recognize the burden of educating children flowing into a district such as Bremerton, unsupported by an inadequate tax base. (9) To limit the Federal support of the unending stream of new Federal pupils who are annually "welcomed aboard" in the Bremerton public schools seriously limits the educational program, prohibits improvement of the educational program, and singles out a district centered in the midst of a number of very important national defense installations. (10) of some importance, is the evident fact that the existance of large Federal establishments and its highly selective employment policies creates an unusual educational problem. It denies the youth of the community normal employment opportunity on one hand and on the other hand requires an educational program of significant depth and breadth to train for highly specialized jobs in Government establishments. It is sincerely requested that the twin measures; namely, Public Laws 874 and 815 be permanently enacted. They are simple to administer and their respective entitlements are clear cut and based upon a sound principle. Their permanent enactment will permit better budgetary practices and consistently better educational programs. The Bremerton district needs to know well in advance if the Federal Government will pay for services rendered. Long-term planning is essential to a good educational program. The community of Bremerton and especially those in charge of the schools are grateful of the services rendered by you and the excellent educational programs provided by the companion laws; namely, Public Laws 874 and 815. EXHIBIT No. 1 28 FEBRUARY, 1966. Mr. ARMIN JAHR Superintendent of Schools, Burwell and Montgomery, Bremerton, Wash. DEAR MR. JAHR: As a person who is active in both military and civic affairs in Bremerton, I note with some concern the approaching date of March 8, 1966, when a vote will be taken on providing funds for needed repairs and alterations to certain schools in Bremerton. Being a line officer, having served as commanding officer of several ships (one of which I brought into PSNS), I would like to mention a few points which might have some bearing on this important issue. A commanding officer in deciding or making recommendations to his type commander on the location of a ship overhaul usually considers two items paramount, as to the desirability of that location. These are: (1) the availability of housing, recreation, and shore leave facilities for his crew, and (2) the living costs and availability of housing, recreation facilities, and schools for the families of the officers and crew. In regard to the second point, the availability of good schools both in academie instruction and facilities, is a very important consideration to the commanding officer and should be a very important item in influencing Bremerton voters to vote "yes" for the much needed repairs in the oncoming election. This should seriously concern both the employee who works directly in the shipyard and associated facilities and the great many others performing services who indirectly depend on government payrolls for their livelihood. For without incoming ships and satisfied departing personnel, the prosperity of Bremerton will be greatly affected. It is unfortunate that the property owner, particularly retired and limited income personnel, must once again bear the tax load. However, as a property owner in Bremerton, I personally will share in the load and will feel privileged to do so, although hoping sincerely a more equitable sharing of the taxing load will soon be devised. Sincerely, GORDON B. WILLIAMS, Group Commander, Bremerton Group, Pacific Reserve Fleet. EXHIBIT NO. 4 STATEMENT OF CANVASS STATE OF WASHINGTON, County of Kitsap, ss: MARCH 8, 1966. I, Margaret McPherson, auditor of Kitsap County, Wash., do solemnly swear that the returns purporting to be the election returns of the election held on the 8th day of March 1966 for the purpose of excess levy for maintenance and operation in the amount of $356,145 or approximately 9.33 mills have in nowise been altered by additions or erasures, that they are the same as when I received them, so help me God. MARGARET MCPHERSON, Subscribed and sworn to before me this 21st day of March 1966. R. G. LLOYD, Chairman, Board of County Commissioners. CANVASS OF RETURNS This is to certify that at an election held on the 8th day of March 1966 for the purpose of excess levy for maintenance and operation in the amount of $356,145 or approximately 9.35 mills the results were as follows: We further certify that the proposition failed for lack of necessary 60 percent "yes" votes. Witness our hands and official seal this 21st day of March 1966. R. G. LLOYD, Constituting the Election Board of Kitsap County, Wash. I, Margaret McPherson, auditor of Kitsap County, Wash., do solemnly swear that the returns purporting to be the election returns of the election held on the 14th day of September 1965 for the purpose of school improvement bonds in the amount of $2 million, have in nowise been altered by additions or erasures, that they are the same as when I received them, so help me God. MARGARET MCPHERSON, Kitsap County Auditor. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 22d day of September 1965. R. G. LLOYD, Chairman, Board of County Commissioners. CANVASS OF RETURNS This is to certify that at an election held on the 14th day of September 1965 for the purpose of school improvement bonds in the amount of $2 million the results were as follows: We further certify that proposition carried by an affirmative vote of over 60 percent of those voting on this proposition, with 40 percent of the qualified electors who voted in the last general State election voting at this time. Witness our hands and official seal this 22d day of September 1965. R. G. LLOYD, Chairman, Board of County Commissioners, County Auditor, and Clerk of the Board, Treasurer. Constituting the Election Board of Kitsap County, Wash. COMMENTS ON TITLE II OF H.R. 13160, PREPARED BY ROBERT G. LINDEMUTH, FISCAL ADMINISTRATOR OF FEDERAL PROJECTS, OFFICE OF STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, STATE OF WASHINGTON, OLYMPIA, WASH., FOR PRESENTATION BEFORE THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C., ON MARCH 30, 1966 Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on behalf of the State educational agency of the great State of Washington, and the children of all the schools of our State, I wish to express gratitude to the Honorables Lloyd Meeds, Tom Foley, and our other congressional delegates, for this rare privilege of appearing before the Appropriations Committee of the House at this time. Our purpose in this presentation is to submit testimony relating to the proposed amendments to the longstanding and popular propertyimpact programs, Public Law 874 and Public Law 815, as contained in H.R. 13160, both as to program continuation and adequate appropriations to fully support this impact legislation. We are deeply concerned that the program be continued at no less than the present level in fiscal 1967 and in succeeding years, and that appropriations be maintained at the 100-percent level. This is particularly a crucial matter in our State since we are on a biennial system of State legislative appropriations for school purposes. In order to justify the full appropriations, we respectfully urge your consideration of the proposed changes as authorized in H.R. 13160, and we will be glad to answer any questions the committee members may have on the Public Law 874 impact program. It is this section of H.R. 13160 and H.R. 13161 to which I am now addressing my comments and observations, and I will treat each major proposal of title II of this bill in order, as well as to make other general comments relating to the ongoing support programs. |