NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION MONDAY, JULY 21, 1941 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met at 9:30 a. m., July 21, 1941, in room 1015 of the new House Office Building, Washington, D. C., Hon. John H. Tolan (chairman) presiding. Present: Representative John H. Tolan (chairman), of California. Also present: Dr. Robert K. Lamb, staff director; Leonard A. Thomas, attorney for the committee; Herbert Roback and William Shooer, staff members. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order. As chairman of the House Committee Investigating the Migration of Destitute Citizens, now particularly concerned with the defense migration, I express the appreciation of the committee to all of you for being here this morning. During the last session of Congress the committee held hearings throughout the country. These hearings had to do with the migration of destitute citizens between the States. We made our report to Congress, with some recommendations, and then we were continued this year for the reason that, instead of migration decreasing, it has increased because of the national-defense program. Our hearings have developed the fact that one of the critical problems facing a migratory destitute citizen who must seek aid in some State is that he lacks residence, or "settlement," as it is commonly called in connection with relief activities. Nonresidence within the State itself, as well as nonresidence in the political subdivisions of a State, have been factors in adding to the confusion which confronts the migrant when he attempts to seek aid or assistance from a State or one of its political subdivisions. This morning we have asked you, as representatives of Federal agencies who are disbursing Federal funds or other types of assistance to citizens of the United States, to come together for a roundtable discussion of the problem of residence as it may affect each of your programs. The committee has addressed a series of questions to each of the agencies represented here this morning, with one or two exceptions, and each has submitted a statement in answer to such questions. We will not read the statement now, but each will be included in the record. The committee has one or two additional questions it would. like to ask each of you, and when the questioning is completed we should like each one of you to feel free to ask any further questions that may pertain to this problem of residence. STATE REGULATIONS ON TRANSPORTATION OF DESTITUTE CITIZENS Now, if you people will picture the idea in back of this meeting: As far as I know, this is the first time in the history of Congress that any investigating committee has made a study of human interstate commerce between States. As you know, we have always been concerned with the creations of our citizens. Billions have been spent by Congress to keep inviolate the right to the free flow of goods between States, but nothing has been done for the creators of those goods. It is a peculiar situation and, I might say to you, we have 30 States in the Union at this time that constitute it a crime to transport an indigent citizen across State lines. South Dakota, for example, has such a law. Now, imagine South Dakota, which has more wheat than it can possibly consume, trying to put a barrier against the shipment of wheat from North Dakota to South Dakota. It wouldn't hold two minutes. There was a case in California. A man by the name of Edwards, a resident of California, transported his brotherin-law, a man by the name of Duncan, from Texas into California. Edwards was fined for bringing a destitute citizen of the United States into California. The case went to the Supreme Court. It was argued last April and will be reargued October 15. Now, you have that picture-30 States making it a crime to transport an indigent citizen from another State. LEGAL BARRIERS TO MIGRATION That's not all. The States have raised legal barriers of from 1 year to as high as 5 years before a migrant citizen can gain "settlement." California statutes provide that anyone who transports an indigent citizen, that is, a poor person, into California is guilty of a crime. Since when, in the United States, has poverty become a crime? Since when can we raise the dollar sign and say, unless you have the money, you can't come in? I am citing this to show the importance of the hearing this morning, especially on the question of nonresidence or settlement, and I hope out of this meeting will come some ideas that may lead the Federal Government toward ameliorating this evil. We have the different States with varying limiting statutes-I say from 1 to 5 years-but this is the first discussion in which we are trying to pin down the Federal Government, through its representatives, as to some suggestion on the idea. The Federal Government, under the national defense program, is now encouraging migration from State to State. That is the situation. I leave you now and will probably be back when the general discussion starts. I have been trying to get some of my own work done, but I am very pleased to have you here this morning, and I feel certain some valuable suggestions will come out of your discussion of these settlement laws. We simply cannot make this Nation what it should be if we are to have millions of people who are regarded as without State citizenship. That's the plight of many people in these United States today. Census Bureau figures were held up for a couple of months because they didn't know to what States to allocate these citizens. Under the Constitution you are not only a citizen of Texas, but of the other 47 States as well. What good is that if you can't visit your sister State unless you have some money? I appreciate very much your coming here this morning, and I will now turn the meeting over to Dr. Lamb and Mr. Thomas, who will ask you some questions. Dr. LAMB. I think, if as many of you as possible will find your places around the table, that the operation of questioning will be simplified. STATEMENT AND TESTIMONY OF R. V. BILLINGTON, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT IN VOCATIONAL EDUCATION, UNITED STATES OFFICE OF EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. THOMAS. The first witness is Mr. R. V. Billington, executive assistant in vocational education of the United States Office of Education. STATEMENT IN REPLY TO COMMITTEE QUESTIONNAIRE 1. How are the funds appropriated under the Smith-Hughes Act and the GeorgeDeen Act allocated to the various States? What basis is used for such allotments? (If on population basis, are census figures used?) The funds appropriated under the above acts are allocated to the various States on the basis of population ratios. The specific populations for various purposes are specified in the acts. The Smith-Hughes Act provides that the allotments shall be made 66* * * according to the last preceding United States census. * * The George-Deen Act provides for the allocation * * according to the United States census last preceding the end of the fiscal year in which any such allotment is to be made Each of the acts provides for minimum allotments for all States in order that sufficient funds may be available for a basic program regardless of small populations. 2. Are any of the funds available under either program, subject to allocation on basis of State need, regardless of any other condition? None of the funds available under these acts is subject to allocation on the basis of State need regardless of any other condition. 3. Do the above acts provide for any residence requirements? These acts do not provide for any residence requirements. 4. Does either program require approval of a State plan? ** The Smith-Hughes Act requires a State plan. Section 8 of the act makes the following provision: “* that in order to secure the benefits of the appropriation for any purpose specified in this act, the State board shall prepare plans * *." The George-Deen Act is subject to the same conditions and limitations as the Smith-Hughes Act in this respect. 5. Do any of the State plans, which are approved by the Office of Education, contain any provisions in relation to residence? The State plans for vocational education, which are approved by the Office of Education, do not contain any provisions in relation to residence requirements. 6. A summary, or, if convenient, a list of such residence requirements, if any, as may be found in the plans of the various States. None. 7. Does your Office feel that it has any discretion in the matter of approving a plan containing residence requirements, or is it possible that you could reject a plan which did contain residence requirements? It is my opinion that this Office has no discretion in the matter of approving a State plan containing residence requirements, since the Smith-Hughes Act provides that plans submitted by the State boards for vocational education for approval shall be approved if the plans are found to be in conformity with the provisions and purposes of the act. 8. Does your Office know whether or not nonresident persons in any State are precluded from the benefits of either program? This Office does not have specific information as to whether or not nonresident persons in any State are precluded from the benefits of the Vocational Education Acts. Since the vocational program is an integral part of the public educational facilities, any person eligible for enrollment in the publicschool system is eligible for enrollment in the vocational courses, provided he meets any special requirements which apply to all who are enrolled. 9. If nonresidents are precluded from the benefits of either program, is such preclusion brought about by either (a) any provisions in the Federal lew, (b) any provision in a State law, or (c) by reason of any administrative practice, either Federal or local? If nonresidents are precluded from the benefits of the vocational program in any instance, such preclusion would not be due to any provisions in the Federal law or Federal administrative practice. 10. How are the individual beneficiaries of your program selected? Individual beneficiaries of the vocational education program are selected on the basis of application for enrollment in the public-school program, and for particular courses on the basis of their aptitude and/or previous training and experience. 11. How many people (figures, if available) benefit from either program? (Are nonresidents included herein?) For the fiscal year ended June 30, 1940, 2,290,741 were enrolled in the federally aided vocational education program. (We have no reason to believe that nonresidents are excluded.) 12. How much of an appropriation, in your opinion, would be necessary to cover into either program all nonresident persons, if any, not now included? We do not believe that nonresident persons are excluded. 13. If, in fact, nonresidents are being excluded from either program, what, in your opinion, would be the probable effect of requiring, as a condition for receipt of funds, that all persons should be included regardless of any residence requirement? We do not believe that nonresident persons are excluded. 14. If such condition were imposed, how in relation to either program could it be made effective, i. e., by an amendment to the organic law or through administrative rules and regulations? It would be necessary to amend the organic law. 15. If, in fact, nonresidents are being excluded from either program, in your opinion, could nonresidents be covered in if some of your funds were available on a variable basis, i. e., regardless of residence or any other condition? If nonresidents are being excluded from the vocational program, the basis of making funds available would have no influence unless the matching of Federal funds were abolished. Additional Federal funds would naturally make it possible for a public school to expand its vocational program, thereby making it available to more persons, both resident and nonresident. 16. Even if a State, through its law or administrative practice, were excluding nonresidents from either program, if its plan conformed to your present law, would you feel bound to accept it? Even if a State, through its law or administrative practice, were excluding nonresidents from the vocational program, this Office would feel bound to accept its plan, if the plan conformed to the present law. 17. Does your Office have any effective means of determining whether or not nonresidents are covered by either program? This Office has no effective means of determining whether or not nonresidents are covered by the vocational program. To do so would require a study of the practice of each local school system participating in the vocational education program. 18. If your Office should ascertain that nonresidents were excluded from either program, could you withhold the allotments of Federal money on that account? Should this Office ascertain that nonresidents were excluded from the vocational education program we could not withhold the allotments of Federal money on that account. TESTIMONY OF R. V. BILLINGTON Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Billington, you state that the vocational education program of your office is integrated with the public school system in each State. In connection with this residence problem, isn't it possible that nonresident children are frequently excluded in States which lack a compulsory school-attendance law, that is, if they were not compelled to go to school, they wouldn't be able to participate in the vocational-educational program? Mr. BILLINGTON. That is absolutely true. If they were not compelled to and didn't attend school, they couldn't participate in the program because it is a part of the regular public school system. Mr. THOMAS. That would also be true of any State which charged a tuition for nonresidents, would it not? Mr. BILLINGTON. That would be true if they have to pay a tuition. as a condition of getting into the public school system. However, if tuition were levied, especially on vocational classes that received Federal aid, we could not go along with that. Mr. THOMAS. I mean just the general proposition of tuition being exacted for attendance at the school itself? Mr. BILLINGTON. That's right. Mr. THOMAS. And of course if the State set up any kind of residence qualifications before a nonresident child could get into the public school system, that would exclude him from your program? Mr. BILLINGTON. That is true. Even though they might want to go in as students in the public school system to get the vocational program that is offered by means of Federal aid. EFFECT OF SHORTAGE OF VOCATIONAL FACILITIES Mr. THOMAS. And, of course, if a State didn't have adequate facilities for educating children of migratory citizens, that, too, would preclude them from attending the public schools, and hence preclude them from your program? Mr. BILLINGTON. That is true. We have had that difficulty in connection with requests which have been made to provide vocational education facilities for N. Y. A. youth who have been brought in groups into communities, and also in connection with enrollees in the C. C. C., in States which do not have the facilities to give vocational education. That difficulty has been partly corrected in the defense training program. But under the regular program lack of facilities acts to prevent migratory, as well as resident, children from participating in vocational courses. Mr. THOMAS. I notice in your statement that while you state the act under which your office operates has no residence requirements, nevertheless, if a State law had a residence requirement, you would feel that you couldn't reject a State plan on those grounds. Could you explain to us just why you feel you haven't any discretion in eliminating residence requirements in State plans? REQUIREMENTS GOVERNING GRANTS FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION Mr. BILLINGTON. I think our act is very clear in setting up certain specific standards and procedures by which the act shall be administered in the State. For instance, a State must create a State Board for Vocational Education, having at least three members, unless it designates an already existing board as such a State board. It must designate the State Treasurer as custodian of Federal funds, and there is quite a detailed commitment that the State must make. |