Of course, while not so general in many of the States as they are in these very poorest ones, there can be found in almost every State in the Union cases similar to the ones that are indicated by the exhibits that have been presented.

Indeed, it is the view of competent authorities that more than three-fourths of the school buildings in American cities are more than 20 years old, that 22 percent of all the pupils in public, elementary and secondary school plants are today in overcrowded school buildings, and that present school construction is not reducing the backlog of accumulated needs, let alone keeping pace with increasing enrollments and the evergrowing need to replace obsolete plant facilities. Studies indicate that at least $9,000,000,000 of new school plant facilities must be built during the next decade; that, unless immediate provision is made for constructing these facilities millions of our children will not be able to go to school at all, and more than half will be obliged to go to school under intolerably overcrowded conditions.

Now, granted the ailment, what remedy should be proposed? There are those who have suggested that the States and the local governments should make provision for improving school facilities within their respective borders. This would sound plausible were it not for the fact that many States are presently in no position to cope with so vast a problem. In the study by the Council of State Governments it is stated (on p. 109) that:

The problem of providing adequate school plant facilities is complicated: (1) by high construction costs-now about 186 percent of 1939 costs, (2) by the exceedingly small districts found in many States, (3) by low bonding and taxing limits in some States, and (4) by the limited wealth and resources of many local school systems in every State.

There are thousands of school districts and some entire States that do not have the financial resources with which to provide even the barest minimum of school building needs. In some States the financial ability to support schools is in inverse proportion to the number of children to be educated. Let me cite a few facts and figures from a recent study on the facts on Federal Aid for Schools made by the National Education Association, on page 3:

The States with the larger proportions of school-age children tend to have not more, but less, than the average financial ability to support their schools. For example, one of the States having a high ratio of children to adults in 1946 (Mississippi, 281 per 1,000) had an estimated income (i. e., total salaries, wages, and other personal income of the people) amounting to only $575 per capita, while Nevada with only 181 children per 1,000 adults had income payments of $1,770 per capita. Can anyone expect a State in which its per capital income is $575 to provide facilities similar to those of a State in which the per capita income if $1,770? Manifestly, no; it just cannot be done.

In 6 States, all of which in 1946 had from 255 to 282 school-age children per 1,000 adults, the per capita income was less than $800. In 6 other States with low ratios of children to adults (3 of them with fewer than 175 school-age children per 1,000), the per capita income in 1946 was more than $1,500.

When the income of the people is considered in direct relation to the school-age population only, some States have to tax themselves much more heavily than others in order to raise a specified amouut of money per child 5 to 17 years of age. For example, Nevada's $9,957 income per school-age child in 1946 was nearly five times as large as Mississippi's $2,080 income per school-age child. Similarly, Georgia would have had to make about three times as much effort as Ohio, in order to raise the same amount of school revenue per child.

On page 9:

While estimated income payments per capita averaged $1,213 for the United States as a whole, they ranged from $575 in Mississippi to $1,770 in Nevada. Thus, the richest State had relatively three times as much income (with only twothirds as many school-age children per 1,000) as had the poorest State. Nine of the twelve poorest States were among the 12 having the largest relative number of children to be educated, and 10 of the 12 richest States were among the 12 having the smallest relative number of children to be educated.

66* * * all but 1 of the 12 poorest States are in the South and most of the 12 wealthiest States are in either the West or the highly urban and industrial Northeast.

Generally speaking, the low-income States have the heaviest educational responsibilities and, chiefly because of the combination of these two factors, provide the least adequate school opportunities.

Generally speaking, the low-income States have the heaviest educational responsibilities and, chiefly because of the combination of these two factors, provide the least adequate school opportunities.

On page 15:

The States vary widely in the adequacy of their school buildings and equipment. The cost of a schoolhouse is not an exact measure of its educational worth, to be sure, but large differences in the money value of school property per pupil undoubtedly reflect excessive inequalities among the States with respect to their physical facilities for learning.

*

*

The latest official figures on public-school property per pupil enrolled in public schools are for the year 1945-46. They reveal a range in value from $101 per pupil in Mississippi to $659 in New York State, with an average of $351 per pupil in the United States as a whole. In 15 States the school property was valued at more than $400 per pupil, and in 6 States at more than $500 per pupil * Yet in 22 States the average value of such property was less than $300 per pupil, and in 8 it was under $200 per pupil. Of the 12 lowest States, 9 were also among the 12 which spent the smallest amounts per pupil for current school operation in 1945-46. All but 2 of the 12 lowest States are in the South, while all but 2 of the 12 highest are in the North Central and Northeast regions.

In view of the inability of some States to furnish even the minimum basic classroom facilities for elementary and secondary levels of education, it would seem incumbent upon the National Government to provide whatever financial aid is needed. I know that there will be those who, despite the incapacity of many States adequately to cope with this problem, will still insist:

"Let's not intrude upon a purely local problem."

But history is replete with examples in which the Federal Government has come to the aid of State governments when the problems with which the latter cope take on national significance. Witness the activities of the Federal Government with respect to roads and highways, with respect to old-age pensions, and relief to the blind and helpless; with respect to insurance for crops. If these matters, though once regarded as purely "local" are now accepted as national responsibilities, is there any reason to believe why the matter of procuring proper educational facilities for our children is any narrower in scope? The question itself should provide the answer.

There are those who would argue that the Senate has already sanctioned a measure which would allow $300,000,000 to be spent in aid of State education. But that measure has nothing to do with the construction of school-plant facilities. It endeavors merely to help the States meet some of their current educational expenses-for example, those which might be involved in obtaining qualified teachers or furnishing school supplies to needy children. It has nothing to do with expenditures for capital equipment. Is it valid to argue that

because children are given help in obtaining schoolbooks and teachers that they therefore should not be helped to obtain a place in which to sit down and attend class?

S. 287 has been presented with the hope that it will start us on the road to solving one of the Nation's most serious problems. It is most modest in its demands for taking care of the most immediate critical needs with respect to school-building construction. More important, however, is the fact that it endeavors to establish the framework for a longer-ranged program which, in my judgment, is desperately needed if the problem is to be given the attention that it deserves. Here, briefly, is a summary of its provisions:

1. It would authorize $150,000,000 to assist the States, Territories, and dependencies in the construction of public elementary and secondary school facilities. The States and the District of Columbia would receive approximately 97 percent of this amount; the Territories and dependencies would be allotted the balance under special agreement with the United States Commissioner of Education. Out of the total amount to be allocated by formula, half of these funds, or the total funds appropriated less $65,000,000-whichever is the greater would be allocated by the Commissioner of Education to school districts seriously overburdened because of activities undertaken by the Federal Government in such districts.

2. It provides for the matching of Federal funds so that the various States would receive from 40 to 60 percent of their total approved program costs according to their relative per capita incomes. The richest State would receive 40 percent from Federal funds; the poorest State would receive 60 percent; all the other States would fall between 40 percent and 60 percent; the total program for the entire country would approximate 50 percent from Federal and 50 percent from State and local funds.

3. It measures the total Federal, State, and local program for each State by the population 5-17 years of age in that State in relation to the national population of those ages.

4. It distributes the funds through the United States Commissioner of Education to the principal State educational agency in each State, and carefully defines procedures for safeguarding these funds.

5. It provides that primary responsibility to the Federal Government for the proper administration of the program shall rest on State educational agencies.

6. It would provide $5,000,000 to assist the State agencies in the development of comprehensive State plans for school construction. It limits Federal discretion by defining the criteria upon which the United States Commissioner must approve such plans. It would encourage but does not require State plans to provide for equalization among local school agencies according to relative need and fiscal capacity.

7. It sets forth the requirements for project applications from local school agencies and limits State discretion by defining the criteria. upon which the State must approve such projects.

8. It specifies that a local project application approved by the Commissioner shall become a binding contractual obligation, provided it can be executed within the allotment of funds available to the State.

9. It makes provision for administrative hearings and court appeals from decisions of State agencies and Federal officials in all important matters where discretion is exercised.

10. It spells out elaborate safeguards whereby the Commissioner may prevent any misuse of Federal funds, but prohibits collateral Federal controls over State or local school systems.

11. It authorizes appropriations for (a) grants to States for construction, (b) grants to States for administrative expenses, and (c) administrative expenses of the United States Office of Education.

I thank the members of this committee for the opportunity to present my views with respect to S. 287. Knowing how keenly they sense the relationship between education and democracy, I am confident that they will not shirk their responsibility to the children of Americathe future leaders of our Nation who are looking to the present leaders for vision, wisdom, and guidance.

May I close with these few precious words from one of the greatest of political philosophers-Woodrow Wilson:

* * *

You know that the great melting pot of America is the public school, where men of every race and of every origin and of every station in life send their children, or ought to send their children, and where, being mixed together, the youngsters are all infused with the American spirit and developed into American men and American women.

Senator HUMPHREY. We are very thankful to you, and I know the friends of education are very grateful that you came here. You are a great friend of education, Senator, as you are of all good things.

Senator NEELY. I thank you for those gracious words.

Let me add with the greatest sincerity, I am very much encouraged in believing that some of my hopes and aspirations for the school children of the United States are going to be speeded on their way to realization as they have not been speeded before during my service in the Senate because of the fact the chairman of this subcommittee is the distinguished junior Senator from Minnesota who is now a member of the greatest legislative body in the world.

Senator HUMPHREY. The committee will recess until 10 o'clock Monday.

(Whereupon, at 12:15 p. m., the committee recessed to reconvene at 10 a. m. on Monday June 6, 1949.)