respect to which payments are being made under sec- tion 18 of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1938, as amended, shall not be re- garded as Federal property. (c) Where the school district of any local educational agency shall have been formed at any time after 1938 by the consolidation of two or more former school districts, such agency may elect (at the time it files appli- cation under section 5) for any fiscal year
10108 to have (1, the eligibility of such local edu- cational agency, and (2) the amount which such agency shall be entitled to receive, de- termined under this section only with re- spect to such of the former school districts comprising such consolidated school district as the agency shall designate in such election. CHILDREN RESTING ON, OR WHOSE PARENTS ARE EMPLOYED ON, FEDERAL PROPERTY CHILDREN RESIDING ON FEDERAL PROPERTY Sec 3. (a) For each fiscal year beginning after June 30, 1950, each local educational agency which provides free public education during such year for children who reside on Federal property shall be entitled to an amount equal to the number of such chil- -dren in average daily attendance during such year at the schools of such agency, multi- plied by the local contribution rate (deter- mined under subsection (c)). CHILDRIN OF PERSONS EMPLOYED ON FEDERAL PROPERTY (b) Tor each fiscal year beginning after June 30, 1950, each local educational agency which provides free public education dur- ing such year for children who do not reside on Federal property, but who reside with a parent employed on Federal property, shall be entitled to receive an amount equal to the number of such children in average daily attendance during such year at the schools of such agency, multiplied by one-half the local contribution rate (determined under subsection (c)). LOCAL CONTRIBUTION RATE (ce) The loca) contribution rate for a local educational agency for any fiscal year shall be computed by the Commissioner of Edu- cation, after consultation with the State educational agency and the loca] education~ al agency, in the following manner: (1) he shall determine which school dis- tricts within the State are in his judgment most nearly comparable to the school dis- trict of the agency for which the computa- tion js being made, and (2) he shall then divide (A) the aggregate current expenditures, during the second fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which he is making the computation, which the Jocal educational agencies of such com- parable school districts made from revenues derived from local sources, by (B) the aggre- gate number of children in average daily at- tendance to whom such agencies provided free public education during such second preceding fiscal year. The local contribution rate shall be an amount equal to the quotient obtained un- der clause (2) of this subsection If, in the judgment of the Commissioner, the current expenditures in those school districts which he has selected under clause (1) are not rea- sonably comparable because of unusual geo- graphical factors which affect the current expenditures necessary to maintain, in the echool district of the local educational agen- ey for which the computation is being made, a level of education equivalent to that main- tained in such other districts, the Commis- sioner may increase the local contribution rate for such agency by such amount as he determines will compensate such agency for the increase in current expenditures neces- sitated by such unusual geographical factors. LIMITATIONS ON ELIGIBILITY (d) No local educational agency shall be entitled to receive any payment for a fiscal year under subsection (a) or subsection (b), as the case may be, unless the number of children who are in average dally attendance @uring such year and to whom such sub- eection applice— (1) is 10 or more; and (2) amounts to 3 percent or more of the total number of children who are in average @atly attendance during such year and for whom such agency provides free public edu- cation. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Notwithstanding the provisions of clause (2) of this subsection, the Commissioner may waive the 8 percent condition of entitle- ment contained in such clause whenever, in his judgment, exceptional circumstances exist which would make the application of such condition inequitable and would de- feat the purposes of this act. ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS DURING FERIOD IMME- DIATELY FOLLOWING IMPACT (e) Where— (1) @ local educational agency 1s entitled under subsection (a) or (b) to receive a payment for any fiscal year with respect to the education of a child, and (2) under State law, the eligibility of such agency for State ald with respect to the free public education of such child is determined on a basis no less favorable to such agency than the basis used in determining the eligi- bility of local educational agencies for State aid with respect to the free public education of other children in the State; and (3) such agency is not yet eligible to re- ceive for such child part or all of such State aid, the payment under subsection (a) or (b), as the case may be, shall be increased by an amount equal to the amount of State aid for which such agency ts not yet eligible. ADJUSTMENT FOR CERTAIN DECREASES IN FEDERAL ACTIVITIES (f) Whenever the Commissioner deter- mines that— (1) a local educational agency has made preparations to provide during a fiscal year free public education to a certain number of children to whom subsection (a) or (b) applies; and (2° such number has been substantially reduced by reason of a decrease in or cesta- tion of Federal activities, the ainount to which such agency is other- wis entitled under this section for such year shall be increased to the amount to which, in the judgment of the Commissioner, such agency would have been entitled but for such decrease in or cessation of Federal activities, minus any reduction in current expenditures for such year which the Commissioner deter- mines that such agency has eftected by reason of sucu decrease in or cessation of Federal activities CERTAIN FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO BE DEDUCTED (g) In determining the total amount which a local educational agency is entitled to receive under this section for a fiscal year, the Commissioner shall deduct (1) such gmount as he determines such agency de- rived from other Federal payments (as de- fined in section 2 (b) (1)) and had avatl- able in such year for current expenditures (but only to the extent such payments are not deducted under the last sentence of section 2 (#)), and (2) such amount as he determines to be the value of transporta- tion and of custodial and other maintenance services furnished such agency by the Fed- eral Government during such year. SuppEN AND SuBSTANTIAL INCREASES IN ATTENDANCE INCREASES HEREAFTER OCCURRING Sec 4. (2) If the Commissioner determines for any fiscal year beginning after July 30, 1950— (1) that, as the result of activities of the United States (carried on elther directly or through a contractor), an increase in the number of children in average daily attend- ance at the schools of any local educational agency has occurred in such fiscal year, which increase so resulting from activities of the United States is equal to at least 10 percent of the number of all children in average daily attendance at the schools of such agency during the preceding 3-year period; and JULY 13 (2) that such activities of the United States have placed on such agency a substantial and continuing financial burden; ard (3) that such agency is making a reason- able tax effort and ts exercising due diligence in availing itself of State and other finan- cial assistance but is unable to secure suffi- cient funds to meet the increased educational costs involved, then such agency shall be entitled to re- ceive for the fiscal year for which the de- termination is made, and for each of the 2 succeeding fiscal years, an amount equal to the product of— (A) the number of children which the Commissioner determines to be the increase in average daily attendance, so resulting from activities of the Uniled States, in the fiscal year for which payment is to be made; and (B) the amount which the Commissioner determines to be the current expenditures per child necessary to provide iree public education to such additional children dur- ing such year, minus the amount which the commissioner determines to be available from Federal, State, and local sources for such purpose (not counting as an amount available from Federal sources any payment made under section 2). The number of children which the Com- missioner determines under clause (A) to be the increase in average daily attendance for any fiscal year shall not excecd the num- bor of all children in average daily attend- ance at the schools of such agency during such year, minus the number of all children in average daily attendance at the schools of such agency during the preceding 3-year period The determination under clause (B) shall be made by the Commissioner after considering the current expenditures per child in providing free public education in those school districts within the State which, in the judgment of the Commissloncr, are most nearly comparable to the school district of the local educational agency for which the computation is being made. INCREASES HERETOFORE OCCURRING (b) (1) If the Commissioner determines in any fiscal year ending before July 1, 1955— (A) that, as the result of activities of the United States (carried on either directly or through a contractor), an increase in the number of children in average daily attend- ance at the schools of any local educational agency has occurred after June 30, 1939, and before July 1, 1960, and (B) that the portion of such increase 80 resulting from activities of the United States which still exists in such fiscal year amounts to not less than 25 percont of the number of all children in average daily at- tendance at the schools of such agency dure ing the fiscal year ending June 30, 1939; and (C) that such activities of the United States have placed on such agency a sub- stantial and continuing financial burden; and (D) that such agency is making a reason- able tax effort and ts exercising due dlll- gence in availing itself of State and other financial assistance but is unable to secure sufficient funds to meet the increased educa- tional costs involved, then such agency shall be entitled to receive for the fiscal year in which the determina- tion is made, and for each succeeding fiscal year ending before July 1, 1955, an amount determined as follows: For the fiscal year ending June 80, 1951, 100 percent of the product determined as provided in para- graph (2); for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1952, 60 percent of such product; for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1953, 60 percent of such product; for the fiscal year ending June 80, 1964, 40 percent of such product; and for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1955, 20 percent of such product.
1950 (2) The product referred to in paragraph (1) for a fiscal year shall be an amount equal to— (A) the number of children which the Commissioner determines to be the increase in average daily attendance at the schools of such agency, so resulting from activities of the United States, which still exists in such flacal year (determined as provided in clauses (A) and (B) of paragraph (1)); multiplied by (B) the amount which the Commissioner determines to be the current expenditures per child necessary to provide free public education to such additional children dur- ing such year, minus the amount which the Commissioner determines to be available from Federal, State, and local sources for such purpose (not counting as an amount available from Federal sources any payment made under section 2). The number of children which the Commis- sioner determines under clause (A) to be the increase in average dally attendance which still exists in any fiscal ycar shall not exceed the number of all children in aver- age dally attendance at the schools of such agency during such year, minus the number of all children in average daily attendance at the schools of such agency during the fiscal year ending June 380, 1939. The deter- mination under clause (B) shall be made by the Commissioner after considering the cur. rent expenditures per child in providing free public education in those school districts within the State which, in the judgment of the Commissioner, are most nearly com- parable to the school district of the local educational agency for which the computa- tion is being made. CERTAIN CHILDREN NOT TO BE COUNTED (c) In determining under this section (1) whether there has been an increase in at- tendahce in any fiscal year and whether any incrcase in attendance atill exists in any fiscal year, and (2) the number of children with respect to whom payment is to be made for any fiscal year, the Commissioner shall not count— (A) children with respect to whom a local educational agency is, or upon application would be, entitled to recelve any payment under subsection (a) or (b) of section 3 for such fiscal year, and (B) children whose attendance 1s attribu- table to activities of the United States car- ried on in connection with real property which has been excluded from the definition of Federal property by the last sentence of Paragraph (1) of section 9. CONSULTATION WITH STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES (a) All determinations of the Commis- sioner under this section shall be made only after consultation with the State educa- tional agency and the local educational agency. MetTHop or MAKING PAYMENTS APPLICATION Src. 5. (a) No local educational agency shall be entitled to any payment under sec- tion 2, 8, or 4 of this act for any fiscal year except upon application therefor, submitted through the State educational agency and Aled in accordance with regulations of the Commissioner, which application gives ade- quate assurance that the local educational agency will submit such reports as the Com- Missioner may reasonably require ta deter- mine the amount to which such agency is entitled under this act. CERTIFICATION AND PAYMENT (bd) The Commissioner shall, for each cal- endar quarter, certify to the Secretary of the Treasury for payment to each local edu- eational agency, either in advance or by way of reimbursement, the amount which the Commissioner estimates such agency is en- XCVI——-637 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE titled to receive under this act for such quarter. The amount so certified for any quarter shall be reduced or increased, as the case may be, by any sum by which he finds that the amount paid to the agency under this act for any prior quarter was greater or less than the amount which should have been paid to it for such prior quarter. Upon receipt of such certification, the Secretary of the Troaeury shall, prior to audit or set- tlement by the General Accounting Office, Pay to the local educational agency in ac- cordance with such certification. ADJUSTMENTS WHERE NECESSITATED BY APPROPRIATIONS (c) If the funds appropriated for a fiscal year for making the payments provided in this act are not sufficient to pay in full the total amounts to which all local educational agencies are entitled, the Commissioner shall reduce the amounts which he certifies under subsection (b) for such year for payment to each local educational agency by the per- centage by which the funds so appropriated @re less than the total necessary to pay to Buch agencies the full amount to which they are entitled under this act. CHILDREN FOR WHOM LOCAL AGENCIES ARE Unanie To Proviog EnucaTion Src 6 In the case of children who reside on Federal property— (1) if no tax revenues of the State or any political subdivision thereof may be expend- ed for the free public education of such chil- dren, or (2) if it Is the Judgment of the Commis- sioner. after he has consulted with the ap- propriate State educational agency, that no local educational agency is able to provide suitable free public education for such chil- dren, the Commissioner shall make such arrange- ments (other than arrangements with re- spect to the acquisition of land, the erec- tion of facilities, interest, or debt service) as may be necessary to provide free public edu- cation for such children To the maxi- mum extent practicable, such education shall be comparable to free public education pro- vided for children tn comparable communt- ties in the State. ADMINISTRATION Sec. 7 (a) In the administration of this act, no department, agency, officer, or em- ployee of the United States shall exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the personnel, curriculum, or program of instruction of any school or school system of any local or State educational agency. (b) The Commissioner shall administer this act, and he may make such regulations and perform such other functions as he finds necessary to carry out the provisions of this act. (c) The Commissioner shall include in his annual report to the Congress a full report of the administration of his functions un- der this act, including a detailed statement of receipts and disbursements. Usx or OTHER FanrraL AGENCIzS; TRANSFER AND AVAILABILITY OF APPROPRIATIONS Sec. 8. (@) In carrying out his functions under this act, the Commissioner is author- ized, pursuant to proper agreement with any other Federal department or agency, to uti- lise the services and facilities of such de- partment or agency, and, when he deems it necessary or appropriate, to delegate to any officer or employee thereof the function un- der section 6 of making arrangements for viding free public education. Payment cover the cost of such utilization or of carrying out such delegated function shall be made either in advance or by way of re- imbursement, as may be provided in such agreement. (b) All Federal departments or agencies administering Federal property on which 10109 children reside, and all such departments or agencies principally responsible for Federal activities which may occasion assistance un- der this act, shall to the maximum extent practicable comply with requests of the Commissioner for information he may re- quire in carrying out the purposes of this act. (c) Such portion of the appropriations of any other department or agency for the fis- cal year ending June 30, 1951, as the Direc- tor of the Bureau of the Budget determines to be available for the same purposes as this act, shall, except to the extent neces- sary to carry out during such year contracts made prior to the enactment of this act, be transferred to the Commissioner for use by him in carrying out such purposes. (ad) No appropriation to any department or agency of the United States, other than an appropriation to carry out this act, shall be available after June 30, 1951, for the same purposes as this act, except that noth- ing in this subsection or in subsection (c) of this section shail affect the availability of appropriations for the maintenance and operation of school facilities on Federal property under the control of the Atomic Energy Commission. DEFINITIONS Sec 9 For the purposes of this act-— (1) The term “Federal property” means real property which is owned by the United States or is leased by the United States, and which is not subject to taxation by any State or any political subdivision of a State or by the District of Columbia Such term includes real property leased from the Secre- tary of the Army, Navy, or Air Force under section 805 of the National Housing Act, as amended, for the purpose of title VIII of such act Such term also includes real property held in trust by the United States for individual Indians or Indian tribes, and real property held by individual Indians or Indian tribes which is subject to restric- tions on alienation imposed by the United States. Such term does not include (A) any real property used by the United States primarily for the provision of services to the local area in which such prope: ty is situated, (B) any real property used for a labor supply center, labor home, or labor camp for migra. tory farm workers, or (C) any low-rent hous- ing project held under title II of the National Industrial Recovery Act, the Emergency Re- Nef Appropriation Act of 1935, the United States Housing Act of 1937, the act of June 28, 1940 (Pub. Law 671 of the Seventy- sixth Cong), or any law amendatory of or supplementary to any of such acts. (2) The term “child” means any child who is within the age Mmits for which the ap- plicable State provides free public educa- tion. Such term does not include any child who is a member, or the dependent of a member, of any Indian tribal organization, recognized as such under the laws of the United States relating to Indian affairs, and who 1s eligible for educational services pro- vided pursuant to a capital grant by the Unit.d States, or under the supervision of, or pursuant to a contract or other arrange- ment with, the Bureau of Indian Affairs. (3) The term “parent” includes a legal guardian or other person standing in loco parentis. (4) The term “free public education” means education which is provided at public expense, under public supervision and direc- tion, and without tuition charge, and which is provided as elementary or secondary school education in the applicable State. (5) The term “current expenditures” means expenditures for free public educa- tion to the extent that such expenditures are made from current revenues, except that such term does not include any such ex- penditure for the acquisition of land, the
10110 erection of facilities, Interest, or debt serv- ice. (8) The term “local educational agency” means a board of education or other legally constituted local school authority having ad- ministrative control and direction of free public education in a county, township, in- dependent, or other school district located within a State. Such term includes any State agency which directly operates and maintains facilities for providing free pub- lic education. (7) The term “State educational agency”’ means the officer or agency primarily re- sponsible for the State supervision of public elementary and secondary schools. (8) The term “State” means a State, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands. (9) The terms ‘‘Commissioner of Educa- tion” and “Commissioner” mean the United States Commissioner of Education. (10) Average daily attendance shall be de- termined in accordance with State law; ex- cept that, notwithstanding any other pro- vision of this act, where the local educa- tional agency of the school district in which any child resides makes or contracts to make a tuition payment for the free public educa- tion of such child in a school situated in another school district, for purposes of this act the attendance of such child at such school shall be held and considered (A) to be attendance at a school of the local edu- cational agency so making or contracting to make such tuition payment, and (B) not to be in attendance at a school of the local educational agency receiving such tuition payment or entitled to receive such tuition payment under the contract. Mr, BARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer &@ committee amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Committee amendment offered by Mr. Barpren: On page 29, line 12, after “25 per- cent’, insert “or to not less than 15 percent where the schoo! district of such agency shall have been formed at any time after 1938 by the consolidation of two or more former schoo! districts.” Mr. BARDEN. Mr. Chairman, this is what might be called a _ perfecting amendment. We do not want to dis- courage the consolidation of schools nor do we want to penalize any schools that had been consolidated, and we fixed the date as of 1938. I think the amendment 4s perfectly proper. Mr. LANHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BARDEN. I yield to the gentle- man from Georgia. Mr. LANHAM. On behalf of the gen- tleman from Alabama [Mr. Hosss], and myself, I want to thank the committee for offering this amendment which was suggested by us. I appreciate it greatly. Mr. BARDEN. I thank the gentle- man. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. will the gentleman yield? Mr. BARDEN. I yield to the gentle- man from Ohio. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I wondered if the gentleman has agreed to accept the amendment I suggested to add the word “or” tn line 2 and in Hne 4 on page 19, just to be absolutely certain. I under- stand some of the members of the Draft- ing Service think it is not necessary, but on the other hand some rather able legis- lative experts and drafting éxperts think it would be a clarifying amendment, and it certainly cannot in any way injure the bill, but would make absolutely certain Mr. Chairman, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE the intent of the Congress that any one of these conditions would make a school district eligible. Mr. BARDEN. I will say to the gen- tleman having discussed it with counsel for the committee and only part of the members of the committee, Iam not ina Position to accept it as a committee amendment, I will say this, however, that I can see no harm in the world by accepting it. I do not see why we should not adopt the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment. The committee amendment was agreed to Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio: On page 19, line 2, after the semicolon, add the word “or” and on page 19, Hne 4, after the semicolon, add the word “or.” Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, just to make this clear, and to be sure we batten down the hatch and have the bill in such shape that no agency of Gov- ernment can possibly misinterpret the intent of Congress, I offer my amend- ment. In view of the fact this matter did come up for discussion in executive session of the Committee on Rules, and it has been discussed by different Mem- bers as to whether or not this amend- ment is necessary, and it does not do any harm if it is not necessary and may pos- sibly do a great deal of good if it is nec- essary, I hope the amendment will be adopted. Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. KEATING. Is it intended, may I ask the chairman of the committee, that if a locality qualifies under any one of these four provisions, that they will be entitled to this aid? Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I can answer by saying that it was made very clear in the hearings before the Committee on Rules and in the discussions with the committee members, that it is the in- tent and purpose of the committee, and certainly the intent and purpose of the House, to provide that if any one of these qualifications are met, a school district is eligible for this assistance, just to be sure that somebody, in the interpretation of this bill does not say, “A school must have all four of these dif- ferent situations existing before it can get any aid.” Mr. BARDEN. I have no objection whatever, and all the members around me I have been able to contact have no objection to it. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, I am for this bill but I take this time to propound an inquiry to the distinguished chairman of the committee. In the State of Tennessee, under our State equalization law, every school dis- trict is guaranteed a minimum school foundation program by the State. Each school district is required to raise a cer- tain contribution based on enrollment JULY 138 and wealth in the school district. Then the State is required by law to furnish the number of teachers and the school supplies that are necessary. As I understand, the money under this bill will go direct to any school district that qualifies under the provisions of the bill, I understand that the attorney general of the State of Tennessee is of the opinion that the State must con- tinue its guaranty without receiving any credit for moneys received by the school district under this legislation, Can the distinguished chairman tell me about that situation? Mr. BARDEN. This matter was Lrought to my attention and in turn I called the committee together this morn- ing and we considered it before the full committee. It seems that in the State of Ten- nessee they passed an act which had in mind the passage of the Federal aid bill, and has something to do with han- dling all money that might be paid by the Federal Government. There are two provisions in the Ten- nessee State law that, in the opinion of the committee and counsel for the com- mittee, would mean that the State of Tennessee could be taken care of all right. The only alternative to the pro- cedure which we adopted would be to take the suggestion that was brought to us by members of the Tennessee delega- tion, including Mr, Murray, that we make payments to the commissioner of edu- cation of that State or to the superin- tendent of schools of that State, The committee was of the opinion that the very minute we started that we would be changing the whole policy of the bill, the policy of the bill being that the relief was going direct to the local dis- trict that was suffering the impact. If we changed it, it would go through the State set-up, and that would entail a lot of regulation and would entail some of the objections that, in my opinion, many Members of the House would resent. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. May I ask the chairman if he thinks, then, that under the provisions of this bill the State of Tennessee, under its present law for the school program, could receive credit because of the money that was contrib- tes to the local school areas under this Mr. BARDEN. Of course, I am not as qualified to pass on the law of the State of Tennessee as the attorney gencral of that State, but we in discussing it this morning could not see any reason why the State of Tennessee could not take care of this situation, because if the money was paid by the Federal Govern- ment to a local district we could see no reason why the State of Tennessee could not withhold the amount of money that would normally go as a supplement to that district and avoid a double payment to that district. If perchance there was & mandatory interpretation given to the Tennessess statute, then there certainly could be no reason why the State of Tennessee could not withhold that money until January 1, when its legislature meets, and correct it, I am satisfied they would do that rather than pay twice as much to any one school district as
1950 that schoo! district would be entitled to or could use. So on that information, and after that discussion, the commit- tee decided to let the policy of the bill remain as is. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown], The amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee substitute as amended. The committee substitute was agreed to. Mr. BARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may extend their remarks at this point. The CHAIRMAN, Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from North Carolina? There was no objection. Mr. BOLTON of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I am deeply interested in the passage of H. R. 7940 because it will bring considerable relief to the overburdened taxpayers of Harford County, Md., which is in my congressional district. In that county alone, the Federal Gov- ernment owns 57,000 acres of ground valued at $100,000,000 which, if taxed on an equal basis with privately owned land would yield the county $710,000 a year in taxes. In addition to this loss of revenue, the people in the county are put to the expense of furnishing educa- tional facilities for 300 children who live on the Government reservations and ap- proximately 2,000 children attending the public schools in the county whose par- ents are employed on the reservations, but who live outside the reservations. Under the provisions of the current ex- pense bill, the county will be entitled to the county share of the cost of the edu- cation of the 300 children, and one-half the county’s cost of educating the 2,000 pupils. It is estimated that Harford County should benefit to the extent of $105,000 a year from the current expense bill, H. R. 7940. This same county should also benefit to the extent of $200,000 to $300,000 un- der the pending school construction bill, H. R. 8113. Iam sure everyone in this House knows about Aberdeen Proving Ground and Edgewood Arsenal, which are located in this county, and I am sure no fajir- minded person thinks the residents of that small county should be expected to bear the cost of educating children whose parents live on Government reservations and who are not subject to any local] taxes for school or any other local bencfits. I sincerely hope this bill will be passed today. Baltimore County does not have a suf- ficient number of students from Govern- ment reservations to claim relief under this bill, and the Baltimore City part of my district has not seen fit to file a claim, Carroll County, which is also in my district, has no Government- owned property in the county and there- fone has no claim to benefits under this i11, Had the Public Lands Committee seen fit to report H. R. 3359 which I intro- duced on March 9, 1949, to provide for local taxation of real estate owned by CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE the United States in the various political subdivisions throughout the United States, it would not have been necessary for Harford County in my district or my own home county of Baltimore to support the children from these Govern- ment reservations in our schools nor to burden the taxpayers with the cost of maintaining roads, police and health pro- tection, school buses and other public - services for these children. I think it only fair that these counties should be reimbursed for the extra expense of educating these children, as provided in the bill before the House. The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises. Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. Hays of Arkansas, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under considera- tion the bill (H. R. 7940) to provide financial assistance for local educational agencies in areas affected by Federal ac- tivities, and for other purposes, pursu~ ant to House Resolution 685, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole. The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered. The question is on the amendment. The amendment was agreed to. The SPEAKER. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time. The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill. Mr. CLEVENGER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit. The SPEAKER, Is the gentleman opposed to the bill? Mr. CLEVENGER. In its present form I am, Mr. Speaker. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill unqualifiedly. Mr. CLEVENGER. Mr. Speaker, I am against the bill. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio qualifies. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit. The Clerk read as follows: Mr. CLEVENGER moves to recommit the bill to the Committee on Education and Labor for further study. Mr. BARDEN. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion to recommit. The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion to recommit. The motion was rejected. The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill. The bill was passed. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED Mr. EBERHARTER asked and was given permission to address the House for 15 minutes today, following the legis- lative program and any special orders heretofore entered, 10111 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM AND ADJOURN- MENT OVER TO MONDAY Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan? There was no objection. Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Speaker, I have asked for this time to inquire of the majority leader as to the program. Mr. McCORMACK. It is the intention when we adjourn today to adjourn to meet on Monday next. I now ask unan- imous consent, Mr. Speaker, that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet on Monday next. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mas- sachusetts? There was no objection. Mr. McCORMACK. Monday is Con- sent Calendar day. Also there will be six suspensions on the following joint resolutions and House bills: Senate Joint Resolution 2, election of President and Vice President; House Joint Resolution 502, to suspend certain import taxes on copper; H. R. 8763, triple damages antitrust laws; H. R. 8706, bonds for Federal employ- ees; H. R. 5863, International Refugee Or- ganization; and H. R. 10, deportation of aliens. Tuesday is Private Calendar day. If the Committee on Rules reports out a rule on Monday, which we hope it will, on the bill (S. 3809) amending the Mu- tual Defense Assistance Act of 1949, that will be taken up on Tuesday. In any event it will come up the early part of next week. I might also state that Monday and Tuesday are the last days for the calling of the Consent Calendar and the Private Calendar for this month. I shall confer with the leadership on the Republican side to see if we cannot arrange a day for another calling of the Consent Calendar and the Private Calendar before the end of the month. Of course, conference reports may be called up at any time, I know the Members are interested in the status of the social-security bill. The best information I have, which is as re- Hable as it can be as of a few minutes ago, or at least within the past hour, is that the bill being in conference, the con- ferees will start work on Jt Monday. It will probably take a week or 10 days before the conference will be concluded. While I cannot exclude it from consid- eration next week, it is not a probability. Any further program for next week will be announced later. Mr. MICHENER. The _ suspensions will follow the Consent Calendar? Mr. McCORMACK. Exactly. Mr. MICHENER. Senate Joint Reso- lution No. 2, as to the election of Presi- dent and Vice President, is what is known as the Gossett amendment? Mr. McCORMACK. That is the Lodge- Gossett amendment, Yes.
10112 Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Will the suspensions come up in the order an- nounced? Mr. McCORMACK. That is the inten- tion, yes. COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Com- mittee on Banking and Currency may have until midnight Saturday to file re- ports on the bills S. 3105 and S. 2822. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts? There was no objection. WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Com- mittee on Ways and Means may have until midnight Friday to file a report on House Joint Resolution 502. Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. That is Friday of this week? Tomorrow? Mr. McCORMACK. Yes. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts? There was no objection. REQUEST FOR CABINET OFFICERS TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there any objec- tion to the request of the gentlewoman from Massachusetts? There was no objection. Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on other occasions during war you have asked the Chiefs of Staff to talk to the Members of Congress regard- ing the status of the war. I respectfully urge, and urgently urge, that today you ask the Secretary of Na- tional Defense, the Secretary of State, the Chiefs of Staff, the National Secu- rity Resources Board, and the National Advisory Council to appear before the Congress to talk to us and to tell us why our men were sent to Korea completely unprepared, and what can be done 1n the future. The people of the country are thor- oughly aroused. They do not want to criticize unjustly, but I feel there should be some sort of system like the English system, whereby the Chiefs of Staff and the Cabinet members are called before the Parliament to explain why there have been reverses and what measures should now be taken. It would be very helpful to the administration and to all of us. RETIREMENT RIGHTS OF IMMIGRATION INSPECTORS Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my re- marks at this point in the Recorp. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, on yes- terday I intraduced a bill now known as H R. 9095 which would give the immi- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE grant inspectors of the United States Im- migration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice, the same retire- ment rights as those given to Federal Bureau of Investigation employees. I feel that when Public Law 879 was passed by the Eightieth Congress for the benefit of Federal employees engaged in the investigation, apprehension, or de- tention of persons suspected o1 convict- ed of offenses against the criminal laws of the United States, the Congress in- tended to include immigrant inspectors, The act delegated to the United States Civil Service Commission the right to decide what Federal officers should be covered thereby and that Commission has now on several occasions ruled that the inclusion of immigrant inspectors was not intended. I feel it is my duty to introduce this legislation to expressly include within the provisions of Public Law 879 this group of employees who deal with all types of notorious criminals in the en- forcement of our immigrant laws. They are frequently subjected to grave physi- cal danger. A very heavy burden of re- sponsibility is carried by these men, many of whom operate over difficult border country without regard to time or hours of employment. We are all familiar with the excellent work and fine morale of our immigrant inspectors and if we expect them to continue to do the loyal, efficient job they have done in the past, we should accord them fair treat- ment. It is a simple act of justice to give them the same retirement privi- leges which we have extended to their brothers of the FBI. My bill would provide more efficient and economical enforcement of our im- migrant laws. Those inspectors who have been partially disabled through service-connected injury, or who have developed infirmities brought about by advancing years and the daily strain and tensions of law enforcement fre- quently lose zcal and enthusiasm due to irregular hours, night duty, and other hardships incident thereto which the re- silience of youth disregards. Many such officers would retire under the proposed bill instead of remaining in the service long after their effectiveness begins to decline. They would be supplanted by younger men who would be keen to seek such a career if they were assured of permanent employment with a retire- ment system deserved by those engaged in such a hazardous occupation. The SPEAKER. Under previous or- der of the House, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr, Jacoss] is recognized for 40 minutes, REPLY TO DREW PEARSON Mr. JACOBS Mr. Speaker, under date of January 6, 1945, an article in the Saturday Evening Post stated that Drew Pearson was the most hated and feared man in Washington. I was not here in 1945; I do not know whether that is true or not, but I am proud to say as I stand in the well of this House today that I do not hate Drew Pearson nor any other man; and so far as I am concerned I am not conscious of having any fear of Drew Pearson or any other man, JuLY 13 The occasion of my requesting this special order to address the House was that on the third of this month Drew Pearson wrote and published a column concerning me. Now, it is true that he did not say anything disgraceful about me, but it is nevertheless true that he attempted to hold me up to ridicule. T have always believed that when I was ridiculed I at least had a right to ridicule the other fellow a little if he was subject to ridicule; and, believing as I do, that Drew Pearson is subject to considerable ridicule, I intend to point out a few of his weaknesses here today. Iam not too resentful of the fact that I have been listed in “Drew’s Who”; in fact, sometimes we might consider it an honor, But I do expect to outline a course of contacts that I had with Drew Pearson, very infrequently, down to a certain point, in fact, down to the point when this column appeared. In order that the Members of the House may understand how this man’s mind works I will tell you at the outset the three things that he wrote concerning me, and then I will put the column in the Recorp so that it can be read in full. First of all, he said that I was a star- gazer, Well, I may have been at one time, but after reading Pearson’s columns in recent weeks and realizing that he was about ready to fill the heav- ens chuck full of rubber balloons all with a love note tied to them to Joe Stalin, I came to the conclusion that there was no use to engage in the gentle art of star- gazing any more, because the stars would probably be obscured with all these bal- loons that he is going to send up; and, besides that, if he thought he could reach Joe Stalin by sending notes to him on rubber balloons he 1s going to be the champion stargazer anyway and there would be no use of my competing with him. I suggest that if we are going to have a balloon barrage that they will probably be hot-air balloons, and Drew Pearson ought to be in charge of 1t, Now, the occasion of Mr. Pearson at- tempting to ridicule me, and it is neces- sary to understand this before I read the next paragraph, was because J was a candidate for the nomination of United States Senator in the Democratic State convention of Indiana. Mr. Pearson undertook to ridicule me because he favored another candidate, which was his right if he wanted to stick his nose in Indiana politics. But I think there is a little background I should tell you about as to why he was ready to take the first opportunity that came along to ridicule me. When I was elected to Congress one of the first communications I got after I came here on December 27, 1948, was from Drew Pearson. It is a telegram addressed to me and reads as follows: WasnHINaTon, D C., December 29, 1948, Congressman ANDREW JACOBS, House of Representatives: I hope you can join Mrs, Pearson and me in meeting some of the new and old Members of Congress at cocktails, the Carlton Hotel, ‘Wednesday, January 5, from 6:30 to 7 p. m. R. 8. v. p, 18138 Twenty-ninth Street NW., telephone Michigan 4321, Drew PEARSON.
1950 I responded immediately, and the fol- lowing was my answer: Decemsre 31, 1948. Mr. Drew Prarson, Washington, D. C. Dear Mk. Pearson: I regret that I must de- cline your kind invitation to the party at the Carlton Hotel, January 5, 1949. By so declining I mean no offense to you, but I have a rather fixed notion that my constituents sent me to Washington to represent them on legislative matters and, as you may suspect, I have plenty to occupy myself with as a freshman Congressman. I will, nevertheless, be very happy to co- operate with you in your work at any time that it is consistent with my duties, Very truly yours, ANDREW JACoBs, Congressman-Elect, Eleventh Indi- ana District. I meant what I said there. Iattend no social functions in Washington save an Indiana Society reception once a year. I was willing to cooperate with Mr. Pear- son in his work when it was consistent with my duties. In the course of the fol- lowing several] months, as some of you may remember, I headed a subcommittee called the Union Democracy Committee. Occasion arose whereby I issued a subpena for Westbrook Pegler, the col- umnist. This became public very short- ly. One day one of Drew Pearson’s men came to my office and said to me: “Drew would like to talk to you.” I said, “Well, that is all right. I will talk to Drew.” He said, “Drew will be in his office be- tween 10 and 12 tomorrow.” I said, “That is fine. A. Jacoss will be in his office all day tomorrow.” The following day Mr. Pearson came to my Office and he talked to me about the impending testimony of Mr. Pegler before the subcommittee of which I was chairman. To make a long story short, and without going into all the details, what he was interested in was that he wanted me to pull some of his chestnuts out of the fire in a current quarrel he was having with Mr. Pegler. I told him that I had a “crow to pick” with Mr. Pegler myself, but I was going to do that on my own time and in my own private way, and I was not going to mix it up with a committee hearing, and that I certainly was not going to do it for him. I do not know anything about his quarrel with Mr. Pegler at all, except that I gather from what I have heard and read that they are having a lawsuit with each other, and the purpose of the lawsuit seems to be to procure a judicial determination as to which of them is the biggest liar. Therefore, I predict that in that lawsuit there will be a hung jury. The next contact I had with him was about a week—that is, I had no contact with him direct, but about a week before the Indiana State convention my secre- tary called me off the floor and said Mr. Pearson wanted to have lunch with me the next day. Well, I said, “That is all right. If he will come over to the Capitol restaurant I will be glad to have lunch with him.” But I sald, “You know, I live on Capitol Hill, I work on Capitol Hill, and, except under the most extraordi- nary circumstances, I never go off Capi- tol Hill, except when I go back to In- diana, and I do not consider it an ex- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE traordinary circumstance to have lunch with Mr. Pearson.” . The next I knew he wrote this column, and now I am going to read the first two paragraphs of the column in order that I may comment further. He said: Indiana politicos are amused at what hap- pened to likable stargazing Congressman ANDREW JacosS— He is going to find me less likable in the future— of Indiana at the recent Democratic Con- vention. ANDY, who affects English bull- dog pipes and likes to be compared with Abe Lincoln—~ I never asked anyone to so compare me, but I certainly do not resent it— confided to a congressional friend not long ago: “Some of my friends are saying that I'm presidential timber.” Now, I never made any such statement as that in my life to anyone. He said I said it to some Member of this Congress. If I made that statement to any Member of this Congress, I would be very happy for him to identify himself. The truth of the matter is that the statement was made out of whole cloth. Now, I could call him a liar, but I always believe in be- ing a little more original than that, and besides, if I should call Mr. Pearson a liar for having said that I inferred that I thought I was presidential timber, he would probably come back and say: “Look, that proves it. He is talking like two Presidents already” and probably accuse me of trying to emulate the whole Congress of the United States, or at least most of the Members. So, Iam not going to call him a Har. I am simply going to say upon my honor as a Member of this body that I never made any such ridicu- lous statement. Now, there is nothing very wicked about that, except that it would betray me as being a rather stupid individual, and I feel warranted in re- senting being falsely portrayed as stupid. But, just why would Mr. Pearson—-and I have never done him any harm in my life, I never before told these things that I related here today—just why would Mr. Pearson undertake to thus embarrass me and humiliate me in the public mind? There is another reason, and I am going to explain it to you. I think this is the real reason. I do not think it is because I turned down his cocktail party or his lunch, I do not think that would bother him so much because I am cer- tainly unimportant; but there is another reason, and that is found in that realm of rare politics that we have in the Hoosier State. Out in Indiana the kids cut their teeth on poll books. We take our politics serlous just before election, and we forget our politics pretty much after the contests are over; because if we are nothing else in Indiana, we are generally pretty good sports. But that would be something that Mr. Pearson could not comprehend, being the kind of man he is, He naturally assumed that since I was an unsuccessful candidate before the State convention recently those who were contestants in that con- vention would be at each other's throats, and that if he could ridicule one person who was 8 contestant in that convention 10113 he would naturally curry favor with other contestants. There was a reason why, and this is the most important reason, and it 1s going to illustrate Drew Pearson better than anything I have ever heard. This is the most important reason why this column was written. I will have to give you a little background. It seems that sometime last year Mr. Pearson wrote a column about another Hoosier, a man who used to be in the Department of Justice. That appeared on April 10, 1949, in the Detroit Free Press and a number of other papers. It says: The Justice Department is casting a quiz- gical eye on ex-Assistant Attorney General Norman Littell. They have reports that Lit- tell 1s acting as 8 propagandist for the Dutch Government, although he falled to register as @ foreign agent. You know, this business of represent- ing foreign governments without regis- tering is “grand jury bait,” as we say out in Indiana, or “a penitentiary offense.” It is a charge of crime. Mr. Littell is a Hoosier, and we Hoosiers do not usually take those thihgs too lightly. So Mr. Littell sued Mr. Pearson for libel. After he sued him for libel he decided to take his deposition, as was his right under the law. So he got Mr. Pearson in to take his deposition. He said, “Look, Drew, who told you this?” And Drew said, “Now look. I am an ethical journalist. You can draw and quarter mc, you can put me on the rack and break my bones, I will endure the tortures of the damned, but never will I break the ethics of my profession.” Mr. Littell said, “I will tell you what, Drew. Maybe we had better go down and see the judge about this.” So after some inducements, perhaps a subpena or something, he finally got Drew down to talk the thing over with the judge. The judge said, “Well, now, Drew, I guess you had better tell who told you this.” Drew said, “Well, now, Judge, you would not want to make me break the ethics of my profession, would you?” He was not quite as adamant about it as he was the first time. The judge said, “Well, you had better tell us.” He kept dragging his feet, and the first thing he knew that judge was breathing down the back of his neck, and the judge’s breath kept getting hotter and hotter, and the hot- ter it got the more it smelled like the old jailhouse. Somehow Drew had a lapse of memory about the ethics of his pro- fession, so what does he do? He turns around and he lays it onto Alex Camp- bell, former United States district attor- ney and former Assistant Attorney Gen- eral of the United States and our Demo- cratic nominee for Senator in Indiana. I want to say this, now. I made some investigation of the matter before I took the floor, and I think I can say to you with assurance that, Alex Campbell never gave him any such information. The truth of the matter is, as I am about to demonstrate to you shortly, Mr. Pearson just did a poor job of deducting from some columns that had been written by another columnist. But what was worse about this, and this is what illustrates
10114 the man’s character, is that Alex Camp- bell was 4 friend of his. It was one thing for him to turn upon me and try to stab me, because I was neither friend nor foe. I considered myself at least a neutral person so far as Drew Pearson was con- cerned. But Alex Campbell was his friend, and Alex Campbell had not given him any such information, and, so far as I know and as far as I believe, no other person ever gave him that information. Drew just drew a bum conclusion from some columns of other columnists which I am going to put in the Recorp in just a few moments in order to show you just how it came about. He laid this onto his friend, Alex Campbell, and I considered it a stab in the back. Then they took Mr. Camp- bell’s deposition and Drew Pearson, as soon as the date was set, hopped into an airplane and flew to Indianapolis and spent 2 or 8 hours there after having stuck the dagger in the back of his friend, to try to talk his friend into leav- ing the dagger sticking in his back and to back him up in the falsehood that he had already told on the man to whom he had pretended friendship. Mr. Campbell, who is an honorable gentleman, said, “I did not tell Pearson that. Pearson came and told me,” It is in the deposition, It is in the court record. So he certainly was an honor- able gentleman to tell the truth and not back Pearson up. And I say Pearson was a dishonorable man for attempting to assassinate his friend. But at any rate, Drew said that my friend, Alex Campbell, told him, and the proof is that he did not tell him. There- fore, I predict that this same judge will be breathing down Drew Pearson's neck again before long and say, “Look, Drew, who was it that told you this—not who you told it to—you told it to the whole wide world in your column—but who told you?” And when he does, you will find these facts to be correct. J shall close the point there by show- ing that Drew Pearson thought he could write this column ridiculing me and thus please my erstwhile convention oppo- nent, Alex Campbell, But I could have assured him that he was entirely in er- ror in any such supposition. But he being a poor sport himself, like the three peas in a pod who thought the whole world was green because the pod was green, as I say, he being a poor sport, he just figured that everybody else would be 8 poor sport. But the facts are substantially as fol- lows: On January 13, 1949, Norman Lit- tell—and I want to say that I have Miss Dorothy Thompson’s permission to use her name in this connection or else I would not be doing so—Norman Littell had a dinner party for Miss Dorothy Thompson, at which there were some reputable people in the Government in attendance. That was on January 13. On January 17 Miss Thompson wrote a column concerning the Indonesian question which I understand Mr. Pear- son is largely relying upon now since Mr. Campbell told the truth and said that he did not give Drew any such informa- tion concerning Mr. Littell. Miss CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Thompson's column was favorable to the Duich Government. That appeared on January 17, 1949. I ask permission to insert a copy of that column in the Rec- orp at this point. The SPEAKER. Without objection, it is so ordered. There was no objection. (The matter referred to is as follows:) ON THE RECORD-~AN INDONESIAN BUBBLE? (By Dorothy Thompson) Inasmuch as the American Government has committed Itself to support the Indo- nesian Republic and a considerable part of the American press and radio are attacking the Dutch as exploiters of the riches of the Indonesian states, it is well to inquire whether all Americans are disinterested. In this connection, Congress should in- vestigate a trade agreement allegedly made in Habana last January between the Republic of Indonesia, as represented by the Indone- sian Trade Commissioner in New York, Dr. D Soemitro, and three ministers of the Re- public—A. K. Gani, A. Maramis, and H. Laoh—and a New York City promoter. Whether this agreement ever was ratified by the national convention of the Indonesian Government is unknown to me. But the agreement, which I have seen, is perhaps the most scandalous proposition ever made by an up-and-coming promoter to a supposedly sovereign state. If carried out, it practically would put the whole economy of Indonesia into the hands of an American corporation, under conditions whereby the risks would be carried by the Indonesian Republic and a straight 7'4-percent profit guaranteed the corporation. This would be on every single transaction within a total and exclusive monopoly over tmport and export trade be- tween the United States and the Indonesian Republic—not barring other incalculable profits. It would make the corporation for 15 years the sole and exclusive agent of the Republic in negvtiating with American interests re- garding all developmental enterprises owned and operated by the Government—including negotiations for loans and other government projects (communications, hydroelectric, etc ) which might require American financial, technical, an@ other aid, with the corpora- tion, of course, entitled to additional com- pensation for its services. Furthermore, in this remarkable agree- ment the Republic would abdicate many sovereign powers—guaranteeing the corpora- tion against excessive taxation, restrictions pn transfers of funds, etc, and issuing it @ blank check to form subsidiaries with, in effect, extraterritorial rights. Under the stock arrangement the corpora- tion would have 61 percent of the voting stock-—-while the employment of Indonesians in the Executive Staff would be limited to & minority. Inasmuch as the effectiveness of the contract concerning developmental enterprises demands that the Government shail retain mineral and other subsurface rights and resources, the Government is re- quired to pledge the retention of soctaliza- tion in behalf of om American exploiter- corporation. Whoever drew up this contract understood, as well as the Russians, how socialization of enterprises may be turned to the profit of foreigners. In the agreement's preamble, the Indo- nesian Government recognizing that the dis- pute between the Netherlands Government and the Republic has resulted in cutting of foreign supplies, finds it urgent to ap- proach farsighted and sympathetic American businessinen. And lo! One is there to lay hands on one of the world’s richest raw ma- terials sources, of course, in the name of the rights of man and for the purpose of giving the Indonesians, for the first time, the prom- ise of & prosperous economy. JULY 18 Presumably, individual Indonesians, party to the agreement, would participate in pre- ferred and nonvoting stock, retailing for a bagatelle, with the entire American import- export trade as a guaranty of profits Congress, I think, should investigate what has happened to this agreement, and who its American associates were or are. If it did obtain the signatures of Indonesian Ministers, they either need legal guardians or are corrupt. Such a contract, furthermore, would exact & commission to the corporation not only on all purchases and sales between the In- doneslan Republic and the United States by other American or foreign importers and exporters, but also extort a commission on purchases made for stock-piling purposes by the United States Government itself. It js, therefore, clearly within the field of legitimate Government investigation. Mr. JACOBS. For the purpose of this discussion, suffice it to say, Mr. Pearson deducted, and is claiming that he de- ducted that because Miss Thompson was out at the Littells at a dinner party shortly before this column appeared, Lit- tell was interested in the Dutch Gov- ernment. The thing that he forgot was to check the record and learn that on January 5, before the dinner party, Miss Thompson had also written a column along the same lines. I ask unanimous consent to have this also made a pait of my statement. The SPEAKER. Without objection, it is so ordered. There was no objection. The statement is as follows: On THE REcoRD—THE INDONESIAN SITUATION (By Dorothy Thompson) The present temper of our society pushes toward drastic solutions regardless of re- sults. One such “drastic solution” demands aR settlement of colonial problems by which, overnight, all human societies must become “free and self-governing,” That the capacity of all tribes, nations, and races to achieve self-government or maintain it never has been demonstrated, is passed over. The faith is that given the liquidation of foreign oppressors, they will emerge into organized states capable of ful- filing the functions of states—namely, to protect their independence, maintain in- ternal order and security and make honest agreements with other states. But the fact is that in a world of more than 2,000,000,000 people only a small frac- tion ever has demonstrated capacity for self- government, even when no foreign oppres- sors existed, Instead, it has suffered either from anarchy or from domestic tyrants more oppressive than many colonial administra- tors. Except for brief interludes, the history of self-government is confined to western Europe and North America, It never has been enjoyed by Orientals or by the peoples of the Russian empire, except for short times when western groups broke out of it. Apparently only a certain type of mind and culture creates capacity for self-govern- ment. This type, according to Willlam James, is created by ‘the habit of trained discipline and good temper toward the op- posing party,” plus ‘merciless resentment toward every man or set of men who break the public peace.” Only thus can be created the necessary combination of freedom and authority, and it is very rare. But the absence of self-government has not precluded the creation of great civili- zations and cultures satisfactory on the whole to the people governed. The great empire of the Khang, though it foundered in Europe, created in the Orient a superb civilization (for its times), and in passing did not give
1950 way to self-rule but to other foreign rulers efter a period of intolerable anarchy. The present struggle between the Nether- Yands and the republic of Indonesia calla this to mind and requires more sober thought and much more information than is reach- ing us. As far as I know the “Republic,” @ puppet government installed by the Japa- nese and handed power when they evacuated Netherlands Indonesia, haa proved incom- petent to keep the rudiments of order or protect the people against its “armies.” These are, for the most part, armed bandits of lawless youth taking orders only from their commanders or partisan leaders. This government has not proved able to honor its treaties with the Netherlands, in tho face of its interior opponents, and the United Nations, instead of demanding that it prove itself a government by keeping its contracts, has urged the Dutch to further compromise with anarchy. Now, anarchy js a condition where no man is safe in life, home, or property. Even &@ despotic government, which that of the Netherlands certainly is not, is preferable, from a human standpoint, to murder and pillage. The Dutch attempt to establish order apparently is meeting little, if any, popular resistance, but rather is being hatled with relief by all except ambitious local po- liticos and the mobs they can inflame. At any rate, it Is odd that we never invoked the United Nations to aid the “resistance” movements in eastern Europe while they were being suppressed by trained terrorists in be- half of a foreign power, while we condemn the Dutch who are suppressing terrorism in behalf of a condition of public peace in which self-government alone can make further progress, What we need 1s patient thinking in terms of orderly evolution. But what we are fos- tering is cataclysmic change, which, what- ever it may bring, certainly will not be peace nor self-government. Mr. JACOBS. Of course, there is not any excuse for Drew Pearson making such inistakes as that. I do not know how many of you will remember that on May 17, 1944, Mr. Pearson announced the discovery of some kind of a Buck Rogers device by which you can listen into people’s living rooms miles and miles away. I have a copy of that column here, just to demonstrate to you the deadly accuracy of this columnist, Drew Pearson. I want to read from the column of May 17, 1944, appearing in the Washing- ton Post: Very few people know of an incident— Incidentally, that is the way Mr. Pear- son makes his stuff sound important. He will say, “Now, this will be denied, but,” or “It has not leaked out yet, but,” and you are supposed to think you are really getting in on something rare and important. Very few people know of an incident which occurred a little over a ycar ago at Forrestal's Georgetown mansion. But the President did. The General Electric Co, has developed a new Mstening device on the principle of a dictaphone, by which outside parties can pick up conversations as far away as 8 miles. The device is extremely sensitive, He would not have to tell you that. And does not need to have & dictaphone planted inside the room where the conver- sation is taking place. Now, remember this: General Electric's former president, Char- le Wilson, efficient Vice Chairman of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE War Production Board, happened to have one of these devices and, one night, he tuned it in on the Forrestal home. The man says I am a stargazer. Do not forget that. ° It happened to be during the period when the Army and Navy were waging relentless war against the War Production Board, do- ing their best to oust Donald Nelson and take over WPB's duties themselves. It was @ bitter feud, and Forrestal was holding a council of war at his home. Maybe the tun- ing in on the Forrestal home was pure acci- dent, maybe it wasn’t. Anyway, it so happened that dining with Forrestal that night were Under Secretary of War Patterson, Bernie Baruch, and one or two high-ranking Army officers. The con- versation during a large part of the evening consisted of criticism of the administration, especially the War Production Board, and included the President himself. we transcript was shown to F. D. R. him- self. Bernie Baruch’s high voice could be beard dictinctly, taking some rough raps at his old friend, F,.D.R. As Baruch ts deaf, the others talked in rather loud voices, among them Forrestal, who gave out his share of Presl- dential criticiam. In fact, the criticism of the Commander in Chief was so vigorous and plans for Army- Navy taking over the War Production Board were hatched in euch detail, that Wilson and Donald Nelson took a transcript of the con- versation down to the White House. The President seemed to enjoy the story. And who would not, if he had any sense of humor at all? That was on May 17. Thirteen days later a column appeared from Mr. Pear- son’s hand—just to show you the deadly accuracy, the painstaking care that this man goes to before he publishes any- thing—in which these statements ap- peared: The other day this column carried a story involving Charles E, Wilson, executive vice chairman of the War Production Board and a fine public servant—a story which I now find has done him an injustice. With omissions I go down and read the following: The main point I want to make here is that I now find Mr. Wilson did not use any long- distance lstening device or any other device to listen in on the above conversation. He certainly glorified Charlie Wilson’s ears, They certainly must have been extremely sensitive. But that, Mr. Speaker, about demon- strates as far as I am concerned how much confidence you can put in this fel- low Pearson. Of course, there never was any such Buck Rogers “thingamajig” ever invented, and he knew it; or did he? It is impossible to know whether he ts stupid or false or both. I will bet it is both. I do not particularly resent so much what he has said about me. He said that I was a poor sport because I did not go to the convention platform to move the unanimous nomination of my successful opponent, but he neglected to say that the third man, Dr. Charles Price, did so and specifically stated that he was doing s0 on behalf of both of us. So his facts were wrong in that regard. I believe I have a right to say that at least. What- ever other issues there are in Indiana are of no interest to the Members of this body generally; we will take care of our own political situation in Indiana. I be- 10115 came & candidate because some people thought I should. I was defeated be- cause my opponent got more votes than I did, and that is enough for this pur- pose. Z want to say that Iam glad that Drew Pearson was unable to say anything de- grading about me; that he had to refer to me as a stargazer, he had to tell a falsehood about me by saying that I said something that I had never said, and then referring to me as a poor sport when that in itself is refuted by the facts as some men on this floor here can testify—-because there are men on this floor who were there. Then perhaps I should say that I somewhat appreciate, being just a poor country lawyer up here trying to repre- sent a congressional district, being listed in “Drew’s Who.” I have just told you some things; there are other things about Drew Pearson that perhaps this House should know, and I will be back again if he wants to protract this argu- ment, because even though some men may fear him, I do not. I appreciate being listed in “Drew’s Who.” It does so much for a man. But now, in order to show my appreciation for being listed in “Drew's Who” I think I will rush right out and buy an Adam hat; in fact, I think I will try to get for a souvenir the same hat Drew has been talking through. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to place in the Recorp the entire column concerning which I have been address- ing myself, and to insert another column by Dorothy Thompson under date of June 6, 1950. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana? There was no objection. (The matter referred to follows: ) Drew PEARSON Says: HOW ANDY JACOBS WAS LEFT HOLDING THE BAG ( Washington Merry-Go-Round) Indiana politicos are amused at what hap- pened to likable, star-gazing Congressman ANDREW JAcoss, of Indiana, at the recent Demccratic convention, ANDY, who effects English bulldog pipes and likes to be compared with Abe Lincoln, confided to a congressional friend not long ago: “Some of my friends are saying that I’m presidential timber.” And taking this serlously, Jacoss had worked on Gov. Henry Schricker, No. 1 Demo- crat of Indiana, to do some backstage wire- pulling to make himr the Democratic sena- torial candidate against GOP Senator Homer (Music Box) CaPprHart. The Governor, a homey Hoosier, whom many Republicans support because they con- sider the key to the treasury safe in honest Henry's pocket, at frst kept on the sidelines, Then, just 1 day before the convention, he put in a call to Democratic Secretary of State Chuck Fleming. Fleming controls the Democratic county chairmen, and it was presumed that the Gov- ernor wanted to work up some support among them for ANDY Jacoss. Fleming however, was not reachable by telephone—perhaps purposely. Failing to get Fleming, the Governor called Guy Copeland, chairman of the second dis- trict, suggested some support for Jacobs. But Copeland was emphatic. “It's too late, Governor,” he said. “This is 1 day before the convention, and Jacons can't come in at the last minute and try to steal the show.”
10116 Schricker drops Jacobs Then Schricker called another Democratic district chairman, Ura Seeger, who told him the same thing. “As an old iriend of yours, Governor,” he said, “I would advise you not to get mixed up in this fight. Alex Campbell is going to win overwhelmingly, and I don’t think you should interfere.” Five minutes later, the Governor, taking this advice, passed down the word that he was for Campbell, the Nghting former United States Assistant Attorney General who con- victed Alger Hiss, the 12 Communist leaders in New York, Judy Coplon, Axis Sally, and various others. Next day, in convention, the vote went overwhelmingly for Campbell, Congressman Jacoss was snowed under. Faced with this defeat, Jacoss did an un- ‘usual thing. It is customary for the defeated candidate in party conventions to move for the unanimous nomination of the victor. But when friends suggested this to Jacozs, he refused. Instead, Charles Price, professor of chem- istry at Notre Dame University, also a candle date for the Senate, went to the rostrum and moved to make Campbell's nomination unan- imous. Governor Schricker also immediately pledged his support to Canrpbell and will campaign for him. [From the Washington Evening Star of June 50} On THE RecoRD—RANDOM LYBELS AND RED INSINVATIONS Play RicHt Intro CoMMu- Nists' HANDS (By Dorothy Thompson) Character assassination is going so far in this country that the outside world can only think we are either cancerous with com- munism or having a nervous breakdown. The process of cleansing public life of Communists and Communist sympathizers is highly necessary—and there are plenty to cleanse. Every Communist who escapes detection is a menace. But false accusa- tions serve to cover these by concentrating attention on misleading scents. And con- fusion becomes internationally confounded when a smeared person then has to deal with foreign representatives. ALL IN ONE BREATH On May 21, a prominent radio commen- tator made the following statement: “On February 20, Senator McCarty made his first charge that there were 207 card- carrying Communists in the State Depart- ment. Yesterday was May 20 and during that time he has produced not one * * * Communist * * “* the Senator has not accepted my offer to pay his legal expenses if he waived immunity and repeated, off the Senate floor, his original charge against Owen Lattimore. * * * “However, it happens that there are some interesting lobbies in Washington and I would like to urge a full investigation of all subversives. * * * “As a sample I suggest that such a com- mittee look into the attorney for the Com- munist Polish Embassy * * * that gen- tleman is Norman Littell.” Now here, in one breath as it were, a widely heard commentator attacks Senator McCanrny, exonerates the State Department, and defends Mr. Lattimore, only to throw aspersions upon someone else, whose record, inetdentally, is much clearer than Mr. Latti- more’s. For if Mr. Littell, whom I know well, has the slightest sympathy for commu- nism or Communists, I am Stalin's secret wife, Mr. Littell, an able international lawyer, is not the attorney for the Polish Embassy. along with other prominent law firms he was asked by the Polish Embassy for counsel in several specific measures involving interna- tional law. One question was the status of CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE the Polish liner Batory, on which Gerhardt Etsler escaped, and whether the United States Government had the legal right to seize the vessel for harboring a fugitive from Justice. . REAL BLAME IN OWN COURTS It certainly is dubious whether there fs any law under which a ship, train, or plane can be seized for transporting a-fugitive, and it is a matter in which any diplomatically accepted government may seek legal counsel. Pre- sumably the United States is zealous to up- hold international law. And it might be recalled that the British courts, who cannot be suspected of sympathy with Eisler, found they could not, under British law, return Elsler to us. The real blame, to my mind, lies in our own courts, which let this dan- gerous agent out on bail and permitted him to harangue audiences and then escape. Contrary to charges made, no attorney representing the Polish Government arranged for Polish Communists to board the ship be- fore the United States Government com- pleted its interrogation of witnesses, officers, and crew. Also, I learn, Mr. Littell consulted the Justice Department and was informed that purely legal counsel as differentiated from political advice is exempt from the provisions covering foreign ugents. The same Polish Government has, in the past, received legal counsel from Mr. Ache- son's law firm. Now Mr. Littell ts chairman of the com- mittee on foreign economic cooperation of the international law section of the Ameri- can Bar Association. He is shortly departing for London to preside over a meeting of a similar committee of the International Bar Agsociation. The work of both committees is to study obstacles to the flow of free invest- ment and trade with a view to expanding the prosperity of the democracies. But, like others betore him, Mr. Littell is heralded in advance as 4 possible subversive. Of course, such random libels and insinua- tions play right into Communist hands. SPECIAL ORDER The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mriius). Under previous special order of the House, the gentleman from Wis- consin {Mr. BIEMILLER] is recognized for 40 minutes. (Mr. Bremi.uer asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks and include certain letters and telegrams. ) MEDICAL COLLEGES, OTHER INSTITU- TIONS TRAINING HEALTH PERSONNEL IN SERIOUS FINANCIAL STRAITS—PAS- SAGE OF H. R. 8886 OF VITAL IMPOR- TANCE Mr. BIEMILLER. Mr. Speaker, the Eighty-first Congress 1s nearing the end of its existence. We are rapidly ap- proaching that time when this Congress will no longer be able to correct its own errors Of commission or make amends for its errors of omission. The wisdom or folly of what we have done and what we have left undone will be matters for decision by the electorate in November. In many cases there is time enough to wait for that judgment— and to be guided by it in the next Con- gress. In some matters, however, the delay of months, even 6 or 7, may be more than we can afford. In such mat- ters our failures may be written large and indelibly on the record before the Eighty-second Congress ever convenes, That is why I speak today. A bill vital to the welfare of this Nation, the health of our Armed Forces and our civilian population alike, is in danger of being JULY 18 left in the debris of the unfinished busi- ness of this Congress. H. R. 8886, the Emergency Health Training Act, better known as aid to medical education, is a measure which should be passed now, not 6 or 12 or 18 months from now. And all the stalling, twisting, turning, con- niving tactics of the American Medical Association cannot conceal the stark need for this legislation. The word “emergency” has seldom meant more than it does in the official title of H. R. 8886. This Nation is now involved in an enormously difficult and costly police action in Korea. The evolu- tion of this conflict into a full-fledged modern war is a distinct possibility, a possibility not entirely within the power of this country to control. Even if we should escape a major holocaust, no one believes that the Communist’s adventure in Korea will be their last. Yet, at this moment as at every recent critical moment in our history, we do not have enough doctors or dentists or nurses or public health personnel to meet peacetime requirements, much less the demands of our mobilizing Armed Forces and civilian defense. And we have not taken a single step to end the critical shortages of every kind of trained health personnel. As a matter of honest and disturbing fact, our national resources for training health personnel are rapidly deteriorat- ing instead of improving. Financial difficulties are forcing our professional health-training schools, particularly our medical schools, to curtail their pro- grams drastically. Both the quality and quantity of training are being slashed. Fewer individuals are receiving training in some schools and the training is fall- ing short of minimum standards in others. Some of our medical schools— and by no means the weakest in an academic sense—are near to closing be- cause of their desperate financial state. This situation is intolerable in a Nation that may soon need more doctors, nurses, and other trained health person- nel than it ever dreamed were necessary before World War II. And even if it were not for the possible demands of war, we would need these people to take advantage of the expanding opportuni- tics for better health in a peaceful world. The Eighty-first Congress must re- verse this trend to neglect and potential disaster by immediate action on Federal aid to medical education. We must, by our action, recognize that you cannot train doctors and their assistants over- night, that we are already far too late in getting a program under way, that our inaction in years and months past has created our present hcealth-personnel shortage, and that inaction now will create shortages for the next crisis. The minute we moved into Korea— and I believe there is near unanimous support in this House for that move— the Armed Forces started to look for doc- tors, dentists, and nurses. If the ex- perience of World II is repeated, and it is certain to be because of present short- ages, the Armed Forces will never find as many as they need. And the ones they do find and take will be those whose services are fully needed by civilians,
1950 It is proper that the needs of our Armed Forces come first. It is hardly proper for congressional inaction to per- mit this choice of life and health for one group ay against sickness and occasional death for another group when there should be no real need to make the choice. We have it within our power to make adequate care available for all. For those who may hesitate to believe that our present situation is really so bleak—and I know there are doubters among the Members of this House—I will cite a large number of chapters and verses at a later point in this speech. Most of them will come directly from the best authorities on health education in the Nation—the deans of the Nation's leading medical and dental schools, pub- lic and private alike, and the heads of associations of nurses and public-health personnel. It is also worth noting that the American Dental Association is on record for the bill. Right now, however, I want to discuss the general situation of the bill to aid medical education with particular ref- erence to its only vocal opposition—the American Medical Association. H. R. 886 is still in the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, sched- uled for further consideration August 8, if this House and its committees are still in a position to consider any legis- lation at that time. This, despite the fact that corresponding  Iegislation passed the Senate last September and shortly thereafter went to the Rules Committee of this House with the bicss- ing of the full Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee. Who and what are responsible for this sudden reversal in the legislative proc- ess. Who is responsible for this inexcus- able delay in meeting a vital national need this Jate in the grim struggle of the free world against the forces of com- munism? Why do I stand here in July of 1950 and plead for action on a measure which most of us well know should have been law months ago? The answer is always the same—the American Medical Association. Until recently I thought I had grown calloused to the AMA's dog-in-the-man- ger selfishness in its efforts to defeat al- most every progressive public health measure offered in this Congress. I thought I had grown used to the double talking, double dealing methods of the AMA and its huckster representatives in their defense of a status quo riddled with inadequacies. I thought I had learned to brace myself against the overwhelm- ing weight of the AMA hierarchy’s $3,000,000 advertising and political slush fund. Well, I was wrong. When the AMA maneuvered to kill by indirection this literally life and death legislation, I lost my calluses. I want the Members of this House to know the whole story of this measure and the AMA's opposition. Perhaps it will furnish an insight into the operations of this organization which some of you have not always displayed in the recent past. I do not mean to say this is the only story of AMA duplicity and reaction in the face of the health needs of the peo- ple of this country. Many others come CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE immediately to mind. There is the slander campaign against national- health insurance which calls it social- ized medicine despite the fact that the AMA well knows it is not socialized medi- cine at all. Part of this campaign is the attempt to use the completely dis- credited alleged quotation from Lenin that ‘“‘socialized medicine is the keystone of the arch of the Socialist state.” The AMA has been called upon to either document or stop using that quotation many, many times. Its officials have admitted that the quotation cannot be documented. Experts at both the Library of Congress and the University of Chicago have declared there is no such statement in the known works of Lenin. Yet the quotation continues to be used in published material, in public speeches, and in political assaults. The use of such falsehoods is typical of the AMA approach to issues of public health, and they can no longer be defended on the lame grounds of ignorance of the truth. They are willful perversions of the truth. Then there is the attempt to discredit the Federal Security Agency and its Ad- ministrator with completely unfounded and disproved charges that they wish to dictate to American medicine. There is the constant pounding at the slogan, “Keep politics out of this picture,” while the AMA tops the Nation's lobbyists in expenditures and publicly prepares a political blast in the Nation’s newspapers for next October, while its incoming president, Dr. Elmer Henderson, delivers a violent political tirade against the Fair Deal at the annual AMA convenvion in San Francisco. He attacked our Government as “sick with intellectual dishonesty, moral lax- ity, and with reckless excesses,” and charged the administration with a cam- paign to gain control over all fields of human endeavor to make this a Social- ist state. Dr. Henderson ignored his re- sponsible position as head of an organiza- tion which says it wants nothing to do with politics to engage in political mud slinging and use of misrepresentations and distortions. There are many other items. There is the AMA’s cooperation in spreading the hate-mongering nonsense of John T, Fiynn’s book, The Road Ahead, across the country in hundreds of thousands of volumes, volumes which the conservative New York Times has very properly la- beled “pernicious flummery.” There is the back-scenes battle against school health measures. There is the long history on voluntary medical insur- ance plans related in the Harper’s maga- zine article, The Dogged Retreat of the Doctors. There is indeed an overwhelm- ing mass of evidence to show that the hierarchic officialdom of the AMA is one of the most reactionary forces in Ameri- can life today. But I think the story of the bill to bring Federal aid to medi- cal education is the most devastating il- lustration of all of the AMA’s complete disregard for the national interest when it conflicts with the narrow, selfish in- terest of the AMA. . The history of the legislation to pro- vide Federal aid to the Nation’s medical schools is the story of conflict between two forces. On one side is the desperate 10117 need of the medical schools and the health requirements to the Nation, on the other side is the American Medical Association. In 1946, immediately after the war, it was generally agreed that this country must proceed to make up its deficiencies in medical personnel, to get sorely needed doctors, dentists, nurses, and trained public health technicians into rural and other shortage areas, to make available enough health personnel to put into practice all that we have learned about how to keep people healthy and well. It was recognized that the only way to do this would be to step up the numbers of individuals receiving training and to im- prove the quality of that training. Even the American Medical Assocla- tion permitted official spokesmen to dis- cuss the need. Dr. Herman Weiskot- ten, dean of the Syracuse University Col- lege of Medicine and a member of the Council on Medical Education and Hos- pitals of the AMA, declared that approxi- mately half of our medical schools were operating on budgets far below the es- sential basic minimum required for the conduct of a satisfactory educational program. And in February 1947, he added, and I quote: The American people should realize that the first and most important step in improv- ing the health and the medical care of our people is the more adequate support of more than half of the medical schools of this country. In October 1947, Dr. Anderson, secre- tary of the same council, told of a study made by the AMA of which he said, and again I quote: We are prepared to contend that the maxi- mum deficit that could possibly be forecast for 1960 does not exceed 15,000 physicians, Only 15,000. When you consider that the average physician's patient list runs between 500 and 1,000, you get some idea of what number of people would get in- adequate care with such a shortage. It could not conceivably run below seven and a half million. And this in peace- time. Yet there you have the statement of a responsible AMA official predicting a doctor shortage—and even more astounding, not worrying about it. Well, the AMA, for all its later denials and present insistence that the Federal Government do nothing to help medica) schools, recognized ot that time that some help must come if the schools were not to collapse. So in February 1948 its board of trustees decided that it would seek voluntary assistance in order tc avoid bringing the Federal Government into the matter. A commendable idea but it just did not work. The 1948 report of the Council on Med- ical Education of the AMA said medica’ schools required an additional $15,000,00( in support for operations and some $197,- 000,000 for construction of needed facili- ties and commented: The question that remains is whether thi public will provide this support voluntaril: or whether it will have to be provided b: direct Federal subsidy. That, indeed, was the question. Thi trouble was the answer. In July 1948, ¢ meeting authorized by the board o trustees was held in New York City
10118 Representatives of universities, business, industry, banking, educational founda- tion, and private philanthropic organiza- tions discussed a national campaign for raising about $15,000,000 a year to sup- port medical education. A lot of hopes were raised by that meeting, but as of this date, 2 years later, no money. So we have arrived finally at the set of circumstances which led to introduction of the aid to medical education legisla- tion. Something had to be done—and still does, for that matter. It could not be done privately or through State govern- ments. Only the Federal Government was in a position to act. Did the AMA admit this? Not the AMA. The report of its council] on medical education and hospitals on October 80, 1948, as much as declared that if the problem could not be solved the AMA's way, there was no problem. The report was naturally a bit confused, but I will quote it anyway to give you the full flavor: These studies have led to the conclusion that there is no need for any great increase in the number of medical graduates and the gradual expansion of facilities for medical education that is taking place will adequately meet the Nation’s needs. The council will continue to give close attention to this problem. Where did that word “problem” come from again? Was there or was not there one? There was one. Dr. Weiskotten pops up with this ad- mission in a statement in February 1949, in which he points out: Paradoxic as it may appear in the face of the present plight of the existing medical schools, there is developing a demand that these schools greatly increase the sizes of their student bodies and that new schools be established, At this juncture it became clear that only Federal aid could help with this problem, a very real one growing more acute with every evasion and statement of the AMA. So bills were introduced in both the Senate and the House. At the end of the open Senate hearings a group of the most distinguished experts in every sector of the professional health training field, including important AMA representation, agreed on a set of 13 general principles among which were statements that the schools were in a financial emergency, that there are rec- ognized shortages of manpower in the health professions, and that existing pri- vate sources of income are not able to meet the needs for either operation or construction. They supported Federal aid and even agreed that scholarships as well as operation and construction grants would be helpful in equalizing and expanding educational opportuni- ties for qualified individuals. This group also set up a series of guides to the Senate committee for the writing of the bill. The bill conformed to those guides as closely as possible and was passed as 8. 1453 in September 1949. Before passage, at an August meeting in Washington, Dr. George F. Lull, of the AMA, told reporters the organization favored aid to medical education. After Senate passage, the House In- terstate and Foreign Commerce Com- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE mittee took up H. R. 5940, the House companion bill which I sponsored. The committee unanimously approved the bill and sent it to the Rules Committee for a rule. The rule was refused not because of opposition, but because of the press of time just before the close of the first session of this Congress. Dur- ing this entire process the AMA was almost quiet. Only a few words broke the welcome silence and they were far from ominous. In @ report to the AMA House of Delegates in November, the AMA's Council of Medical Education de- clared, and I quote: White the council is not entirely satisfied with the bill, it does. incorporate several modifications suggested by the council's rep- resentatives and it is a distinct improve- ment over any other bill for Federal aid to education that has been introduced. The honeymoon, however, was soon over. Ina supplementary report of the board of trustees in December 1949 there was the following statement: Since 8. 1463 has now passed the Senate and since it appears doubtful that further changes will be made by the House in the companion bill, H. R. 6940, the board of trus- tees feels it must oppose this bill. There was no explanation of what hap- pened between November and December. And so it has gone ever since. At- tempts have been made to satisfy the AMA objections which were made after this December declaration. H. R. 8886, a considerably changed version of H. R. 5940, which goes at least half way in compromising both major and minor issues, has been the result. And still the AMA opposition is adamant. There is neither rhyme nor reason in their op- position, but nothing apparently will change it. The Federal Government is involved and while the Federal Govern- ment safely makes all other sorts of laws for the United States, the AMA is not going to have it even take note of the health needs of the Nation’s citizens. Despite the AMA’s exasperating atti- tude, despite this long “compromise and then oppose the compromise” period ex- tending way into June, we have done everything possible to write a bill which would get at least the tacit approval of the AMA. We might as well have saved our energy. No matter what was said or done, the AMA stalled and temporized. Typical was a proposal that we wait until still another survey, the survey on medi- cal education of the AMA, be completed. I asked a participant in the survey, Dr. Joseph C, Hinsey, dean of the Cor- nell University Medical Schoo! and chair- man of the executive council of the Asso- ciation of American Medical Schools, tf this request was valid. I will not read his whole reply, but let me give you one paragraph: I strongly recommend that you do not hold up action on H. R. 6940 (now H. R. 8886). The final report of the survey com- mittee will be available for the use of the National Council on Education for Health Professions (a group set up by the proposed legislation) before {t+ submits its recom- mendation on January 1, 1958. I repeat 1953. Well might Hinsey add later, as he does— There seems no reason to walt, JULY 13 There is only one conclusion. The AMA does not want the Federal Gov- ernment to help the Nation’s medical schools, no matter how desperate their plight. And since there is no other aid forthcoming, it looks very much as if the AMA did not want medical schools and other professional health-training schools helped at all, Asa matter of fact, many of the schools and professions affected are beginning to realize this sad truth and break with the reactionaries of the AMA. This Congress would do well to follow their example, Earlier I promised to cite chapter and verse on the entire health training situa~- tion in this country. We must all know something of the general picture. Time printed a piece discussing the plight of the medical schools recently. The Phil- adelphia Inquirer carried an editorial the other day which told of the closing of private rooms and wards in voluntary hospitals in New York because of the shortage of nurses. Other newspapers have noted both nursing and public health personnel shortages. The New York Times carried a long, analytic ar- ticle in one of its Sunday magazine sec- tions asking for urgent action on Fed- eral aid to dental and medical schools. But to get down to the chapter and verse let us turn to the statements of the best qualified experts in America, the men who run the professional health training schools of all kinds. I am go- ing to read just a few excerpts on the floor, but I ask that the entire commun- ications be made part of the Recorp. I have already read some of Dr. Hin- sey’s remarks as head of the organiza- tion to which almost all of the medical schoo] deans in the country belong, but I want to quote from another letter writ- ten January 12, 1950, in which he dis- cusses this need the AMA denies, First making clear that the AMA acted on aid to medical education without consulting the Association of America Medical Col- leges, he goes on to tell the schools’ senti- ments in the matter. Here I begin to quote: Our committee on financial aid to medi- cal education decided unanimously that we should poll the individual medical colleges by telegrams in order to fairly determine our over-all position. This committee on financial aid to medi- cal education is made up of Dean Arthur C, Bachmeyer, of the University of Chicago; Dean George P. Berry, of Harvard University; Dean Walter A. Bloedorn, of George Wash- ington University; Vice President Ward Dar- ley, of the University of Colorado; and Dean Joseph C, Hinsey, of Cornell University, chairman. After its study and work with this legislation, this committee is unanimous in its support of H. R. 5940. The poll of the membership, with definite returns in from 63 schools, shows 47 favorable to the legisla- tion in H. R. 6940 and 16 opposed. Of the 26 State-owned schools, 14 favored and 12 opposed. Two municipally owned institu- tions were favorable. Of the 35 private in- stitutions, 81 were favorable and 4 were op- posed. Even if the 15 schools not reporting were to be opposed—~and I have reason to believe strongly that this would not be the case—there would still be a strong majority in favor of the legislation. Other letters I have from individual deans support Dean Hinsey, The AMA