count the nonfederally connected children toward the priority, you only count the federally connected. So you assume that they have had in addition to the percentage of federally connected a 10-percent increase of non-Federal children in the same area before you start on this.

Mr. FOGARTY. I think the Office of Education should do something about a supplemental. At least they should say that they are either for a supplemental or against it so we can know up here what to do about it.

How much money would be needed under the old Public Law 815, to meet the entitlements for construction for which funds were never appropriated?

Mr. GRIGSBY. You recall that the Congress in amending the act authorized an appropriation not to exceed $55 million, and not to exceed 70 percent of the unpaid entitlements under the old act. That provision of the law has not been implemented with an appropriation request.

Mr. FOGARTY. Why?

Mr. GRIGSBY. I think the explanation is in these terms.

That none

was sent forward by reason of the fact that the Department and the administration bill supported by the Department made no such provision.

Mr. FOGARTY. But Congress did?

Mr. GRIGSBY. Yes.

Mr. FOGARTY. So they are not going to pay any attention to Congress, is that it?

Mr. GRIGSBY. I think if Congress were to insist on the submission of a supplemental estimate in that amount the Bureau of the Budget would no doubt acquiesce.

Mr. FOGARTY. I don't look at it that way. I think it is the responsibility of the Office of Education to submit to the Bureau of the Budget a supplemental request to fulfill a law passed by Congress last August. If they don't do that, the only thing that can be done is for some Member to offer an amendment, without a budget request, on the floor of the House. To me, that is a firm commitment. Some of these communities went out and borrowed money to construct these schools on the basis of the old law and they never received the funds the law said they were entitled to; isn't that so?

Mr. GRIGSBY. Yes. I think there was a total of about $96 million of unpaid entitlements based upon eligible projects that have been submitted.

Mr. FOGARTY. That were eligible under the law?

Mr. GRIGSBY. Yes, and projects were approved under the law if appropriations were sufficient to meet them; $25 million of $96 million was for the so-called reimbursement projects, that is, the district had gone ahead after the passage of the act, had constructed facilities with its own money and had claimed entitlement and reimbursement as the act provided it might for facilities that had constructed within the amount of its entitlement.

The remainder of the $96 million of unpaid entitlements was for actual approvable construction projects which had not been constructed by the school districts but were awaiting construction if the funds had been available.

Mr. FOGARTY. Will you for my benefit give me a breakdown for the record of the number of projects or applications in Rhode Island under both laws, Public Law 815 and 815 as amended and their status as of today?

Mr. GRIGSBY. Yes.

(The material referred to follows:)

Local educational agencies (applicants), entitlements under sec. 202, title II, Public Law 815, funds requested for construction and reimbursement projects, Federal funds reserved, and additional funds needed to approve all eligible projects for fiscal years 1951 and 1952, Rhode Island

List of Rhode Island applications under sec. 305 of Public Law 815 (as amended)

Mr. FOGARTY. So those communities which did go ahead and construct these schools are being penalized now by not being able to collect?

Mr. GRIGSBY. That is as respects the reimbursement.

Mr. FOGARTY. Isn't it more expensive for the Federal Government to build and operate schools than it is to participate with the local communities in a program like this to build and operate schools on a local level?

Mr. GRIGSBY. There is no question about it.

Mr. FOGARTY. It costs the Federal Government more per year to educate a child than it does in this program under these two laws? Mr. GRIGSBY. There is no question about it, because of the maintenance and operation law the Federal Government is coming in the picture financially as the local taxpayer and paying a local share of the cost of the education of the child in relation to the child who lives

on Federal property or his parent is employed on it. The State comes in and pays the State's share, if any. So that by and large for the country as a whole about 50 percent of the costs of elementary and secondary education is carried by the local real-estate tax. The other half is carried by State aid of one sort or another for the Nation as a whole. So the Federal Government is paying the local share of about 50 percent. Roughly, it would cost double to pay the full share of the cost of the education of the child on a military base.

Mr. FOGARTY. If Congress enacts laws like Public Law 815 and doesn't appropriate money to carry them out-you couldn't blane some of these communities for letting the Federal Government build the schools and educate the children. That is a responsibility of the Federal Government. I don't think anybody questions that. It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to see that these children of servicemen get an education. We do that overseas.

Mr. GRIGSBY. A few States do disclaim responsibility for the education of children living on Federal property. Most of the States have accepted that responsibility, the responsibility of educating all children within their borders whether they live on military posts or not.

Mr. FOGARTY. Has the Office of Education given any consideration to a bill for general aid to education such as teachers salaries or transportation or things of that kind?

Mr. GRIGSBY. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. FOGARTY. Nothing is being considered at the present time? Mr. GRIGSBY. Not as far as I know.

SCHOOL FACILITIES SURVEY

Mr. FOGARTY. I received in my office, I presume every Member of Congress did, the results of a recent school facilities survey. In just. a couple of minutes what does that show throughout the country? Mr. GRIGSBY. I haven't refreshed my mind on that survey before I came in here, so I may be wide of the mark on some of the statistics. That is the school facilities survey which was conducted with funds appropriated under authorization of title I of the old Public Law 815, in which the Federal Government authorized an appropriation of $3 million to match money with the States which would undertake the survey. The first phase of the survey dealing with the inventory of existing facilities and the then current need for additional school facilities, the result of which, as I recall it, indicates a need for classrooms as of September 1952 of about 312,000.

The second phase of the survey is now in progress which would attempt to project the needs for school facilities over the next several years, up to 1960, I believe, and to develop plans State by State, State plans, for the location of schools to meet their needs as anticipated or projected through 1960.

A third phase of the survey had to do with some evaluation, State by State, of the ability of the States to meet their needs for new construction.

The preliminary data of the need side seemed to indicate that as of September 1, 1952, there was a need for about 312,000 classrooms which would cost in the neighborhood of $10 billion, I believe, and the States and localities in terms of their present statutory limita

tions, assessment practices and all the rest, could at that time have raised about half of the total amount required.

1

What the facts are that represent this projection to 1960 and the States ability to meet the need I couldn't say.

Mr. FOGARTY. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GRISBY. Thank you very much.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE-JUDICIARY APPROPRIATIONS WALT HORAN, Washington, Chairman

LYLE O. SNADER, CLERK OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, TOM KENNAMER, DOORKEEPER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Bow. The committee will come to order.

We will now consider the supplemental request of the House of Representatives. The pertinent portions of House Document No. 330 will be inserted at this point into the record. (The material referred to is as follows:)

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SALARIES, OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

Office of the Doorkeeper

For an additional amount for "Office of the Doorkeeper," $13,615.

CONTINGENT EXPENSES OF THE HOUSE

Stationery (Revolving Fund)

For an additional amount for "Stationery (revolving fund)," $3,200, to remain available until expended.

CAPITOL POLICE

CAPITOL POLICE BOARD

For an additional amount for "Capitol Police Board," $2, 855.

EDUCATION OF SENATE AND HOUSE PAGES

For an additional amount for “Education of Senate and House pages," $2,785. Mr. Bow. We are pleased to have with us Mr. Lyle Snader, Clerk of the House of Representatives, who will make his presentation at this time.

Mr. SNADER. Mr. Chairman, we have pending before your committee 5 supplemental estimates of appropriations required by the legislative branch, House of Representatives, for the fiscal year ending

June 30, 1954; 4 of which are contained in House Document 330, 83d Congress, 2d session, and 1 as submitted through the Bureau of the Budget, by letter dated February 15, 1954, but not yet printed in document form.

The first item calls for a supplemental appropriation of $13,615 for "Salaries, officers and employees," Office of the Doorkeeper, and represents the amount paid for salaries of pages during the month of August 1953. Our regular appropriation as carried in the legislative appropriation acts each fiscal year provides only sufficient money to pay the salary of pages on a 7-month basis and should Congress remain in session for a longer period than 7 months during a fiscal year, a deficiency or supplemental appropriation must be obtained. The 1st session of the 83d Congress adjourned August 3, 1953, and, under the law, the salaries of pages were paid through August 31, 1953, on which latter date they were automatically dropped from the payroll. The pages were again reappointed January 1, 1954, and their salaries will be paid through June 30, 1954, out of the appropriation for the fiscal year 1954. In other words, the pages will be paid on the basis of 8 months during the current fiscal year 1954, and as the regular appropriation was based on only 7 months, this supplemental appropriation representing the actual amount paid for salaries of pages during August 1953, will necessarily be required.

The second item calls for a supplemental appropriation of $3,200 for contingent expenses of the House, "Stationery revolving fund," and represents a stationery allowance of $800 each for 4 new Members of Congress, elected by special elections during 1953. The stationery allowance of $800 for the 1st session of the 83d Congress was not available for these 4 new Members, as their predecessors received the allowance, which became available to them on January 3, 1953. These four new Members are as follows:

Hon. William H. Natcher, Second District of Kentucky, elected August 1, 1953, to fill vacancy of Hon. Garrett L. Withers, deceased April 30, 1953.

Hon. Lester R. Johnson, Ninth District of Wisconsin, elected October 13, 1953, to fill vacancy of Hon. Merlin Hull, deceased May 17, 1953.

Hon. Harrison A. Williams, Sixth District of New Jersey, elected November 3, 1953, to fill vacancy of Hon. Clifford P. Case, resigned August 16, 1953. Hon. Glenard P. Lipscomb, 24th District of California, elected November 10, 1953, to fill vacancy of Hon. Norris Poulson, resigned June 11, 1953.

The third item calls for a supplemental appropriation of $2,855 for the "Capitol Police Board," and represents the additional amount required by the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, in paying increases in salaries paid to three officers detailed to the United States Capitol. These increases became effective July 1, 1953, as authorized by the "District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1953," Public Law 74, 83d Congress, approved June 20, 1953.

The fourth item calls for a supplemental appropriation of $2,785 for "Education of Senate and House Pages," and represents the additional amount required for increases in salaries paid to the teachers of the District of Columbia School System, assigned to the Capitol Page School. These increases also became effective July 1, 1953, as authorized by the "District of Columbia Teachers' Salary Act of 1947," as amended by Public Law 189, 83d Congress, approved August 5, 1953.