out the balance of line 17 and all of lines 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, this is the amendment I made reference to in general debate. It has as its purpose the formula being equalized for all districts that may be affected by the Federal impactment of defense areas. As most of you know, under the present situation if a 2 percent impactment has been brought about then that district must absorb, but under the wording that I have proposed that we strike, if a school district on June 30, 1939, had as many as 35,000 pupils then they will be required to absorb 3 percent before they are eligible for payment under this bill.

I ask the question, Why is this fair? Why is it not proper that all districts absorb Federal impactment in the same percentage? There is no formula that has been in existence where we have based it upon percentage until this comes along.

Under Public Law 874 they were required to have at least 6 percent if they had a school district of 35,000 or more in existence on June 30, 1939, and if they then became eligible they were paid. But now you are changing the formula and as you change the formula, all I ask of you is that you make it an equal

izing formula so that all school districts shall be treated alike and when I say "treated alike" in order for a school district of 10,000 pupils, as an example, to become eligible for aid under this bill they must absorb 2 percent of that or 200 pupils. If it is a school district of 50,000 as is the situation in my city, then that school district must absorb not 1,000 pupils as the rest of them would but it must absorb 1,500 before they are eligible.

What I want to know is why in the adoption of a new formula do you start out in a discriminatory manner? I say it is discrimination and rank discrimination because if you have a small school district of 100 pupils then you only have to absorb 2 before you are eligible.

The argument has been made that a large school district, by virtue of the fact that it may have skyscraper manufacturing plants and other values for assessment purposes for the maintenance of schools, should be able to absorb these people. Well, now, they do absorb them. The point I am trying to make is, if they had 50,000 pupils under this formula they would have to absorb 1,500, and what I want to know is why is it necessary for them to absorb 1,500 in order to be eligible to receive aid under this program? To me this is rank discrimination, not based upon any formula save and except that you reach into the air and say that because you did on June 30, 1939, have a school population of 35,000, when it does not have any relation whatsoever to your present situation, then you are penalized and have to pay 1 percent more.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Colorado has expired. Mr. McCONNELL, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, when we first considered this law in the Committee on Education and Labor in 1950 and the problem of giving maintenance and operation aid

to school districts, the natural question arose as to what types of districts should be assisted. We were particularly disturbed about those areas where they might have had 50 or 100 or 200 pupils and all of a sudden they were confronted and all of a sudden they were confronted with several thousand pupils to educate. It created conditions which were just intolerable and inhuman. We sought, first tolerable and inhuman. of all, to take care of that type of condition and problem. Then we came to the situation of the larger cities and we felt that with their size they would undoubtedly receive an immediate impetus as far as business was concerned, and increased wealth, and that they were in much betwealth, and that they were in much better shape to absorb additional pupils due to some type of Federal activity as well as due to their normal growth. With that in mind we provided a different type of approach for cities, you might say, in the larger categories. In Public Law 874, passed in 1950, we said that districts having a number of children exceeding 35,000 as of June 30, 1939, should have to have twice as high an eligibility showing in order to be able to get any aid. Then it was provided that they should absorb the first percentage of their eligibility amount. A 3-percent amount had to be absorbed and that is the law of the land today. So, we definitely discriminated as

far as the large cities are concerned, and I agree with the gentleman when he said it is discrimination. We did it deliberately because we felt that the larger cities could handle their problems better than the smaller districts.

In the new bill we followed out the same general approach; in other words, the absorption idea as far as the larger cities are concerned is not a new one; it is in the law of the land today-Public Law 874. We changed some of the terms of it, but the absorption principle is there just the same.

What I also would like to say is this: The amendment offered by the gentleman strikes out all of the sentence starting with line 17 on page 4 down to line 24. That applies to how many districts in this country? I do not know. I do not know even what the cost will be.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McCONNELL. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. The information given to me by the Department of Education is that it applies to 40 districts throughout the entire United States.

Mr. McCONNELL. They are the big districts.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Yes.

Mr. McCONNELL. What cities would get into it, does the gentleman know? How about Chicago, New York, or Philadelphia, will they get into it?

than these 6 would be able to show a 2 percent impactment of Federal pupils before they could ascertain the exact cost.

Mr. McCONNELL. I would say that the cost would be a very important matter we would have to consider here. The gentleman says he does not know that?

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. You cannot ascertain the cost. First of all, there are only 40 school districts in the entire United States that had 35,000 or more pupils on June 30, 1939. As the gentleman pointed out in his statement, it was not the intention of this committee at the time Public Law 874 was passed to give anything to the larger cities. You excluded those 40. However, even in spite of the strong formula you set up, at least 6 of them qualified. Of those 40 who came into this category, only 6 qualified. As they qualified, we know how much they have received. Certainly the committee did not anticipate at that time that they would qualify.

Mr. McCONNELL. I do not say this in criticism, but it would have been very helpful to have had the gentleman appear before the committee and explain the situation prior to this time. I do not know a great deal about the possible effects of this amendment so far as cost is concerned, and the gentleman himself admits that he does not know the cost. He says 40 districts were involved and that so many of these qualified, but we do not know what amounts of money would be involved in those situations because they undoubtedly are the larger

ones.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. As the gentleman knows, I did introduce bills in the 82d Congress and in the 83d ConI am asking by this amendment be done. gress which strove to do the very thing

Mr. MCCONNELL. The gentleman means striking out this section we have here?

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Yes. I introduced the bill in the 82d Congress and in this Congress. I did not receive any notice the committee was considering this bill. If I had known about it and had the opportunity, I would have been before the committee.

Mr. McCONNELL. I do not mean to be critical, and I would not intend that at all, for the gentleman has every right to seek to get this additional money, but how much would Denver, for instance, reecive from this? That is in the gentleman's district, I understand.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. At the present time we have a daily average attendance of 49,667. That is for the school year 1951 to 1952. We are getting $451,000. If the gentleman would like to have me do so, I could give him the figures as they deal with the other 5 cities

within the last year.

Mr. McCONNELL. What would be the cost of the gentleman's amendment? Does he know for sure?

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. The exact cost? It would depend entirely upon whether or not any one of these 40 other

Mr. McCONNELL. How much would Denver receive if this amendment were adopted? adopted? That is what I am asking.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. If this amendment were adopted we would go back to the 2 percent. I have not figured that out.

Mr. MCCONNELL. The gentleman does not know how much money you would get at Denver?

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. It would be between $600,000 and $700,00 instead of the $450,000.

Mr. McCONNELL. I am sympathetic with the gentleman but I feel that the principle we have followed, and which was considered very carefully in this committee, should be adhered to. Therefore, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. ROGERS].

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Yes; I will be frank with you; that is the year with the lowest daily attendance as it applied in the year 1944. I pointed out the average daily attendance for the year was 40,893 so if you put it at 42,000, of course, I could have put it at 41,000 and still stayed within that category but I moved it up to 42,000. I may state of those 40 who are ineligible unless they meet the 6-percent requirement in Public Law 874, we do not know what their average daily attendance was in the year 1944. But I do know that if it increased instead of decreasing, as it did in our instance, in

The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. ROGERS of Colorado: On page 4, line 20, after "June 30", strike out "1939" and insert "1944" and on line 21 strike out "35,000" and insert "42,000." Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, frankly and honestly, this amendment is for the purpose of trying to qualify my school district so that it will not be required to have the 3 percent impactment, so that it will only be required to accept the 2 percent impactment. That is the reason I have selected it, and being honest and frank with you, the figure, as it deals with the average daily attendance in the city and county of Denver for the year 1944 is actually 40,893. I have the figure 42,000 in the amendment. I point out if there are larger areas than the city and county of Denver in size-of course, we do not claim that, but if they are larger, this is a protection against the thing that you are talking about and yet gives relief to this particular area. I would like, if the committee sees fit, to permit the adoption of this amendment for the simple reason it would bring us in under the 2 percent and would not do any great damage to any other area. It is true that by raising this requirement from the year of 1939 to 1944, and raising the size of the school district, you still have the same protection as you had before. Having this protection I see no reason why it should not be adopted. I, therefore, urge that if you want to do something for a district that does have impactment that has approximately 10 percent of its school children as a result of Federal employment, here is an opportunity to do it without injuring anybody, and at the same time assisting this particular area. Of course, I thought that the principle was wrong, but if the principle you are insisting upon now should be enforced, then I want it so that it will not discriminate against my district. Therefore, I ask each and every one of you to give ample consideration to this amendment and

adopt it because it cannot hurt any

thing.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I might say, speaking frankly, that my opposition might be lessened if I knew what effect this proposal would have. The figure 42,000 is mentioned. Is this a tailor-made amendment just for Denver? Just why does the gentleman pick the figure 42,000?

would be less able to qualify if we accepted that formula and boosted it up to 42,000 at a different date that is nearer up to date; because when you go back to 1939 you are being arbitrary, as arbitrary as you can be, because you take something 11 years ago, and this is 14 something 11 years ago, and this is 14 years later. You are taking a formula as of 1939. I have moved it up to 1945.

Mr. McCONNELL. It was felt that 1939 was really the beginning of the sharp upward movement of military preparation and activity. World War II there were efforts being made to build was just beginning at that itme, and up the military strength of this country.

I should like to ask the gentleman another question. It may be somewhat direct and I hope I will not embarrass him in asking it. Would any city be benefited by this except Denver?

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. At the

time that I made the inquiry, I ascertained that of the 6 cities that qualified under Public Law 874, San Francisco for the year 1944 had an average daily attendance of 57,670; Columbus, Ohio, would benefit because for the year of 1943-44 it had 37,738. San Antonio, Tex., which incidentally was disqualified Tex., which incidentally was disqualified by only 511, for the year 1943-44 had an average daily attendance of 35,511. The figure for Seattle, Wash., for 1943-44 would be 47,000.

Mr. McCONNELL. May I say to the May I say to the gentleman that I do not know how many would come under this, of the 40 districts that he has mentioned, nor what the cost would be, and I am fearful that in accepting this amendment, much as I should like to help the gentleman in a personal way, it would seem to me that we would be legislating for some particular situation without knowing its effect on the overall picture. For that reason I am inclined to stay as I was in opposing any change in this section.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me further?

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 additional minutes and

yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Perhaps in my anxiety to explain my own situation I may have emphasized too much tion I may have emphasized too much the interest that I had, as it affected my own particular district. I am sure the gentleman recognizes that as I went into this matter I tried to visualize the possibilities of other areas. sibilities of other areas. As I made my investigation I found these cases to investigation I found these cases to which I have referred of San Francisco,

San Antonio, Tex., Columbus, Ohio, and Hawaii and Seattle. My amendment does not change the situation as it deals with San Francisco. It probably would change the situation as it deals with Columbus, Ohio, and San Antonio, Tex. But it would not change the situation as to Seattle or Hawaii; that is, my last amendment would not.

Mr. McCONNELL. Would not the gentleman say that Denver has been helped considerably by Federal activities out there? I was in Denver not so long ago and my impression was that Denver had received great benefits from Federal activities and probably could afford to take care of her own situation.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. I would be the last to say that Denver has not benefited a tremendous amount as a result of the war effort; there is the Lowry Air Force Base, there is the Fitzsimons Hospital, and several other installations. But the point I am trying to make is that Denver has gone along and, as I pointed out earlier, has bonded itself for $51 million and we were unable to get anything out of Public Law 815. As a result we

now have a tax levy in excess of 23 mills

and we now have a double shift in our school system. If the figures given me are correct, and they are up to the points of the estimates, the estimates would show that during the school year 195455 we are going to get 10 to 20 percent of the Federal impact pupils. Inasmuch as the city and county of Denver itself has a high mill rate, have bonded themselves heavily to build new schools, are doubling up in the use of their school facilities but still have a shortage, these are the reasons why I am interested in seeing that they get as much as possible to carry out the work.

Mr. BARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it is with great reluctgentleman from Colorado, but I would ance I have to oppose my friend the

He

not like to see him strike such a fatal blow to this piece of legislation. proposes to strike out about eight lines, and I am frank to say to him that I doubt if he recognizes the importance or the effect that would have on the bill. He stated that we reached up in the air and came down with some figures; I think the gentleman reached up in the air and come down with Den

ver.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. And I want to hold on to it.

Mr. BARDEN. I doubt if there is a Member of the House who could not make the same speech for his district and try to improve the appropriation for his district. Anyone who has a defense activity in his district could thing in the bill that he could loosen up make the same speech and find somewhereby he would get more money. If

we did that then of course the proper thing for us to do would be to let each one introduce a private bill and have a private calendar day. If we did that I am sure neither the Appropriations Committee nor the Treasury would ever know the real final effect. So I hope the committee will approve the bill as it is written.

Mr.

HAGEN of California. Mr. Chairman, I hope I am seeking to amend the proper language. On the bottom of page 3, the last line, I am striking out "one-half" and substituting "60 percent" which I understand is the section dealing with the contribution for these half pupils or what have been referred to as half pupils. That is, students whose parents do not both reside or work on Federal property, students whose parents might only fill one of those qualifications.

In section (a), the former double qualification case, the Federal contribution is 100 percent. Heretofore in the single qualification case it has only been 50 percent.

On page 8 of the committee report it is stated:

In determining numbers of federally connected children (and of non-federally-connected children) for purposes of this absorption requirement, children who either reside on Federal property or reside with a parent employed on Federal property, but not both, would count half as much as

children who both reside on Federal property and whose parents work on such property. This difference in treatment is based, as is the difference in treatment under existing law, on the assumption that, on the average, about half the local share of the cost of public education comes from residential property taxes and half from taxes on other property.

I do not think that that is literally true from what knowledge I have of the operation of the ad valorem tax laws in the State of California. As a matter of fact, in California and in many other States there have been serious efforts made to eliminate entirely the taxation on personal property because it is such

difficult kind of property to tax. Actually the cost in terms of assessment is very close to the amount of revenue derived. It is for that reason considered a very poor tax and one that does not yield any substantial amount of tax

revenue.

This 50-percent assumption is based on the theory that the personal property tax will make the contribution to the education of these students. I do not think that is literally true. Also in my area, the districts which participate in this program are situated by and large in the desert. The employees of a typical military installation may not have been there in the area on tax day and their trailers and automobiles would make no contribution to the dis

dual schools? What would the people of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and my own State of New York say if you asked them to dig down in their pockets and make contributions to keep segregation in the schools of South Carolina. I am sure

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, you would not get much money that way

Mr. HAGEN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. McCONNELL. There is one question I would like to ask very much. Why the 60 percent?

Mr. HAGEN of California. Mr. Chairman, I have no exact knowledge of what that would add to the cost, but I think it is really an improvement over the existing 50 percent.

and it is even possible that some who solicited such contributions would be removed from this body in the next election. Yet we go into the pockets of these same people without their consent by approving the expenditure of their tax money without any safeguards against segregation.

Schools by States

Alabama--. Arkansas. Florida__. Georgia. Kentucky---. Louisiana_Maryland__‒‒‒ Missouri__ Mississippi-‒‒‒‒

Mr. McCONNELL. I was not thinking of cost. I was wondering if the gentleman had some specific reason why he asked for 60 percent. Our experience has been that about 50 percent of local taxation and local funds approximately is the correct amount. It may vary in North Carolina__. certain sections, but the general average is about 50 percent. That is why the general approach has been to one-half rather than 60 percent. That figure of 60 percent is a new one which I have not heard in connection with this particular situation. I was wondering why the gentleman had selected 60 percent.

Mr. HAGEN of California. I just picked that out of the air. I figured any increase would be an improvement and that this is a reasonable amount. these areas you do not have a stable community around a military facility, shall we say, it is out there on the desert, the workmen are there durance vile, they do not build homes out there and it is a little different situation.

Mr. POWELL. Mr. Chairman, in voting on these bills-H. R. 6049 and H. R. 6078-every Member should realize that he is writing a blank check for those States that maintain separate school systems based on race.

We are writing a blank check for two reasons. First, I have the figures showing the number of school districts which have received allotments to construct projects under Public Law 815 in States which require segregation. There are over 500 such projects, but no State is obligated to tell the Federal Government whether a single one of these schools will be open to colored children. In other words, we are telling those States that segregate to do whatever they feel they can get away with. Second, it is well known that serious inequalities exist in the separate school States. These inequalities are now under attack in the courts and some States are vainly trying to remedy their past failures by levying special taxes and seeking new sources of

We have no way of knowing, under the language of these bills, whether some of the local communities are using these funds to perform educational functions that they have failed to perform out of their regular tax revenue.

Oklahoma-‒‒‒

South Carolina___

Tennessee__. Texas---Virginia.

60

39

27

68

22

16

23

39

22

17

39

30

34

102

38

Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. SCRIVNER, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H. R. 6078) to amend Public Law 874 of the 81st Congress so as to make improvements in its provisions and extend its duration for a 2-year period, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 317, 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.

The bill was passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to extend their remarks on the bill just passed.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?

There was no objection.

With few exceptions, members of the majority party come from States where segregation is not required by law. Would it not be fair to the people of WASHINGTON STATE THIRD INTERyour State to make certain that their tax money is not being used to support and more firmly entrench a costly system of

NATIONAL TRADE FAIR

Mr. REED of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the im

mediate consideration of the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 293) to permit articles imported from foreign countries for the purpose of exhibition at the Washington State Third International Trade Fair, Seattle, Wash., to be admitted without payment of tariff, and for other purposes.

The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?

There was no objection.

The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows:

Resolved, etc., That all articles which shall be imported from foreign countries for the purpose of exhibition at the Washington State Third International Trade Fair, to be held at Seattle, Wash., from February 11 to February 24, 1954, inclusive, by the International Trade Fair, Inc., a corporation, or for use in constructing, installing, or maintaining foreign exhibits at the said trade fair, upon which articles there shall be a tariff or customs duty, shall be admitted without payment of such tariff, customs duty, fees, or charges under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe; but it shall be lawful at any time during or within 3 months after the close of the said trade fair to sell within the area of the trade fair any articles provided for herein, subject to such regulations for the security of the revenue and for the collection of import duties as the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe: Provided, That all such articles, when withdrawn for consumption or use in the United States, shall be subject to the duties, if any, imposed upon such articles by the revenue laws in force at the date of their withdrawal; and on such articles which shall have suffered diminution or deterioration from incidental handling or exposure, the duties, if payable, shall be assessed according to the appraised value at the time of withdrawal from entry hereunder for consumption or entry under the general tariff law: Provided further, That imported articles provided for herein shall not be subject to

the provisions of this joint resolution, shall be reimbursed by the International Trade Fair, Inc., a corporation, to the Government prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, of the United States under regulations to be

and that receipts from such reimbursements shall be deposited as refunds to the appropriation from which paid, in the manner provided for in section 524, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (U. S. C., 1946 ed., title 19, sec. 1524).

The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. PELLY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request the request of the gentleman from Washington.

There was no objection.

Mr. PELLY. Mr. Speaker, this joint resolution, House Joint Resolution 293, follows the pattern of previous legislation enacted by the Congress in connection with various international fairs and exhibitions held in the United States. It has long been the policy of the Congress to encourage participation of foreign countries in trade fairs held in the United States by permitting articles for exhibit to be entered free of import duties and charges under safeguarding regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury.

The Washington State Third International Trade Fair is to be held in Seattle, Wash., from February 11 to 24, 1954, Wash., from February 11 to 24, 1954, inclusive, by the International Trade Fair, Inc., a State of Washington corporation financially supported by the State of Washington, various port authorities, and private corporations and individuals. The purpose is to foster world trade and goodwill between nations.

tariff laws, except when such articles are withdrawn for consumption or use in the United States, in which case they shall not be released from customs custody until properly marked, but no additional duty shall be assessed because such articles were not sufficiently marked when imported into the United States: Provided further, That at any time during or within 3 months after the close of the trade fair, any article entered hereunder may be abandoned to the Government or destroyed under customs supervision, whereupon any duties on such article shall be remitted: Provided further, That articles which have been admitted without payment of duty for exhibition under any tariff law and which have remained in continuous customs custody or under a customs exhibition bond and imported articles in bonded warehouses under the general tariff law may be accorded the privilege of transfer to and entry for exhibition at the said trade fair under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe: And provided further, That the International Trade Fair, Inc., a corporation, shall be deemed, for customs purposes only, to be the sole consignee of all merchandise imported under the provisions of this joint resolution, and that the actual and necessary customs charges for labor, services, and other expenses in connection with the entry, examination, appraisement, release, or custody, together with the necessary charges for salaries of customs officers and employees in connection with the supervision, custody of, and accounting for, articles imported under

general tariff laws except when such articles or samples are withdrawn for consumption or use in the United States. Articles so admitted may be lawfully sold within 3 months after the close of the fair.

The language of the resolution is identical in terms with that approved in earlier legislation providing for the free importation of goods for display at other trade fairs.

SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED

Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to address the House for 30 minutes on tomorrow following any special orders heretofore entered.

SOCIAL-SECURITY PROGRAM

The SPEAKER. Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. KEAN] is recognized for 30 minutes.

Mr. KEAN. Mr. Speaker, further improvements are needed in our socialsecurity program. However, these improvements should be built upon the basic principles of our present program, for they are sound.

What are these basic principles?

First, benefits should be paid as a matter of right without a means test. The assurance of such payments irrespective of the need of an individual stimulates his incentive to add personal insurance and savings to his basic security acquired through the social-security system. This earned right to benefits without regard to need is the most important and essential principle in our present program.

Second, the program should be financed by contributions from both employers and employees on a percentage of payroll. This insures that management, labor, and the general public will take a responsible interest in the program. If all the cost were borne out of general revenues we certainly would not have as sound a system as we have now with employer-employee financing and

concern.

Third, benefits should be related to wages. This principle is in accord with our American system of free enterprise and incentives. The worker who earns more should get more. Of course, we must have a reasonable minimum and certain maximum payments, but if we were to establish a flat uniform amount for everyone we would either have to set the amount so low that most people in the industrial states and urban areas would be dissatisfied, or so high that it would cost too much to carry.

The improvements that I have recommended for the program have in no way endangered these principles.

Over 4 years ago I introduced a bill to extend coverage under the Federal oldage and survivors insurance program, to liberalize the retirement test, increase benefits, and make other improvements in the insurance program. Many of these proposals were adopted in the Social Security Act amendments of 1950.

In 1952, I introduced a bill to increase old-age and survivors insurance benefits and to provide for a waiver of insurance premiums for persons who became permanently and totally disabled. The latter proposal was passed by the House but is not now in the law.

The present law still needs further improvement. I have introduced three bills-H. R. 3608, H. R. 4160, and H. R. 5533-this year which would increase insurance benefits and help strengthen and improve the system.

MY FIVE-POINT PROGRAM

The three bills I have already introduced provide for five improvements. These improvements are:

First. Extension of coverage to millions now excluded from the insurance system.

Second. Increase in the retirement test from $75 to $100 a month.

Third. Waiver of insurance premiums for persons becoming permanently and totally disabled.

Fourth. Provision of rehabilitation services to insured persons becoming permanently and totally disabled.

Fifth. Use of the best 10 years in computing the average monthly wage for benefit purposes, instead of lifetime earnings.

These five improvements can be made without increasing the contribution schedule in the present law. They can

be made without impairing the actuarial soundness of the present plan.

Every single day that passes sees the number of aged of our country increase by 1,000.

Today we have 13,500,000 persons, age 65 and over. This number is increasing about 1 million every 3 years.

If the present trend continues by 1960 we will have close to 15,500,000 persons age 65 and over; by 1970, over 18 million persons; and by 1980, over 22 million persons.

Not only is the number of aged persons increasing but the proportion of the aged in our total population is also increasing. In 1900, only 4 percent of the population was age 65 or over. At the present time 8 percent of the population is aged. This figure is continuing to climb all the time.

One other point should be mentioned. Relatively fewer aged persons are working today than in the past. Fifty years ago 6 out of every 10 men, age 65 and over, were working. At the present time, only 4 out of 10 are employed. And if present trends continue this proportion will continue to decline.

These are the basic facts which have made it necessary for employers, unions, and the Government to establish old-age security programs.

Great progress has been made in the last 75 years since the first formal pension plan was established by private industry. In the past few years there has been widespread acceptance of the principle of employer and union responsibility for the protection of aged workers. The resources of these private pension funds are now $12 billion and are held for the benefit of 10 million employees. But the most far-reaching decision that has been made in this country in this field was the decision in 1935 by the Congress accepting responsibility for assuring to the aged minimum security through the establishment of an oldage insurance plan.

I believe that the decision of the Congress was sound. I believe it was based on an intelligent evaluation of the facts of our industrial and urbanized society.

SOUND SOCIAL SECURITY IS A BULWARK AGAINST SOCIALISM

Some have claimed that the program is socialistic. I do not believe that our present old-age programs are a step toward socialism any more than our public schools or our post offices were a step toward socialism. Rather, I believe that our old-age programs, as well as other private and public programs of social security, are a bulwark against socialism.

If we are to preserve our democracy and our system of free competitive enterprise, I believe we must make further improvement in our social-security programs. I am convinced we can make sound improvements in our existing programs which will be within our ability to pay and which will strengthen our American institutions.

THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT

The Social Security Act, passed by Congress in 1935, provided for two oldage programs: A Federal program for old-age insurance and a system of Federal grants to the State for old-age

assistance to the needy to take care of those who were not covered by the insurance system.

On a number of occasions the law has been improved and extended. The most notable amendments occurred in 1939, 1946, 1948, 1950, and 1952.

The most important and far-reaching provision of the Social Security Act is the Federal old-age and survivors insurance program. This program provides for monthly insurance benefits to a retired worker and his wife and, in the case of the death of an insured worker, benefits are payable to the widow and dependent children. At the present time about 52 million persons are drawing these monthly insurance benefits of which 44 million are aged persons and 14 million are widows and dependent children.

Through the Federal old-age and survivors insurance system each contributor pays a little each week, each month or each year as he works to provide a substantial sum for himself and for his family when the need for income arises due to retirement or death. It is a way of getting maximum protection at the minimum cost. Because of the nationwide operation of the system on a group insurance basis there are substantial economies in administrative costs which benefit the person insured.

Practically all persons who work in industry and commerce are now contributing to the insurance program.

In addition the insurance program also covers a large number of self-employed persons and those persons engaged in domestic service and agricultural work who are regularly employed. About 47 million people are now contributing to the insurance system.

A large number of persons, however, are still not covered. Among the major groups which are still excluded are about 3 million farmers, a large number of agricultural and household workers, over 2 million employees of state and local governments, nearly 500,000 self-employed professional persons-such lawyers, doctors, dentists, architects, and certified

as

public accountants-nearly 200,000 ministers, fishermen who work on small boats and some home workers and internes.

WHERE WE STAND TODAY

Today, there are 44 million aged persons drawing insurance benefits under the Federal old-age and survivors insurance program.

There are 2,600,000 aged persons drawing old-age assistance. The Federal Government is contributing about 57 percent of the cost of this assistance to the aged. The Federal share amounts to about $900 million a year.

ment. The fact is that survivors' benefits for the close relatives of those who die while covered are a major feature of the law.

An examination of the social-security records reveals that 1,767,000 survivors are now drawing regular monthly insurance benefits totaling nearly $735 million a year. This group includes 1 million children under 18; 500,000 widows and widowers; 245,000 mothers; and 22,500 parents.

Some of these survivors receive as much as $168.90 a month in benefits. This, the maximum payment, would go to the widow with 2 children under 18 of a man insured under the program who had earned an average of $300 a month

or more.

If the same man's earnings had been $200 a month, his wife and 2 children would receive $140 a month.

The value of survivors payments to a family which has lost its breadwinner is very substantial. For instance, a widow and 2 children receiving survivors benefits of $150 a month would be getting $1,800 a year. The total amount at this rate if it continues for 15 years is $27,000.

In many instances it is the survivors insurance benefits paid to widows, orphans or dependent parents after the breadwinner has died which meet the grocery bills. There is no question but what survivors benefits have often helped a widowed mother stay at home to care for her children and, thus, help to keep countless families together when the wage earner dies.

Survivors benefits have made it possible for children to continue their education and kept families off relief rolls or from being a burden to relatives and private charities.

Private insurance companies have found that the survivors insurance bene

fits do not conflict with the sale of private life insurance. It has, instead, made people insurance conscious and promoted the sale of additional life insurance.

In this way social security enhances our free economy and at the same time offers safeguards to widows and orphans from the fear of poverty and being placed on relief rolls.

IS IT INSURANCE?

There are some critics of the present system who charge that it is not insurance and that you will have to pay twice for your social security. Both these charges are, in my opinion, completely false.

The charge that the present program is not insurance is based on the fact that every beneficiary today gets back in benefits more than he has paid in contributions and some a great deal more. This, it is charged, is a windfall and, hence, the system is not insurance.

What those who make this charge

SURVIVORS INSURANCE BENEFITS

One of the biggest problems faced in explaining the social-security program is that so many people think of social security only as a program which yields benefits to an individual after retire

is a group insurance plan and that as the Government has use of the workers' money-often for many years-the social-security account is credited with interest for use of that money. The magic of compound interest works here just as it does for a private insurance company.

Of course, during the early years of any insurance plan, as in practically