At the time the high school was constructed there was a preponderance of nonfederally connected pupils. That situation has changed and will change increasingly in the future to the point where the facility itself will only be adequate to accommodate the purely federally connected pupils. With this mind, and with the fact in mind that nonfederally connected pupils have to travel approximately 20 miles by bus to attend this school, the people in the school district wish to establish a second plant 20 miles distant in the other principal population center, but in order to do that they must receive, they feel, a reimbursement for their $618,000 investment in this current plant. That is what they seek, some formula in the law which would permit this reimbursement. With that money in hand, they could then build a second plant, which would not be surplus to the needs of the district at all but would merely provide what might be described as a divided program, two high schools within a single district. That is the problem which I present to you. I will submit for the record, Mr. Chairman, a suggested amendment to the law which would permit this grant of money from the Federal Government to the district. Mr. BAILEY. Is the gentleman speaking of his proposed amendment to apply to the existing statute governing 815 and 874 or to the proposal submitted by the administration? Mr. HAGEN. This would be an amendment of the existing 815. This is rather an involved problem, I realize, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BAILEY. Perhaps it would be wise for you to discuss this again with the Department of Education. Mr. LILLYWHITE. We discussed it at great length. Mr. BAILEY. Make it brief. Mr. LILLYWHITE. We discussed it at great length with Mr. Hagen. Mr. BAILEY. Are you agreed with him that there is justification for modifying Mr. LILLYWHITE. We do not see any possibility whatever, in fairness to other school districts, to make a special amendment in this case. Mr. BAILEY. That does not preclude your offering an amendment when the bill comes up for extension. Mr. HAGEN. I would assume his answer is based on certain legalisms and also a certain basic philosophy, which is stated to govern 815, which could be disputed, of course. Mr. LILLYWHITE. I should say—I am just talking now, Congressman, I am not expressing the official position of the Department-I am simply indicating what we have said in letters and it should be taken in that manner, certainly. Mr. HAGEN. That is right, there has been extensive correspondence between the Office of Education and both myself and Senator Kuchel on this problem. I understand you will not act on this legislation until next year. I personally feel there could be some accommodation on this prob lem which would not necessarily involve an outright grant, because there is an increasing need for facilities. As I see it, it is a matter of where you locate them primarily. It may be that within the existing formula they can find enough money, if they so desire, in the Office of Education to make possible a second plant. Thank you very much. Mr. BAILEY. Thank you, Mr. Hagen. We will now hear from Dr. D. S. Saund, also of the California delegation. You may further identify yourself, Mr. Saund, and proceed with your testimony. STATEMENT OF HON. D. S. SAUND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 29TH DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Mr. SAUND. I am D. S. Saund, a Representative of the 29th Congressional District of the State of California. Mr. Chairman, may I first express my appreciation to you and the other members of the committee for this opportunity to express my views on the legislation under consideration. H.R. 7140 would wreak a decided hardship in more than 20 federally impacted school districts of my congressional district that are receiving Federal assistance under Public Laws 815 and 874. This is particularly true of the school districts in the vicinity of March Air Force Base, a major Strategic Air Command base at Riverside, Calif. Children of military and civilian personnel of this base receive their education in the public schools of Riverside and other outlying school districts. An example of the drastic effect which this administration proposal would have on these school districts is indicated on the following figures compiled by the California Department of Education. Riverside city schools, comprising the elementary and junior high schools, would suffer a loss of more than 49 percent of its Public Laws 815 and 874 funds if H.R. 7140 becomes law. Riverside City High School District would lose 24 percent of its Federal funds. Midland School District, a more or less rural school district in the vicinity of March Air Force Base, would lose 7 percent. In order to offset the loss in funds in Riverside, a tax rate of 0.11 would be required. A tax rate of 0.13 would be necessary to offset the loss in Federal funds in the Midland School District. I submit that that is an unjust tax load to impose on local taxpayers for school expenses in districts burdened by enrollment connected with Federal property. I do not have figures for the more than 20 other school districts in Riverside and Imperial Counties which receive funds under this program. But the situation will be comparable, if perhaps not so severe. In my congressional district, as throughout the State of California, there is an increasing, rather than a decreasing, Federal obligation to support education. We are experiencing the effect of the expansion of Federal activities that is accelerating throughout the State. The proposal set forth in H.R. 7140 is unrealistic and unfair, and I respectfully urge that it be rejected. Mr. BAILEY. You mention Riverside. I recall our hearings held in connection with initiating this program. Is that just across route 101 from the entrance of Camp Pendleton? Mr. SAUND. It is quite a way inside, but you might have gone to March Air Force Base. Mr. BAILEY. We were at Camp Pendleton. I thought the city of Riverside was close to the entrance to Camp Pendleton. Mr. SAUND. It is about 60 miles away. Mr. BAILEY. What is that city there? Mr. SAUND. Riverside is the home of the famous Mission Inn, the beautiful inside area where you get the beautiful citrus fruit. Mr. BAILEY. You say you would lose 49 percent? Mr. SAUND. Yes; 49 percent for the elementary and junior schools, 24 percent for the high school district. Mr. BAILEY. Thank you, Dr. Saund, for your presentation. We will give due consideration to your situation. The next Member of Congress is Hon. Porter Hardy, Jr., of Virginia. STATEMENT OF HON. PORTER HARDY, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE SECOND DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, I want to express appreciation for this opportunity to present a few remarks about the situation in my own district. First, I would like to indicate my personal appreciation and my feeling that the country is indebted to the chairman of this subcommittee for the fine work he has done on the subject matter we are now discussing. This matter of Federal impaction to school districts has been a most important subject and, Mr. Chairman, I know you have contributed more of your own time and effort toward a proper adjustment of that situation than any other individual. Mr. BAILEY. I thank the gentleman from Norfolk for his commendation of my efforts in this respect. I am wondering if the gentleman is aware of the fact that the proposed new civil rights bill in the Judiciary Committee, I believe sponsored by Mr. Čeller of New York are you aware of what they are trying to do to Public Laws 815 and 874? Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, I do not think any good would ever come out of any civil rights bill that would be proposed by the gentleman from New York. As a consequence, I would prefer not to get into any detailed discussion of it other than to say I hope it never sees the light of day. Mr. BAILEY. May I suggest to the gentleman that that provision was not originally in the proposed civil rights bill but the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare testified, and I think it has administration support. Mr. HARDY. That is not surprising either, Mr. Chairman. While there have been some good things come out of the Office of Education, it seems to me that there has been an unnecessary flurry of such little contentious matters as that sponsored by this administration or by agencies of this administration, which I think are most unfortunate. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make this one observation, if I may. When we get into this kind of controversy, it does not do anybody any good. It stirs up agitations and feelings which are not helpful to the Nation. I regret exceedingly that these issues are injected. Mr. BAILEY. I just wanted to alert the gentleman from Virginia to the effect that sometimes you have to be on guard about who you are playing around with or you are liable to be doublecrossed. Mr. HARDY. I found that out. As the gentleman knows, we served a good many years together in the Congress and have had an oppor tunity to witness at firsthand a good many operations in several different administrations, so I appreciate his calling my attention to the current situation. However, I hope that we will not have to be confronted with it on the floor. Mr. BAILEY. Now will the gentleman proceed with his formal presentation. Mr. HARDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My presentation will be very short. You have a personal familiarity with my district, I am sure. It is the most populous district in the State of Virginia, the smallest one in area, and it contains a greater number of Federal children going to school than any other area in Virginia, unless it is the Arlington area. We have the greatest concentration of Navy in the world in my district. That is our major industry, Mr. Chairman. It is a nontaxpaying industry, as you well know. Just so that there may be a clear indication of the limited area which comprises my district, the entire district is cut out of what was once one county. There are actually four political subdivisions: The city of Norfolk, the city of Portsmouth, South Norfolk, and the county of Norfolk. Mr. Chairman, most of the schoolchildren in my district are children of service personnel or of civilian personnel working for the U.S. Government. The effect which any alteration in Public Law 874 particularly would have on our school system is clear to anyone with any familiarity with the situation there. I want to urge that there be no change made to weaken the present statute which has proved to be so effective and so helpful in properly educating the children of our community. Mr. Chairman, I have with me communications from several of my affected political subdivisions or school districts. Each political subdivision has its school system. We do not have other boundaries of school districts. I have a letter from the superintendent of schools of Norfolk County, a letter from the superintendent of schools of the city of Portsmouth, a telegram from the superintendent of schools of the city of Norfolk, and a letter from the city manager of Norfolk, which I would like to submit for the record. Mr. BAILEY. If there is no objection they will be accepted and included as a part of the printed record. (The letters and telegram referred to follow :) Hon. PORTER HARDY, Jr., NORFOLK COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Great Bridge, Norfolk, Va., August 3, 1959. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR PORTER: It is vital that Public Law 874 be continued if defense communities such as ours is to continue to provide adequate services such as schools, recreation, and the like. There is a vast difference in the financial effect on a community where the Government took over private land and built large numbers of low-cost housing projects and later disposed of them to individuals than in communities where the influx of defense workers did not require it. For example, Alexander Park, which had over 4,000 units owned by the Government, now is privately owned and operated as rental units. The county receives less tax revenue than it did when it was Government owned. These were originally built as temporary rental units but now have become a continuing financial burden on our community. The majority of these homes contain young families who have an above average number of school age children. Most of the parents of these children are members of the Armed Forces or employed on Federal installations. Norfolk County served during World War II and the Korean emergency and continues to serve as the bedroom for many defense workers and service personnel. Norfolk County's tax base per capita has rapidly decreased since World War II due to the factors mentioned. What has really aggravated our situation is the large housing projects that have been sold to private interests. The people continue to rent these substandard homes and as you known the county realizes a very low tax return per person because of the very nature of their construction and value. In addition to this, a large number of very modest homes designed to take care of the war workers were built by private individuals and either rented or sold to the workers. We feel that communities thus affected should be classified in a higher or dif ferent category in receiving assistance under Public Law 874. All communities where this has occurred and where it is necessary to have modest rental and modest privately owned homes will have the unequal burden to provide schools and other services to these citizens. It must be recognized that the morale of the Armed Forces and defense workers is greatly affected by the type of services provided, such as, schools, recreation, and the like. It is not possible to provide these services unless assistance is received. The defense burden should be borne equally by all American citizens rather than to place this burden on communities such as Norfolk County because of its geographical proximity to defense installations. In brief, we feel that the problems that have been created by the Federal Government in communities like Norfolk County should be handled in a different way from a community where the Government has not constructed large numbers of low-cost rental projects that later were disposed of instead of being com pletely eliminated as you recall was done in the case of Broad Creek Village. We must realize, however, that there is a need for this type of housing and as long as this need exists it will be necessary for communities so affected to continue to receive Federal assistance such as provided under Public Law 874. Sincerely, E. W. CHITTUM, Superintendent. PORTSMOUTH PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Hon. PORTER HARDY, Jr., House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN HARDY: The amendments to Public Laws 815 and 874 as proposed in H.R. 7140, if passed, would be disastrous to the public schools of Portsmouth. Under Public Law 874 alone Portsmouth would lose $148,900 in operating funds for the year 1959-60. Portsmouth, like many other communities where there is a heavy preponderance of Federal activities, is hard pressed to find the funds to run efficient schools, even with the present Federal aid. To take away any part of this aid would do irreparable damage. The laws as now written are eminently fair to all and should remain substantially the same. The Portsmouth School Board vigorously opposes the proposed changes and has instructed me to so notify you, and to request once again your support in keeping these laws in force as they now are. The local community has tapped every available source of revenue for schools. We even have a 10-percent utility tax for school construction. Portsmouth is indeed grateful for your splendid assistance in the past, and we know that we shall receive all possible help from you in this most critical situation. With best wishes, I am, Hon. PORTER HARDY, Jr., ALF J. MAPP. Superintendent of Schools. NORFOLK, VA., June 9, 1959. House of Representatives, Congress of the United States, City and school officials of Norfolk urge that Public Law 874 be continued as now written. We are opposed to the amendments now being proposed. Proposed changes in the percentages of entitlement for the various classifications |