This is the fifth recognition which it seems to me must be a part of our understanding of this problem. It has been my privilege during the past year to work with a State finance study for the Governor's office, and we have documented for our own State in great detail that State support for schools is in competition with increased demands for highways, for higher education, and for correctional and mental health facilities. State legislatures must examine these with some sense of priorities.

Mr. BAILEY. Did it ever occur to the gentleman that the chamber of commerce opposed expenditures for education, but they are back of every move for interstate highways and things of that kind? In other words, isn't their thinking to put a dollar value on the proposition?

Mr. JOHNSON. It is difficult to put a dollar value on education, but I can recall, Mr. Chairman, on one occasion reading a report by the chamber of commerce inviting their local members to look at how good their schools were, because at least on one occasion in American history the chamber of commerce recognized that the income of the members of the chamber was in part a reflection of the level of educational attainment of the community.

A chamber of commerce study showed that the higher the level of educational performance in the community, the greater the income base of that community, and the better market it was for houses, and for furniture, and for all of the other things that the chamber of commerce members were interested in. Unhappily the chamber members do not all read their own propaganda, but on occasion they have taken a more constructive view, Mr. Chairman.

Now, in the case of these five fundamental propositions, it seems to me that the Congress must recognize that some Federal support for education is essential. The investment which we make in our youth, while as the chairman said is not easily susceptible in dollar value, is, we know, the most important and precious investment that we can make. Moreover, we know that the American people want education. They want their children to have the advantages of an adequate education, and the fundamental proposition is not "Will there be education?" but rather "How will we pay for it?"

Turning, if I may, to the provisions of H.R. 22, the bill which was discussed so ably by the previous witness, I would call to the committee's attention several things which I think are very essential in any legislation reported by this committee.

H.R. 22 recognizes the importance of acting to provide aid with respect both to capital and to operating costs.

Secondly, H.R. 22 recognizes that this is not a temporary condition, but is a continuing condition, and therefore has an unlimited life; and I think that this is a sound financial decision.

Thirdly, H.R. 22 has a clear statement in section 11 denying any Federal agency any power to influence the personnel or curriculum or other operations of a local school district. This is in keeping with the position taken by all of the persons that I am familiar with who support Federal aid to education, for they do not want Federal interference with the fundamental freedom of State and local governments to operate their own school systems.

However, Mr. Chairman, I must enter a modest objection to the provisions of a school effort index in H.R. 22. I realize that there are people who believe this will somehow do some good, and I am referring to section 8, at pages 5, 6, and 7 of the bill. In my opinion this is open to criticism on many fronts. In my studies I have found no evidence that any State or local unit of government was deliberately neglecting its schools. The poorer areas frequently are pushing themselves far beyond what the richer areas are doing to provide even the inadequate schools that they have, and therefore, I view such provisions in a sense as an affront to the willingness of State and local governments to support their schools. It is-and I hate to use this word--a gratuitous insult to many local units of government, and it is not needed for the purposes of this legislation.

I would say from a technical standpoint that the present level of reporting of expenditures by local school districts and States is so sketchy that this provision may only be an invitation to efforts to include in the data items which are not essentially of an educational nature—that is, school lunch programs, bus transportaion, athletic contests, and many other things, may find their way into the reports in an effort to build up the data and it will be very difficult to audit.

To make this effort index work, Congress will find itself having to impose Federal audit of school activities and we will then be denying the very proposition that we have just endorsed in section 11.

More than that, the provision seems to me to be open to a technical objection that by being based on the average it has a built-in selfelevating feature which is not fundamentally sound financial policy. I would prefer, therefore, that the committee, recognizing the intentions of the sponsors of such a feature, nonetheless abandon it in the bill which they report to the House.

Finally, may I make one technical suggestion, and yet it is one of great policy consequence? If there appears to be a congressional unwillingness to underwrite the level suggested by H.R. 22 (which after 1961 suggests $100 per student per year), so that a smaller sum of money is to be provided by the Congress, then there might well be included in the legislation some equalization formula which will put the money where it is most needed. The fundamental philosophy of an equalization formula is that grants-in-aid should be allocated directly in accordance with need and inversely in accordance with ability. I recognize that even what appear to be rich areas are crowding their property tax, and other State and local taxes are also under great pressure. Hence, I believe that there is some point to a national minimum level of Federal support.

But I would suggest that beyond that national minimum the additional aid might well be allocated on an equalization basis.

That concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the gentleman very much for his testimony. I wish he had talked a little more about equalization, but perhaps the opportunity will present itself at another time.

Are there any questions?

Mr. JOHNSON. I will be happy to do that at any time you wish.

Mr. THOMPSON. Our next witness will be our colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Lesinski.

37378-59-22

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN LESINSKI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to be down here again before this committee on the problems that relate to the educational field of this country of ours. I have had one of the districts that is considered one of the third largest in the Nation. It is growing continuously, and some of the school districts in my area since the 1950 census have tripled in population, and others have doubled. My district is constantly growing, and the problems are of a great multitude, that is, housing, sewers, schools, water, and so forth. It is a district that needs help from us here in bringing up its present needs for its classrooms.

In 1953 I introduced a measure, and the purpose of it was to give the school districts in my district, those who have gone all of the way and bonded themselves to the full limitation, and still did not receive help from the Federal Government or were unable to borrow more money-the purpose of it was briefly for the Federal Government through the States to loan these various school districts in the Nation the amount needed to bring their classrooms up to date.

As we all know, we are behind today in the number of classrooms in this country. We have to get some means, allowing for each and every child to have its full day of education. In many sections of my district they are going half a day. That is both in public and in so-called private schools. Both are overcrowded, and both need a lot of help.

I have a statement that I shall read to the chairman, if the chairman will allow me, and that is an explanation of my bill, H.R. 385, which I originally introduced back in 1953, the same date that the administration came out with their proposal, and it has been copied from my inquiries. That is to allow $3 billion loan program for the school districts.

The proposal contained in this bill is one which I originally introduced in the 84th and 85th Congresses, and is being advanced, not as a substitute for any Federal program of grants-in-aid to the States for school construction, but as an additional and supplementary means of enabling States and local communities to carry out school construction programs which might not otherwise be possible in meeting their school capital outlay requirements.

Under my bill the sum of $3 million would be made available to the U.S. Commissioner of Education for loans to eligible school construction authorities and local educational agencies to assist in financing the construction of school facilities needed for free public education. Each loan would bear interest at the rate of 1 percent a year and would have a maturity of not more than 30 years.

The bill is directed primarily at those local educational units which have equaled or exceeded 50 percent of their legal limit, debt limit, and have no other sources from which to obtain funds for additional, needed school facilities.

In no way would the bill provide Federal control over the personnel, curriculum, or program of instruction in any school or school system.

The shortage of classrooms is one of the most serious nationwide problems before us today, and unless some immediate action is taken

by the Federal Government to alleviate that problem, it will become even more acute. There are many areas in the Nation today where pupils are on half-day sessions, and faced with the prospect of quarterday sessions, because there are not enough rooms to accommodate all of them at the same time. As our population continues to grow at an ever accelerated rate, this situation will become even more aggravated.

I have noted the most recent survey by the Office of Education on classroom shortages, which indicates that only six States expect to construct sufficient classrooms to meet their current needs.

In my own State of Michigan, there are presently over 150,000 students more than there are classrooms to house them. It is estimated that by the fall of 1963, Michigan will need 16,000 more classrooms to accommodate a public school enrollment of more than 2 million children. But that number of classrooms does not include another 11,000 needed to replace obsolete and unsafe facilities, to provide facilities where none now exist, and to relieve overcrowding and eliminate multiple sessions.

On a more local level, in the 16th District which I represent, there is one school district in which it is estimated that in the 10-year period from 1957 to 1967, the school population will have grown from about 9,000, about half of whom are now unhoused, to a total of 25,000.

Mr. THOMPSON. What does the gentleman mean when he says half of them are now unhoused?

Mr. LESINSKI. They are going on a half a day school or have no classrooms to go to.

Mr. THOMPSON. There are children in your district that have no schoolrooms to go to?

Mr. LESINSKI. They have schools, Mr. Chairman, and I don't want to give you the wrong impression, but they are only going half a day and those classrooms are cut down to 3 or 4 hours.

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you.

Mr. LESINSKI. So actually you can consider half of them unhoused for a full day curriculum.

Mr. THOMPSON. I see.

Mr. LESINSKI. Most of the school districts in my area, I am sure, and I am sure throughout the Nation, have been making conscientious efforts to meet their school construction needs, but have bonded themselves up to the full legal limitation, and in some cases, beyond. The legal bonding limit in Michigan is 15 percent of the State-assessed valuation of the school district. However, the practical limit and the one beyond which most bonding companies will not go is 10 percent. In a survey over a year ago, which I conducted in my area, out of 19 school districts, 2 had exceeded the State limitation, 2 were at the limit, and 9 were at or within 1 percent of the practical limit of 10 percent. All but three needed additional facilities, and within 10 years the needs will be as high as four times the current facilities.

Even operating within the limitation and in spite of the fact that the people have voted to float bond issues, school superintendents are not able to find purchasers in the current market. At that point I think it reflects pretty closely our other problems in the Nation, the high interest rates that come back right straight here to Washington. Terrors start from here, and we have to, as Members of Congress, try

to help these people to get sufficient funds to build the current buildings that are needed.

I am pleased to note that the administration has in part and in principle adopted the plan which I have been advocating since 1955. I should like to repeat that I am not offering this plan, as is the administration, as a substitute for a grant-in-aid program.

The greatest investment we can make today to insure continuation of our way of life is in the boys and girls of America who will grow up to be our future citizens. If we are to triumph over those opposing ideologies that seek to destroy our form of government, we must see that these future citizens are trained and ready to meet the challenge. We can do that by providing, as one measure, enough classrooms in which to educate them.

I believe that my bill, H.R. 385, will help accomplish that goal and do respectfully recommend to the committee that favorable action be taken on it.

Mr. Chairman, our greatest asset is our knowledge. Without proper school facilities and teachers, that asset is destroyed. The people of my district are doing all they possibly can to bring up to date their classrooms and to give their children proper education. Unfortu

nately, they have not the present means today, and they are willing to do all they possibly can to achieve that desire. What we need today is to give them a helping hand in achieving what they think is appropriate and proper for their children.

I hope the committee in its discretion will consider my bill and allow these people who actually want to give their children a real education, with a curriculum higher in many instances than it is today in my State, so that we can help this Nation of ours in the greatest way possible, and in aiding the wisdom achieved in our classrooms. Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the gentleman for his fine statement. Mr. GRIFFIN. I only want to thank and commend my colleague from Michigan for appearing before the committee.

The $3 billion that you were mentioning, Congressman Lesinski, was that $3 billion a year or over a period of years?

Mr. LESINSKI. Over a period of years. It is a $3 billion rotating fund, and as you borrow you pay back, and that is for the school district to be able to borrow through the State, and not directly from the Federal Government. The State has to authorize it.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I see.

Mr. LESINSKI, I understand the administration's proposal is also $3 billion, but the State has to meet it on a 50-percent basis, but my bill does not do that. It loans through the State directly to the school district, but with the State's approval, and as they pay it back, then the Federal Government has these funds available for other school districts for the future.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Don't you think one of the wealthier States in the Nation like Michigan should be able to match or help in this program to alleviate the needy school districts?

Mr. LESINSKI. You are from Michigan and you know the problem as well as I do. The biggest problem there is if you have various school districts, one has 35,000 on a tax base, and another has 1,800 and now is up to 2,000 or 2,100. What we need is a tax-equalization base for our schoolchildren which is basically our biggest problem,