To impose such an additional tax burden on these 20 school districts would be extremely difficult. I am afraid that the net result would be a lowering of the standards of education instead. This penalty would apply to all of the children alike, whether their parents were or were not newcomers to the district or were or were not employees of the Federal Government.

It is manifestly unfair to ask the citizens of my district or of any area to assume such a penalty, or to shoulder an additional burden of taxes to maintain the standard of education in their schools, when the increased cost of operating the schools can be traced directly to a Federal activity, which must be the case under the present terms of Public Law 874 to make them eligible for the aid they are now getting.

The problem is similar with respect to funds for equipping new schoolbuildings in these areas under Public Law 815. It is expected that increased school enrollments will require abandoning some of our smaller schools and the construction of new consolidated schools to accommodate to the changing conditions. At least a part of such increased enrollments are traceable to the Federal activities of which I have been speaking. I strongly oppose any changes in the present law which would deprive us of the minimum amount of Federal aid in financing this new construction to which we are entitled under the present law.

To address myself for a moment to the philosophy behind Public Laws 874 and 815, it seems to me self-evident that when the Federal Government engages in an activity which has among its results the addition of an appreciable number of children to the school rolls in an area, then the citizens of that area have every right to expect that hey shall not be required to bear alone the cost of providing for the education of such children.

After a great many years, when all the effects of these radical hanges in the community structure have worn off; when the employnent at the Federal activity has been stabilized for a long period of ime; when the newly arrived Federal employees have become proprty owners and have been absorbed into the community completely, with particular respect to their bearing a full share of the taxload; nd when the cost of expended school operations have been completely mortized; then we may think of reducing the amount of Federal aid equired.

At present, however, the funds we have received from the Governent do not begin to pay the fair share of the additional cost which hight be expected.

Certainly the time has yet come when school districts located adacent to or near other districts in which a Federal installation is tually located should be discriminated against. Where large inallations are involved particularly, such as Lockbourne Air Force ase and Whitehall Army Depot near my district, the problem raised actually greater than that for a school district which may have a art of the installation within its geographic area.

These establishments are of such size and employ so many persons at it would be physically impossible for any large percentage of eir employees to live in a school district which at the same time erlaps the installation's boundaries. Thus, the heavier burden is rown on those nearby communities which house the employees. This

is the case with communities in Fairfield County in my district and in Lancaster, the county seat, where I reside.

To a lesser extent it involves also school districts in Hocking, Jackson, and Athens Counties in Ohio. For that reason I am particularly opposed to the aspects of the Kearns bill which give preferential treatment to school districts within whose bounds a Federal property is located.

As a supplement to these remarks I wish to introduce for the record of these hearings two letters I have received from Mr. J. E. Brown, superintendent of schools in Lancaster, Ohio, and from Mr. Paul R. Cummins, superintendent of the Fairfield County schools, which give more explicit details with respects to the situation in their jurisdictions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesy in hearing me out this morning.

Mr. BAILEY. Without objection the letters will be included in the record.

(The letters referred to follow :)

Hon. WALTER MOELLER,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

LANCASTER PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
Lancaster, Ohio, August 7, 1959.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN MOELLER: I regret that I shall be unable to be in Washington, at least for the next few days. I am therefore sending material concerning Lancaster and Public Law 874.

I contacted Paul Cummins, superintendent of the Fairfield County schools, and asked him for a breakdown of money from 874 for Fairfield County. His letter is enclosed with mine.

Lancaster public schools received more than $25,000 last year and this has been increasing at approximately $1,000 per year since we began in the program. The Public Law 874 money would mean about six teaching salaries for our system. You can readily see that a drastic cut could severely handicap our operation money. We have been counting on this money for the past few years and it has become an important part of our budget framework.

I would appreciate anything which you can do in resisting any change in the Public Law 874 which is up for discussion this coming week. I would appreciate it if you would appear before the House committee in behalf of the schools of Fairfield County.

Very sincerely yours,

J. E. BROWN, Superintendent of Schools.

FAIRFIELD COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
Lancaster, Ohio, August 7, 1959.

Hon. Representative WALTER MOELLER,
National House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR WALTER: I have recently been informed that there is some possibility that Public Law No. 874, which grants Federal aid to federally affected areas, is in danger of being reduced. We have come to depend, to a certain extent, upon these Federal funds for the operation of the schools in Fairfield County. It would be a hardship on some of the schools if this money is not forthcoming. The entitlements for the various districts for 1959 are as follows:

It is apparent that some of these districts would be considerably affected if this money were to be withdrawn or the amount drastically reduced. In some

cases it would amount to 11⁄2 mills on the valuation and if the money does not. come from Federal sources we, of course, would have to try and levy it locally. I trust that you will use your influence in attempting to retain the provisions of Public Law No. 874.

We are also very much interested in Public Law No. 815, which grants aid for equipment in new school buildings in federally affected areas. We have received substantial amounts from this bill in both the Carroll and Liberty Union Schools at the time their new buildings were erected. Since we are going to have considerable consolidation, eventually requiring the construction of several new buildings in the near future, I feel certain that Public Law $15 would be equally important to us.

Yours truly,

PAUL R. CUMMINS, Superintendent.

Mr. BAILEY. Thank you very much.

We will now hear from our colleague, Mr. Sikes.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT L. F. SIKES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time of the committee and I certainly do not want to infringe upon the privileges of my colleague from Maryland who is doing very fine work here. I want to say to his delegation that we are proud of him as a Congressman.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to take a minute or two. I know that yours is a busy committee and with your permission I would just take a minute or two and point out some of the problems that we would have if there were a change in Public Law 815 or Public Law 874.

Before I do that, if I may I would like to say that I think that your committee and you as chairman have done one of the outstanding services that we have known in Congress in your efforts to help solve problems affecting education, and I know this has been an extremely difficult and exacting job from the standpoint of requirements of time. I know you spend many, many long hours in session, but it is appreciated by your colleagues because it is a most valuable service.

Mr. Chairman, I live in an area which is particularly affected by Public Laws 815 and 874. My home county is Okaloosa in Florida. At the time Eglin Air Force Base was established we had about 15,000 people in the immediate area. Now we have 55,000, 19 years later. The two adjoining counties of Santa Rosa and Walton have shown a tremendous growth as a result of the impaction of the Eglin Air Force Base and of Whiting Naval Station.

If there were a reduction, as has been proposed, in the benefits to be derived under these measures we simply could not provide the type of schooling that the dependents of servicemen are entitled to. It simply is impossible with that kind of growth to pay from our local tax revenue the bill for a first-class educational system which we want these children to have.

One of the provisions which would establish a separate category for children whose parents work on Federal property outside their respective school districts would hit us particularly hard because the parents of these children live in the three counties and they work on the reservation. That would cut from 50 percent to 25 percent the local contribution rate on a very substantial number of children. This thing would simply be ruinous to us insofar as a decent school system is concerned.

45135-59- -22

We have in Florida, in an effort to bolster our school funding problems, passed a law in the legislature which just adjourned placing a $50 tuition fee on nonresidents whose children attend school in the State. However, civil service workers and servicemen were exempted, so that we would have no benefits in these federally impacted areas from that new law to help offset the loss in revenue that we would have if the recommended changes in Public Laws 815 and 874 were adopted.

I earnestly hope and strongly recommend, Mr. Chairman, that there be no changes in this program. We simply could not operate firstclass schools in counties as badly impacted as mine are if any changes were to be made.

Mr. SIKES. That is all, sir. If there are questions I would be glad to try to answer them.

Mr. BAILEY. Any questions, Mr. Frelinghuysen?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. A couple of brief questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sikes, I wonder whether this growth that you referred to over the past 20 years has stopped? Has the population become relatively stable in your area? You mentioned that it had grown from 15,000 to 55,000 over a 20-year period.

Mr. SIKES. If it has stopped it has stopped in the last year or so. About 2 years ago we had a statement of our population in those three counties. They were at that time continuing to grow, because there is expansion in these military activities and, of course, there is an expansion in the local economy as a result of the expanding military activities. If there has been a change it is in the last year or two. The 1960 census will show us more about that.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Does your statement indicate how many of your children are federally connected? What percentage?

Mr. SIKES. I have that information for 1 of the counties and I realize it should be here for the 3 counties that I referred to, but in Okaloosa County, 4,066 children in the last year.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Out of a total of?

Mr. SIKES. I don't have that. I will have to get it for you. I have it in my office.

(Mr. Sikes' prepared statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT BY CONGRESSMAN BOB SIKES BEFORE EDUCATION SUBCOMMITTEE Mr. Chairman, I am well aware that the present administration is seeking ways to economize in the cost of government, and I must say that I, too, have been greatly concerned at the mounting cost of operating our Government; however, I do not think the field of education is the place to begin cutting

corners.

At no time in history has so much worldwide attention been placed on education and the necessity for a nation to be strong through a well-educated popula tion.

Mr. Chairman, you have before you proposals for changes in the provisions of Public Laws 815 and 874. I am here today to voice my strong opposition to any changes in these very important and worthwhile programs.

One of the proposed changes would reduce the Federal participation under section 3(b)2 of Public Law 874. I fail to understand the justification for this proposed change.

In my own particular district in Florida, this proposed change would pose a great threat to the future of education in several of the counties. I would like to call your attention to one area where the continuation of the present provisions under Public Law 874 are a necessity.

The vast Eglin Air Force Base, which is located on a reservation containing 800 square miles, has been responsible for overnight growth and development

e surrounding area. Without Federal assistance it would have been imble for the local school authorities to provide the school facilities necessary ve our youngsters proper educational opportunities. At the time Eglin established, the population of the surrounding area was about 15,000. Tothere exists a booming metropolitan area of 55,000 people, with tremendous nds on the local and State governing bodies for more and improved public ties which were nonexistent a few years ago.

must be remembered that military personnel, not of their own choice, are red to move from one military installation to another and very few of have the opportunity to own taxable property from which the local governs may derive taxes for education purposes. In Okaloosa County, Fla., alone, 4,066 children attended the school system under the 3(b)2 provisions of ic Law 874, for an entitlement of $307,877.52 for payments for average attendance. Had the proposed change been in effect during this past , the county school system would have lost some $61,559.24. I am sure you visualize what such a loss would do to the county's education budget. r. Chairman, I have strongly supported the programs under Public Laws and 874. We cannot expect our local school systems to appropriate huge s of money for schools when the students may be transferred at any time, eby leaving the school system with huge obligations but without adequate me. Under the present provisions, the qualifying school systems are being one-half the national average local contribution rate for children in the )2 category which amounts to $75.72. Under the proposed change in Public 874, payment for children in this category would be reduced to 40 percent he local contribution rate which would be $60.58 per child in average daily ndance.

'hile it is true that military installations create economic growth and vlopment, I do not feel that the local communities should be required to ertake the full obligation of providing the schooling for our military dedents. The demands created are entirely out of line with the ability of the l community to pay.

nother change in the 3(b)2 classification would be to establish a separate egory for the children whose parents work on Federal property outside their pective school districts. Under the proposed change, the rate of payment uld be cut from 50 percent of the average local contribution rate to 25 pert of the rate. In Okaloosa County alone, this change would involve a loss about $4,000 a year to the local school system.

Ir. Chairman, the Third District of Florida is proud of the fact that it has eral military installations, including Eglin Air Force Base, Hurlbert Air ce Base, Tyndall Air Force Base, the naval air station, and numerous iliary fields. I hope the members of this committee, in considering the posed changes, will pay special attention to the fact that some of these tallations are located in more than one county, and would be heavily penald. The result would be a sharp drop in educational standards with a ulting unjustifiable penalty upon the children of local residents and service sonnel alike.

hope the distinguished members of this committee will afford each of the nties their due consideration as participants under Public Law 874.

n closing, I would like to point out that very rarely does the Federal parpation cover the actual cost per pupil in average daily attendance. Instead proposing cuts in the program, it may well be that we should be considering increase in certain areas. I sincerely hope this committee will oppose any nge in Public Laws 815 and 874 because they are so very necessary to the ure of our country in providing assistance for the education of our military Government employees' children.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Then on this question of impact, of course, some extent you can argue that an impact is something that hits a nmunity suddenly when it isn't prepared for it, that there isn't a ficient tax base to build the schools and operate them because the owth was very rapid and was attributable to the Federal activity. ce the Federal activity is established and the taxpayers move in or Federal employees move into homes it might well be argued to a lessening of an impact, and to some extent this proposal to take ook at the formula of distributing aid tries to distinguish betwee: