age per capita income in New Jersey is 24 percent above the national average. In other words, as compared with other incomes in our State, New Jersey teachers are not well off, but slightly handicapped. On almost any measure you wish to use, the same comparisons can be made. New Jersey is in the area of high building costs-whether for schools or industry; in the area of high living costs, for teachers as for everyone else; in the area of high wages for all workers, not just for teachers.

If New Jersey has relatively good schools-and we believe it has it is because of Herculean efforts on the part of its local taxpayers. New Jersey is traditionally a low State-tax and a high-local-tax-State. Our schools receive a relatively low percentage of State school aid. Friends of education in New Jersey-educators, the Parent-Teacher Associations. Boards of Educationhave been for the past 2 years, asking our State legislature to just about double the aid being given to local schools. Our proposals would increase State school aid by about $91 million a year. In support of that request we have pointed out that in the past 2 years alone as a result of higher enrollments and rising school costs-local school taxes have gone up over $80 million. This is a situation which cannot be allowed to continue; the inevitable result would be a loss in educational quality which neither New Jersey or the United States can afford.

And the end is not yet. Within a very few years our enrollments will rise from less than 1 million pupils to more than 1,250,000. The cost of educating each pupil is now nearly $400, and in the face of economic conditions which we are unable to do anything about, this cost is going up about $25 a year. Even if our own State grants the additional aid we seek, and the Murray-Metcalf bills pass, our local taxpayers will still have to carry a heavy load to maintain school quality at present levels.

We need them both: the increased State aid we are seeking and the Federal support which the Murray-Metcalf bills would provide. It is worth noting, however, that the selfsame people and organizations which appear before you to oppose Federal support-on the ground that States should use their own maximum resources for school financing before the Federal Government helps-are the very last to help secure adequate State school aid in New Jersey.

America today is concerned with educational quality-worried lest our Nation lose or waste any talent or ability we have. Unless we are to face a dull mediocrity of education, there are always going to be leaders-schools that are better than other schools, schools out in front, schools that represent the "leading edge" of educational progress. Such schools will always cost more than the average; they will have better teachers, partly because they pay them better than the average; they will try new ideas, new equipment, new concepts of school building. It will be a sorry day for American education if there are no such schools.

It should be one function of Federal support to encourage the States and the communities which are the "leading edge" of education. As they move forward, so does education all over the United States. Without them talent will be wasted indeed.

At the State level in New Jersey we subscribe to this principle. State taxes, raised by State laws, provide some State school aid in every community-the able as well as the less able. Those with the greatest need naturally get a greater share of the help available-what we call equalization aid. But it is a basic principle that an appreciable amount of the taxes raised in a given community should help educate the children of that community. The same principle should apply to Federal support, and a substantial part of the taxes raised by Federal authority in New Jersey should come back to help the schools of our State.

In the information available on the Murray-Metcalf bills we note that they appear to conform to these concepts:

(1) When this legislation is in full operation, New Jersey would receive about $148 million. An additional $52 million of New Jersey tax money might be used to improve the educational opportunities in States less able and fortunate than New Jersey; thus New Jersey recovers almost three-quarters of the Federal tax money raised in our State which is involved in this program.

(2) About $200 million of New Jersey tax money would be involved in this measure. This is less than 6.5 percent of the $3,100 million which New Jersey pays in Federal taxes each year.

(3) Of the entire $4,500 million a year involved in the program, only $750 million goes to States other than the State of origin. Thus barely 15 percent of the proposed Federal aid is used for equalization between States. It is hard to see how there can be any serious objection to this.

Mr. BAILEY. The Chair observes that we have another one of our colleagues present, a Member of the Congress from the State of California.

Mr. Cohelan, will you come forward and identify yourself to the reporter and proceed with your testimony.

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFFERY COHELAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. COHELAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I thank you for the opportunity to present my views on the MurrayMetcalf bill, H.R. 22, and on my own identical bill, H.R. 4258.

I wish to speak in favor of this legislation. Knowing of your long and thorough study of these bills this year, and in prior years, I will be brief and will direct my comments specifically to the need for Federal aid to the public school systems of California.

An article in the Berkeley Daily Gazette, Berkeley, Calif., last Wednesday, March 4, reported that the local school board on the previous day had approved a $9,980,000 school expansion bond issue. The article listed the various construction projects involved and then continued as follows:

The costs of these 10 projects fit within the $9,980,000 bond issue. Projects are limited to that figure because it represents the maximum bonding capacity of the school district.

Projects totaling $1,544,700 were trimmed off Superintendent Carl H. Wennerberg's original report.

The article quotes Superintendent Wennerberg as saying that the trimmed projects included school buildings that "should be entirely replaced in the very near future."

Gentlemen, this article is appropriate because it refers to a situation that is in no way unique or unusual in California.

The problem in Berkeley is, in fact, not as bad as in other cities in the Seventh Congressional District, which also includes Albany, Piedmont, and a large part of Oakland.

These cities in my district are typical of the majority of California cities:

1. In that they have, in recent years, bonded themselves to the legal limit for school construction-statistics recorded at hearings of the Senate Subcommittee on Education in 1958 show that in 1957 California school bonds totaled $393,580,000 in 415 separate issues, the largest total in the Nation in that year;

2. In that they are still unable to finance classrooms needed right now-Congressional Quarterly for January 30, 1959, reports that in the present term California is building 11,000 new classrooms, but needs another 7,000; and

3. In that they face increases in school population of startling proportions the California Department of Finance estimates that the State's public school population will jump from 3 million this year to 5,400,000 by 1970.

In California schools, crowded classrooms are frequent, and socalled double sessions are common. Students in double sessions go to school for half days only, and teachers go through their daily lessons twice a day.

There is no doubt in the minds of California schoolmen that distribution of Federal revenues to the public schools must be continued and increased substantially. In fact, this distribution must be conceived as a capital investment program of major proportions, not only in the physical school plant but in the operational program as well.

California's need for professional teachers is second to no State in the Union. What good are classrooms without teachers to staff them?

Nevertheless, the facts are that of all the trained teachers who graduated from California colleges in 1958 approximately one-half did not enter the profession. While California's teacher salaries are on the average above those of most other States, they are not enough to attract the top quality professionals needed. Federal funds are needed for teaching as well if we are to have excellence in education as well as in schools.

I believe the Murray-Metcalf bill will provide the kind of comprehensive program of Federal aid to schools that is needed.

Thank you.

Mr. BAILEY. Mr. Thompson.

Mr. THOMPSON. I would like to thank our colleague from California for a fine statement.

I am particularly interested in the specific item from the Berkeley Daily Gazette. This is happening almost every day throughout the United States and serves to illustrate, to me, at least, two things very well:

First, that the local school districts are making tremendous efforts on their own, but that they cannot keep the pace in a great many instances.

Secondly, that that illustrates one of the great difficulties that we would have with the administration bill and Dr. Flemming's formula about which I have been reading in the record daily.

What, in your estimation, would California have to do if they were to qualify to pledge the credit of the State to raise money to pay debt service and so on, as suggested in the administration bill? Would you have to change your constitution or have a statewide referendum?

Mr. COHELAN. In California I think it would be required to have a referendum. We face extraordinary difficulties in our State. We are already besieged with many other financial problems in our State legislature, as you no doubt are aware.

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. That, again, is not a unique situation. The State of Michigan is broke; so are the States of New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Jersey.

The demands on the State level are so tremendous that I see very little possibility for the alleviation of the classroom shortage without the type of assistance given in the Murray-Metcalf bill.

Mr. COHELAN. Mr. Thompson, I heartily agree with your observation, but I would add, and I would stress, that in California it is par

ticularly remarkable. At the risk of being redundant and repeating things that you have heard before, I do not have to prove that California is faced with an exploding population and the problems that confront California and California government are formidable.

We are simply trying to solve some problems that we have never had before which are the result of population pressures. We are facing entirely new situations in many of our communities.

It is my own firm belief that to solve many of these problems, not only in the field of education but elsewhere, we definitely are going to have to have Federal assistance, at least to get over the initial stages of the problem.

Mr. THOMPSON. I thank you very much. I think your testimony is splendid.

Mr. COHELAN. Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. BAILEY. Mr. Cohelan, I would be interested in knowing if you have the figures available. You mentioned a school district that just floated a $9 million bond issue and still was not able to take care of all of the school-building needs.

What is the rate of levy on the taxpayers of that district now that they have expended all of their bonding limit? How much are they paying in the way of taxes?

Mr. COHELAN. I don't have that figure with me, Mr. Chairman, but I will be delighted to supply it for the record.

Mr. BAILEY. It would be quite interesting and quite helpful to the

committee.

You know when I was out there over 10 years ago, in 1950, I ran into district after district where the tax rate for school purposes was up in excess of $34 on a thousand. Some people seem to think that the States can do all of this problem. There is a limitation of what the States and taxpayers in local school districts can really do.

You cannot afford to force them to pay the value of their property in 10 or 12 years in paying taxes. You understand that.

Mr. COHELAN. I understand precisely; and having served as a member of the city council in my area before I came to the Congress, I am well aware of the budget and tax problems.

Mr. BAILEY. Do you have any impacted school district?
Do you have any Federal installations in your district?

Mr. COHELAN. Yes; we do have in the Seventh California District; but in the specific municipality with which I was connected the Federal installations are very minor at the moment.

But the problem, Mr. Chairman, is a fixed tax rate in the educational area and these taxes are right up at the limit.

In the community where I live, not the entire district, but where I live, you have some very dramatic and very tragic community problems. People whose children have grown up and who are in the autumn of life, shall we say, are now faced with a young and expanding group, young couples with their growing families. The child population is growing enormously.

Older citizens pay an equal share of school taxes, even though they live on incomes fixed at a lower level.

We, I think, are coming to grips with the problems, but gradually because of the great pressures.

Mr. BAILEY. In other words, you are telling us that you have a tax base that does not meet the demands?

Mr. COHELAN. At the present time that is quite correct.
Mr. BAILEY. Mr. Hiestand.

Mr. HIESTAND. Mr. Chairman, I, too, compliment the gentleman from California on the comprehensiveness of his statement. I appreciate what he is up against.

I do think the record should show, however, what this tax basis is, what the limit is specifically, if you can supply it for the record. Mr. COHELAN. I will be happy to, Mr. Hiestand, and thank you very much.

Mr. BAILEY. Mr. Brademas?

Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Chairman, I also want to commend our distinguished colleague from California on his excellent statement. I had the great pleasure last year of visting the great university district in California which the gentleman represents. It is a great pleasure to see him here before our committee today.

Mr. COHELAN. Thank you, Mr. Brademas.

Mr. BAILEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Cohelan. You have been quite helpful to the committee. We have a real problem on our hands, and we will do the best we can.

Mr. COHELAN. I know you will.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to submit two letters which contain full fiscal data on the two major school districts in the Seventh Congressional District of California, data requested by members of your committee.

The first letter is from C. H. Wennerberg, superintendent of the Berkeley Unified School District, and the second from A. B. Saathoff, controller for Oakland Public School District.

(The letters referred to are as follows:)

OAKLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
Oakland, Calif., March 19, 1959.

Hon. JEFFERY COHELAN, Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. COHELAN: Your letter of March 14, 1959 addressed to Selmer H. Berg listed several categories of information which you wanted on the Oakland Unified School District for your testimony before the House Education and Labor Committee in favor of the Murray-Metcalf bill, H.R. 22 and your bill, H.R. 4258. Below is listed the information requested for a 5-year period:

(1) Bonding limits:

June 5, 1956 we voted a $40 million bond issue. Of this issue we sold: $10 million, September 1956; $10 million, September 1957; and $10 million, December 1958.

(2) The tax rates assessed and the maximum tax rate for the 5 years are listed below: