Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Down at the bottom of page 6:

Mr. LILLYWHITE. That is correct.

Dr. GRIGSBY. Beginning with line 16.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Now, the description of what constitutes a critical defense area is that:

(i) a new defense plant or installation has been or is to be provided, or an existing defense plant or installation has been or is to be reactivated or its operation substantially expanded, and

(ii) substantial in-migration of defense workers or military personnel is required to carry out activities at such plant or installation, and

(iii) the minimum school facilities required for the free public education or the children of such defense workers or military personnel are not available.

Now, it is only a very recent development. Why do we have to be so careful to define the critical nature of the area before funds can be allocated?

Mr. LILLYWHITE. There has been a concept in effect since Public Law 139 was passed, for housing and community facilities that had the provision of a critical defense area and the benefits of that_bill applied in the critical defense areas. Those were the areas where defense activities were taking place, where there was a shortage of housing and certain other actions took place once it was so declared. Now, this does not, Mr. Saperstein informs me, follow the exact wording but it follows largely that concept which has been in effect in that law for the past 2 or 3 years.

Dr. GRIGSBY. A more direct answer to your question as to why this limitation in terms of critical defense areas thus defined is to relate this category (c) child, where you have the sudden and substantial impact by reason of Federal activity to a defense situation, defense area, as thus defined in which there is this shortage of school facilities. Otherwise under the present law there is a broader area of possible Federal activity in which you can count category (c) children for purposes of entitlement.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Why can the category not be wider as to category (c) children? Why do we have to limit it just to defense areas?

Dr. GRIGSBY. Because in the main it is believed that that is where the Federal responsibility largely exists with respect to sudden and substantial impact.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I see. That is all.

Mr. BARDEN. Doctor, on your critical defense area, who determines that?

Dr. GRIGSBY. The President.

Mr. BARDEN. Are we not fixing to foul up the situation? You have this critical defense area tangled up with the rent-control situation. It may be involved in something else.

Now, I much prefer some schoolman taking the facts and determining whether it is a critical defense area as it relates to the school situation than for someone else to determine that is a critical defense area for rent control or for some other motive that may be pushing it. Do you see what I have in mind?

Dr. GRIGSBY. Yes.

Mr. BARDEN. I much prefer schoolmen taking the actual facts and figures and reaching their own conclusion than I would for it to be declared a defense area by the President who acts upon recommenda

tion made by others who have something absolutely different in mind from the school situation.

Dr. GRIGSBY. It was for that reason, Mr. Barden, that this language is not tied to the language of any other legislation.

Mr. BARDEN. But if you use that as the criteria, the net result would be the same because I can visualize an area where you would probably need rent control and yet you may have a million-dollar school building half full.

Dr. GRIGSBY. The criteria are similar but not identical. I would assume we would be asked to present through appropriate channels a recommended list of such critical defense areas for purposes of this particular act.

Mr. BARDEN. Why submit it to the President? Why do we not say what we mean in the legislation? When you have this situation, that situation, the other situation, that is it.

Dr. GRIGSBY. I believe that determination in terms of the criteria you set out in the act would be made by the Commissioner of Education or whoever is administering the act.

Mr. BARDEN. Certainly. He is in 10 times better position to do it than the President or some military officer. The more I see of their business operations the less I think of their business judgment. They are good military men and know how to fight a war and they are wonderful fellows and all that. You and I try to be good fellows, but we would not make good surgeons at Walter Reed Hospital. You are a doctor and I am not, but I still would not trust you with a knife on me.

Mr. BAILEY. Mr. Chairman, there is another thought, too, the right of the President to set up critical areas carried with the right also to declare the area not critical; that is, to remove the status. What would be the situation of the school board under this present cutback of $5 billion in defense spending? Supposing the Defense Secretary deactivates one of their defense installations, the President removes the status of critical area, where would it leave the school situation on the basis of the President's authority to declare it a critical area? Dr. GRIGSBY. I would suppose for the year that occurs. Mr. BAILEY. That is sure to happen under a cutback program. Dr. GRIGSBY. The situation and the entitlement would not be affected.

Mr. BAILEY. You mean it would not be affected when it ceased to be a critical defense area?

Dr. GRIGSBY. In the year in which the application was made.

Mr. BAILEY. You could write language in there fixing the date when it would cease to be entitled to Federal compensation but just to make it a general proposition-they could not qualify unless they were a critical defense area-would lead us into difficulty. If we were on an increased program of defense activities, it would not make any difference, but we are facing a situation of where we are going to eliminate some of our defense installations. So you had better give that some little thought.

Chairman McCONNELL. Go ahead, Doctor.

Dr. GRIGSBY. Further, the bill requires that if the growth in membership of non-Federal children between June 1952 and June 1954 is less than 10 percent of the membership of such children in 1951-52, the number of children by which such increase is less than such 10 per

cent shall be deducted from the number of Federal children before counting Federal children toward the school district's maximum payment.

That one you will recall we discussed at some length yesterday. It is in effect an absorption factor as related to the normal expected increase in enrollment throughout the country nationwise of 10 percent in this 2-year period, the presumption being that if that general increase does not occur as respects non-Federal children in a particular locality, that to that extent the number of children they may count in the federally connected category for entitlement would be reduced by the different eligibility under the new provisions based on a specified percentage growth over the 2-year period, June 1952 to June 1954, in the number of children of parents living or working on Federal property. In order to be eligible for assistance under sections 305 (a) (1) and 305 (a) (2) the school district must have a growth in federally connected children equal to 5 percent of the total membership in 1951-52, and must have a minimum of 20 children in each section.

Under section 305 (a) (3) children whose parents come into the district during the period as a direct result of Federal activities, but who do not reside or work on Federal property-the eligibility requirement is a minimum of 20 additional children and this growth must represent 10 percent of total membership. School districts in this latter category must also be in a critical defense area and must have incurred an undue financial burden due to Federal activities.

These eligibility provisions can be compared to the present requirements that all federally connected children in the district must equal 15 and constitute 5 percent of the total current average daily attendance under the first 2 categories.

In the third category of federally connected children whose parents do not live or work on Federal property the eligibility requirements under the present law are 20 children and 10 percent of the total average daily attendance.

In addition, the present law requires that the school district show some growth in school attendance between the school year 1938-39 and the year of application for children whose parents live or work on Federal property and such growth must be 110 percent of the 1939 attendance for the third category of children.

Mr. BAILEY. Will that not virtually eliminate category 3?

Dr. GRIGSBY. It cuts it down very substantially. I think in the material we provided the committee, we indicated a reduction of about from 90,000 children to 37,000 children. It is over 50 percent reduction. It would be about 60 percent reduction in that category (c) in the number of children who could be counted.

Mr. BAILEY. That is all I had in mind, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. GRIGSBY. Another important change in the new proposal is in the counting of children on a "membership" rather than on an "average daily attendance" basis. This will permit the district to count all children who will be enrolled in school in June 1954 rather than the average attendance of pupils over the full school year 1953-54. This provision is more equitable for those districts which have a constantly rising school enrollment throughout the year such as is now occurring in defense-impacted districts, and is more pertinent because

it is the number of children enrolled in school for which facilities must be provided rather than the number in average daily attendance.

Mr. HOLT. What do you mean by membership, is it enrolled for a year or estimated?

Dr. GRIGSBY. In terms of the language of the act it is subject to a State definition, if there is one; and if there is not, to the Commissioner's definition.

Membership ordinarily involves the child being on the rolls until he is dropped for a known reason. It varies somewhat in some States and in some areas I think they will drop a child from the rolls who is absent for 2 weeks. In other cases they may carry him until they get a definite report as to what has happened, whether he has actually withdrawn and moved to another community, and so on. Mr. HOLT. The State definition of membership would vary?

Dr. GRIGSBY. It might vary somewhat, just as average daily attendance is left to the State determination or definition in the present act.

Mr. HOLT. Thank you.

SCHOOL FACILITIES FOR INDIAN CHILDREN

Dr. GRIGSBY. The proposed legislation also contains a new title (IV), which is intended to solve a federally caused educational problem facing a number of local school districts which Public Law 815 has not solved because of its requirement for growth in school attendance since 1939. This is the problem of providing school facilities primarily for Indian children living on tax-exempt Indian lands and attending public schools.

In a report to this office, the Arizona State superintendent of public instruction said:

Arizona is a large State, sparsely populated, but second to all Western States in growth the past few years. Taxes for the operation of school districts within our State are exceedingly high; our assessed valuation is comparatively low. Within Arizona 69.16 percent is Federal and comprised of Indian reservations, park service, national parks, and so forth, and 14.74 percent is State-owned land, leaving 16.10 percent taxable for the operation of schools, by our State, county, and local governments; therefore, the inability of our State to assume total responsibility for education of these Navaho children.

Mr. BARDEN. Let me ask you something about that Navaho situation. I have seen some statements in the paper and pictures, and so forth. How many schools do they now have out there? Have you or Mr. Lillywhite actually been there to see?

Mr. LILLYWHITE. Mr. Congressman, I spent one summer of my college days on the Navaho Reservation studying the Indians. There are 12,000 of them that are not in any schools at all because there are no schools.

Now, I do not think this proposal is intended to go in and put them all in school. The report from which this quotation is taken shows the impossibility of getting them in schools, even if you built a school, until roads are built to the school and some other things are taken care of.

What is intended to be done under this proposal is to take the local school districts, the public schools under the State law that are accepting these Indian children. As you know, they are trying to cut

34851-53- -9

out the Indian schools, the federally operated Indian schools and move these children into the normal school and community situation.

Now, this would provide assistance to those public schools that are taking these children or want to take them if they had the facilities, to build enough school facilities to take them.

Obviously, you do not get into the interior of the reservation. I suppose in some cases it would be those places where you have an established community and the school to go along and a number of these Indian children.

Mr. BARDEN. Every time I hear of the Navaho Indians and think of the situation in Puerto Rico, it is embarrassing to me and should be to any good American citizen. That is exactly the way I feel about it. We lift our sights and look 4,000 miles across the ocean and pour money here and there, and as to our own people, and Puerto Rico is a part of the United States, when you see a school down there with 1 teacher to 105 pupils in the school and even though they have compulsory school laws, if they were to enforce them they could not put them in the buildings 2 deep, I am amazed at how we can so easily glide over a situation like that. It bothers me.

Mr. BAILEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from North Carolina is finished, there is a situation that I think should be called to the attention of the committee.

Back in 1945 in my first term in Congress I was a member of the Indian Affairs Committee. Now, we set up an Indian Claims Commission to adjudicate all the claims of the Indians against the Government. It was the declared intention in that legislation at the end of 10 years when this Commission had to report their settlement of these claims that the legislation would be presented to do away with the Indians as wards of the Government and declaring them all citizens.

Now, this program that you are talking about should lead up to the situation where there will cease to be Indian schools and cease to be reservations and the Government-owned property on which the Indians live will be subject to taxation and they will be normal citizens like the rest of the residents of Arizona.

Mr. LILLYWHITE. I do not know whether you can set the goal so high. Certainly it is a move in that direction. It provides for facilities for the children to go to school in regular public schools.

Mr. BAILEY. That is, the only way you will ever civilize them and educate them to be good American citizens in the future is to bring them into the schools and integrate them along with our normal Americans.

Mr. LILLYWHITE. These letters come in every day. One came in yesterday. They have 150 children in a school in a community. They are closing the Indian school and they are expecting an additional 150 next year.

Those are the exact situations. I think the assessed valuation in that entire community is $15,000.

Mr. HOLT. Where is that community?

Mr. LILLYWHITE. I would have to get the facts on it. It was a letter yesterday. It is Montana or Wyoming.

Mr. HOLT. I am interested in the specific areas regarding Indians because I would like to check on the program on education by the Indian Affairs Bureau.