widen the great differences in educational opportunity in the United States.

The most recent figures available from the Office of Education for the school year 1941-42 indicate a great disparity between rural and urban America in the value of school property per pupil enrolled. Urban pupils are attending schools valued at $429 per pupil enrolled. while rural pupils are attending schools valued at $200 per pupil enrolled. Because the CIO recognizes the need for improving rural education, we hope that the various State plans which are worked out will take into account the need for improving school buildings in rural America.

The Congress of Industrial Organizations prefers the section of S. 1670 which provides that, in those States that maintain segregated schools, Federal funds be distributed according to a ratio of the children of the minority race to the total child population of the State, using the figures from 5 to 17 years of age. As I understand this provision, it will not prevent States which wish to equalize further from so doing.

Great inequalities exist in the States which maintain segregated school systems. According to the Office of Education, in 1945-46 white students in the following States attended schools valued at $250 per pupil while Negro students in the same States attended schools valued at $48 per pupil. The following table indicates some of the inequalities in the various States and the necessity of equalizing the value of school property per pupil enrolled.

Mr. Chairman, I will not read the table, but ask that it be included with my statement.

(The table follows:)

The Congress of Industrial Organizations prefers that section in the Senate bill 1670 which asks that school building projects comply with the prevailing wage rates in the community and that it not be used to undermine wage scales.

I would like to add here that we would approve of the provision used under the Lanham Act that the materials and the employers used in construction be able to prove themselves free of discriminatory practices in hiring.

I am sure that many of you gentlemen are aware of the long history of the labor movement in improving educational opportunities in the United States. In the early days of our country the labor movement

was among the most important groups in fighting for free public schools. Since that time we have fought constantly for better schools for all the children in the United States.

The Congress of Industrial Organizations has specifically endorsed the general plan of Federal aid to education at all its national conventions. We feel that with the passage of the Federal aid to education bill and the bill to aid school-plant construction that the American people through their Government will begin to correct the great inequalities in education which exist in the United States and to provide for every youngster of school age in the United States the kind of education which will help him maintain a democratic society.

Speaking for the 6,000,000 organized workers in the CIO and their families, I urge you to support a bill for Federal aid for school-plant construction which includes the principles that I have outlined in my testimony today.

Senator HUMPHREY. Thank you, very much, Mr. Guernsey. We appreciate your coming here and giving us the official position of the CIO.

We will have Mr. Lewis G. Hines as our next witness. Mr. Hines is the legislative representative of the American Federation of Labor.

STATEMENT

OF LEWIS

REPRESENTATIVE

LABOR

G. HINES, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF

Mr. HINES. I want first of all to say that I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your committee this morning on behalf of the legislation which merits, and has, the wholehearted support of the American Federation of Labor. This proposed legislation is a realistic acknowledgment of the fact that an educational problem exists, and that the problem is so urgent and so great that its solution will require every bit of strength and ingenuity which both the Federal Government and the States, working closely together, can exercise. Of the bills so far introduced in the Senate, we believe that S. 1670 is the most satisfactory in its approach.

Our interest in the school-construction program is many-sided. This bill in principle is a part of labor's over-all program in support of education. Since 1945, every bill for Federal aid for education which we have endorsed has contained a provision to this effect, meaning, of course, for public-school construction.

Every convention of the American Federation of Labor, since 1945, has gone on record as endorsing such a program, as part of an essential over-all educational program. Ever since it was formed the American Federation of Labor has led in the fight for expanding educational opportunities for all citizens of this country. It was one of the pioneers in the movement for adult education, for broader use of the publicschool system in industrial training, in short, for making better educational opportunity available to everyone.

The legislation which we are considering today is but one more step in the long effort not only to give this country the best system of education which exists anywhere in the world, but even then to better it.

On a more personal basis the American Federation of Labor is interested in this bill because a majority of its 8,000,000 members are parents, and have a great personal stake in the schools, from the

point of view of their own children. Speaking for its members, then, the Federation urges that you take the action necessary to give their children adequate, safe, modern school buildings in which the greatest adventure of life, learning, can be undertaken.

We are today in an extremely serious situation with regard to education. In part this is due to the war, in part to the greatly increased birth rate, in part to the fact that we had not, even before the war, solved the problem. We are not facing the facts if we believe that the extraordinary pressure upon our schools is a question only of this year, or next year.

According to the Bureau of the Census, we can expect school enrollments to increase every year for at least the next 10 years. This means that we must get to work at once if we are to take care of the children now entering school, as well as to make places for those coming along in the next several years.

From my own experience I know of school after school which is running on a schedule of half days for each child, where teachers are forced to double up and handle one group in the morning and another in the afternoon.

And there are millions of children who are not in school at all, for the simple and primitive reason that there are no schools to which they can go.

I read recently that a survey of the children of migrant agricultural workers showed that such children were receiving on the average only a second-grade education today, while their parents had averaged fourth grade. So we are not even holding our own in education for many of our people.

These are some of the reasons we are behind the school construction bill.

We also have an interest in this legislation because members of American Federation of Labor unions will build the schools. The building and construction industry is one of the most important in the country, ranking second in number of persons employed. When the building industry is depressed, the economy of the entire country is in danger.

I am not saying that I foresee any immediate danger of depression, either in the industry or the country. Nevertheless, total building construction measured in physical volume, in the first 3 months of this year, was below that of a year ago. If it had not been for a very marked increase in public construction in the last several months, construction would have fallen far below that of last year. The program under consideration today will fit in with the development of a sound public works program, and help to stabilize the building and construction industry at a high level.

Labor is available for the construction of schools. We are even getting reports from time to time, and from various parts of the country, that building tradesmen are out of work, that things are "slow." "The school construction program would, therefore, be particularly helpful.

In connection with the actual procedure for putting up school buildings, I want to say that we are heartily in accord with that provision of S. 1670 which gives the Federal Works Agency the responsibility for fixing the minimum standards of construction for schools of different classes and in different types of locations, and for supervision of the work of constructing the schools.

This is well deserved recognition of the excellent record which the Federal Works Agency has established for planning, for speed in the execution of its plans, and for economy in construction. To capitalize on that experience is good common sense, and will save the taxpayers many millions of dollars if the bill becomes law.

This makes it unnecessary, it seems to me, to write into the bill specific and detailed minimum standards for school construction or inspection. I assume, in making this statement, that to the Federal Works Agency goes also the responsibility for inspection of the work as it progresses, and the final acceptance of the buildings as satisfactory. If there is any doubt on this question, I recommend that such authority be specifically written into the law.

I should like, also, to express our gratitude in finding written into S. 1670 a provision making the Davis-Bacon Act applicable to school construction under the act, and thus assuring the payment of prevailing wages on all such work.

I see only one serious defect in S. 1670. That is the formula under which Federal help is to be made available to the States. As now written, S. 1670 will not, I believe, give all the extra help needed to certain States in which the problem of education is most acute. The Southern States, which have about one-third of the Nation's children,' and only one-eighth of the Nation's wealth, are making supreme efforts to educate their children under great difficulties.

I might say right here, Mr. Chairman, that a very interesting problem has come up in connection with the inability of some of the southern cities and States to promote an adequate school program, in view of the fact that in many instances these States and communities, in order to induce industries to locate there, granted free taxation for a period of 10 or 20 years.

With the advent of the industries in the location, school children arrived. The schools were called upon to give the facilities necessary to educate these children, but were denied the taxes necessary from these corporations to maintain the schools, and the burden fell very heavily upon the rest of the people, or the children did not get educated.

Senator HUMPHREY. I am very glad that you brought that into the testimony, Mr. Hines. I do not recall that anyone else has pointed it out. And your observation is surely based upon fact and upon documented records. It is good to have it, and of course it poses part of the problem we face with the inequitable tax base resources of some areas.

Mr. HINES. You find in these one-industry towns that is very prevalent. If the corporation fails to pay the taxes, or if for somet reason or other they are granted exemptions, you have that problem.

In Pennsylvania I happen to know in the coal towns, in the anthracite particularly, where they do not pay taxes, the teachers do not get paid. Sometimes they go for months on end without getting paid, and there is no source from which to get the money.

I think perhaps that might be remedied by the State, but it is an indication of what happens under those circumstances.

Senator HUMPHREY. Then, of course, it becomes ever more evident that where the Federal Government has the broad taxing power that it does have, there is an opportunity to have those who may be exempt on a local basis to be taxed on a Federal basis, and then by sharing,' such as we are doing here, to feed some of that back to the community.

Mr. HINES. I would not be in favor of subsidizing these industries by paying their school taxes, of course.

I believe that this should be taken into consideration in writing a formula for the allocation of Federal funds. In other words, while both S. 1670 and S. 287 start with much the same formula, based not only on the number of children in a State but the amount of money which the State has available, I believe that the formula used in the latter bill is preferable since it aims to make available the same total amount of money per child throughout the country.

It is closing our eyes to the fact if we do not recognize that relatively poor schools in any one State affect our entire national life. We should keep in mind that many of the States upon which the educational burden falls most heavily are penalized also by the fact that when their young men and women are educated they migrate to other parts of the country to work, and therefore deprive the State which educated them of their help. We therefore urge that you write in the bill as reported out of your committee the formula now included in S. 287, as amended.

Senator HUMPHREY. Mr. Hines, I might say that the view of the chairman of the subcommittee is that your observation there is correct, that the formula of S. 1670, should be revised, in spite of the fact that the chairman has his name attached to it. I think the bill is somewhat lacking in adequate distribution of funds for the needy areas. So the chairman stands corrected and makes his apologies for having made such a sad mistake.

Mr. HINES. It is accepted, Mr. Senator.

In section 9, subsection (a) of your bill there is a provision for allocating money to Alaska and Hawaii on the basis of 50 percent, and Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands shall be 25 percent. Is there any purpose in leaving out the Panama Canal Zone, or are they accepted on the same basis as one of the States?

Senator HUMPHREY. No; I think there is a difference in the status of those areas like Alaska and Hawaii, as compared to the Panama Canal. Maybe we will have to get one of our experts. All I know is that we generally have not talked about the Panama Canal in the same kind of legislation. We did not in the Federal aid bill nor have we for most of the social legislation bills.

Mr. HINES. We have quite a large number of people working in the Canal Zone, and I thought probably they ought to get some recognition if it is necessary.

Senator HUMPHREY. We have it noted in the record, and we will check into it and see why it was not presented, and what are the legal problems, if any, that may arise under that.

Mr. HINES. I know that the argument is being advanced against this legislation that the Government cannot afford to undertake such a program now, when the economy is leveling off. If it is sincere, that is an argument of fear and of reaction which has no justification in fact. If it is merely an attempt of the enemies of progress to frighten us into retreat and neglect, it is not only unjustified, it is dishonorable.

Spending for school construction is investment spending. It is investment in the future of the country, in the well-being of the people, in the protection of our system of Government and our way of life. It is investment against future depressions and economic difficulties. What we cannot afford, now or at any other time, is to