fact that the local citizens are contributing toward providing those facilities for the children of Federal employees who attend school in those areas. In areas such as Northern Virginia and also in Little Rock, Ark., Baltimore, Md., Denver, Colo., and San Francisco, Calif., to name a few, actually their cost of educating a child is more due to the Federal impact upon those areas.

For instance, we know over here in Arlington, Va., that the cost of educating our children is going to be governed by what the teachers in the District of Columbia receive for their services. We cannot pay our teachers in Arlington what they pay teachers down in Prince Edward County. We cannot provide educational facilities similar to what some of the local communities provide in areas where the attendance in the schools is rather limited.

We feel in northern Virginia that we have one of the finest educational systems in the country. Our standards are very high and our teachers' salaries are high.

Most of that cost is due to the fact that the Federal Government has created such a terrific impact there on the community. If we continue to use the average cost of educating pupils that Prince Edward County pays, and Norfolk, Va., pays, and that Roanoke pays, then actually the Federal Government will not be meeting anywhere near their proper obligation to the Northern Virginia communities for the children of Federal employees who are attending school in those communities.

I am proposing an amendment to H. R. 10227 which will permit, if committee sees fit to adopt it, which will permit the school districts to use the local contribution rate for reimbursement based on what it costs the taxpayers of that community to educate the nonfederally connected children. It will merely take the actual cost of the community in the previous year, and take that money received from the State and Federal Government, as a result of Public Law 815 and Public Law 874, to arrive at the exact amount it costs the local taxpayers to educate the children. We divide into that amount the total number of children in the community, in the schools, less the children of Federal employees who are being educated in the schools. Of course, we educate half of the children of the employees who are in the B group, for which we receive only half reimbursement.

Through this formula, we will arrive exactly at what it costs the local school districts to educate non-Federal children and, therefore, when we come to the cost of the education of federally connected children, we will only be asking for the exact cost of educating those federally connected children.

If we have to use the State average, then the formula is not accurate. It is of some help, but it is not a fair and equitable formula for these communities which feel that their cost is a great deal greater, and which is governed by the Federal impact on the community, and if the community is provided better educational facilties, then the local citizens are penalized for it.

I sincerely hope that the committee will give some thought to this proposal in order to try to provide a more fair and equitable local contribution.

That concludes my testimony.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee.

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Broyhill, the committee is well aware of your problem here in the Washington vicinity, but we realize also that your district is one of the large recipients of funds from this legislation. Now, at this time do you have any children in the Alexandria or the Fairfax area who are going to school on a part time basis?

Mr. BROYHILL. Yes, sir; we do have, Mr. Chairman.

We have a bond issue proposed over there now and, incidentally, Mr. Chairman, we are bonded up to over $30 million in Arlington County alone. If that bond issue is not approved, we will have even more pupils going to school on a part time basis. The community has bonded itself almost up to its legal limit now in order to provide educational facilities for the children in that area.

Mr. PERKINS. Well, this legislation helps up to the point that you do not have as many part time students attending school over there as you had 2 years ago.

Mr. BROYHILL. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. PERKINS. About how many part time students do you have? Can you give the committee an estimate of the number of part time students you have?

Mr. BROYHILL. I could provide that for the chairman and it could be placed in the record.

Mr. PERKINS. I would like to have you do that, and also give the number of part time students you had two years ago.

Mr. BROYHILL. Yes, sir.

(The information referred to will be available for reference when furnished.)

Mr. PERKINS. I can assure you that the committee will consider your suggestions when we get to writing up the legislation.

Mr. BROYHILL. Thank you.

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Wier, do you have any questions?

Mr. WIER. Mr. Chairman, why do you not have him submit his amendment to the committee?

Mr. PERKINS. Yes, place it in the record and then the clerk will furnish each member of the committee a copy of it.

(The amendment proposed by Mr. Broyhill is as follows:)

AMENDMENT TO H. R. 10227 PROPOSED BY MR. BROYHILL

Page 10, strike out section 305 (p. 10, line 14 through p. 11, line 9) and insert the following:

"SEC. 305. (a) Subsection (d) of section 3 of such act is amended by striking out "The local contribution rate for a local educational agency (other than a local educational agency in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Wake Island, or the Virgin Islands) for any fiscal year' and inserting in lieu thereof the following: 'A local educational agency (other than a local educational agency in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Wake Island, or the Virgin Islands) may elect whether to have its local contribution rate determined under this subsection or under subsection (f). If such an agency elects to have its local contribution rate determined under this subsection for any fiscal year, such rate.'"

(b) Section 3 of such act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

("f) If a local educational agency elects to have its local contribution rate determined under this subsection for any fiscal year, such rate shall be computed by dividing the aggregate current expenditures which such agency made during the fiscal year immediately preceding the fiscal year for which the computation is made from revenue derived from local sources, by the aggregate number of nonfederally connected children in average daily attendance to whom such agency provided free public education during such preceding fiscal year. For

the purposes of this subsection, the aggregate number of nonfederally connected children shall be the number of children in the membership of the local educational agency reduced by the sum of the number of children determined under subsection (a) and one-half the number determined under subsection (b).”

Mr. BROYHILL. In my statement I referred merely to Arlington County because I thought the committee was familiar with that, but there are many other communities in the country which have identically the same problem. We are merely talking about a fair and equitable formula to use.

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Udall, do you have any questions?

Mr. UDALL. No, I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WIER. I think attention should be drawn to the fact that he is merely providing another avenue to get a more equitable cost basis. We have had representatives before the committee from all over the United States that have referred to the Perkins' bill but they confined their remarks to the Perkins bill primarily. Most of them aim to accomplish about the same objective which you seek, Mr. Broyhill. Mr. BROYHILL. Yes.

Mr. WIER. Most of the school district representatives who have appeared here have been for the bill ever since the Department used it, and that is the 3 percent question.

Mr. BROYHILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. WIER. And that would help the school districts considerably if it were removed permanently.

Mr. BROYHILL. It certainly would, and I understand that is included in the bill, is it not?

Mr. WIER. Yes. So your approach here is merely another approach to it.

Mr. BROYHILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. WIER. But you have not confined yourself merely to proposals which are contained in the Perkins bill.

Mr. BROYHILL. I was confident that the committee in the consideration of the bill, would want to work out a fair and equitable formula, but I just wanted to point out that little example to show that we felt there was a little equity remaining in the bill as it is.

Mr. WIER. But the more important thing is to be sure that the bill is extended.

Mr. BROYHILL. Yes, sir, you are absolutely correct.

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Rhodes.

Mr. RHODES. I just want to thank our colleague, Mr. Broyhill from northern Virginia, for appearing here and giving us the benefit of his views. It is always nice to have you appear before the committee, Mr. Broyhill.

Come back anytime you can.
Mr. BROYHILL. Thank you.

The chairman of the Democratic

Party would not agree with you on that statement, however.

Mr. PERKINS. The committee, Mr. Broyhill, certainly appreciates your appearing here today to the same extent that it has appreciated your appearing before us in the past in behalf of this legislation.

Mr. BROYHILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee.

STATEMENT OF HON. STEWART L. UDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Mr. PERKINS. The delegation from Arkansas will have to wait until we get through with Congressman Udall.

Congressman Udall was promised a week ago that he would be heard this morning, and at this time we will hear from a member of our own subcommittee, Mr. Udall.

You may just proceed in your own way, Mr. Udall.

Mr. UDALL. Being, I hate to use the word, lazy-but I know that my colleagues understand the problems we have here I have no prepared

statement.

However, I do want to make a systematic presentation supporting H. R. 6803 as the new title to Public Law 815. I have talked to members of the committee before on this legislation which was introduced originally last June, and I know that many of you are somewhat familiar with its details, and I would like, both for the record and, perhaps, to fill you in on any aspects of the bill that you might not be familiar with, to make a rather thorough and, I hope, a brief statement on this bill.

Incidentally, considerable time has elapsed since the bill was first introduced and in working with the staff of the legislative counsel, we have made a few little modifications to H. R. 6803, which are before you this morning and there still must be made a few additional modifications to it, so it is not in its final form as yet.

Of course, the basic philosophy behind Public Law 815 and Public Law 874 is, it seems to me, that where the Federal Government, throught its activities and actions, produces an excessive impact on local people, local taxpayers, and the local tax base, that Federal responsibility was thereby invoked to provide assistance, and that is, I think, the principal consideration which impelled this committee originally to enact those laws.

Now, it seems to me, as a person who both had experience out in his own State a few years ago as a school board member in a school district which was impacted, and which received Public Law 815 money, and also having come from a State which, ahead of the Supreme Court decision, desegregated its schools in 1951 and 1952, and subsequently having had some experience in school desegregationputting those two experiences together, it seemed to me that we had in the Supreme Court's decision an impact which is equal to, or greater than, the impact which the Congress has previously recognized in enacting Public Law 815, that the principle is applicable, and that there is Federal responsibility.

Why do I assume that there is a Federal impact, and what is that impact?

Of course, beginning with the case of Plessy against Ferguson, which was handed down by the Supreme Court in 1896, the separate and equal doctrine applied as far as schools and school plants were concerned, and the so-called Southern States in our country proceeded from that time on, under the shelter of that doctrine, to plan their school systems and to erect school classrooms and school plants on the separate and equal idea.

Then, suddently, after almost 50 years or more, the Supreme Court abandoned and reversed the separate and equal facilities doctrine and

ordered the States which were maintaining schools under that doctrine to desegregate and integrate their schools.

Now, let us look at what the Supreme Court did. It seems to me that the Supreme Court, as 1 of the 3 branches of our Government, that its actions and activities are just as binding upon this committee as the actions of the Executive branch or the actions of Congress. What the Supreme Court said, as a practical matter, it seems to me, to these school districts, was: You must reorganize your school districts and your school plants and you must consolidate your school systems; you must abandon schools which do not fit into the program of desegregation and thereby, as your chairman from Kentucky would particularly know, because his State is undergoing desegregation right now, it presented local schools where there is the integration problem, not only with the very severe problem of handling the human relations involved, but of overcoming customs which are very deep-seated, and it also presented them in many area with a financial problem.

There are some areas where it is true that schools probably can integrate their pupils where there is a very small number of Negro pupils without difficulty and without enlarging school buildings, but there are many other areas-and I feel that we are going to be living with this problem and working with it for many years to come in various parts of the country-there are many areas where, in order to do what the Supreme Court has said these school districts must do, new classroom facilities must be constructed, and schools must be abandoned, and consolidations must take place.

Therefore, it seems to me that the impact of the decision of the United States Supreme Court is not only just as inclusive as the Federal impact of placing a defense plant in an area is, but, as a matter of fact, it seems to me that, in some respects, it is a more persuasive impact on these communities, because, at least, when you locate a defense plant in a community, the people who come in and get jobs are going to build homes and the homes will go on the tax rolls, and additional business will spring up as a result of the new payrolls in the community, and those businesses will find their way to the payrolls, and you thereby enlarge the tax bases in these communities in time. But there is no compensating factor whatsoever as far as these communities in the southern and in the border States are concerned. We simply state to them, you have to build new schools. To me there is a Federal impact that is the basis of the argument I present.

If the committee feels, however, that there is no Federal impact and wants to pitch their argument on that basis, I think we can dispute it, as far as that is concerned, but I base my new title 5 of Public Law 815 on the fact that it seems to me the Supreme Court decision provides a Federal impact just the same as the other impacts which have been previously recognized by the committee.

Of course, it does follow logically, then, that since there is a Federal impact, that a Federal responsibility is invoked and some Federal responsibility has been invoked under Public Law 815 of providing those facilities. Now, not on a matching basis, but on the same principle as Public Law 815 of building them outright.

I think the next question that we should address ourselves to is how this particular program works and is it workable.

Mr. WIER. Do you care to be interrupted on a subject as you go along, Mr. Udall? I see that you are going into another subject now.