have been trying to change the constitution and we haven't been able to do it.

There is another part of the bill which concerns me very much. In Hardin County we have 3,200-plus children and half of them are soldiers' children. Now, soldiers' children living on the base get onethird more under this law than across the line in Hardin County for the education of the children. In the attitude of the admission toward B children, all other categories have to be fully financed before you get in on the B children. So this could wipe out all of the aid in the State of Kentucky.

It seems to be, lately, that none of these programs are fully funded. So the bill would be hard on Kentucky. In fact, in my particular county, with 8,500 children and 3,200 of them B children, it would almost bankrupt our county. In fact, it would.

There are eight or ten other districts that would be hard hit. The other 45 or 46 districts could survive without too much difficulty. However, the program would be hurt. Forty-six percent of the children in the State receive some aid in varying degrees under Public Law 874. If all but eight or ten districts would be eliminated, it would hurt the quality of the program throughout the State.

Mr. Chairman, I will close with this statement, and I would like to present a written statement later on. If there are any questions, I would be glad to try to answer them.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Your supplementary statement will be inserted in the record after your oral testimony. Well, there is one question. You say it would bankrupt your State?

Mr. BURKHEAD. The county.

Mr. PUCINSKI. From our figures, under the existing law, Kentucky gets $11,251,000, and under this Reform Act, Kentucky would get $7,773,000. Your reduction would be lower percentage-wise than some of the other States.

Mr. BURKHEAD. That is true, but more than half that money goes to the section 6 schools on the bases at Fort Campbell and Fort Knox. We have an entitlement to about $4 million other than what Fort Campbell and Fort Knox get.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Thank you Mr. Burkhead for a fine statement. (Mr. Burkhead's statement follows:)

SUPPLEMENT TO THE ORAL TESTIMONY OF G. C. BURKHEAD

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Sub-Committee: I am G. C. Burkhead, Superintendent Emeritus of the Hardin County Schools, Elizabethtown, Kentucky. I am now employed as a Consultant for the Impacted School Districts of Kentucky.

This written testimony is a supplement to the oral testimony given before the Committee on Monday, March 23, 1970.

I was one of a group of superintendents who came to Washington in the late 1940's seeking aid for schools over-burdened because of Federal Installations and Activities. In my case, the government installation was the Fort Knox Army Post. One hundred ten thousand acres of farm land had been removed from the local tax rolls and made a part of Fort Knox. With the rapid changes that took place during and following World War II, the population growth of Hardin County was unbelievable; the growth in the economy, however, failed to keep pace with the population growth. As a result, the school authorities found themselves with hundreds of additional children and with insufficient funds to house them or even to furnish a minimum program of instruction.

The visits of this early group of superintendents attracted enough interest in the Halls of Congress to cause three sub-committees from Labor and Eduation to tour the country and collect first hand information on existing condi

tions. As a result of the reports of these committees, Public Laws 874 and 815 were enacted in 1950. During the twenty year history of the Law, millions of children have been benefitted by better instructional programs and better school buildings. It has been the difference between a very poor educational opportunity and quality education in thousands of communities across this great Country.

Over this twenty year period, I have had the privilege of appearing many times before Committees of Congress. I have always been impressed by the sincerity and deep interest which they have shown in the problems brought before them. Too, I have appreciated the fairness and the courtesies shown us "Country Boys."

As the years passed, fifty-five Kentucky School districts have joined the Impact group, and their school children have been made better men and women as a result of this aid.

These fifty-five districts enrolled last year 323,923 pupils: 46% of the total number enrolled in the public schools of Kentucky. This Legislation has furnished aid ranging from four dollars per capita in the least impacted districts to more than $50.00 in the heaviest impacted districts. The very simple nature of this legislation has allowed school authorities to spend this money wherever it is needed most in the school system. This has resulted in getting one hundred cents value out of every dollar appropriated.

The need, the purpose, the intent, and the philosophy of the Law have changed but little during the twenty years of its operation. In my opinion, it is still as logical and fair and reasonable as it was when the Title of the first bill was written in 1950.

H. R. 16307 (16384) Impact Reform Act, changes the intent, the purpose, and the philosophy of the original Act. For this reason, I am compelled to oppose it. If it is the purpose of the proposed Reform Bill to eliminate hundreds of school districts and millions of children from receiving Federal dollars, then the Act will achieve its purpose.

This Bill, if enacted, will eliminate thirty-one of the fifty-five districts in Kentucky from receiving any funds and will severely cripple most of the others. The data given in the attached table gives a fair idea of the results to be exIpected. The total entitlement dollars will have been reduced from $4,312,949.00 to $1,951,166.00 (I hasten to add that the calculation in this table were made without having the exact location and numbers of 3(b) category children; in some cases, this will tend to lower the allocations. (If parents are working in a Federal Installation outside their own districts, this will affect adversely the I allocations as shown in some districts. The "effort" factor was not used in calculating the data shown on the table.)

I cannot agree with the proposed radical changes which are listed below with comments.

1. The 3% absorption clause.

2. The payment of 20% for 3(b) children when the parent has to cross a county boundary line to his work. This, in many instances, will cause great hardships.

3. The proposed methods of proration for different categories of children. With 100% funding of Section 6 children, 3(a) children, and those districts with 50% or more impaction, it is altogether possible and probable that there would be no funds left for 3(b) children. With the attitude of the present administration toward the 3(b) category children, I am not sure but this is purposely concocted to eliminate them completely. This could be disastrous to many districts which are heavily impacted with the 3(b) category children. I might call attention of the committee to the fact that the present law has been only partially funded last year and the present or current year. In 1968-69, it was funded at 91.7%; the current year at 78%.

4. Subsection (e) of section (15) of the revised Title, as added by paragraph (6) of section C of the Bill, would prohibit payments to a local educational agency if the State in which it is located prohibits the expenditures of State or local tax revenues for the free public education of federally connected children (such children living on Federal property), or refuses to allocate such funds on an equitable basis for such education. Under this section a State may be exempt from this provision providing an effort is being made to com=ply. Under this section some six or eight states would be affected. In these instances, Section Six schools are being maintained on Federal property and operated under the U. S. Office of Education.

This section of the Bill could destroy a number of school districts which surround Fort Knox, Fort Campbell, and the Blue Grass Ordnance. This has been a problem in Kentucky for the life of P. L. 874. Many attempts have been made by officials from the U. S. Office of Education working with Kentucky School Authorities to get a favorable opinion from the Attorney General of Kentucky. Each attempt has failed. They have consistently ruled that a local school agency cannot spend local or state revenues to operate and maintain schools on Federally owned property. (Kentucky's antique Constitution also requires an office holder to take an oath that he has never fought a duel.) I could never agree to a Federal Law that would penalize a local educational agency and thousands of Kentucky children because of what was written in our Constitution by our great, great grandfathers.

P. L. 874 and 815 may have had some inequities, but few compared with H. R. 16307 (16384).

Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the Committee for having allowed me to appear once again in the interest of this Nation's boys and girls. You have been very fair and courteous.

Mr. PUCINSKI. We are happy to have with us a most distinguished Member of the Congress, our colleague, Congressman Miller from California. He has had an interest in educational legislation for many years and has been one of the leaders in the educational field.

He is the Chairman of the very important Science and Astronautics Committee which has brought this country to the pinnacle of success it has reached in space exploration.

We are most pleased to have our colleague. Mr. Miller, would you care to add anything to this testimony?

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE P. MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. MILLER. I have merely come down here today to show by my presence here my continuing interest in impacted aid school legislation.

I come from an area that is very heavily impacted, and I know that there are many in California and many in other parts of the country like it. We have perhaps the biggest and most active naval air station in the Navy in the city of Alameda. Yet the city of Alameda as such, being a bedroom community in a major metropolitan area gains nothing from the presence of this great institution.

All of the purchasing is done in San Francisco or Oakland in the metropolitan area. We have nothing to offer them except a good climate, a good school system, and the privilege of educating their children.

The result is that the benefits that accrue to a community having a large defense installation in it do not in this case hit our community, nor do they hit a number of the communities in the Bay area adjacent to it. San Leandro, Castro Valley, which is an entirely supporting bedroom community or San Lorenzo. These places have no industry and nothing to offer that can compensate for this.

In the County of Alameda that gets approximately $5 million a year, if we have to under impacted aid legislation, raise that amount of money in every way we can do it by raising taxes on the homeowners and the workers-and these are workers-it is going to be a great hardship and one I don't know whether we can meet or not. Now, Mr. Briscoe, who is at the table, comes from my home town. He is quite thoroughly knowledgeable in this field, and I commend him to you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for the very nice words you said about me.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for taking time to be here with us to give us your own views and to introduce Mr. Briscoe.

Does any member of the committee have any questions before Mr. Miller leaves? I know he is a busy man.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for being with us.

Mr. Briscoe?

Mr. BRISCOE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my personal thanks to our distinguished Congressman from Alameda who has represented our district so ably for many years. It has been an honor and a pleasure to work with Congressman Miller.

Mr. Chairman, I will use three California School Districts as typical examples of heavily impacted areas. In referring to impact, I am using the current method of computing impact rather than the method proposed in HR 16307. The first school district I will discuss is Vallejo, California.

Vallejo is a district with approximately 16,500 ADA. The Vallejo Naval Shipyard is the main industry of the area. The assessed valuation is low. The tax rate is high-$5.49 per $100 of assessed valuation. More than one-third of the students are federally connected.

I might add that Vallejo's financial situation is such that prior to the 15th of March of this year, it was necessary for the district to notify 43 teachers that they would not be employed next year.

The people of Vallejo have voted excess taxes required to support the school system. I would like to point out that the State maximum rate for a district similar to Vallejo is $2.20 per $100 of assessed valuation. The community is making every effort to offer a good educational program; the present cost is $711 per child compared to a State average of approximately $790.

I have submitted to the Committee a prepared statement by Dr. Nicoll, Superintendent of Schools for Vallejo. Dr. Nicoll's statement has a great deal of information relative to his district. Dr. Nicoll is present and if the Committee so desires he would be more than pleased to answer any questions.

The next district I will discuss is the Hueneme Elementary School District. Port Hueneme is the home of the Seabees, located in Southern California, and is a typical bedroom community. As of the present date, 45% of the student population of the Hueneme Elementary School District is federally connected. The Seabee base is the only industry in the area. There is very little on base housing, therefore most of the federally connected children are classified as Section 3(b). Port Hueneme is typical of bedroom communities-very little assessed valuation, resulting in very difficult financial problems.

During the year 1969-70, it was necessary to make significant program reductions. Additional budget cuts for the fiscal year 1970-71 are such that the quality of the educational program for that community will suffer. By "quality education," I do not mean salaries for employees. I am talking about such things as $5,000 for books, $19,400 for equipment, dismissing librarians, and laying off a library clerk. It is possible to keep children in classrooms without librarians, without equipment, and with a minimum number of books. In order to offer a reasonably acceptable program, books, library personnel and equipment are absolutely essential.

The next district I will discuss is Livermore. The Livermore School District is in Congressman Miller's area. The Livermore Radiation Laboratory creates a heavy impact in the area. Over 40 percent of the enrollment is federally connected and over 10 percent of the income of the district is derived from P.L. 874 Section 3(b). Livermore has a low assessed valuation and a high tax rate.

I would like to qualify my statement, ladies and gentlemen, when I say that the assessed valuation is low. I do not mean that the assessed valuation is low due to the assessment practices. Quite the opposite is true. The State Board of Equalization has determined that the