The effect of sudden impact is still very real in Iowa. As an example, a house could be built early in 1959 and not appear on the tax rolls until January 1, 1960, and taxes on this home would not be collectible until 1961. In the case of trailer homes, the maximum collected is $3 per month and only one-half of that goes to the school fund.

I am quoting from a communication from Mr. James C. Harris, superintendent of schools of the Sergeant Bluff-Luton Community School District:

The loss under 815 would have required a bond issue vote and if it passed the cost would have raised taxes 44 mills. We could not have voted the bond issue because it would have been beyond the legal limit. The district, I am sure, would not vote it in. It is the stated opinion of the board that if the airbase children from the Sioux City Airbase do not bring in adequate finances, the board will refuse to educate the children.

I would like also to quote from a communication from Mr. Walter L. Hetzel, superintendent of the Ames Public Schools, Ames, Iowa:

In 1957-58 we had 187 federally related students enrolled for which we received from the Federal Government $22,376.85 out of a total budget of $1,196,451.68.

During the current school year 1958-59, our federally related enrollment has risen to 291 which is 104 more than a year ago. I do not know how much we will receive for these federally related students. Our total budget for the current year is about $1,478,304.

We estimate that we will have a federally related enrollment of 458 by June 1960. We now have an application for project assistance under Public Law 815 for a total amount of $330,000 to help us with our school construction problem.

As you doubtlessly know, the Federal Government is constructing a $16 million animal disease research laboratory here. Next week bids will be opened to construct an additional $1,900,000 atomic energy building. These two projects will undoubtedly cause a marked growth in our federally related students. The $16 million animal disease research laboratory is located just outside our school district on the edge of the city. If the proposed amendments to Public Law 815 and 874 are to be enacted, it is clear that we would be rather adversely affected. The existing atomic energy and hog cholera control operation that are within our district, together with the expansion of atomic energy likewise within the district, will also affect us adversely. You are familiar, I am sure, with the effort that was made in the Iowa Legislature to get the State of Iowa to recognize the impact that State activities have on our school district. While this came close to a measure of success, no helpful legislation was enacted. If the Federal Government amends Public Laws 874 and 815, I shall know how Caesar felt when he said, "Et tu, Brute."

Following is a quotation from Mr. Millard Z. Pond, superintendent of the Burlington Community School District:

Burlington maintains a high quality educational program, the operating budget of which was $1,937,681.69 for the 1957-58 school year. During this same school year we received $83,278 in Public Law 874 payments, based on 631 qualified children. The elimination of the Public Law 874 payments in that year would have cost our taxpayers nearly 21⁄2 mills. It seems but fair that overburdened property taxpayers should not have to absorb the cost of additional services resulting from the presence of the Federal projects. Moreover, gradually increasing school enrollments will cause the Burlington School

45135-59-5

District to add classroom space to its physical plant. A number of these classrooms will be occupied by the children whose parents work on Federal property.

In closing I would again like to point out any reduction on the formula at this time would be very unfair to the affected districts. As mentioned before, the budgets have been established and hearings held and budgets adopted. I am hoping that this committee will see fit to continue the reimbursement on the present basis, at least for the coming year. Should it be decided that reductions are necessary, I would suggest that it be on a gradual basis and that the affected districts be fully notified at least 1 or 2 years before the reductions

occur.

Again I wish to thank you for this opportunity to appear before this committee and for your patience in hearing this testimony.

Mr. BAILEY. The Chair wants to commend you for your forthright and factual statement.

Mr. Brademas, do you have any questions?

Mr. BRADEMAS. I should only like also to congratulate Mr. Woodruff on this excellent statement.

Mr. BAILEY. Mr. Lafore?

Mr. LAFORE. I would like to associate myself with my colleagues in thanking Mr. Woodruff.

I would also like to ask one question.

I see both in your starting remarks and in your summation that you seem to feel it is possible to do this if it is done on a gradual basis, yet your arguments are very strong for not doing it at all.

If you have reached the debt limit and cannot issue any more bonds, and so forth, how can it be done under any basis, whether it be on a reduced period over a long time or whether it is done this year?

I can understand the budget situation. Suppose it went into effect in a year or two? How can it be done?

Mr. WOODRUFF. There are three different categories. I think reductions where the people live and work on Federal property is not contemplated. That is as I understand it.

Where the people live off the base and work on the base, then they come in a considerable number, and many of them live in trailers. In Iowa we get only $1.50 a month, no matter how many children are in the trailer.

Mr. LAFORE. Is that a State law?

Mr. WOODRUFF. Yes, sir. It has nothing to do with the Federal Government.

However, if the people are notified in advance, I suppose it is possible to strengthen your credit ordinances. In the county it is rather difficult though the cities can do it.

We have in our county one small rural district where a great many people have moved into rather low cost housing where the return from taxation is very meager. That district receives reimbursement under 874, in a category where people work on a Federal installation but do not live there, and their mill rate is very, very high.

If you removed the Federal reimbursement, then it would almost be a calamity, it would be a calamity, for this little school, because the valuation for each child is very, very low.

I think that is typical throughout the United States. I know it is so in our particular district.

I should think if any reductions of people who work on the Federal property and do not live there should be made, the school district should be advised at least 1 or 2 years in advance of a gradual reduction, and whatever adjustments can be made in regulations could be developed in time.

Mr. BAILEY. Thank you, Mr. Woodruff. The committee appreciates your presence here and your interest in this matter.

Mr. WOODRUFF. Thank you, sir.

Mr. BAILEY. Our next witness will be the Honorable Charles M. Teague.

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN CHARLES M. TEAGUE

Mr. TEAGUE. I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Congressman Charles Teague of the 13th Congressional District in California. Mr. BAILEY. Proceed, Mr. Teague.

Mr. TEAGUE. I have with me a letter received yesterday from the business manager of the Monterey Public School System, Monterey County, Calif.

This letter was written to me at my suggestion after I learned that two or three members of the Monterey School System-the business manager, the superintendent, and possibly a member of the board-had planned to come back here and testify on this subject.

I suggested that I felt that was not necessary, and if they would send me this letter I would present it to the committee in their behalf. With your permission I would like to read a section of this letter. It is only two paragraphs long. It summarizes very well the opposition of my school people.

I have about 56 or 57 school districts which would be affected by these proposed changes.

With your permission I will read this brief letter.

Mr. BAILEY. You may proceed.

Mr. TEAGUE (reading):

DEAR CONGRESSMAN TEAGUE: The new legislation as proposed would have a serious effect upon the educational standards of the Monterey District. Particularly important is the amendment proposed for 3-B pupils, allowing only 40 percent of allocation instead of 50 percent. In the Monterey City School District this would mean a loss of approximately $45,000, and in the high school district a figure of $22,000. These figures are based on the 1958-59 income. The loss in terms of a tax to replace it would be an 82-cent tax for the city district and a 4-cent tax on the high school district.

With the taxpayers being burdened as they are at the present time it would be difficult or impossible to ask the taxpayers to alleviate this loss in income. I won't go into all the arguments as to why we feel that the Federal income that we received is not a gift or a grant but is earned by the district. We do not consider this fund in lieu of taxes but merely the payment of funds to educate those who are federally connected. The existence of Federal installations within the school district takes thousands and thousands of acres off the tax rolls and brings 54 percent of the children in our schools for us to educate. The burden on the local taxpayer is almost impossible to measure— Mr. BAILEY. Am I to understand that 54 percent of your total enrollment are federally impacted?

Mr. TEAGUE. That is true, in the Monterey Public School System for whom this letter is submitted. It is not that high throughout my

district but this includes Fort Ord, the Army Language School and two Navy installations.

Of this 54 percent I think I can say that at least 75 percent, perhaps higher, are children of the military rather than civilian employees. Mr. BAILEY. You may proceed.

Mr. TEAGUE (reading):

The burden on the local taxpayer is almost impossible to measure, but certainly it is hard to conceive that the Federal student pays his own way. Any change in Public Law 874 or 815 would be to the detriment of the pupil as well as an unearned hardship on the taxpayer. These laws have operated most efficiently, and while many times we feel it is not sufficient they have served a definite need for the education of the youth throughout the United States.

Thank you very much.

Mr. BAILEY. Any questions of the gentleman from California? Mr. LAFORE. I did not understand one thing. Are there 50 plus school districts affected?

Mr. TEAGUE. 56 or 58 school districts.

Mr. LAFORE. Affected by the proposed changes?

Mr. TEAGUE. I am not positive I am correct on that, but 56, 57, or 58 school districts participating in either of these programs.

Mr. LAFORE. A total of how many approximately? Do they all participate?

Mr. TEAGUE. Yes.

Mr. LAFORE. That is the total, then?

Mr. TEAGUE. The total which participate under 815 of 874.

Mr. BAILEY. Thank you very much, Congressman Teague.

Mr. TEAGUE. Of course, I have many more school districts than that

in my congressional district.

Mr. LAFORE. How many do you have?

Mr. TEAGUE. Perhaps 300.

Mr. LAFORE. Thank you.

Mr. BAILEY. The next witness will be our distinguished colleague, the Honorable John F. Baldwin, also a Member of Congress from California.

You may identify yourself to the reporter, and give us your viewpoints on this legislation.

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JOHN F. BALDWIN

Mr. BALDWIN. My name is John Baldwin, representing the Sixth District of California.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you, as I have on a number of previous occasions on this general issue.

I am appearing in opposition to H.R. 7140, Mr. Chairman, and feel very strongly that this is a most inappropriate piece of legislation at this time when both the administration and Congress are considering additional legislation dealing with aid to education.

The administration has submitted a proposal to Congress to provide additional assistance to school districts, and this is an inappropriate time to consider seriously, at least-I am not saying there should not be hearings upon it and I appreciate the opportunity that the chairman and the subcommittee have given to those of us who want to

appear-but it would be a most inappropriate time to pass such a bill as this in my opinion.

I would like to quote a couple of figures. I have one county in my two-county district, one is practically completely military.

In that county there is Travis Air Force Base, 13,000 military and

civilians.

The second is Mare Island Naval Shipyard, 9,900 civilians.

Third we have Benicia with 2,800 civilians. There is not a source of industrial employment except for those 3 which has more than 300 workers. The largest industry in the whole county has 300 people whereas these 3 installations have a payroll of 13,000, 9,900, and 2,800, respectively

It happens that the town in which these civilians and military people live are sort of all betwixt and between.

Vallejo and Mare Island are in between and near Benicia. Many of the workers living in Benicia work at Vallejo.

Many of the workers living at Vallejo work at Benicia and Mare Island.

This bill would bar assistance to the school districts involved just because the people living in one area happen to work in the Federal installation of the other.

The principle of this bill is fallacious, it seems to me, because even though the people may work in an installation in a different school district, nevertheless the residential community in the school district is not representative when the main source of employment is by nearby Federal installations. It therefore seems to me that the principles here in this bill is basically incorrect.

The city of Vallejo, for example, with Mare Island Naval Shipyard, although it has a population of perhaps 70,000 or so the fact there are almost 10,000 people working in Mare Island Shipyard means the main source of employment is there.

Even though some of the people living in the community of Vallejo work in other surrounding installations, the imbalance in Vallejo is primarily in the Federal installations all the way around.

If we barred that school district from relief just because people happen to live there and work in other bases, I think it would be completely unfair.

Here are the statistics I would like to show in the way of a quotation. In the Vallejo unified school district, 43 percent of the children are from federally impacted families. Only 10 percent of the budget comes from the Federal Government today-that is, under the existing Public Law 874.

Forty-three percnt of the children are from federally impacted families. They live on private property but work on a Federal installation.

Mr. BAILEY. Would the gentleman want the committee to understand that the taxpayers of this particular district are bearing the major portion of the load of educating these people?

Mr. BALDWIN. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Let me give you a second example to indicate the imbalance that now exists.

I have a school district, the Crystal Union School District, the major part of Travis Air Force Base being there. Eighty-seven percent of