over a period of 6 years. This is very desirable providing that a sufficient amount of money would be appropriated annually. We sincerely believe that it will take at least $500 million to $1 billion annually to really cause the needs to be met. Your second proposal, H. R. 2857, bearing the title of "School Construction Loan Act" approaches the problem from the standpoint of loaning money. We do like the interest rate of 1 percent and the amount of money proposed. Three billion dollars should be enough to actually do some good. The distribution of funds on the basis of school-age population meets our approval. We sincerely believe that the Federal Government should make funds available by direct grants in sufficient amounts to stimulate schoolhouse construction throughout the Nation rather than by providing loans. The President's proposal, S. 968, approaches the problem mainly through loaning money to State schoolhousing authorities. Your loan proposal is better because of the interest rate being more favorable and would be of substantial help in the final cost of a school building. We find quite a number of areas in this State that are being pressed for additional school-building funds and are not really able to borrow additional money. In general, money for schoolhouse construction will have to come from either local, State, or Federal sources or a combination of any two such sources. We are hopeful that Congress will develop legislation which will actually provide more money for schoolhouse construction and at the same time encourage local school districts and the respective States to assist in the building of needed school facilities. Thanks for sending us copies of your bills, and we trust that some good legislation will be developed in this session of the Congress. Sincerely yours, W. C. KAMPSCHROEDER, Assistant State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Hon. JOHN LESINSKI, STATE OF IDAHO, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Boise, March 7, 1955. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. LESINSKI: The Honorable Graydon Smith, attorney general for the State of Idaho, has referred your communication of February 18 to this office. Upon a cursory examination of your proposed bills I know that they have considerable merit. Having been in a legislative session which has granted us increased bonding limits (independent, class A and class B, from 10 percent to 15 percent of total indebtedness, and class C and common districts, from 6 percent to 10 percent) it appears that Idaho is not critically in need of Federal help. It is true that we would welcome some Federal aid for school buildings, but we would prefer to have it given to us in a lump sum. It could be distributed in a manner similar to the way vocational education funds are now given to the States. The basis of distribution could be worked on a formula related to population or to per capita income. We feel that the State agency in education would be able to distribute fairly any such Federal funds. If we may be of further assistance, please feel free to write us. Sincerely yours, ALTON B. JONES, State Superintendent of Public Instruction. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Hon. JOHN LESINSKI, Member of Congress, Washington, D. C.: STATE OF NEW MEXICO, In Mrs. Lusk's absence from the office on business today, I am taking the liberty of answering your letter of February 18, Mr. Lesinski, because I know that Mrs. Lusk would want immediate attention given to the questions which you raised with Mr. Richard H. Robinson, attorney general, regarding H. R. 2857. We appreciate very much your interest in the very important matter of schoolbuilding construction. It occurs to us that some other type of legislation would be more favorable to New Mexico because there is sufficient money available at a low rate of interest for the purchase of school bonds-our problem is that the bonding potential is very low and the mere ability to borrow money would not alleviate our shortage of funds with which to construct school buildings. Some kind of grants-in-aid, even on a matching basis which could be administered by the State board of education, would be the most practical way of lending assistance to us at this time when we need a minimum of $25 million worth of new schools. DEAR MR. LESINSKI: Mr. Richard Ervin forwarded your letter of February 18, regarding the benefits of H. R. 2857 and H. R. 2612, to me for comment. We have examined these bills and feel that each offers possible benefits to Florida. The 1 percent loan feature of H. R. 2857 would help in counties not already heavily burdened with debt-service obligations. The Federal-State matching provisions of H. R. 2612 would possibly be of more benefit to Florida than a loan bill. Florida's school-housing problem is more intense in those counties showing rapid growth as a result of an influx of new residents from other States. Because of Florida's homestead exemption law, the increase in population does not bring about a proportionate increase in the ad valorem property base. Therefore, a relatively small number of property owners are required to bear the major part of the burden of paying for local bond issues. In addition to the demands for school construction brought about by this large influx of new residents, Florida, like many of the other States, has an accumuJated backlog of building needs. A number of factors contributed to this backlog. During the 1930's money simply was not available for school construction. During the war, materials shortages curtailed building. Following the war, the high cost of construction caused delay in the building of needed school facilities. Under Florida's minimum foundation program, the State assists counties with capital outlay to the extent of $400 per teacher unit. This has not proved enough in many counties. A constitutional amendment permits counties to borrow against future State capital outlay payments. The borrowing power of the counties is rapidly becoming exhausted under the provisions of this amendment. Still, some counties, because of rapid growth-as much as 18 percent-are unable to provide enough new classrooms to house their pupils. At the beginning of this school year over 30,000 pupils were attending school on double sessions because of a lack of housing. Satisfactory classrooms were not adequate for another 68,000 pupils. This situation existed at the beginning of the year, not at the time when enrollment was at its peak. Your efforts in behalf of the schoolchildren are greatly appreciated. We are anxious to provide any additional information you may desire. Cordially yours, THOMAS D. BAILEY, Superintendent. EXECUTIVE CHAMBER, Nashville, March 10, 1955. Hon. JoHN LESINSKI, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. LESINSKI: In regard to your letters of February 18 and February 21, in connection with House bills 2612 and 2857: House bill No. 2612, if enacted into law, could probably be administered in the State of Tennessee under the present legal provisions as provided in the general education law. The State board of education has authority to make distribution of Federal funds to the local school systems on the same basis as provided for the distribution of State funds. It is our opinion that House bill No. 2857 would not assist Tennessee in the construction of school buildings. We are not sure that the present provisions which are provided by law would permit the operation of such a plan in Tennessee. It should be further stated that the present plan for the distribution for State capital outlay funds, under the provisions of the general education bill, makes it possible for school systems in Tennessee to borrow money at a reasonable rate far beyond that which they might secure at a reasonable rate within their own financial structure. Trusting this in the information you desire, and with all good wishes, I am, Very sincerely, FRANK G. CLEMENT, Governor. Hon. JOHN LESINSKI, House of Representatives, THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN: Enclosed herewith is a memorandum from Mr. John Marshall, administrator of our school building assistance commission, covering H. R. 2612, which is self-explanatory. With warmest regards. Most sincerely yours, Memorandum. CHRISTIAN A. HERTER, Governor. SCHOOL BUILDING ASSISTANCE COMMISSION, To: Gov. Christian A. Herter. From: John E. Marshall, Administrator, School Building Assistance Commission. Subject: H. R. 2612. Here is the comment you requested on H. R. 2612, sent you under date of February 21 by Congressman John Lesinski. This act would authorize appropriation (amount not specified) to be used on a matching basis by States for school construction. It defines construction to include altering, remodeling, and improving school buildings. My own experience indicates that this provision would be very difficult to administer fairly. This bill is in some respects similar to S. 5, on which I sent you a memorandum under date of February 23. It is similar in undertaking to protect State control of schools; it is similar in providing that the State will distribute State and Federal money for school buildings after Federal approval of a State plan. I am concerned with the amount of space given to withholding of Federal payments (sec. 6b) and to judicial review (sec. 9). H. R. 2612 has some of the characteristics of a desirable school construction act, but is not in my opinion as clear or as sound as S. 5. J. E. M. STATE OF NEW YORK, Hon. JOHN LESINSKI, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN LESINSKI: In accordance with the request contained in your letter of February 18, 1955, the two bills which you enclosed with your letter have been analyzed. For the purpose of loans under subdivision (a) of section 6 of H. R. 2857, there is no school construction authority in this State. As to the eligibility of local educational agencies in this State for loans under this bill, I believe that either the State commissioner of education or the State comptroller would be the appropriate official to give you information as to the number of local educational agencies which have outstanding indebtedness equal to or in excess of 50 percentum of their legal debt limits as required by subdivision (b) of section 6 of H. R. 2857. I should like to comment that legal debt limits of local educational agencies are generally based on assessed valuations of real property and that it is my understanding that, in many areas of the country, these limits may appear to be relatively near outstanding indebtedness because of the practice of assessing real property at a percentage of its value rather than at its full value. In this State, by constitutional amendment and statute (Constitution, art. VIII, sec. 4; local finance law, sec. 104.00), school debt limits are now based on full valuation, and the State board of equalization and assessment has been fixing equalization rates indicating the general level of assessment at which accessors are valuing real property. These rates are applied to the total of their assessments, and full valuations, accordingly, reflect actual values. This means that outstanding indebtedness is not as near legal debt limits as would otherwise be the case. The question is raised as to whether your bill refers to statutory as well as constitutional debt limits and, if so, whether the imposition or lowering of a statutory debt limit could qualify a local educational agency for a Federal loan. Statutory debt limits applicable to some school districts in this State may be exceeded under certain conditions (local finance law, sec. 104.00, subdivision d). What would be the legal debt limit in such cases? The definition you have used of local educational agencies in both bills (H. R. 2857 and 2612) would appear to be adequate to describe the boards of education and the school districts they head in this State, with the exception of the 6 largest cities in the State, namely, New York, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Yonkers, and Albany. In these six cities the city is responsible for providing funds through city taxes for the support of schools and the city, rather than the board of education, is the agency which is authorized to borrow funds for school construction purposes (education law, art. 52, especially sec. 2576; New York State constitution, art. VIII, sec. 4). Because of the circumstance that these cities incur indebtedness for school purposes as well as other city purposes, there would be a problem of computing their outstanding indebtedness for the purposes of subdivision (b) of section 6 of H. R. 2857. Both bills provide for the payment of wage rates on construction work as determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act. This State has a law which provides for the payment of prevailing rates of wages as fived by officials in this State (labor law, sec. 220). Other States may have similar laws. I raise the question with you as to which fixation would prevail in case of a conflict. You may want to give consideration to permitting fixation pursuant to a State law such as ours to be operative where there is one and for the Federal fixation to apply where no State or local requirements are applicable. I do not, of course, comment upon any policy considerations relating to the two bills which you sent to me, their practical application in this State, or whether or not an adequate number of school districts in this State could qualify and utilize the full allocations of loan or grant funds that would be made available to this State on the basis of its school-age population. Neither do I wish to be taken, by giving you this information, as in any way lessening my great interest in President Eisenhower's bills on the same subject which are receiving much attention in this State. I trust that the foregoing will be of some service in respect of your inquiry. Very truly yours, JACOB K. JAVITS, TERRITORY OF HAWAII, Hon. JOHN LESINSKI, House of Representatives, Washingtno, D. C. DEAR REPRESENTATVE LESINSKI: Referring to your letter of February 18 in which you solicited my comments regarding the legislation introduced by you in an effort to aid the education program throughout the Nation, the superintendent of public instruction advises me that he considers House bill 2612 to be an excellent bill and feels it will prove beneficial to all concerned, including the Territory of Hawaii. However, in studying H. R. 2857 he finds that in the case of the Territory of Hawaii, although it does possibly provide money at a lower rate of interest, it does not particularly help solve our problem. Actually, an outright grant from the Federal Government is necessary to improve this situation. There is plenty of money available for loans both in Hawaii and throughout the country; the difficulty is the burden of its cost not only in school construction but all improvements. It would be necessary for us to request Congress for a change in our Organic Act in order for us to take advantage of this legislation, which is also true in the case of S. 968. Thanking you again for sending me copies of these bills to study. Sincerely, SAMUEL WILDER KING, Governor of Hawaii. Hon. JOHN LESINSKI, Congressman, 16th District of Michigan, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. STATE OF GEORGIA, Atlanta, March, 16, 1955. DEAR CONGRESSMAN LESINSKI: I am pleased to acknowledge your recent request for my opinion on House Resolution No. 2857 and House Resolution No. 2612 as to the possible benefit of these bills to the State of Georgia. House Resolution No. 2857, providing for Federal loans to the States, would not be of any assistance to Georgia at the present time. Georgia created a school-building authority several years ago and entered upon a tremendous building program throughout the State. The result is that we have now approached the maximum limitation in our indebtedness. This bill would have benefited Georgia if it had been passed 3 or 4 years ago. I find myself in opposition to the plan enunciated in House Resolution No. 2857 as to the method of allocating Federal funds to the States. Georgia has expended large sums of money these past few years improving her public-school system. In my opinion any Federal act should give credit to a State that has recently taken the initiative of improving its schools. In addition, House Reso lution No. 2857 has no equalization formula based upon the ability of a State to pay. As the bill now stands, it would favor the wealthy States and act to the detriment of the more needy States. In my opinion care should be taken in any Federal act to permit flexibility in schoolhouse construction. The type of construction that is most advantageous to a northern State may be quite different from a State in the South because of different climatic conditions. I heartily concur with section 9 in House Resolution No. 2857 and section 10 in House Resolution No. 2612 concerning an assurance against any Federal interference in the sovereign right of the States to control their public schools. I am firmly opposed to any Federal regulation of our public schools. With kindest regards and best wishes, I am, DEAR MR. LESINSKI: I have your letter of February 18, 1955, enclosing H. R. 2857 and H. R. 2612, which relate to a program of Federal loans and payments to the States, in order to assist in the construction of schools. Pennsylvania is spending more than 50 percent of its income in the interest of education and there is the need for additional schools so that any help which the Federal Government could give would be welcome, if it is not accompanied with Federal interference in the school system. Sincerely yours, Hon. JOHN LESINSKI, HERBERT B. COHEN, STATE OF CONNECTICUT, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN LESINSKI: Your inquiry of February 18 of Attorney General John J. Bracken of our State has been turned over to me for reply. 59521-55-pt. 1—10 |