subject I want to talk to him about. Since he is going to read the record, I will talk to him that way.

I don't think this committee can fully understand what you are doing if we just sit here and listen to you. To me, it is like reading about the Rocky Mountains and never looking at them. The first time you see them, you get an impression you can't get by reading.

I think it's the same with your projects. We tend to think in the light of what we see in our home areas and what we knew about some period back in history.

I, for one, would surely like to do that.

Mr. RAMSAY. We could send you an invitation to come at your convenience.

Mr. QUIE. I would like to see the committee get out to Prince Georges County, too.

Thank you very much.

The committee will reconvene at 9:30 a.m. on February 20th. [Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m. the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, February 20, 1973.]

[Further information supplied by Mr. Edward Strack follows:]

Hon. CARL PERKINS,

THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,

Albany, N.Y., March 15, 1973.

Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN PERKINS: On February 28 I had the pleasure of appearing before your Committee to offer testimony in support of Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. During the testimony, you requested information regarding the number of Title III programs currently being funded. Through the cooperation of Mr. Gerald Kluempke, Executive Secretary of the President's National Advisory Council on Supplementary Centers and Services, ESEA Title III and the State Coordinators, the enclosed list has been compiled. Information is included for all states except Hawaii.

You will note on the attached chart that there are in excess of 2,050 projects involving approximately 8 million children, employing 335,000 teachers and over 10,000 counselors currently involved nationwide in ESEA Title III projects. Because Title III projects are funded on a three-year cycle, renewable annually, approximately 2% or 1,400 of these projects will be requesting continued funding at the end of FY '73.

I trust that I have interpreted your question correctly and have provided you with the information necessary to assist you in your deliberations. I appreciate the opportunity of meeting with you and your colleagues and look forward to your continued support.

Very truly yours,

EDWARD C. STRACK, Coordinator of Innovative Education Planning.

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

AMENDMENTS OF 1973

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1973

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

GENERAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,
Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Carl D. Perkins (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Perkins, Meeds, Lehman, Forsythe, Dellenback, and Towell.

Staff members present: John F. Jennings, majority counsel; Christopher Cross, minority legislative associate; Eydie Gaskins, special assistant; and Toni Painter, secretary.

Chairman PERKINS. The General Subcommittee on Education is today continuing hearings on H.R. 69, which reauthorizes the major Federal laws affecting elementary and secondary education, and H.R. 16, which authorizes a new program of Federal general aid.

We are hearing testimony today on P.L. 81-874 and P.L. 81-815 the impact aid programs. We are very pleased to have testifying before us four of my colleagues. We will begin the testimony with Congressman Thomas Downing.

I first want to welcome our colleague from over in the Tidewater section of Virginia, Tom Downing. He is one of the most outstanding supporters of the Economic Opportunity Act and educational programs that we have in the Congress.

When we are in trouble, we always go to Tommy Downing around here. You go ahead, Tommy.

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS N. DOWNING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

Mr. DOWNING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I would like to say that I join with this audience in their appreciation of your fine work as chairman of this committee.

I know that it is a violation of the rules for the audience to applaud, but it must have made you feel right good.

Mr. Chairman, I have come here today to offer testimony on behalf of H.R. 69 which extends and amends the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965. I wish to direct my remarks toward that portion of the act relating to impacted school districts, several of which are in the first district of Virginia which I represent.

For many years now, our schools have had to depend upon Public Law 81-815 and Public Law 81-874, laws which provide funds for school construction and operation in areas where there are concentrations of Federal installations.

Because of its strategic location, the first district of Virginia has a heavy concentration of defense establishments and numbers of other Federal installations. Some of these have large numbers of dependents living on them, but there are far more civilians working on these establishments who live in the civilian communities.

All of these children in both categories must be educated in the local school systems. The localities, however, are denied their rightful tax returns. It is true that these Government workers pay local real estate taxes on the homes they own, and they contribute to regular State tax revenues as all other citizens.

However, that is where the similarity ends. Their employer, the Federal Government, pays no tax on the real estate which it occupies and no tax on the volume of business which it does. As you are aware, that is certainly not the case with private industry.

The impacted area funds are vital to many of our school districts. Only through them are they able to provide quality education to all of the children which they serve. For example, one of the school districts in my area, York County, has a total enrollment of 8,300 students. Of that number, 1,821 children live on Federal property. Another 2,240 children have parents who work but who do not live on Federal property.

Having almost 50 percent of county schoolchildren federally involved may seem extraordinary to you, but let me assure you that is the way it appears to county officials. They get no tax return from almost half of the area of the county. It is not subject to taxation. It is owned by the Federal Government.

The present cost of education for York County is $900 per child. The Commonwealth of Virginia provides $300 and the other $600 must come from other local sources. For the 4,060 students whose parents are federally employed, the school district must obtain over $2.4 million. Since the principal source of local revenue is real estate tax, both residential and nonresidential, one can readily see the unfair burden placed upon the permanent residents and the civilian business community in paying for education. For 1,821 students, neither the parent's residence nor place of employment can be locally taxed. For another 2.240, the place of parent's employment cannot be taxed. Thus, it is absolutely necessary for the county to receive funds under the impacted area aid program.

Mr. Chairman, I feel that the Congress must act now to continue this program which is vital to so many areas of our country. Not only has the administration revised its budget request to reduce these funds by approximately one-third for the fiscal 1973, it has practically terminated the program for fiscal year 1974. The budget reflects only $41.5 million for the schools on military installations which are run by the Government and none for the civilian school districts surrounding Federal properties.

I am almost through, Mr. Chairman, but I beg your indulgence and that of the committee for a moment more while we look at some figures.