Base were used for nothing more than farming-which would be highly unlikely, since land in the dover area is quite valuable—it would be valued at about $1 million and produce an annual local tax income of about $10,000. The presence of any farm buildings such as barns would double the valuation and the tax income; the use of the land for commercial purposes would probably increase the per acre valuation from $264 to about $4,000-in other words, increase the value 16 times. (The use of the acreage for farming would also decrease school enrollment by about 3,000 children.)

I believe the facts and figures sufficiently illustrate the effect of the Dover Air Force Base on Kent, and to a lesser degree Sussex, Counties. It was precisely for cases such as this that the Impact Aid Legislation was passed originally. Again, I am sure we all share former Secretary Robert Finch's view that the basic concept of the P.L. 874 program remains sound. I personally am quite encouraged that a systematic review of the program is finally being made with a view to correcting the present inequities. The proposals now before the subcommittee, however, would serve to create new inequities and precipitate educational crises in many areas. In my State, for instance, new budgets have already been prepared, based on the inclusion of Impact Aid funds. To withdraw these funds now would be, as one school superintendent told me, "virtually taking pencil and paper out of children's hands."

I cannot in good conscience support this proposal. While I understand that many complex factors must be considered in drafting legislation that is fair to the Nation as a whole, this bill would do my State a grave injustice. I suspect its effect in many other areas would be the same.

APRIL 20, 1970.

HON. CARL D. PERKINS,

Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate this opportunity to express my views concerning the Impact Aid Reform Act of 1970, which is now pending before your committee.

The American taxpayer has the right to insist that every dollar of his tax money be spent in such a manner that it brings maximum benefit to the nation. However, this will not be achieved by curtailing essential Federal programs, which give minimal savings to the U.S. Treasury, while overlooking areas in which very substantial economies may be realized.

"Penny wise and pound foolish" can find no more appropriate application than in the case of reducing Federal aid to areas of significant Federal impact. Improving the quality of our education deserves the highest priority on the part of the Federal government, and, therefore, I believe certain portions of the proposal to cut aid to impact areas to be ill-advised.

Of particular concern to me are those municipalities with relatively small geographic boundaries in which are located major Federal installations. We have several of these in my district in Connecticut. As the property needed for these installations expands the local tax base is proportionately diminished. In many instances the increase in the size of the Federally held property within the taxing jurisdiction contributes only marginally to the economy of the jurisdiction. This is particularly true where employees commute to work at the Federal installation in one locality, but pay taxes and purchase goods in another.

In communities of this type, many of which are already facing a crisis in municipal financing, the effect of a Federally-owned facility is to very seriously jeopardize the ability of the local government to provide adequate educational services for the children under its jurisdiction. A Federal program which makes aid available solely on the basis of the parents' residence may well be giving money where it is least needed, while denying it to those school districts suffering as a consequence of the Federal installation.

I hope that your committee will give very serious consideration to an analysis of the effect of Federal property ownership upon each school district. It is my hope that Federal impact aid to education will be made with a consideration both to the effect of Federal property ownership on the local tax base, and the increased demands placed upon the local school district by the additional children of Federal employees. Sincerely yours,

WILLIAM L. ST. ONGE,
Member of Congress.

STATEMENT OF HON. GARNER E. SHRIVER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to express the considerable interest of the Fourth Congressional District of Kansas in the proposed major changes in the impacted area educational assistance programs. For nearly twenty years now the federal government has provided substantial financial assistance to school districts which are affected by federal activities. There are now over 5,000 such school districts, and they have quite naturally adjusted their annual budgets to reflect these federal payments.

In my own State of Kansas the funds allocated in fiscal 1970 under these programs accounted for one-fourth of all federal assistance for education and for forty percent of the elementary and secondary assistance from the federal government for that year. With the State and local governments already providing 93 percent of educational expenses, it is easy to anticipate the serious effect that any radical change in these programs would have on the State budget and local property tax levels.

As the subcommittee well knows, the impact of these programs varies greatly in each of the affected school districts. These differences are based largely on the varying numbers of pupils classified under category "A" and those under category "B." In Kansas the percentage of "B" category children within each congressional district ranges from 90 percent in my own Fourth District to 43 percent in the Second District. Obviously, the Fourth District with 90 percent of the eligible children in category "B" will be greatly affected by any substantial and immediate cutback in the funding level for this group.

My purpose in testifying before this subcommittee today is not to prescribe in detail how the impacted area programs should be revised. The members of the subcommittee are well qualified for that task. What I would like to stress, however, is the need for great care in the timing of those changes.

The Kansas State Legislature has adjourned this year. If the subcommittee and subsequently the Congress substantially reduces the assistance available under the impacted area programs, especially the category "B" funds, what would be the recourse of the school districts in Kansas which have already planned their 1970-1971 budgets based on existing sources of funds?

One alternative would be speedy action to increase local support for these schools through the property taxes. I need not remind this subcommittee of the fate of recent attempts across the country to raise additional education funds by means of increasing the load on the already over-burdened property taxpayers. This source of funds simply cannot be expanded to the degree necessary to compensate for the loss of impacted area program funds.

Another alternative, of course, would be to cut back the level of education offered in these impacted area school districts. But again you run into the problem of timing. By the time this legislation could be adopted, school districts will already have signed contracts with their personnel for the next school year, and other necessary plans will have been made. This advance planning commits money, money which would not be available if the impacted area programs are substantially cut.

In the end those suffering from an abrupt cutback in these programs would be our school children. It is imperative that any amendments to these programs which would affect these children be timed so that the harmful effects on the quality of their education would be softened to the greatest possible degree.

The President himself recognized the difficulties involved in an abrupt reduction in these programs when he included the "no hardship" clause in the suggested changes in his veto message on the fiscal 1970 Labor-HEW Appropriations bill.

As you know, several impacted area school districts have already reflected their alarm over the reduced amount appropriated for these programs for fiscal 1970 by demanding tuition charges to be paid by armed forces personnel who have children in these districts. This action is likely to spread to other impacted districts.

I strongly urge this subcommittee to consider the inclusion of a fair timetable in any recommended amendments to the impacted area programs so that undue hardships will not be faced by the thousands of affected school districts.

The President noted that nearly twice as much federal money under these programs goes into the nation's wealthiest county as goes into the one hundred

poorest counties combined. Obviously, priorities must be set, and no one knows this better than the thousands of school administrators and school board members across the country who face this problem every day. These are reasonable people, and we must be just as reasonable in establishing the timetable under which any changes in these programs will be accomplished.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES M. TEAGUE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, the problems faced by our educational system today in this country are immense. This is equally the case in my District. We have a multitude of Federal programs to assist our schools and state educational agencies which are for the most part aimed at providing categorical assistance in specific areas. One program which has been in operation since 1951 and provides a more general type of assistance is the Impacted Aid Program. This program is not only one of the very first Federal assistance programs for our educational systems but remains possibly the most popular among our school superintendents.

Each year that this program comes up for extension, changes are proposed. Over the years, various inequities in the program have been eliminated and the program in its present form has been able to fill the needs of many school districts which are overburdened because of Federal activities. I have consulted with educators and school superintendents in my District for their evaluation of the effectiveness of the program. They have indicated overwhelmingly that the program in its present form has been one of great benefit in their struggles to provide a quality education for each school child.

I have carefully considered the changes in the Impact Aid program which have recently been proposed by the Administration and subsequently introduced here in the House.

The drastic cuts which are proposed in the "category B" entitlements would cause a definitely crippling hardship on the schools in my District. Last year schools in my District received over $7.1 million in impacted aid and a substantial portion of the assistance was for children who fall in the "category B" classification. In fact, in my District there are 24,764 such "category B" pupils and 6,531 category "A" pupils. Payments for "B" pupils in fiscal year 1968 amounted to $4.3 million, and payments for category "A" pupils amounted to $2.2 million which were utilized in a total of 34 schools. These federally connected children overburden the schools in my District. Any reduction in the aid paid for them would have a chain reaction essentially reaching every child in my District.

I am deeply concerned about the quality of education in our schools in the country and especially in my District. Any proposals which threaten to reduce the quality of education must be carefully considered and the dollar savings to the Federal government must be weighed against the potential problems it will create. After careful examination of the operation of Public Laws 815 and 874, I must strongly oppose the current efforts to cripple the effects of the program. When such proposals come to a vote, I intend to support the cause of education in my District and the country and vote against the proposal.

IMPACT AID REFORM ACT OF 1970

TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 1970

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

GENERAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to recess in room 2261 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Roman C. Pucinski (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Pucinski, Hawkins, Ford, and Bell. Staff members present: John F. Jennings, majority counsel, and Alexandra Kisla, clerk.

Mr. PUCINSKI. We will resume our hearings on H.R. 16307 and H.R. 16384. We are very pleased to have with us this morning the distinguished Assistant Superintendent for Legislation and Special Projects for the Los Angeles Unified School District, Dr. Thomas O. Lawson.

I would like to call upon both Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Bell to introduce the witness to the committee.

Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. Chairman, I join with Mr. Bell and welcome Dr. Lawson to the committee. Dr. Lawson has been a very dedicated staff person to the Los Angeles Board of Education I have personal pride in Dr. Lawson in that he once was a principal at one of the junior high schools in my district, Gompers Junior High School. And because of our long association, I am glad that he has seen fit to present a statement before the committee and I certainly would like to personally welcome him as a witness before our committee.

Mr. BELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to join Mr. Hawkins in welcoming Dr. Lawson, who has been doing an outstanding job in Los Angeles for a number of years and is well recognized as an authority on the problems of education. And I think he is one of the new bright and shining lights who will contribute so much to the future of education. We would like to welcome you to the committee. Mr. PUCINSKI. Thank you very much.

Dr. Lawson, we welcomed the brief delay here this morning because it gave us an opportunity to read the statement before you got here. So it will not be necessary to read it again in the hearing. It will go into the record at this point in its entirety. You