Mrs. MINK. You used the current figure of 728. Thank you. Dr. ALFORD. That is a projected figure. Mrs. MINK. Thank you. Mr. FORD. The committee will stand adjourned until 10 a.m. April 6, 1970. (Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m. the subcommittee adjourned to reconvene at 10 a.m., Monday, April 6, 1970.) IMPACT AID REFORM ACT OF 1970 MONDAY, APRIL 7, 1970 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, GENERAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2261, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Roman C. Pucinski (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Pucinski, Bell and Quie. Staff Members Present: John F. Jennings, majority counsel, and Alexandra Kisla, clerk. Mr. PUCINSKI. The committee will come to order. We will resume hearing testimony today on H.R. 16307 and 16384, the Impact Aid Reform Act of 1970 as proposed by the President. We are delighted to have with us this morning Congressman Martin B. McKneally of New York, who has intense interest in this legislation. We are most anxious to have the views of the members of the Congress on this legislation, because surely we can all agree that the Impact Aid Bill has been among the most controversial pieces of legislation in our Congress for many years. It is like the weather; everybody wants to do something about it, but we are not quite sure what. So we are delighted to have the views of the respective members of Congress to give us some guidance on how this legislation would affect their respective districts. Congressman McKneally, of course we are privileged to have you here. You are one of the most highly respected members of the Congress and the testimony we receive from you will be extremely useful to the committee in evaluating this legislation. I would suggest that we proceed in any manner you wish. STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN B. McKNEALLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. McKNEALLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate greatly your kind remarks and your courtesy. I quite agree that the Impact Aid formula has been one of the most perplexing and most difficult issues, and I would be quite wrong if I undertook to hold myself out as an expert or one who knows the solution to the problem, or even that I could add to the knowledge that you and the committee have, Mr. Chairman, of this complicated subject. I can't pose as an expert, but I do come from a district which has impact aid and we know there, by the practical effect of the impact formula, what the school system is staggering under. I appreciate your courtesy in affording me this opportunity to present my views on H.R. 16307 and H.R. 16384, identical bills to amend existing law which provides financial assistance to local educational agencies upon which the United States has placed financial burdens by reason of federal activities in the area. I am here this morning to voice my strong opposition to these bills. I am confident that some of the Members of this Subcommittee are aware of my keen interest in education. I firmly believe that our nation should strive to afford our youth an opportunity to develop their academic talents to the limits of their individual capabilities. It goes without saying that if we are going to offer such opportunity we must maintain a public school system of the highest quality in this country. This cannot be done unless we allocate a sufficient portion of our financial resources to accomplish that objective. The two bills under consideration today will not promote the accomplishment of that objective. In fact, they detract from it; because, as far as I can determine, they will, if enacted, substantially reduce the federal contribution for impacted aid to almost every school district in this nation. The record of this hearing is already replete with testimony from school officials across the length and breadth of this land that this new proposal will result in teacher dismissals, curtailments in programs and shortening the academic year. Certainly it will wreak havoc in the 27th Congressional District of New York which I have the honor to represent. I must vigorously oppose such a result. I appreciate the fact that there may be some inequities in the present program, and certainly where they exist they should be corrected. But I am not convinced that in the process it is necessary to drastically reduce the federal contribution to educational agencies designed to partially compensate those agencies for the added expense which the Federal Government admits it imposes upon them by its activities in the local area. I know of no one who questions the validity of the basis for these payments. As you are well aware, two independent studies of this program, one known as the Stanford Report and the other, the Battelle Report, both concluded the Federal Government's obligation was clear and that the current program is reasonably fair. The revision of the program is unacceptable to me, primarily because it will reduce the federal financial contribution without a scintilla of evidence to indicate that the local educational agencies' financial burdens have decreased; and, secondly, because it appears to repudiate an essential element of the Federal Government's overall responsibility. I refer here to the deletion in the statement of policy that the government's responsibility is based in part on the fact that the revenues available to such an agency from local sources have been reduced as a result of the acquisition of real property by the United States. I might insert here that the Town of Highland, which is in Orange County, has within its borders the United States Military Academy, which soaks up 80 percent of the real estate in that town, leaving less than 20 percent available for taxation, because other agencies, the state and town, are also involved in that 20 percent. Furthermore, the deletion of Section 2 of the current law bolsters my belief that the Federal Government no longer considers this a factor in its overall responsibility. I would also like to call to the subcommittee's attention the fact that legislation-which, incidentally, I co-sponsored-is presently pending consideration in the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs which would put back into proper perspective the purpose of these payments, by providing that these payments be made in lieu of real property taxes. There is also pending in the Rules Committee a House Resolution to authorize the appointment of a Select Committee to study the effects of all federal policies on the quality of education in the United States. It seems to me that until all of the alternatives can be explored, it would be ill-advised to act favorably upon this legislation. I have no firm conviction at this time whether these payments should be made strictly in lieu of taxes or whether they should be continued under the present formula with certain revisions to eliminate existing inequities. But I stand firm in my conviction that, whatever method is chosen, the Federal Government simply cannot retrench in its financial support at a time when state and local communities are finding it virtually impossible to raise additional revenues to simply maintain the present academic level, let alone improve it. Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for allowing me to appear here this morning; and, if you have any questions, I will be glad to try to answer them. Mr. PUCINSKI. Congressman McKneally, I think it is an excellent statement that you have made here on behalf of the people of your district. I think your people can certainly be proud and grateful that you are here pleading their cause so eloquently. Most of the time we deal in matters of a national nature and they affect our immediate constituency only indirectly. This is one of those issues where obviously it is an issue of most vital importance to your immediate community, and I want to congratulate you for taking time out to come down here and show us how this would affect your immediate community. This is very important. This is a very important statement. Have you made any estimate on what your county or this particular county in which the Military Academy is situated would realize if we were to pay taxes on that property? Has anybody made any estimates? Mr. McKNEALLY. No, Mr. Chairman, I think they probably have not made an estimate of what the revenue to the town of Highland would be if suddenly West Point went on the tax rolls; but it would be tremendous, of course. It would relieve the tension of school budgets and town budgets enormously. It is magnificent land, as we all know, and could be on the tax rolls. But, to answer your question, I don't think anybody has ever taken a pass at what it would be. It wouldn't be too difficult to do. |