aybe the present formula is not the best and maybe the suggestion ed by the Department is an improvement, but on the other side, tuations like the most heavily impacted, and I use Midwest City n illustration, I don't know what else would be the result. In r words, as I have come here year after year and sometimes two ree times a year, I have thought that the great installation that Federal Government is pouring billions of dollars into in order e successful in its job must have education for the children of its loyees.

there is a better way to have it, whether it says double the tax rate [idwest City or a district joining us or some of the other districts, I am willing to take a look at it, but the alternative of very much ge is to reduce the educational opportunity offered for those dren. If that does not affect and has no possibility of affecting job which the other billions of dollars of Federal funds is designed o, then anything I would say would become as a sounding brass tinkling cymbal, so I think that the crux of the whole problem ere education needed in connection with these installations. hen we go to the district boundary lines. I would say it is utterly ossible for us to provide all the education for that great host of led employees. Then it means that they are going to spill out on other school districts. If those other districts can supply the cation satisfactorily to maintain that work force without this aid, n whatever percentage, whether it is 25, 15, 40, 50, or not, becomes levant. If they can't and the district in which it is located can't ply all the education for all the children of all the employees, then must think in terms of what will do it, if again the basic policy hat the installation needs a basic educational program to be sucsful in its job.

As stated here, our attendance has continued to go up at about a usand students per year. Approximately 63 percent of that thoud last year were federally connected compared with 55 percent of total over the years, which means the impact is more Federal than s non-Federal on a continuing basis.

Also approximately 30 percent of our budget is derived from Federal ds. Now, I would have to say this: That this rate is about the al local rate on the federally connected children interpreted in ms of whole pupils, but this, of course, would reduce it and put re on to the local taxpayers, and I want to read two or three of the ragraphs here that I think are important.

Federal funds this same year represented less than 30 percent of the al budget and as evidence that at least one federally impacted school strict was not receiving unfairly preferential treatment, and I undered that because it is made a number of times in the Secretary's testiony, the total of local, State, and Federal funds provided less revees per pupil than were available to other comparable school districts thin the State. I do pride myself in being able to squeeze a lot out a dollar, but there comes a time when you cannot provide comrable education for employees children needed in Federal work for o much less money than that which is available to other comparable nool districts within the State.

In view of the first-hand experience I believe that I am acquainted th some of the problems accompanying such Federal impact on

school district, and I might add they are not limited to just the tax loss, which is also mentioned a number of times in the Secretary's testimony. Certainly, I regret being placed in the position of opposing what I want to believe is the Department of our Federal Government established for the purpose of improving the educational advantages of the children of America. I recall that the Department was represented by the Secretary, his assistant, the Commissioner of Education, the Director and Assistant Director administering Public Laws 815 and 874, together with legal counsel and other research personnel in presenting its position which as stated would actually result in a saving of over $612 million to the Federal Government the first year and greater amounts in following years.

The same fact might have been expressed by saying it would reduce the educational opportunities offered in 3,500 school districts since nowhere in the testimony was any mention made whatsoever to the effect that such funds were not needed for the normal educational program of the 8 million children involved which is more than 25 percent in all public schools in America.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. How fair would such a statement be? You say the same fact might have been expressed in a different way. I don't want to get into an argument with you.

If we can save some Federal tax dollars, it isn't necessarily out of the hides of the 3,500 school districts that have children.

Mr. ROSE. Unless it can be shown that it isn't needed to provide a normal educational program.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You might be able to show that twice as much of that is needed to provide normal educational opportunities, but that in itself doesn't create a Federal responsibility. What we are trying to do here is to define what the Federal responsibility is, and the question is whether the definition proposed by the Secretary is reasonable enough.

You are obviously saying it is unreasonable. I think you are being unreasonable in turn by saying that he is trying to deliberiately provide an inadequate education for the children in 3,500 school districts in his attempt to redefine what Federal responsibility is, and I don't think name calling is going to get us anywhere in assessing the value of a program of this kind.

Mr. ROSE. However, on the other hand, I would suggest that if here are 3,500 school districts which do not now have sufficient money to be equal to the neighboring school, then to reduce it would be to reduce their education program, would it not?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Are you arguing that because of the Federal assistance you are not receiving your children are not getting as adequate an education as those who have federally affected children? Mr. ROSE. No, sir.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Then why are you saying that this results from a Federal program?

Mr. Rose. Because the Commissioner emphasized the saving to the Federal Government without saying what it would do to the children. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And I am saying you are being very unfair in saying that that is the crux of the problem. What it does to the children is not the crux of the problem. It might be that we should double the amount, but it is not necessarily the Federal Government's responsibility to double that amount.

It may be that local communities are not carrying the bill.

Mr. ROSE. That ought to have been pointed out, it would seem to me. Mr. BAILEY. The Chair would like to ask at this point, Your major governmental installation there is Tinker Air Force Base; is that right?

Mr. Rose. Yes, sir.

Mr. BAILEY. Just how many people are employed at that base now? Mr. ROSE. 20,000 civilians and 4,000 to 5,000 military personnel; around 25,000.

Mr. BAILEY. 20,000 civilians?

Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BAILEY. I take it that those workers are from not only your Midwest City school district, but from other adjoining school districts; Es that right?

Mr. Rose. Oh, yes; there are perhaps a hundred school districts which have parents whose children attend other schools and are employed by this installation.

Mr. BAILEY. And, of course, you are protesting the suggestion conained in H.R. 7140 that this allotment for what we ordinarily call the B category youngsters, where they work on the base but live off he base, be cut from 50 to 40 percent?

Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I have no objection to that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROSE. And I touch on why later on, but if this is an in-lieu-ofax legislation which ignores the previous nine years of philosophy pack of the bill, which has been amply brought out this morning and I need not add to it

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. It does not ignore it. There are certain modiications in the formula. I don't know why you ignore the basic hilosophy in the statement with which you disagree in part and I hink all the committee members that disagree in part, but I still think you are not gaining any ground by trying to say that the administraion in an effort to save money is doing it at the expenses of the 3,500 who will get less money.

Mr. BAILEY. Let me ask you this question: What kind of shape would you be in locally to meet the situation if this amendment would e approved?

Mr. ROSE. The first year this amendment would mean a loss, based n last year's facts-we don't know what next year's facts will bef around $198,000 only for the 3 percent stopgap provision, and that would reduce it to about $90,000 because 3 percent of our $3 million udget would be $90,000. I would like to turn over if I may to this uestion. The testimony of the Department states, "Our proposal ests on an extensive study of sources of local revenues which have een provided by the Census Bureau study." The report referred to ¡ actually entitled, "Property Tax Assessments in the United States." Mr. BAILEY. Mr. Lafore said he would be glad to come back again. et us go over and answer the quorum call and we will come back

ere at 1:30.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I regret to say I will not be able to be back, uch as I would like to, because Mr. Rose is also an interesting witness. (Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., Wednesday, August 19, 1959, the comittee adjourned, to reconvene at 1:30 p.m., the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. BAILEY (presiding). The subcommittee will come to order. We will resume hearings of H.R. 7140.

STATEMENT OF OSCAR V. ROSE, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, MIDWEST CITY, OKLA.-Resumed

Mr. BAILEY. Mr. Rose, would you continue from where you left off?

Mr. ROSE. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

After I have completed my statement, I will be glad to answer any questions or discuss my statement.

Mr. BAILEY. You may proceed.

Mr. ROSE. I want to say that I have no intent of casting any reflections, certainly not politically, on any individual or any department. However, I think we have to be, in a sense, rather frank to express a position. I realize it is going to be different from that expressed by the Department.

The Secretary based his position concerning the present legislation almost entirely on the philosophy that Public Laws 874 and 815 are in-lieu-of-tax legislation and almost completely ignores the almost unanimous references to these two laws by everyone including the Members of Congress as Federal impact legislation. He states:

I am also unalterably opposed to giving certain school districts Federal aid which exceeds the losses they incur by reason of Federal operations within their districts.

Yet he did not cite a single instance where an analysis of the total revenues available to a school district in comparison with the need requirement of a greatly increased student body resulting from Federal operations was out of line with other school districts not so affected. His philosophy makes it doubly sure that the educational opportunities of children of the military and civilian personnel needed in our continuing defense effort would be limited to that found in whatever school district the Federal Government chose to locate an installation. In other words, if losses only justify assistance, then the education program there at the time the installation is established becomes the standard by which we would measure the educational opportunity offered for both military and civilian employees needed in the installation.

He would make certain that unless it results from a tax loss the financial condition at the time of establishing the installation even though it worsened by the direct and indirect impact would still maintain. I want to say that I cannot measure it and I don't believe anybody can measure it.

But there is an indirect affect on a community because of a completely overwhelming installation. I don't know who you can say is responsible for what or how much. The children are there. With the district making more than the normal effort in the area under the tax pattern established by the State and local governments, it could still not have an educational program.

I am willing to admit that there might be a question as to whose responsibility it is that that condition exists. But it did not exist

to the Federal Government installation and it does exist now. not always measured equitably by the present formula of the bill. will find it varying from, in a sense, district to district and State

tate.

e have, throughout the 9 years, corrected some of those inequities could be shown to the committees in Congress.

n the contrary, the philosophy of the Congress which has not ged since the original Public Law 874 was approved in 1950, was expressed when it declared

the policy of the Federal Government to bear a portion of the cost of tenance and operation of free public elementary and secondary schools in local education agencies upon which the United States has placed finanburdens by reason of the fact that (1) local revenues of such agencies have reduced as the result of acquisition of real property by the United States, 2) such agencies provide education for children residing on Federal property, 3) such agencies provide education for children whose parents are employed ederal property, or (4) there has been a sudden and substantial increase in ol attendance as the result of Federal activities.

his committee's Report No. 1532, March 19, 1958, says regarding declaration of policy, "Section 1 of the existing law remains unged by this bill." This same report states the purpose remains same as in the original legislation for Public Law 815, which is - of

iding assistance for the construction of minimum school facilities in school ricts which have had substantial increases in the number of children in these ols who reside on tax-exempt Federal property, who reside with a parent is employed on such property, or whose presence in the school district Its from activities of the United States carried on either direct or through ntractor.

Even though the Department would reduce the rates of Federal ments under Public Law 874, no evidence has been submitted inating the present rates have more than achieved this purpose, as ced in the law.

Since the present rates of payments under Public Laws 874 and do not produce excessive total revenues to the impacted districts comparison to other districts in the respective States, the only result De expected by reducing them would be to provide a reduced eduonal program for the 8 million children involved and to continue house many of them in temporary, makeshift buildings, or on halfy sessions. That is assuming that they are levying the maximum , their percentages are the same as found in other districts. I certain that a very careful investigation of the applicants would ow that to be the case.

This, of course, would apply equally to all children alike, the direct erally connected, those resulting from an indirect impact due to deral activities, as well as the student body prior to the Federal imct. They would all be stuck with that level of education.

I might say with respect to the Midwest School District that prior the establishment of Tinker Field, there were not too many chilen there, perhaps, about 200. But they had about $5,500 back of h child in assessable property, which was way above the average Oklahoma, way above the average in Oklahoma County, the metrolitan county, though not quite as much as Oklahoma City. Today is about $1,600 of assessed value of property back of each child.