disadvantage under Public Law 874 in their effort to meet school needs caused by Federal activities.

To partially rectify this situation, the bill contains a provision establishing a floor to be used as the minimum rate per child in the computation of the Federal payment. Under this provision, the local contribution rate for any school agency in any of the 48 States cannot be less than 50 percent of the average per pupil expenditures from all sources made by all school districts in the State. The primary effect of this provision will be felt in approximately 15 States. The committee wishes to make clear that the law has not and should not attempt to equalize rates between districts or between States. To do so would be to depart from the concept of this law as that of the Federal Government assuming its rightful share of a particular burden in a particular place. Educational programs and costs vary from place to place in accordance with the traditional American philosophy of local control of education patterned to local desires and resources. This law is not designed to change or influence that tradition.

Section 6 of the law now provides that where no local educational agency is able to expend tax revenues for the education of children residing on Federal property, or for some other reason cannot provide suitable education for such children, the Commissioner of Education shall make arrangements for their education. In administering this section the Commissioner of Education has utilized the Federal agency responsible for the administration of the Federal property-usually one of the military departments as his agent for the provision of the education, so that in actual practice the section has been administered by a Federal agency other than the Office of Education. The possibility exists, however, that under the language of existing law the Office of Education may have no alternative but to operate a school on Federal property.

H. R. 6078 proposes to amend section 6 of the law so as to render it impossible for the Office of Education to take any steps in the direction of actual school operation or control over school curriculum or programs of instruction. Under this amendment, in any case where section 6 applies the Commissioner of Education must make arrangements only with a local educational agency or with the Federal agency responsible for the Federal property on which the education is to be provided. The amendment precludes the Commissioner from providing the education through the Office of Education.

The Commissioner of Education would retain responsibility for determining when no local educational agency is able to expend tax revenues or otherwise provide suitable education for children on military or other Federal reservations, for procuring and dispensing the appropriations necessary to meet the Federal expense involved, and for making sure that the per pupil expenditures do not exceed the limits contained in the bill. Other changes in section 6 would permit, under certain conditions, children

of Federal employees in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and Wake Island, and in areas adjacent to military installations, to attend schools operated on lations, to attend schools operated on Federal property.

Under the existing provisions of section 3-which provides for payments with respect to children who reside on Federal property, or reside with a parent employed on Federal property, or botha local school agency is not eligible for payment unless the number of children to whom that section applies is 3 percent or more of the total number of children educated by the agency. However, once the agency has met this eligibility requirement, it receives payment with respect to all of the children to whom section 3 applies, including the first 3 percent. The bill would change first 3 percent. The bill would change this. There would be no eligibility test as such. Instead, an agency would have to absorb 2 percent of its nonfederally connected children. In other words, in determining the amount of its payment, the number of children which-except for this absorption requirement-would be used under section 3 will be reduced by a number equal to 2 percent of the nonfederally connected children in the schools of such agency. In the case of cities whose school populations in 1939 exceeded 35,000, and which because of their size and resulting greater ability to realize increased revenue by reason of Federal activity, the absorption requirement will be 3 percent of their nonfederally connected children.

In determining numbers of federally connected children—and of nonfederally connected children—for purposes of this absorption requirement, children who 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 propeducation comes from residential property taxes and half from taxes on other erty taxes and half from taxes on other property. Where the child lives on taxexempt Federal property with a parent employed on such property, no such tax revenues are derived. Where either, but not both conditions exist, the average of the tax revenues derived will be about half of those derived in the case of nonfederally connected children.

The purpose of this new absorption requirement is to limit the Federal payments more closely to those situations where the number of federally connected children is so large in relation to all other children for which a local educational agency is responsible, as to constitute a real burden upon the community. As a point of equity and uniform treatment it is believed consistent, in the light of the original committee findings and report, to expect all school districts to absorb some federally connected children rather than only those that fail to become eligible. This proposal is also considered to be in line with the fact that Federal activities usually result in some increases in local

tax revenues despite the tax-exempt status of Federal property, except where the school district is comprised almost wholly of Federal property. As in the present law, the Commissioner is given discretionary authority to waive or reduce the 2-percent absorption requirements when exceptional circumstances exist which make such action necessary to avoid inequity and avoid defeating the purposes of the act.

Another major change in Public Law 874 is one designed to authorize States to elect to have their local educational agencies receive Public Law 874 payments with respect to Indian children attending their schools. Most such children, even though they reside on taxexempt Indian property-which by definition constitutes Federal property under Public Law 874-cannot be counted for purposes of Public Law 874 payments by virtue of a specific provision in section 9 (2) of the law excluding all children who would be eligible for educational services provided through the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the Department of the Interior. That Bureau now operates, pursuant to the Johnson-O'Malley Act (25 U. S. C. 452), a program of Federal financial assistance to State and local educational agencies which provide free public education to such Indian children.

It is the purpose of this amendment to permit States which exercise their option, to become eligible to receive Public Law 874 payments with respect to their Indian children in lieu of educational payments under the Johnson-O'Malley Act. It is not intended that the exercise of such option shall preclude or in any way affect the eligibility of the electing State or any of its political subdivisions to participate in the JohnsonO'Malley program as respects health, welfare, or other noneducational services.

H. R. 6078 provides that each State be permitted, through its governor, to elect coverage of its Indian children under Public Law 874, if it so chose. Upon such an election for any fiscal year, Public Law 874 payments would be made for that year with respect to Indian children who reside on Federal property, or who reside with a parent employed on Federal property, in like manner as they are paid on other federally connected children. State and local educational agencies in States which do not elect before the date specified in the billJanuary 1, 1954, for the fiscal year 1955 and January 1, 1955, for the fiscal year 1956-would continue eligible for Johnson-O'Malley payments and ineligible for Public Law 874 payments with respect to such children, as is the case under the existing provisions of Public Law 874. The authority of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to provide education to Indian children in Indian schools operated by the Bureau would not be affected by the amendments here proposed.

Under H. R. 6078, payments to local educational agencies would be based on the the previous year's attendance data rather than as under existing law on attendance data for the current year in which the payments are being made.

Adoption of the previous year's attendance as the basis for Federal payments under section 3 of the law logically leads to the elimination of so-called State lag payments, and the bill would eliminate these payments. These payments were intended to supplement the basic payments under section 3 in the case of federally connected children during the first year of their attendance in the schools of a local educational agency. Such supplementation was thought necessary because State-aid payments are normally based on attendance data for the previous year so that during the first year of a child's attendance the local educational agency receives nothing from the State on account of the child.

The bill would add a new provision authorizing the Commissioner of Education to make supplementary payments to local educational agencies if 50 percent or more of their total school attendance consists of children who reside on taxexempt Federal property, and if they make a showing that they both need and deserve supplementary payments. Where so large a proportion of a local educational agency's school population consists of children residing on property from which the agency realizes no or insignificant tax revenues, there is a likelihood that the tax base remaining to the agency is insufficient to meet that portion of the local costs of educating Federal children which is not met under section 3 of the law. This provision would enable a relatively few local agencies in this special type of situation to operate their schools at the same level as other agencies which are generally comparable to it.

The bill would change the provision that children may be counted as federally connected under section 3 (b) only if their parents work on Federal property in the same State as that in which the children go to school. The change would permit payments in the case of children whose parents work outside the State but within reasonable commuting distance of the school districts where the children go to school.

The bill amends section 3 (a) of Public Law 874 so as to meet a special problem which has arisen in the past in connection with children of military personnel. The amendment would include in section 3 (a) under which the full local contribution rate is paid with respect to children who reside on Federal property with a parent employed on Federal property, all children who reside on Federal property and who have a parent who is on active duty with the uniformed services-as the term "uniformed services" is defined in the Career Compensation Act of 1949-irrespective of whether the parent is employed on Federal property.

The bill would make several significant changes in the provisions for determining eligibility for and the amount of payments to local educational agencies with respect to children whose school attendance is attributable to activities of the United States-section 4 (a). In order to simplify the administrative burdens of the local educational agencies and the Office of Education, the bill would amend XCIX-554

these provisions so as to base eligibility for payments under section 4 (a) for any year on an increase in average daily attendance over the preceding year, as the result of Federal activities, equal to not less than 5 percent of the total average daily attendance during the preceding year. Under the existing provisions eligibility depends on a 10-percent increase over the average for the 3 preceding years. Another change is the insertion of the requirement that the increase in school attendance be a direct resuit of Federal activities, thus excluding from consideration children of parents who come into the community to service those employed in the Federal activity.

The bill would also amend section 4 (a) of the law to reduce the period for which a community may be eligible for payments, on the basis of an increase occurring in a particular year, from 3 years to 2 years. We believe that a 2year period should be adequate for the community to adjust its property values and tax machinery to the influx of population. In addition, the second year's payment would be limited to 50 percent of the first year's payment to the community, provided, of course, the community still needed that amount of money for the provision of education for the federally connected children.

Under the definition of "Federal property" in section 9 (1) of the existing Public Law 874, properties owned by the United States but leased to private parties for housing or commercial purposes and subject, in some States and communities, to property taxation insofar as the interests of a lessee are concerned, are not in some cases considered Federal property for purposes of the formulas in the act. The bill would, effective July 1, 1953, amend the definition of "Federal property" to include such leased properties, thus permitting the school districts concerned to count children whose parents live or work on the property in qualifying for Federal payments under the amended. Any property taxes paid in connection with such leased property and becoming available to the school district concerned, would be deducted from any Federal payments to which the school district might otherwise become entitled.

There are a number of school districts which have for many years been receiving Federal payments in the form of payments from United States forestry reserve funds-title 16, United States Code, sections 471-517-United States Code, sections 471-517-United States mineral lease royalty funds-title 30, United States Code, sections 181-287Taylor Grazing Act funds-title 43, United States Code, sections 315-315rMigratory Bird Conservation Act funds title 16, United States Code, section 715 (s) and from funds for a few similar programs on account of Federal properprograms on account of Federal property. In some of these school districts the ty. In some of these school districts the Federal Government has also created a military base or an industrial establishment or housing project on other lands and, as a result of such Federal installation, large numbers of children have migrated to the district and attend the district's schools. Under Public Law 874 these Federal payments must be de

ducted from a school district's entitlement for any new Federal impact. H. R. 6078 would amend the deduction provision in Public Law 874 to limit any such deduction, on account of the availability to the local educational agency of such special funds, to the amount, if any, to which the school district concerned would otherwise become entitled under Public Law 874 with respect to children who reside on, or reside with a parent employed on, the Federal property with respect to which the special funds are paid.

The bill extends the provisions of Public Law 874 to Guam and Wake Island. The committee believes that Federal functions in connection with the education of children of parents residing or working on federally owned property in Guam and Wake Island should appropriately be provided for in Public Law 874. Some flexibility in the application of the act to situations in these areas is desirable and has been provided for in the bill.

Mr. BARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, after the experience we have had with the operation of this bill, I do not think it is necessary to go further into a discussion of the details. The chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. MCCONNELL], brought out the principal changes.

The committee tried as best it could to keep in mind, certainly, some semblance of economy. We tried to reduce the bill as much as it would stand and do the job, recognizing at the same time there was a very distinct responsibility resting upon the shoulders of the Federal Government. We tried as best we could to make provision for the discharge of that responsibility, and in so doing to be fair to the taxpayers of the country.

This is not a general Federal aid bill. This is a bill to do exactly, as I understand it, what the Congress intended to do when it started passing this type of legislation, and that was to take care of the bad conditions which were brought about by the activities of the Federal Government.

Mr. Chairman, I would like the House to know that the chairman of the committee gave considerable time to this bill. We selected people who were in a position to have experience with the bill, some from various States, those from the departments, and those from the drafting service, and others who were able to fashion the bill into the type of legislation we were seeking. The committee attended very regularly. There was much work and much discussion on the bill. As far as I know, there was not a person on the committee who had any reluctance to vote it out. I think it was unanimous, but I have heard so many men come on the floor and say that so and so was unanimous, and then find that somebody showed up that was absent. However, I want to assure you that if there was anyone opposed to the bill, he did not appear before the committee and express his opposition, nor did he vote against it when the bill came out.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. ROGERS]. Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, first I want to pay my respects to the Members and the staff, who graciously explained this legislation to me and gave me information, as my district is vitally interested in the legislation.

I know there are tremendous problems having to do with relieving the school districts where the number of children has increased as a result of Federal activities in those districts. As you know, Public Law 874 contained a provision to the effect that before some districts become eligible, it is necessary that the district prior to June 30, 1939, had more than 35,000 pupils and show that it had an increase of 6 percent due to the Federal impact. That resulted in what I think is a discrimination against the larger cities. In this bill, you have changed that formula from the proposition that you are not required to have 6 percent Federal impact before you are eligible for aid. You have changed it to a question of absorption by the districts of 2 percent as a result of being federally impacted, if they had less than 35,000 If those pupils as of June 30, 1939. If those school districts as of June 30, 1939, had more than 35,000 pupils, then they are required to absorb at least 3 percent before they are eligible for any aid of any kind. I think that is truly discriminatory against the school districts for several reasons.

The main reason is, if your school district had a population of less than 35,000 as of June 30, 1939, they are required to absorb 2 percent, but, if they had 35,000 as of June 30, 1939, they must take 3 percent.

Mr. BAILEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. I yield. Mr. BAILEY. Does the gentleman figure the basis for this absorption? Is he aware of the fact that we have a normal increase of children regardless of the Federal impact? Let us get away from the idea of a school district being impacted. Nationally there is an average 5 percent normal increase. This figure for the years 1951-52 and 1952-53 would give a 10-percent increase in nonFederal children, let us say. Your absorption applies to that. I wonder whether the gentleman really got the significance of that.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Here is the significance of it: On page 4 of the bill, beginning at line 17, you spell it out in no uncertain terms that any school district that as of June 30, 1939, had as much as 35,000 children would have to absorb 3 percent. If you happen to have a school district that did not have that amount prior to that date, you only have to absorb 2 percent. The point I am trying to make is that under the facts and figure here there is no reason why, if you are going to have the principle of absorption, you should require one school district to absorb more than others, if you are going on a percentage basis.

I direct your attention to this for the simple reason that when we get to the reading of the bill for amendment, I expect to offer an amendment on page 4, striking out all after the word "both"

and the balance of the page. If I am unsuccessful in that, then I desire to change the date from June 30, 1939, to change the date from June 30, 1939, to June 30, 1944, and change the amount from 35,000 to 42,000. I may state in this connection I have made some inquiries concerning the people who are affected as a result of what I call discrimination against the people who are required to absorb 3 percent as contradistinguished from those who are only required to absorb 2 percent. Under Public Law 874 there were only 40 school districts that had a population of 35,000 on June 30, 1939, and of those 40 school districts only 6 qualified for aid under the federally impacted area provisions, and those 6 were San Francisco, Calif.; and those 6 were San Francisco, Calif.; Seattle, Wash.; Columbus, Ohio; San Seattle, Wash.; Columbus, Ohio; San Antonio, Tex.; Hawaii; and Denver, Denver, Colo. In spite of the fact that we were required to have at least a 6-percent imrequired to have at least a 6-percent impact before we were eligible, we had almost 10 percent.

In spite of our qualifications under Public Law 874, we were allotted $451,000 in the last preceding year, but under this formula I am unable to ascertain whether or not we are going to get $451,000. I am told that we may get $444,000 and again I am told that we may get $319,000. But, across the board, the State of Colorado will lose 21 percent. My district and the surrounding area probably is the most federally impacted area in the United States. If this formula is to be used in this manner, why can we not make it equal throughout the United States and say that we shall absorb only 2 percent rather than penalize us by making it 3 percent?

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. KEARNS].

Mr. KEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be the sponsor of this legislation. I want to inform the members of the committee that they may be well satisfied that all of the provisions of the existing act, Public Law 874, were thoroughly explored and we had the benefit of the experience of operating under the efficient provisions of Public Law 874, which gave us criteria by which to formulate the extension which we have presented here today.

I would like to say that the subcommittee in hearing the different localities, the States and all who were concerned with this legislation, were most gratified to know that the old law, with the proposed changes we have in this law, so far as formula is concerned, and so forth, met accord throughout the country on the part of the people who came here to testify.

Members of the committee realize that this is purely temporary legislation, and regardless of the impact, no matter where it may be, it is the purpose of the Congress, naturally, to get out from under this problem as soon as we can.

The wisdom of the committee was greatly exemplified here, realizing that even after construction ends we still have the problem of maintenance in operation. Therefore, as this is presented to you, it has been considered with the idea that we have tried to be fair to every section of the country and not penalize anyone. That brings up the point about

the 2-percent absorption which the gentleman was just commenting about, and the matter of 3 percent in the big cities where they had a 35,000 population. In the wisdom of the committee the 2-percent absorption was established in order not to penalize many little communities, many little locales throughout the country that were not equipped with school facilities to take care of the absorption.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. If the formula is to be 2-percent absorption, then a school district with 10,000 pupils, for example, would have to absorb 200 pupils.

Mr. KEARNS. That is right.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. And anything beyond that, if it were caused by Federal impact would make them eligible for aid. Why should a school district which has 50,000 pupils have to absorb, under this bill, 1,500 instead of the 1,000 if it were 2 percent? if it were 2 percent? Why do you discriminate? Because if the school district absorbed its 2 percent the large school district will absorb 1,000 pupils and the smaller one 200. Why is it not fair that the formula should apply equally all the way across the board?

Mr. KEARNS. I think that is fully explained. I know the gentleman is quite familiar with the physical plants of schools throughout the country, especially in his large city of Denver where I have been myself and visited the fine school system of Denver. The city has the possibility and the potential of taking that minimum absorption there where a little township or section out in the State would not have that potential.

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

Mr. KEARNS. I yield. Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. The smaller township, as the gentleman points out, would have a smaller enrollment, would it not?

Mr. KEARNS. That is correct.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. And they would have to have a 2-percent absorption before being eligible for Federal aid due to impact conditions. If the absorption were 2 percent, why would the gentleman say that the smaller districts were in no better position to absorb than the larger districts?

Mr. KEARNS. We have a situation where in a city you have an impact, you have also many other industries and many other lines of activities, and you have also many accessories that have been brought into the town and they have had a lucrative business and very good page to show because of defense production.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Would not the same reasoning apply to the small district?

Mr. KEARNS. No; that is not true, because in many instances that is the sole industry in the towns, and lots of times a plant is moved into a little place where they never had an industry before or some place that has had a one-room school until one of these plants went in and it was an entire new construction program.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. May I point out to the gentleman that in the

city and county of Denver, for example, the people in 1948 voted a bond issue of some $21 million to construct schools; and again this last October they voted another $30 million; our tax levy is in excess of 23 mills on a valuation which is high-but even with that large taxation and with that large building program we have approximately 200 schoolrooms where we are doing double duty at the present time. Under Public Law 816, as amended, we do not get a dime for construction. I am just trying to point out that here is a school district that has done everything and wants to maintain excellent school conditions, but now you discriminate against them. That is why I think it is unfair.

Mr. KEARNS. I would like to inform the gentleman further. I do not blame him for standing up for his great city of Denver; however, the concensus of the schoolmen who testified before the committee from the large cities was that they felt they had been treated fairly well and that they had really no gripe coming in the situation. They were willing to waive probably a little they might have gotten by greater consideration in order that some of the smaller places could be taken care of.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. I do not want to give the impression that we are not grateful for the cooperation of this committee and the Congress and for the aid we have received; but we would like to maintain a high standard and also take care of these children.

Mr. KEARNS. I know the gentleman is, but he must realize, too, that we have an Appropriations Committee to get through. So there are many problems in the situation.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. I will be delighted to help in these problems.

Mr. KEARNS. One thing further and that is the fact the Members should be conscious all the time that this program is being handled by the States, by the chief school officer of the State, through the locales where the impact and maintenance occurs. In no way is the United States Commissioner of Education trying in any way to run any school districts throughout the country. This is temporary legislation set up in the emergency we are in and there is conducted from that viewpoint and from that criteria the operation.

The subcommittee members are very grateful for the fine consideration we have received as a committee.

Mr. BARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. BAILEY].

Mr. BAILEY. Mr. Chairman, continuing the discussion raised by the gentleman from Colorado, may I say that as chairman of the special educational committee that drafted this legislation originally in the 82d Congress we were aware of the limitations of getting the program before the Congress. We were We were unable to tell how many of the larger cities might qualify for participation in the program and make requests for appropriations so high that it would destroy the possibility of getting the appropriations for the really impacted

areas.

We deliberately put in the 3 percent eligibility requirement. In taking up

the matter, in considering this new legislation, the subcommittee still considered that we were endangering this program and endangering getting adequate appropriations if we permitted some of the larger cities to qualify to the full extent that other impacted districts were permitted to qualify. That is the reason we required that they absorb 3 percent where other districts not the larger cities were only required to absorb 2 percent.

We figured that in a city we will say the size of Denver, Colo., there might be a federally impacted total of 2,000 or 3,000 or even 4,000 Federal pupils, but they are scattered throughout the city system where they could be absorbed in maybe 100 different classes or 200 different classes. That is not true of the little district where there is only one school perhaps, where the impact gets to the point from necessity that employment of additional teachers occurs. In the case of Denver it could absorb a half dozen in each class maybe absorb a half dozen in each class maybe and not require the employment of a single additional teacher. That is not true in the small district. So there is good sound reasoning back of this idea of favoring the smaller impacted districts.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BAILEY. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. For the gentleman's information, the federally connected pupils in the city and county of Denver numbered 6,743 for the year of Denver numbered 6,743 for the year 1951-52. The estimate for 1952-53 is 7,534. In 1953 it is 8,187 out of a daily average attendance for 1951 and 1952 of 49,667, with the result that if this keeps up we will have from 10 to 12 percent federally impacted children.

Mr. BAILEY. May I say to the gentleman this provision does not eliminate tleman this provision does not eliminate the city of Denver. It may reduce the payments that you are getting under Public Law 874. I am rather inclined to think that the figure that would cut you from $451,000 back to $319,000 is more likely the correct figure. You are not being eliminated. And, let me say to you that in the entire program all over the country we are effecting an economy of between 18 and 19 percent, so you would be affected by the overall legislation. I do not think it is too serious a problem.

Mr. WIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BAILEY. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. WIER. I also want to point out that of these 6,000 Federal employees he may be counting employees that work substantially year in and year out without any impact relationship to a defense effort in the Post Office Department, in the customs department, in your mint. Are you counting the people that have lived there for years and years?

Mr. BAILEY. And the majority of which are property owners and taxpayers.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, for the information of the gentleman from Minnesota, we have the Lowry Air Force Base, Fitzsimons General Hospital, Rocky Mountain Arsenal,

and Atomic Energy Commission plant, in addition to a large number of Federal, or so-called Federal, centers. I am sure, while the number of people who may work in the post office and their children may be included in this setup, the fact remains that with these Federal installations which are devoted to the defense effort, those are the ones that are making it necessary for us to go ahead and try to educate them.

Mr.

Mr. BAILEY. In conclusion, Chairman, let me say that I have no desire to prolong the discussion here, because I am convinced that this is not bad legislation. It is not the same as Public Law 874. Three or four amendments were made, none of them are controversial, and while we did effect some economies in the program it is still basically discharging the Government's obligation in these districts, and that, after all, is what we started out to do originally and what we are trying to do at the present time. It is not Federalaid-to-education legislation. This simply requests and requires the Government to make good on what they have done to impacted school districts by reason of Federal activities. Again, let me say I think it is desirable legislation; in fact, it is necessary if some of these children are to get a measure of equality of education with the other boys and girls throughout the Nation.

Mr. BARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. MILLER).

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate and thank the committee for bringing in this bill. We all recognize that it is necessary and essential legislation. I do want to again point out that it is an extension of legislation for a 2-year period and that many of these districts, and those that are hardest hit, and for whom relief is sought under this law, have a continuing problem. While I agree with the chairman of the subcommittee that the sooner we can get rid of the legislation the better, yet I think that if we weigh all of the evidence it is legislation that must be with us all during the period that we are going to be in this rather twilight zone of national defense. It becomes exceedingly hard for school administrators to project or to plan for the future when the thought is always hanging over their heads that the legislation may be terminated at the end of any 2-year period. So I urge that this type of legislation may be made permanent or semipermanent legislation. Out of the experiences we have now gained the committee can write legislation that will not be on a 2-year basis but, taking into consideration all the facts which my colleague from Colorado has just pointed out, will allow for legislation of a more permanent nature.

The district I represent is very hard hit. The city in which I live has 54 percent of its upland area in Federal ownership. It grew from 35,000, a figure at which it had practically been stabilized, for it was a bedroom community, to close to 70,000. Those 70,000 are still with us.

Not only that, the Federal Government, under the Wherry Housing Act, is contemplating erecting 500 new houses in the immediate future, with the prospect

of extending that another thousand within the next 2 or 3 years. The increases, and the impact there is just as severe as they were at any point during the war.

We have gotten away from 2-session schools by taxing the communities to the limit and by bonding them. We have expended and are expending all the money we can get from the local sources to take up this loan. Therefore, I believe in these cases this is the responsibility of the Federal Government, but that we should know so that the people who administer our school laws can go ahead and do it intelligently and can plan it.

The committee report in the last paragraph on page 2, under the heading "Effect of Increased Defense Activities" states:

In the 3 years Public Law 874 has been in operation the number of eligible districts and the number of federally connected children have increased sharply each year.

That is true. As we have gone into this new defense effort expansion has taken place, and it is going to continue to expand. I do not think we have reached that full expansion yet.

At the bottom of page 3 of the committee report it is stated:

The Federal responsibility to which Public Law 874 is addressed will continue for as long ⚫ as the Federal Government continues to own

and use large areas of tax-exempt property.

That is not decreasing.

I realize the fight we have to get the money from the Appropriations Committee, but when our cause is just we generally succeed in doing it.

I have here a letter compiled by the superintendent of schools working with other groups in the city of Alameda that shows the estimated average daily attendance for 1952 and 1953, the entitlement under the old law, and the entitlement under the Senate bill, because at the time this was done your bill was not written.

I include herewith the letter showing the effects on school districts in the Eighth Congressional District, caused by increases of population:

BOARD OF EDUCATION,

CITY OF ALAMEDA, Alameda, Calif., June 24, 1953. Hon. GEORGE P. MILLER,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN MILLER: With the assistance of the assistant county superintendent of schools of Alameda County, a sampling was taken to determine the effect of Senate bill 1597 on the entitlements of Federally impacted districts.

The following figures were compiled based on the California local contribution rate established December 11, 1952, of $94.64 elementary, $154.78 unified, and $257.09 high school district; 1952-53 average daily attendance and number of pupils under sections 3 (a) and 3 (b) of Public Law 874 for 1952-53 were based on districts' estimates. The calculations do not take into account deductions made in lieu of tax moneys or other Federal deductions. Losses were based on the highest possible gross entitlement a district would receive under existing Public Law 874 for 1952-53 as compared to a theoretical calculated entitlement for 1952-53 under the proposed Senate bill 1597. The same average daily attendance figures, number of

3 (a) and 3 (b) rates were used

entitlements.

School district

Alameda Unified.......
Monterey Elemen-
tary District..
San Lorenzo Ele-
mentary District...
Hayward Elemen-
tary District...
Hayward Union
High.....
San Leandro Unified
Berkeley Unified....
Livermore Union
High...

Pleasanton Elemen-
tary..
Mount Eden Ele-
mentary..
Livermore Elemen-
tary..

La Vesta Elementary... Castro Valley Elementary..

pupils and contribution for each of the gross

Esti- Esti

mated mated Estiaver- gross mated Perage entitle- gross centdaily ment, entitle- age attend- Public ment, loss ance, Law S. 1597 1953-54 874

5. 21

53. 12 41.0

84.0 84.0 37.78

386 12, 083 9, 512 792 27, 588 26, 120 887 7,760 5, 489 1, 281 28, 392 25, 647 1,292 5, 678 2, 176 2,907 12, 539 4, 637

21.0

63.0

Very truly yours,

5.32

DONALD M. RODERICK, Superintendent of Schools.

Mr. BARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I can appreciate the feeling of the gentleman who has just spoken and the attitude of the gentleman from Colorado. Of course, we could shake up the formulas. All you have to do to change the formula is to just change one or two figures. It looks like

a simple change until you get to the final totals, and then it presents an entirely different picture, as these formulas are necessarily complicated. We spent hours and days on them with men who had worked with the law 874 in the actual operation of the legislation. The formula in some cases resulted in a reduction, but they were fair enough to say it was an improvement, for after all we are not writing permanent legislation. We are trying to get out of this business and we are trying to carry on the United States Government responsibility and that responsibility alone. It is not a raid upon the Treasury. If one of the suggestions is taken, you change the formula and that changes the amount of money all over the country. If you take the other suggestion, you bring in the big cities which have not requested this and are not in real need so far as that is concerned. I think it would be well if we keep in mind the areas that gave birth to the idea of helping in this field. They were the areas which were hit by impacts and where the tax burden on the people in those areas grew out of proportion to their ability to pay. So it was with that in mind that we worked. I sincerely hope the committee will not consider changing the formula now because we have had much valuable experience. We have had years of experience in this, and I cannot conceive of any formula being tampered with here that would very likely and most probably jeopardize the bill because most of the districts that have suffered any impact have received help.

budget and the Treasury and the Con

all cost would be of a project whether it

gress would know exactly what the over

was a Federal housing project or a military installation. They could incorpoaround the corner and we have had to rate that. Heretofore, it has been bring in these additional expenses, and attempt to do the right, fair, and equitable thing. Mr. Chairman, I

Mr. McCONNELL.

yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McCONNELL. I yield.

Mr. HARRIS. I asked the distinguished chairman of the committee to yield for the purpose of making an inquiry about the situation in my district which has to do with the problem in one of these border cities, Texarkana, Texarkana being the border city between Arkansas and Texas. The Arkansas side of Texarkana is part of my district. Over on the Texas side is what is referred to as the Red River Arsenal, an ordnance plant which is operated by the Ordnance Department of the Army. Employees who work at the Red River Arsenal and who have children in school get the same amount whether they are on the Texas or the Arkansas side.

In connection with the operation, there is what is known as the Lone Star Ordnance, which is operated by contractors. Under the present law, employees living on the Texas side and working for Lone Star are given some maintenance funds because they have children in school on the Texas side. Employees on the Arkansas side who work on the same project, who have children in the school on the Arkansas side, do not get any maintenance funds.

My understanding is that that situation is cleared up in this legislation we have before us today and that both sides of the State line will be treated alike.