Mr. BAILEY. We appreciate your appearance here, Mr. Simmons. I think the committee is quite familiar with the situation in those areas surrounding Detroit and other industrial areas of Michigan. We will give due consideration to your statement.

Mr. SIMMONS. We certainly appreciate the fine consideration you have given us in the past, sir.

Mr. BAILEY. You may offer that statement to be filed as part of the record.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM SIMMONS, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS AND HERBERT F. SHAIN, SCHOOL BOARD TRUSTEE, ROMULUS TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT, ROMULUS, MICH.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, this opportunity to appear once again before your subcommittee to discuss legislation that proposes amendments to Public Laws 815 and 874, 81st Congress, is very much appreciated. These two laws have been most effective in the State of Michigan since their inception. The schoolmen of the State of Michigan who have been part of this program are in complete agreement that any attempt to amend or delete the sections of these two laws under which Michigan school districts have received Federal assistance should be vigorously opposed.

This statement in opposition to the legislation proposed in H.R. 7140, will deal particularly with the sections that would eliminate Federal assistance to school districts who have been impacted where parents have moved into an area to work for a Government contractor. The other sections of the proposed Legislation have been dealt with by school representatives from many parts of the Nation. We, as schoolmen interested in the continuation of legislation that s good for boys and girls, would like to have it made a matter of record that we concur with the statements opposing changes to the other sections of the laws. It is not our intention this morning to go into extensive detail concerning the operation of these two programs in the State of Michigan. I am sure the members of the committee will remember the extensive testimony offered to his committee during both the morning and afternoon sessions of the subcomnittee on January 28, 1958, by a seven-man panel of Michigan school representatives. The testimony by the panel was made to cover all aspects of the egislation as it was applicable to the State of Michigan.

The proposals in H.R. 7140 that would have direct effect on Michigan school listricts are contained in those sections that would completely eliminate Federal assistance to school districts who received a substantial increase in school nrollments because of the contract activity of the Federal Government. The egislation proposed by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare that vas under consideration by this committee last January proposed the two laws e amended to eliminate these same two sections of the laws. The committee, fter hearing extensive testimony relative to the real worth of these two paricular sections of the present law extending the existing legislation and imroved section 305(a)3 of Public Law 815 by eliminating the controversial and nworkable Presidential declaration clause.

Michigan school districts are still making application under the defense ontract sections of both laws. Some school districts have qualified for construcion aid. Many others have not qualified because they have been unable to meet he necessary qualifying percentages. We are not asking that the percentage equirements as they stand in the existing legislation be changed even though we are aware that these percentages are the highest qualifying requirements ontained in any section of the law. These requirements have been met in past ears, and we feel it is safe to consume these requirements will be met again the future.

The defense employment situation in the State of Michigan at the present me is at a relatively low level; however, it should be pointed out that defense mployment over a period of the past 8 years has been one of fluctuation. The owntrend in defense employment over the years has been very uneven. It hould also be pointed out that the substantial increase in defense workers xperienced in 1953 was felt at the same time that industries in Michigan proucing consumer goods were also expanding to the point where the actual

indigenous labor force was fully employed. This caused a substantial raise in immigration of workers from without the State into the Michigan labor market. This large increase in the labor force caused by the out-of-State workers still has a tremendous impact on the Michigan employment situation. Actually, no school district has to our knowledge suffered a decrease in school enrollment because of the loss of defense contracts that brought the families into the school district of Michigan. In fact, the children of these workers have now become what is known in the administration of these laws as non-Federal children.

In recent months Michigan industries have begun to receive a series of new defense contracts. These contracts are in new defense areas, since it is quite evident that the defense program has shifted from one of armored equipment to that of missiles. This type of shift can have a tremendous impact on certain school districts who have never before been impacted by the contract activity of the Federal Government. New industrial operations also require in many instances skilled workers that many times have to come from without the existing labor market of a particular manufacturing area. These workers from without the labor market form the impact felt by local school districts.

The U.S. Office of Education, on June 30, 1958, reported that Michigan school districts had received a total of $36,423,197 in construction aid under all sections of Public Law 815. During the past 2 years Michigan school districts have received $6,618,957 in construction aid, of which $5,784.763, was directly allocated under the defense contract section of the law.

The fact that some school districts have qualified under the defense contract section of the laws would seem in the minds of reasonable people sufficient reason to continue these sections of the laws. At a time when our Government is spending a record amount on the national defense budget, it would seem the legislation as it now stands, is on excellent protection against the serious school situations that occurred from 1940 to 1950 because of the lack of comprehensive programs of assistance to federally impacted school districts. This legisla tion is now on the books and can be used at any time a school district ean meet the basic qualifying requirements. If no school district meets the requirements, no funds will be paid out under these sections of the law. If one school district in the United States is able to meet the requirements and needed class. rooms are built for boys and girls, the legislation is certainly most worthwhile. It would seem the proposed amendments are an attempt to change the basic philosophy under which these two laws were initially enacted. A complete review of the testimony taken by the various subcommittees in 1949 and 1950, clearly indicate that these two laws were written to satisfy two areas of need; (1) areas that suffered financial burdens as a result of the acquisition of real property by the United States, and (2) areas that were impacted by an influx of people into an area because of the results of Federal activity. The legislation proposed in H.R. 7140, recognizes only the in-lieu-of-tax provisions of the two laws. It is our feeling that the substantial increase in school enrollments caused by any Federal activity is of equal importance. It should be added that the generalizations made concerning the reimbursement rates as applied to the figures offered by the Bureau of Census certainly do not have application in specific instances that are found in bedroom communities in and around areas of Federal activities.

The legislation now in effect has certainly done a tremendous amount of good for boys and girls in many school districts throughout the Nation. The legislation has been carefully reviewed and refined to its present excellence. We contend the legislation should remain on the books in its present form to do good whenever and wherever the qualifying conditions of the laws can be met.

Once again may we say we appreciate this opportunity to present the viewpoint of a number of Michigan schoolmen in this general manner. We would remind you that specific testimony regarding a specific school district was offered by Dr. E. J. O'Leary, superintendent of schools in Garden City, Mich. The case that Dr. O'Leary outlined for Garden City in regard to tax effort, increased school enrollments, and low local valuations in the same story that is presented by almost every Michigan school district qualifying under the two laws. We feel the committee has before it a complete record of the Federal assistance program in the State of Michigan. Should there be any questions regarding our testimony, we would be more than pleased to give our answers as needed.

Mr. BAILEY. Our next witness is Congressman E. Y. Berry of South Dakota.

TEMENT OF E. Y. BERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

Ir. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the ortunity to appear before you to present my views, and those of ool officials in my State, on H.R. 7140.

have received letters from almost every superintendent in fedly impacted areas, all opposing the measure. Personally, I feel Federal Government has a responsibility to these school districts carry out the provisions of Public Laws 874 and 815, and the cut unds proposed would seriously handicap their operations.

Ervin Peregrine, consultant in the South Dakota Department of lic Instruction, Pierre, S. Dak., has made a study of the school ricts affected by this law in South Dakota. His report shows t 42 school districts have been allotted $1,443,203.79 for the 1958school fiscal year, and that 11 additional districts have applicaas pending. Under the provisions of H.R. 7140, 3(b) pupils will eive 20 percent less when the Federal property is located within school district, and 50 percent less when the property is located side the school district. South Dakota school districts will, theree, lose $272,021.61 or 18.84 percent of their present allocation under proposed amendment.

As Mr. Peregrine pointed out in his statement, H.R. 7140 would not ct local school districts as much in those States which have a high centage of school costs supplied by State aids, as compared to a te like South Dakota where 85 percent of the costs come from local ool district tax. The blow to South Dakota school districts would remendous. Below is a table which lists the loss by school districts South Dakota.

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, PIERRE, S. DAK.

ct of H.R. 7140 on 3(b) children in South Dakota federally affected school districts if it becomes a law as it was introduced

Effect of H.R. 7140 on 3(b) children in South Dakota federally affected school districts if it becomes a law as it was introduced-Continued

NOTE. 43 districts got allotments; 10 applications pending; 18.84 percent loss.

I would also request permission to insert in the record the attached statement of Robert R. Spelts, superintendent, Douglas School, Ellsworth Air Force Base, S. Dak., who speaks with authority on the operation of Public Laws 815 and 874, having worked closely with the program for a number of years. He is also chairman of the South Dakota Committee on Educational Responsibility, which includes superintendents from all the federally affected school districts. Among this group is Superintendent Paul Stevens of the Rapid City, South Dakota, Independent School District No. 1. His recent letter to me is typical of those I have received from superintendents in my district, and I am sure will interest the committee. He directs attention to the problem his school district faces because of additional pupils who will be brought in as the result of the location of a Titan Missile Base in the Rapid City area. I would also like to include his letter in the record.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before your subcommittee nd present these views on H.R. 7140.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

TATEMENT BY ROBERT R. SPELTS, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, ELLSWORTH AIR FORCE BASE, S. DAK.

Douglas District No. 3 of Pennington County, S. Dak., is a common school istrict and operates a program from kindergarten through the eighth grade. ur school district has assumed the educational responsibility for children ving on Ellsworth Air Force Base, adjacent housing properties and other derally affected pupils residing in our school district. We hereby go on ecord as being diabolically opposed to the provisions of H.R. 7140 being condered by your committee.

PUBLIC LAW 874
1

It is our understanding that H.R. 7140 would result in a reduction from 50 40 percent of the local contribution rate for pupils whose parents live on or ork on Federal property. In our opinion this provision is most unfair. The ederal Government is now not fully meeting its responsibility for military deendents in this classification. I point out that the Soldiers and Sailors Relief et relieves military personnel of the responsibility of paying a personal propty tax. In our school district there are over 200 trailers in which reside ilitary dependents who do not contribute 1 cent toward the education of their ildren. These people are in our school district solely because of the emoyment of parents on Ellsworth Air Force Base. In our opinion the percenge of the local contribution rate for pupils who fall in this classification ould be raised from 50 percent to 100 percent as it is action by the Federal vernment which relieves these parents of tax responsibility.

It is further our understanding that this legislation would reduce from 50 to percent the local contribution rate for pupils whose parents either live on work on Federal property located in the district where the children do not end school. In our opinion, this is contrary to the concept of Public Law , where the Federal Government operates as a local taxpayer. For example, John Jones owns his own home, lives in our community, and works at the al garage, taxes from his home contribute to the support of the educational ogram of our school district. In addition the place where he works also tributes to the support of the educational program of our school district. en Jones goes to work on Federal property regardless of what school district · Federal property is in, his employment no longer contributes to the tax port of the educational program of the school district.

PUBLIC LAW 815

f our information is correct, House bill 7140 would reduce the percentage from to 50 percent of the average per pupil cost of constructing minimum school ilities for pupils whose parents live on and work on Federal property. In school district 97.5 percent of the pupils are here because of Ellsworth Air ce Base. Military dependents do not bring wealth into our district which be taxed for the support of public education here in South Dakota. There è, in our opinion the Federal Government should meet its full responsibility not only paying 95 percent but rather 100 percent of the cost of providing imum school facilities.

he percentage reduction for pupils whose parents live on or work on Federal perty are to be reduced from 50 to 40 percent. This is unrealistic for the sons as stated above. Likewise the reduction from 50 to 25 percent of the of providing minimum school facilities for pupils whose parents live on work on Federal property located in the district where the pupils do not nd school is not realistic in that miiltary dependents do not meet their tax onsibility locally. Why should any district be penalized because of where child goes to school or where Federal property is located? There are only ry few isolated instances where military dependents live on real estate where pay the real property tax.

ir school district definitely goes on record as opposing H.R. 7140 or any r legislation which would reduce our eligibility under Public Laws 815 and and relieve the Federal Government of its responsibility.