the 48 States, because it again would needlessly tie up a lot of good functions now carried on by the Federal Government.

Mr. MITCHELL. It certainly was the position that President Eisenhower announced that where the Federal dollar was involved there should not be any discrimination. That is a matter of record.

Now, of course, as we begin to apply that principle, various refinements take place, and we come out with opposition to what we are asking for here. But I think that certainly the President has made it abundantly clear that he does not think Federal money ought to be used to enforce and extend segregation or promote it.

That is exactly what happens whenever you give money in these cases to people who tell you in advance that they are going to use it for building a segregated school.

Mr. WIER. I am going to remind you of one thing. We have discussed the Rules Committee and in some degree we kind of condemned the Rules Committee. But, again, as I think now, I have to remind you that when the school construction bill went out of this committee to the Rules Committee, that there were those who wanted a closed rule by the Rules Committee so that no amendment could be offered. Now, I presume that you are aware of what took place in the Rules Committee on that question?

Mr. MITCHELL. I am.

Mr. WIER. You had 4 or 5 men who refused to go along with a closed rule, knowing that they only had one objective and that was to eliminate any possibility of the Powell amendment.

Mr. MITCHELL. And we think it would have been most unfair in view of the background that I am sure you remember in this committee.

Mr. WIER. So I want to modify my position of too much condemnation because there are those that wanted full and free discussion and amendments on that Rules Committee. I do not want to condemn the whole Rules Committee because it is like other committees, there are those who have certain philosophies. The Rules Committee was going to attempt to foster a closed rule on the school construction bill and thereby eliminate any amendments from the floor.

Fortunately for you, that was denied. So the bill is there. When we go home in July, I expect that the bill will still be there.

Mr. MITCHELL. I have no way of knowing what will happen.

Mr. WIER. You seem to have a lot of knowledge of what can happen around here and what cannot happen.

Mr. MITCHELL. I think I have a lot more faith in the legislative process than some other people do, because I believe that when those who want to do the right thing are just as determined to accomplish it as those who want to do the wrong thing, the men in the right will prevail.

So far in our experience on this and other things that we are interested in, we can get a tremendous and an aggressive amount of fighting on the part of opposition to frustrate the legislative process, but there is not quite that much vigor on the part of those who are interested in doing something that is worthwhile.

Mr. WIER. Now in conclusion, Mr. Mitchell, let me leave a statement with you. I hate to do this in public. After the meeting is over tonight, do not send any wire to Minneapolis to contract Congressman Wier on the Powell amendment.

76765-56-15

Mr. MITCHELL. Gentlemen of the committee, I want to say this: I don't know why Mr. Wier does not understand that we have a high regard for him. He and I were together up in St. Paul when there was a dinner at which I spoke and I spent, I guess, 10 minutes telling the people up there how wonderful he is and how much we admire him and that sort of thing. And when we send to the people back home word on what the situation is down here, we do so only with the hope that they will be more persuasive than we who are in Washington. But I had no intention of sending anything.

Mr. WIER. I would not want to have you disturb some of my very good colored friends.

Mr. MITCHELL. Happily in Minnesota there are many white people who believe in things, sometimes more vigorously than the colored people.

Mr. WIER. I do not want a wire tomorrow morning from 5 or 6 of my friends that I have gone haywire. That is all I have to suggest. Well, good luck to you, anyway.

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you.

Mr. PERKINS. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell for appearing and presenting your views.

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PERKINS. Is there any other individual that cares to make a statement here this afternoon?

If not, the committee will adjourn until 10 a. m. in the morning. (Whereupon, at 4:30 p. m., the hearing was adjourned until 10 a. m., Thursday, April 12, 1956.)

AMENDMENTS TO PUBLIC LAWS 815 AND 874,

81ST CONGRESS

THURSDAY, APRIL 12, 1956

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE

ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,
Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a. m., in room 429, House Office Building, the Honorable Carl D. Perkins (subcommittee chairman) presiding.

Present: Representatives Perkins, Wier, Metcalf, Udall, Rhodes, Wainwright, and Frelinghuysen.

Also present: Fred G. Hussey, chief clerk, and Russell C. Derrickson, chief investigator.

Mr. PERKINS. The committee will come to order. The first witness this morning will be Representative Broyhill. Is he here?

Mr. BROYHILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. PERKINS. Come around, Mr. Broyhill. I understand you want to make a statement.

Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Chairman, my distinguished colleague, Mr. Hays, from Arkansas, is here. I notice that there are some people here from his State. He would like to introduce these gentlemen before he leaves. He has to get to another meeting and if it is agreeable to you, I will yield to Mr. Hays at this time.

Mr. PERKINS. That is all right. Congressman Hays, the committee will be glad to hear you at this time.

Mr. WIER. Provided he tells us a story.

STATEMENT OF HON. BROOKS HAYS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, you will recall that the chairman embarrassed me the last time I was here by calling for an Arkansas story and I was not prepared. I think I reached into the bag quickly and I did not come out very well. However, this morning, I am reminded of something very definitely about outer Arkansas, or Texas. That is a good story which I would not tell if there were any Texas members present.

However, I am going to present to the committee this morning three distinguished educators from my State. The first is Dr. Clifford Blackburn, superintendent of schools of North Little Rock, Ark., who has just been elected to the faculty of the North Texas Teachers College, so we lose him to a State that we call outer Arkansas.

When I was on the United Nations Committee last fall, I was one of the members appointed by the President to the United Nations Commission. I stated at that time that I would be willing to admit Outer Mongolia if the Russians would accept outer Arkansas-Texasas a member of the United Nations in this package deal. Now, it did not help me any in Texas but it has not hurt me in Arkansas. Dr. Blackburn did such an outstanding job in our State that they did invite him to be on the faculty of the Texas Teachers College.

A friend of mine bumped into an old friend from east Texas and he said to him, "Tom, where are you living?" He said, "In east Texas." My friend said, "What did you leave Arkansas for?" He said, "On account of my belief." My friend said, "I do not understand that; we have always been very tolerant in Arkansas. What do you mean by saying on account of your belief?" He said, "I believed the mule was mine."

Now, Mr. Blackburn has not stolen any mules or violated any of the laws of our State. He is a great and outstanding citizen. I am very grateful to Mr. Broyhill for allowing me to make this presentation at this time, as I do have another engagement and must leave.

The others who will testify will do so at the conclusion of Mr. Broyhill's testimony, as I assume you will hear him first, Mr. Chair

man.

Mr. PERKINS. Yes.

Mr. HAYS. The others who will testify are Mr. W. H. Moore, State superintendent of education of Arkansas, and Mr. Fay Dunn, superintendent of the Little Rock Schools, Little Rock, Ark.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

This is one of my favorite committees. It happens that I have been called before you a number of times, and you have always been very fine and very gracious to me.

Mr. WIER. I might add, Brooks, that you have gained the title around here of a 3-percenter.

Mr. HAYS. Thank you. I can survive that one.

Mr. PERKINS. Congreessman Broyhill, at the conclusion of your testimony, I will hear any other members who are present, and I will then hear the witnesses introduced by Mr. Hays.

Proceed, sir.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL T. BROYHILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

Mr. BROYHILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to appear before the committee. I promised counsel yesterday that I would only take a very few minutes of the committee's time.

However, I do want to congratulate the committee for their interest and concern in this very serious problem. I feel that Public Law 874, and Public Law 815 are some of the most important pieces of legislation that this Congress can possibly consider.

Many of our colleagues oppose appropriations sometimes to implement this law because they feel maybe that this is a handout or a subsidy or a gift to some of the communities of the Nation.

Actually it is just a formula and a way in which the Federal Government can meet a portion of its just obligation to the communities

in which they are operating, where Federal activities have impacted on the area.

We know that if the communities which have suffered under this vast Federal impact did not receive some form of payment in lieu of taxes from that Federal industry, they just could not provide the needed amount of capital improvements and facilities, particularly the educational facilities which are necessary and which come about because of the Federal impact upon the communities because of governmental activities in those areas.

I cite some of the communities in my district, of which every member of the committee is familiar, I am sure, as examples. We are almost a suburb of Washington, D. C., the Nation's Capitol, but in the tenth district, I do not refer to it as a suburb of the Nation's Capitol. Over there, the National Capitol is a suburb of the tenth district.

However, the Federal Government is not only our principal industry but our only industry, and the Federal Government owns 40 percent of all the land area in the community, but it does not own any of the wasteland or the useless ground. They own the most valuable property in the area.

If it were a private industry owing the same amount of land and operating to the same extent that the Government does, we would receive almst as much tax revenue from it as we do from all other property combined.

Now, quite obviously, in the support of any community and its activities, the community must receive income from its industry, as the local residents and the local people will not be able to provide all of the capital facilities which are required.

Now, having the Federal Government as not only our principal industry, but our only industry, and it not paying taxes, we must have some form of payment in lieu of taxes in order to help us to provide proper educational facilities for our children.

I am not at all worried but what the committee is going to favorably consider this bill, because I know that every member of the committee recognizes the great need of this type of legislation and will consider it favorably as you have always done in the past.

The purpose of my appearing before the committee this morning, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, is to suggest an amendment to H. R. 10227 and with particular reference to section 305 concerning the local contribution rate.

Under the present law, I understand that the school districts can take either the average cost per pupil to the State as a whole, or the average cost of educating pupils from comparable school districts

in the State.

In this bill, you are permitting the school districts to use the local contribution rate, or, rather, the cost to the local taxpayers, for educating children in order to get assistance from this law, providing, however, that it does not exceed the average cost for educating children in the State as a whole.

I think that this is making progress, but I think that it is unfair to a lot of the school districts who, because the citizens of the districts want to provide better educational facilitities for their children, are not able to receive the proper amount of compensation from the Federal Government that they should receive, and also because of the