Chairman HILL. Copies have been sent to each member of the committee, and they are also available for Members of the Senate, or other interested parties. Senator SMITH. But I would like to have put in the record, just so that we will be aware of the study in the record of the vast scope of the subject to put in the record the table of contents, which is reasonably brief and which can be incorporated, showing us the topics that must be considered and the problems that must be considered in dealing with this question. I just mention that because I feel it is something that people should realize as to what we are dealing with here, the population has increased, and what the school situation is throughout the country, and so on, and I think it is terribly important for us to have a grasp of that in dealing with the ultimate solution of the problem. So I ask that the contents be incorporated at this point in the record. Chairman HILL. Without objection, so ordered. (The table of contents referred to follows:) CONTENTS Introduction: Nature of the question. Chapter I. Findings, considerations, and alternatives: B. Elements of the issue. C. Alternative courses of action. Chapter II. Historical background of the question: D. Postwar aid to December 31, 1954. E. Legislative proposals and action, 1948-54. Chapter III. Legislation in effect and pending proposals: A. Current Federal aid for school construction. B. Other current aid to elementary and secondary education. C. Pending bills proposing aid for construction: 1. Senate bills. 2. House bills. D. Pending proposals for other forms of aid: 1. Senate bills. 2. House bills. Chapter IV. Evidence of nationwide need for school construction: A. Findings from the national school facilities survey: 1. Status phase. 2. Long-range phase. B. Reports from States not participating in the survey. D. Estimates from other sources. Chapter V. Population and school enrollment trends: A. Population changes: 1. Growth since 1930. 2. Forecasts of population growth. 3. Changes in age composition of population. B. School enrollment trends: 1. Past and present enrollments. 2. Future enrollments. Chapter VI. Local and State financing of school construction: A. Local finance tradition and problems: 1. Utilization of general property tax. 2. Variations in local fiscal ability. 3. Bonding limitations. 4. Extending the tax base. B. State support for capital outlay: 1. Evolution of State aid for school construction. 2. Current programs of State aid. 3. School building authorities. Chapter VII. Variations in State ability and effort (to support elementary and secondary education): A. Variations in State ability: 1. Income payments per capita of population. 2. Income payments per child of school age. 3. Ratio of children to adults. B. Variations in State and local effort: 1. Percent of current expenditures from States and local sources. 2. Current expenditures per capita of population. 3. Ratio of current expenditure to income of the people. 4. Relationship of capital outlay to income. Chapter VIII. Administrative provisions and distribution formulas (proposed in school-construction bills, 83d and 84th Congresses, to Jan. 24, 1955): A. Types of administrative structures proposed: 1. The "State-plan" type. 2. The "public-works" type. B. Types of distribution formulas proposed: 1. Flat grant per pupil. 2. The 40 to 60 equilization formula. 3. The 33% to 66% equalization formula. 5. The population-taxation formula. Chapter IX. Alternative formulas: A. Basis for claim for aid: 1. Determination of "need." 2. Tax "effort" as a factor. 3. School expenditures as a factor. 5. Statistical summary. B. Basis for distribution of aid. Chapter X. Arguments pro and con: A. Arguments for Federal aid for school construction. B. Arguments against Federal aid for school construction. Chapter XI. Attitudes of organizations and agencies: A. Federal agencies. B. State boards of education. C. Associations of boards or officials of States or their political subdivisions. D. Educational associations. E. Organizations of parents and PTA associations. STATEMENT OF HON. OVETA CULP HOBBY, SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, ACCOMPANIED BY ROSWELL B. PERKINS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, AND SAMUEL M. BROWNELL, COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF EDUCATION Secretary HOBBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I wish to thank you. for inviting me to these hearings to testify in support of S. 968. Mr. Chairman, may I go back and list the witnesses for you? Chairman HILL. Yes. Secretary HOBBY. Mr. Chairman, in addition to myself and the Commissioner of Education, various representatives of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare are with us this morning to assist in answering questions relating to the provisions of S. 968. The provisions of title II of the bill relating to State school-building agencies require expert testimony dealing with, (1) the legal aspects and (2) the financial aspects. I, therefore, respectfully request that, immediately following the administration's testimony, the committee receive the testimony of Mr. Judd and Mr. Moore relating to the legal aspects of title II and the testimony of Mr. McGee and those accompanying him relating to the financial aspects of title II. These are individuals with whom we consulted in the preparation of the draft bill. The names of the persons accompanying me and the others I have referred to are set forth on a list which we have furnished the committee. (The following letter was furnished for the record :) DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, February 15, 1955. Hon. LISTER HILL, Chairman, Labor and Public Welfare Committee, DEAR SENATOR HILL: I have your invitation of February 11, 1955, to testify at 10 a. m., on February 16, 1955, on S. 968 currently pending before your committee. I will testify on the bill and will expect to have with me Assistant Secretary Roswell B. Perkins, the Commissioner of Education, Dr. Samuel M. Brownell, other representatives of the Office of Education, and members of the General Counsel's Office. As you know, there are a number of areas in the bill which will require technical explanation and supporting testimony to present the bill adequately. Messrs. Orrin G. Judd and Earle K. Moore of the law firm of Goldstein, Judd, and Gurfein will testify as to the constitutionality in the several States of certain arrangements contemplated by the bill. The following bond experts will present testimony on certain financial aspects of the bill: Mr. Cushman McGee, of the firm of Pressprich & Co.; Mr. George LeVind, of Blyth & Co.; and Mr. Leonard Sullivan, of Phelps, Fenn & Co., all of New York City. In addition, it is possible that we shall have several consultants with us who will wish to testify. I assume you would want the testimony of all these persons to follow immediately upon the Department's testimony, since it will be an integral part of the Department's presentation of the bill. Sincerely yours, OVETA CULP HOBBY, Secretary. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I wish to thank you for inviting me to these hearings to testify in support of S. 968. On February 8 the President sent to the Congress a special message on education recommending four positive steps to meet the urgent and vital need to build more classrooms for the children of our Nation. In our search for a way to get classrooms built, we were aware that any school-building program, to be acceptable to the Congress and the Nation, must answer affirmatively four questions: Will the program build classrooms in large numbers? Will it build them quickly? Will it be flexible enough to meet the varying situations of the 48 States and the 63,000 school districts? And, above all, will it safeguard State and local responsibility for education? The program submitted to the Congress by the President will, in our opinion, do all of these things. 1. S. 968 will build more classrooms for more children. Taken together, the President's proposals could put $7 billion to work building classrooms during the next 3 years. This sum would mean 200,000 classrooms for 6 million children. This would be in addition to construction undertaken outside these proposals. The accumulated need, Mr. Chairman, would shrink rapidly under the impact of this broad national attack on a problem which affects both the welfare of our children and, through them, the future of our country. Building classrooms requires the mobilization of all our available resources. Therefore, the President's program is designed to accelerate the flow of investment dollars into school construction to supplement governmental appropriations. In this way the funds immediately available for school construction can be vastly increased. 2. S. 968 will build schools quickly. Title I can be effective almost immediately after the bill becomes law. Titles II and III would require implementing legislation on the part of the States. But legislation would, in most States, also be required for implementing other school-construction bills considered by this committee if the neediest districts, unable to furnish necessary matching funds, are to be helped. The State legislation required to complement S. 968 would be straightforward and simple. Laws of this type are already in effect in several States. 3. S. 968 will stimulate local action. In commenting on legislation before this committee last year, I stated my view that Federal grants could deter rather than stimulate construction because States and localities might postpone their own building programs. Grant programs call for an allotment of fixed sums to each State, which must then be distributed to school districts on a priority basis. When funds are offered in this way, and only in this way, there is an understandable tendency on the part of many school districts to defer building plans in the hope they will receive Federal assistance. The President's program, in contrast, encourages local and State initiative and immediate action to speed school construction because the aid it offers is contingent upon first seeking financing through the usual channels. S. 968 would therefore encourage school districts to move forward quickly rather than wait for a possible Federal grant. 4. S. 968 is both comprehensive and flexible. The President's recommendations represent, in our opinion, the first comprehensive approach to the school construction problem. There are many reasons why school districts have not built schools. As a consequence, no single cure, no single approach can accomplish our goal of building more schools quickly. This is a key fact often overlooked in attempting to find a solution to the classroom shortage. Unlike other proposals before this committee, S. 968 recognizes this essential fact. It has been tailored to meet the many different situ ations which exist. The bill provides alternative forms of action, each designed to overcome a particular impediment to school construction. The bill constitutes, therefore, a comprehensive and flexible program to meet varying needs. 5. S. 968 preserves State and local responsibility for education. We recognize that Federal aid to education is an issue on which Americans have strong and divergent views. Here is one of the basic philosophical divisions of our time, a cleavage which extends deep into our history. For decades the Congress failed to accept proposals for general Federal aid for schools largely because there was no assurance that State and local control of education could be kept inviolate. Now the President has charted a course on which we hope all Americans can agree. S. 968 would, we believe, preserve intact the tradition of State and local responsibility for education. S. 968 recognizes the national interest in encouraging the construction of suitable classrooms for every child. It reaffirms an unwavering confidence in the self-reliance, the ingenuity, the independence, and the resourcefulness of our people. It will enable the American people to form a working partnership using private, local, State, and Federal dollars to build badly needed schools. Before describing the proposals in detail, Mr. Chairman, we would like to present our analysis of the classroom shortage, the factors contributing to it, and the impediments to local financing of schools. I shall now ask the Commissioner of Education, Dr. Samuel M. Brownell, to present this information. Chairman HILL. Fine. Let me ask you one question before we hear from Dr. Brownell, Mrs. Hobby. You stated that the administration proposals would put $7 billion to work building classrooms. How much of this represents a permanent Federal outlay as distinguished from loan and reserve funds that must be paid back? Secretary HOBBY. Senator, may I answer your question title by title? In title I, on the Federal purchase of bonds, there is requested an authorization of $750 million. In title II, which is the State school building agency proposal, there is an estimated sum of $150 million which would be the Federal share. As you recall, the initial reserve would be matched by the States. The $6 million-I am sorry, the $6 billion of bonds sold in that program would be supported by the initial reserve, which adds to the marketability of bonds under that program. In title III of the bill, which is the Federal-State matching of grants to districts which have proved need and proved lack of local income, there is an authorization of $200 million for a 3-year period. In title IV, which provides Federal grants on a matching basis to States who identify particular problems that they wish to overcome in financing their schools, $20 million is authorized over a 3-year period, and the first appropriation would be $5 million. Chairman HILL. Well, I appreciate those figures, but what I asked was how much of all these figures, represents a permanent Federal outlay as distinguished from loan and reserve funds that must be paid back? |