STATEMENT OF HORACE SEELY-BROWN, JR., M. C., SECOND CONNECTICUT DISTRICT

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much being given the opportunity to present this statement in support of legislation to amend and extend public laws relating to Federal aid to education and school construction.

As we all know, the school population of many districts has been greatly increased by the swift growth of defense activities. In the State of Connecticut there are numerous localities which have been affected by tremendous growth in the school population. Several of these localities are within my own congressional district, and, consequently, I have firsthand knowledge of the serious budgetary problems facing the towns in their efforts to meet the operating expenses of the schools in the districts overburdened by Federal activities. Insofar as Public Law 874 is concerned, it is certainly my hope that the law will be extended for another 2 years beyond June 30, 1957. In my opinion, an extension of this law will be necessary so long as the Federal impacts which it is designed to compensate are present.

The 3 percent absorption feature of the act, the operation of which has been postponed for 3 years in succession, 1 year at a time, should be eliminated, I believe, through June 30, 1957, and for the 2 proposed years of the act's extension, if not permanently. If this feature should be operative in 1956–57, it is estimated that the aggregate loss for affected towns in the State of Connecticut alone would be no less than $600,000, or 50 percent.

I am also in favor of extending eligibility as federally connected pupils for those children of military personnel who were sent to Federal installations in any locality on military orders in the first place, just as long as the children still reside in the locality, even following transfers of parents to other assignments on military orders. In the past it has been necessary to take such children off the lists from the day the parents were transferred (unless also resident on Federal property), under the restriction that employment on Federal property must be within the State or reasonable commuting distance thereof. Such children became a Federal responsibility on their original arrival to the extent that parents were employed on tax exempt property. Insofar as tax resources are concerned, the town is no better off after the parent is transferred to another station than when the parent lived in the original locality.

Another provision of vital concern to school districts in my area is that dealing with the extension of the federally connected residential status of children who reside in federally owned housing, for a period of 1 year following the fiscal year during which the Federal housing is disposed of. Numerous public housing projects in my district are slated for disposal in the near future. Under the best of conditions, an inevitable lapse of time will occur before there is a tax yield from the residences. In one area alone, the schools stand to lose an estimated $100,000 during the first year that the children from these projects are no longer counted. This is in addition to a somewhat higher figure which the town stands to lose from its payments in lieu of taxes.

The provision of H. R. 10227 dealing with Public Law 815 in which I am most interested also bears on the imminent disposal of Federal housing units. Any extension of Public Law $15 would presumably provide for construction aid based on the overall increase in any community of federally connected pupils over the 2-year period, 1956–58, following the pattern of previous extensions. The loss of federally connected status for children residing on projects disposed of would make impossible any construction aid to meet increases in children on projects in other portions of the town. In view of the fact that practically all towns would be critically affected if they had to provide school facilities to house further increases in federally connected children elsewhere within its borders, I believe it is in the best interest of all concerned to permit the counting of children in former federally owned projects as still federally connected for the purpose of the comparative enrollment computations involved. I most earnestly urge your committee to give consideration to the specific points which I have discussed. I am sure that the particular provisions to which I have referred are as applicable to many other localities as they are to towns within my own congressional district.

I would appreciate the opportunity of speaking, and shall try to do so as briefly as possible.

We are especially interested in certain features of H. R. 10227 in our town. We are, of course, concerned that the legislation be renewed for 2 years in each case, 874 and 815, as provided in this bill.

This legislation has been a life-saver for our town. We feel that it has been well administered and that on the whole its provisions have been just and equitable.

We favor the provision in the bill to eliminate the operation of 3 percent, so-called absorption feature for the remainder of the present life of the bill through June 30, 1957, and hope that it will be taken out of the extension.

For the past 2 or 3 years the Congress recognizing the undesirability of this feature, the hardship that it works on many communities, has postponed its effect from year to year. We have been very grateful for that.

So far as our town is concerned, the elimination of it for this next year would keep us from a loss of a little over $20,000 in revenue from this bill.

We feel that the Federal responsibility should extend to all pupils affected.

That $20,000 is perhaps not a large amount out of the total amount. Our annual payments under 874 are now approaching $350,000, but $20,000 is half a mill.

The grants which are paid, helpful and generous as they are, represent about 30 percent of our budget together with the payments in lieu of taxes.

Our impact is approximately 40 percent. Sixty percent of our children are federally connected one way or another, but about a little over a third of those are connected both by residence and parents' employment and the other two-thirds are connected either by residence of parents' employment.

We are the most heavily impacted town in our State. In many other school districts which are dependent in part on the benefits of Public Law 874, the percentage reduction would be much greater.

I made a rough estimate from a table I prepared a couple years ago for all the affected towns in the State, the loss would be about $600,000; something over 50 percent of the payments that do go into them.

Our loss is less, percentagewise, because of the fact that our Federal impact is heavier and he 3 percent applies to the remaining nonFederal portion of the amount to be deducted from your affected pupils percentagewise is less.

We are interested also in the provision for permitting the children of parents who are transferred from the area on military orders to continue still as federally connected pupils so long as they reside in the school district.

It frequently happens with us that families will move into the area or a family will move into the area, say, because he has been assigned to the submarine Croaker, which has its home port there at our submarine base. After he has been there a year or two, he may be transferred, say, to the Red Fin, which may be at Portsmouth, N. H., or maybe at Norfolk, Va.

Since that is outside the State, the moment that the parent is transferred the children are no longer federally connected.

The amount involved is not large. A few days ago I estimated the total number of pupils that would be involved this year in terms of average daily attendance, and it was about 42. And that would represent about 4,600 in income additional to what they have now.

There is an incidental factor which has not been mentioned previously, that it makes our pupil accounting very complex to have to keep tract of the moves of the parents of these children. We try to do it and do it faithfully and take them off our records if they are off at the end of January, well, their attendance just counts for half a year, and so on.

Another feature of the bill in which we are greatly intersted is that which permits children of parents on Federal housing properties to retain their Federal residential status for a period of 1 year following the end of the fiscal year during which the Federal Government has disposed of the properties.

A number of school districts throughout the country are facing that kind of problem, and we are. There are 1,640 units of Federal housing in our town representing two large housing projects under the Public Housing Administration which are scheduled for disposal and sale either to the municipality or to private owners. They represent approximately 1,450 pupils in terms of average daily attendance.

The serious problem which the community faces is the transition period before these residences are again picked up on the grand list and give the town a tax yield comparable to the payments in lieu of taxes and the Federal grants under Public Law 874.

For us, in the first year after these children are no longer federally connected, it would mean a loss of $99,500 from our net entitlement under the grant under Public Law 874.

In addition to a loss to the town for general municipal purposes including schools of $106,000.

There are 5 mills on our grand list which it would take 2 or 3 years at least to pick up.

We are very much interested in that feature of the law.

Mr. Seely-Brown, our Congressman, has been quite close to that housing situation.

Mr. PERKINS. He has appeared before the committee on that very point on several previous occasions.

Mr. BUTLER. Of the provisions of H. R. 10227 for amending Public Law 815, we are most interested in one that also relates to these housing developments. As I understand the provision, the children on former Federal housing developments which have been disposed of at private sale may continue to count as federally connected for the purpose of determining the overall increase in a school district of federally connected pupils.

Now, even though these are disposed of, the children will still be in town and we are getting increases elsewhere in town, notably in the United States Navy area where there are two large housing projects, including one title VIII that has been occupied for only a year.

In addition to that we are having large increases of federally connected pupils living in private housing projects due to a renewed expansion of the Electric Boat Co. which is now underway. Those increases are going to require some new school contributions.

Mr. PERKINS. New housing projects you are speaking about?

Mr. BUTLER. Yes, sir; but the eligibility for the payment of construction grants has been based according to the patterns of extension of 815 which have been voted up to now, are based on the increases in federally connected pupils over the year from which the count previously came.

With the children from the 1,640 unit housing projects out of the count it will take us 5 or 6 years and perhaps more than that, to show an overall increase and yet the problem is elsewhere in the town due to change in policy of the Government.

So that this provision that does not penalize the town for the loss. in one section to meet a problem in another may be of considerable importance to us.

Mr. Chairman, we are in favor of all of the provisions of H. R. 10227. We have studied thém carefully with our colleagues from elsewhere in the country. But I have spoken on the fatures which are of most importance to our community, the town of Groton, Conn.

Thank you for the opportunity of presenting this.

Mr. PERKINS. Did you ever have any impact brought about pri-: marily from the Coast Guard activities and submarine base and other governmental activities up there? Have you been able to house the school children, or do you have many of them on a part-time basis?

Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, that is to the operation of Public Law 815, on February 1 of this year we had housing for all of our children on a full schedule for the first time since 1941, except for a brief period.

It is testimony to the beneficence of Public Law 815 for us.

Our problem is going to continue to grow, but as of the moment and primarily due to the funds which were available to our town under Public Law 815 and for which it qualified we have a seat for every child and rooms for all children.

Mr. RHODES. Do you have any equalization law in Connecticut? Mr. BUTLER. No, sir. The State does participate in the financing of local public education, but the law is not on an equal basis. The law is on a sliding scale of the numbers of pupils, the rate going down as the numbers go up.

Our State's contribution presently for our town is between 21 and 22 percent of our budget.

Mr. RHODES. Your State makes no effort to distribute the money on the basis of need, or the basis of cost per pupil?

Mr. BUTLER. No; there is no relation to either of those factors. There is a requirement that the community must expend $200 per pupil.

Mr. RHODES. From its own tax resources?

Mr. BUTLER. No; overall.

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Wainwright.

Mr. WAINWRIGHT. I would like to say there is just 25 miles of border separating my home and Groton on Long Island.

Do you have any students from Fishers Island that come over and take their high-school courses in your school district?

Mr. BUTLER. No; we don't.

Mr. WAINWRIGHT. No.

Mr. BUTLER. To the best of my knowledge they take care of themselves over there. If they came across the water they would probably go to New London, which is across the river, although it is better known than Groton, it is no longer larger than Groton.

Mr. PERKINS. We certainly appreciate your appearing here and detailing concisely just how these laws have operated. I appreciate your suggestions.

Mr. BUTLER. Thank you, sir.

Mr. PERKINS. At this time the committee will recess until either 3 or 3:30 this afternoon.

The representatives of NAACP will testify at that time.

(Thereupon, at 12 noon, the committee was recessed, to reconvene at 3 p. m., same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. PERKINS. We are certainly glad to have you put in your appearance to present the views of the NAACP.

If at this time you will give the committee your name, you may proceed in your own way. We will be delighted to hear you.

STATEMENT OF CLARENCE MITCHELL, DIRECTOR OF THE WASHINGTON BUREAU OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am Clarence Mitchell, director of the Washington bureau of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Before giving my formal statement, Mr. Chairman, I want to say a word of appreciation to you for the years of cooperation that you have given on matters in the civil-rights field. There are a great many people who think that people who believe in civil rights only live in Massachusetts, Oregon, and Minnesota. But all who know you know that your record shows that in the State of Kentucky there are a lot of people also who believe in civil rights. I just want to take this opportunity to thank you for your past cooperation and assistance. Our statement is as follows:

The NAACP has been seeking an amendment to Public Laws 874 and 815 for a number of years. The text of the amendment we seek is set forth in the Congressional Record of January 24, 1956, page 1033. This was worded, Mr. Chairman, in order to conform to the language of the Kelley bill which came out of the committee. Mr. PERKINS. Yes.

Mr. MITCHELL (reading):

[State plans shall] provide that school facilities of the State are open to all children without regard to race, in conformity with the requirements of the United States Supreme Court decisions; except that if a State plan does not so provide, it shall not prevent payment of funds authorized under this act to such State for use in counties or other political subdivisions within the State that are operating their schools in conformity with the said Supreme Court decisions.

Mr. Chairman, a little later on in my testimony I refer to Hoxie, Ark. That is a community which has integrated its schools. Under the terms of our amendment, even though the State of Arkansas has not integrated as a matter of State policy, the fact that the community of Hoxie has integrated would make it eligible for benefits under this proposal.

The amendment also provides that in instances where States are not in compliance money earmarked for them would be available when they do comply.

I think it is important to mention that because it is often said that if States do not agree to obey the Supreme Court decision, under the terms of our amendment they would, for a long time, be prevented