As a result of a cursory review of the bills, H. R. 2612 and H. R. 2857, may I share with you the following comments. It would appear to me that both bills are good and could be of help to the various school districts in the State of Connecticut. Both bills propose to give help where help is most needed and that point is certainly a commendable one. Adequate safeguards are included which provide for the administration of the programs involved through the United States Office of Education with nonintervention in the States from the Federal level. In order that the school districts of Connecticut might avail themselves of the maximum advantages of H. R. 2857, legislation would have to be enacted which would permit towns to float loans for a period greater than 20 years. I hope you will find this information of service to you. Sincerely, Hon. JOHN LESINSKI, CHARLES F. RITCH, Jr., Chief, Bureau of Field Services. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Sacramento, March 22, 1955. DEAR CONGRESSMAN LESINSKI: I have a memorandum from the attorney general's office, dated March 1, 1955, requesting that I reply to the two questions you asked in your letter of February 18, 1955, regarding H. R. 2857 and H. R. 2612, copies of which you enclosed. H. R. 2857 provides $3 billion for the purpose of making loans to State agencies and further provides that if the State does not have a construction authority the loan may be made under this act to local educational agencies. I do not believe that the local educational agencies now have legal authority to assume a loan from the Federal Government. They do have authority to assume a loan from the State of California, which has a school-construction program in existence. I also believe it would be necessary for the State to enact legislation which would authorize the local educational agencies to accept a loan from the Federal Government if a loan were made directly to the State agency. So far, the State of California has had no difficulty in selling its bonds either locally or on the State level. Districts are currently selling bonds at approximately 24- to 21⁄2-percent interest. The State has issued $515 million in bonds and has sold them for the purpose of assisting school districts in schoolhouse construction, and has sold them at just a little over 2 percent. The problem in California is the fact that districts have exhausted their full legal capacity in bonds and still have a very great need for school buildings. This act would not materially aid the districts which are in distress because in most cases they do not have sufficient money to match on a 50-50 basis. Any matching procedure always tends to benefit those who have the money and eliminate those who do not. A second problem is that the average school district in California will not be able within a reasonable debt-service rate to retire a loan in 30 years. Our State plan provides that the districts shall make a uniform effort by a fixed tax rate and whatever money is raised, less certain other outstanding obligations on bonds, shall be used to retire the loan to the State. At the end of 30 years whatever amount of the loan and interest remains unpaid is made an outright grant to the district. H. R. 2612 is also a 50-50 matching-basis bill and would have the same problems as I have enumerated under H. R. 2857. Both bills allot money to any State on a per pupil population basis without regard to the wealth of the State. This, of course, would allow a very sizable amount of Federal money to be returned to California if either one of the bills were in operation. H. R. 2612 is administered by the State department of education, which has authority under the present law to accept funds and administer a Federal act. It is quite likely, however, that legislation should be enacted which would place part of this responsibility with the State allocation board which distributes the State funds to districts. In conclusion, H. R. 2612 has advantages which would benefit California more than H. R. 2857 due to the fact that H. R. 2612 apparently is a grant-in-aid proposal while H. R. 2857 is on the loan basis. If the funds were allocated to a State agency of California on a 50-50 matching basis, there would be no difficulty if local and/or State funds could be used as funds to match Federal funds. Sincerely yours, Hon. JOHN LESINSKI FRANK M. WRIGHT, Associate Superintendent of Public Instruction. TERRITORY OF ALASKA, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. LESINSKI: I appreciated receiving your letter of February 18, 1955, enclosing copies of your two bills to assist in the construction of school buildings, H. R. 2857 and H. R. 2612. They are both fine proposals and, I believe, will contribute greatly to the easing of our country's No. 1 problem-providing adequate public elementary and secondary schools for the youth of our Nation. In reply to your specific questions, I do not believe, however, the proposals would be an improvement over existing legislation under which Alaska is assisted in the construction of its schools. Since 1950, Alaska has been receiving Federal assistance up to 50 percent of cost in the construction of community facilities under terms of the Alaska Public Works Act (Public Law 264, 81st Cong.). School buildings and facilities have been featured prominently in this program and we have been able to make great strides in clearing up the backlog of unmet classroom needs. Because of our rapid increase in population over the past 10 years, this need was tremendous. Because of the short time in which the increase took place, we would not have been able to meet this need without substantial assistance. Under the terms of your proposals, however, the amount of assistance we would receive would be drastically curtailed as the allotment to each State and Territory is on the basis of school-age population. To summarize, I wish to say that your proposal is a splendid one for meeting this problem in a general way. As for as Alaska is concerned, however, we would suffer a decrease in Federal assistance unless provision was made for the continuation of the present Alaska public-works program with respect to schools which would seem unlikely. Sincerely yours, B. FRANK HEINTZLEMAN, Governor. STATE OF MICHIGAN, Hon. JOHN LESINSKI, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR JOHN: Thank you ever so much for sending on a copy of your bill for solving school-construction problems. I have looked it over and referred it to my staff for their analysis and consideration. It is certainly my hope that Congress will come up soon with an adequate Federal-aid proposal. We are working hard here in Michigan on this and this week, as you may know, a senate resolution permitting State backing of school-construction bonds was passed and will go on the April ballot. This was certainly a step in the right direction. With every good wish. Hon. JCHN LESINSKI, G. MENNEN WILLIAMS, Governor. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEAR JOHN H. R. 2857 is substantially better in terms of gross amount than the Eisenhower school-aid bill (which we feel, incidentally, is a vain attempt to solve a critical school problem). The interest of 1 percent a year is also much better than the Eisenhower plan but it has the drawback that a State school construction authority be set up in each State. I doubt that there are more than a half-dozen States at the present time which have such an authority set up so it is probable that, even if the bill became a law, it would be a full year before any appreciable dent in the building needs was made. Thank you for asking our views on this matter. It will certainly take our combined efforts on both the State and National levels to effect any solution to this problem. Sincerely, Hon. JOHN LESINSKI, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. FREDERICK E. TRIPP, Legislative Secretary. STATE OF MICHIGAN, Lansing, March 16, 1955. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE LESINSKI: I have read with interest H. R. 2612 and H. R. 2857 which were enclosed in your letter of February 18, 1955. My comments or suggestions concerning these proposals relate primarily to the ability of Michigan, under present laws, to take charge or to participate in the proposed Federal grants or loans for public school-building construction. It is my opinion that Michigan school laws present no legal bar against participation of local school districts in Federal aid for school construction as prescribed in the two bills, provided, of course, that rules and regulations made under the authority of these acts by the United States Commissioner of Education for their administration are tailored to Michigan's legal structure for public education. H. R. 2612 Michigan has provided by statute, act 16, P. A. 1942, first extra session, as amended (sec. 15.2091, et seq., M. S. A.) a copy of which is attached, for the acceptance and administration of Federal grants-in-aid of public schools and public educational activities. The administration of the Federal school-building grants proposed under H. R. 2612 would therefore be governed in Michigan in accordance with act 16. Section 2 of the act authorizes the superintendent of public instruction to set up a State plan for administration and accounting of Federal building grants. Reference is made in section 6 of the Federal proposal to State plans for distribution of the Federal grants. Section 5 of H. R. 2612 refers to school-age population; namely, population which is between the ages of 5 and 17 years. The Michigan school-age census, which is the constitutional basis for distribution of both the primary school interest moneys and the school districts' portion of the sales tax collections, is taken in such a manner that accurate population figures are available in this State as to children of each age from birth to 20 years. Section 5 will then present no difficulty as to the necessary school-age population of the State. H. R. 2857 Michigan has no school-construction authority as described in section 6 (a). The establishment of such an authority would, therefore, require legislation. Under present law, however, this State may receive Federal school-construction grants in the manner prescribed in section 6 (b) (3). The State agency approving the Federal loans on behalf of local school districts would be the superintendent of public instruction under the authority of act 16, P. A. 1942, first extra session. At the general spring election this year (April 4) the voters of this State will have an opportunity to provide for State loans for school-building construction to financially distressed school districts. Copy of the constitutional proposal is enclosed. If this issue should fail of a majority vote, many Michigan school districts now financially unable to build would be benefited by Federal loans assisting them to meet their emergency needs for school facilities. Thank you for calling these matters to my attention. Sincerely, THOMAS M. KAVANAGH, Mr. LESINSKI. Since I am a cosponsor of H. R. 14 and H. R. 15 with my bill, H. R. 2612, and since these bills are receiving full attention before your committee, I will go on to my bill, H. R. 2857, a bill "to provide for a program of Federal loans to assist States and local communities in building schools." At the outset I wish to make it clear that I am first and foremost for a grantin-aid bill like H. R. 2612. If such a grant-in-aid bill were set up on a more or less long-term basis, it would clarify Federal policy and therefore eliminate any tendency of States and local school districts to delay action, hoping for a Federal aid program. Furthermore, such Federal contributions would strengthen the debt-paying capacity of the school districts. Federal control is minimized in those situations in which the Federal Government participates, not so much in project approvals but rather in retiring subsequent financial obligation. However, if your committee plans to provide a loan program in conjunction with a grant-in-aid program, I would like to review with you some of the provisions of H. R. 2857. As it is presently written, this bill would provide a fund of $3 billion to make loans, with interest at 1 percent, "to eligible State school-construction authorities and local educational agencies" for constructing school buildings. would have maturity of not more than 30 years. Each loan The Federal Government would be authorized to make loans to States having school-construction authorities, or for those States that do not have such authorities, loans may be authorized for school districts that obtain the approval of the State agency responsible for the supervision of public elementary and secondary schools. A school district may be eligible to borrow when it equals or exceeds 50 percent of its legal debt limit. Real effort on the part of the school district is therefore shown. And an attempt is here made not to discriminate against those States that do not set up school-construction authorities. A school district or a State school construction authority may be eligible to borrow providing that it has not defaulted on any loan made to it under this proposal. Besides regular auditing procedures, which should be between the United States Commissioner of Education and the State agency involved, there should be no other Federal control involved. Perhaps this should be spelled out in the bill. From the funds appropriated the proportionate amount of money each State (or the aggregate of school districts therein) could borrow would be determined according to the number of schoolchildren in each State as it bears to the total school-age population of all the States. Under section 6, (2) eligibility requires the application of the Davis-Bacon Act, as amended, wherein the proceeds of the loan used on construction work would prevent wages being paid at rates less than those prevailing on similar construction in the locality. Section 7 provides assurance against Federal interference. A loan bill requires such assurance just as much as a grant-in-aid bill. Part (7) of section 9 enumerates the United States Territories that would be eligible to borrow under the provisions of this bill. Now I would like to suggest the following amendments to H. R. 2857 which could make this proposal financially more acceptable: AMENDMENTS TO H. R. 2857, TO PROVIDE THAT SCHOOL-CONSTRUCTION LOANS SHALL BE MADE FROM FUNDS BORROWED FROM THE TREASURY Page 2, strike out lines 19 to 22, inclusive, and renumber section 4 as section "3". Beginning on page 2, line 25, strike out "funds appropriated pursuant to section 3", and insert "the School Loan Fund created by section 4". Page 3, at the end of line 8, insert the following new sentence: "No such loan may be made after June 30, 1961." Page 3, strike out lines 9 to 22, inclusive, and insert the following new sections: "SCHOOL LOAN FUND "SEC. 4. (a) There is hereby created a School Loan Fund, which shall be used by the Commissioner as a revolving fund to make loans under this Act. Any amount paid to the Commissioner on any such loan shall be deposited in the School Loan Fund and shall be available for making loans under this Act and payments to the Secretary of the Treasury on obligations issued by the Commissioner under subsection (b). "(b) To obtain capital for the School Loan Fund, the Commissioner shall issue notes, debentures, or other obligations, in amounts not exceeding $3,000,000,000 in the aggregate, which shall be purchased by the Secretary of the Treas ury. Such obligations shall bear interest at a rate to be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, and shall be in such form and denominations, have such maturities, and be subject to such terms and conditions, as may be prescribed by the Commissioner with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury. For the purpose of purchasing such obligations the Secretary of the Treasury may use as a public debt transaction the proceeds from the sale of any securities issued under the Second Liberty Bond Act, as amended, and the purposes for which securities may be issued under that Act are extended to include any such purchases. "ALLOTMENTS TO STATES "SEC. 5. As soon as practicable after the enactment of this Act, the Commissioner shall determine for each State an amount which bears the same ratio to $3,000,000,000 as the school-age population of the State bears to the total of the school-age populations of all the States. The total amount of loans outstanding at any one time under this Act for the construction of school facilities in any State shall not exceed the amount so determined for the State. As used in this section, the term 'school-age population' means that part of the population which is between the ages of five and seventeen, both inclusive, as determined on the basis of the most recent estimates certified by the Secretary of Commerce." [From the Congressional Record, February 8, 1955] THE SCHOOLS IN TROUBLE (Mr. Lesinski asked and was given permission to extend his remarks at this point in the Record and include extraneous matter.) Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Speaker, because of the current crisis facing our schools I am submitting the following material for your information. By way of introduction, it seems appropriate to insert the following article by Walter Lippmann which appeared in the Washington Post and Times Herald on February 3, 1955: "THE SCHOOLS IN TROUBL. "Everyone who has paid any attention to the condition of the public schools knows that they are in serious trouble. They are being called upon to do more and more. They do not have the resources-the money, the buildings, the facilities, the teachers-to do what they are expected to do. "There are, it is estimated, about 700,000 pupils who are being deprived of fulltime schooling. There are not enough classrooms and not enough teachers. More than a million and a half children go to school in rented garages, churches, barracks, and other makeshift quarters. The number of pupils in one class that a teacher can teach effectively is generally put at a maximum of 30. Yet it is reliably estimated that there are more than this maximum number in at least half the classes in the country, and there are a large number with as many as 50 or 60 pupils per teacher. "The general picture is that of a Nation which has outgrown the capacity of its school system. This enormous growth and change, which has been very rapid in the past 30 years, raises formidable problems of how to educate adequately such a rapidly increasing number of children. "The whole educational community is engaged in a continuing reappraisal of its functions. Many of the problems of adapting education to the modern world are complex and controversial-particularly as they have to do with how to teach and with what to teach. Here there are differing views and one cannot generalize and be dogmatic. But there is a fundamental condition on which there can in fact be no dispute. It is that the American system of public education is now out of scale with the educational needs of the country. The money and the public effort which we are putting into the public school system are on the scale of an earlier age. They do not permit the school to keep pace with the growth of the population, with the change in the American ways of life, and with the new position of this country in the world. "The simplest way to visualize the overall problem of scale is to remember how we have changed uor way of thinking about national defense and about public highways. Since the beginning, the country has always maintained Armed Forces. It has always built roads. But if we compare the military budget today with the budget on the eve of the Second World War, the difference in the |