million to provide new classrooms for the increased enrollment that seems to be staring us in the face between now and 1960.

I can go one step further than Dr. Bailey did. In Ohio we find that we need to build eight classrooms every day from now on until 1960 if we are to take care of the projected increase in enrollments. Chairman HILL. You mean 8 classrooms, 365 days a year?

Mr. EYMAN. That is correct.

Chairman HILL. Until the year 1960?
Mr. EYMAN. That is correct.

Chairman HILL. A 5-year period?

Mr. EYMAN. That is what the survey committee finds. Those are not my figures, but the figures of the committee.

Chairman HILL. What is 8 times 365, Doctor-multiply by 8.
Senator DOUGLAS. 2,920.

Chairman HILL. I will say that Professor Douglas has supplied the figure.

Mr. EYMAN. That is correct. We have an increase now, and as our birth certificates indicate, that increase will continue, of 67,000 pupils per year. That is the rate at which we are gaining. I, too, want to report that I think as far as our local districts in Ohio are concerned, they are doing all that they possibly can do.

I have said that I think probably the general assembly may not be attacking this problem as well as they might; however, I do have to remember that I have just been working with some of the people who are working on the budget, and that they are now trying to bring budget requests of $783 million down to balance with anticipated revenues of $706 million.

Both our general assembly and the Governor have gone on record as not being favorable to new taxes. Frankly, I will have to admit in a situation of that kind, I don't know how this could be supplied. I think it would require new taxes.

Our local school districts voted last November $127,040,000 for this building program. They have been voting for the last several years at the rate of $125 million per year. However, when I tell you that this $127 million was voted in 286 of our 1,300 districts, and I think you can see where the problem exists.

The difficulty which we find in Ohio is the fact that local school districts have to build buildings out of bond issues, which are paid off by taxes on property, real estate, public utilities, and personal property.

Senator DOUGLAS. There isn't much taxation of personal property, is there?

Mr. EYMAN. Not a great deal, Senator.

Senator DOUGLAS. So it is in the main on land and buildings.

Mr. EYMAN. Right. We have some personal property, but as you know, several years ago most of the property that was taxed on a personal basis was taken off under classified property. The proportion of income that comes in from property declined during 1939-50 from 13.6 to 10.8 percent.

The proportion from farms-and by the way, most of these districts that did not vote bond issues this fall, and many of them cannot vote any more bond issues-the proportion of income from farms declined from 3.9 to 2.8 percent, whereas, the proportion of income

from salaries and wages increased in that period of time from 66.2 to 70.4 percent.

In other words, if we are to solve this problem which exists in Ohio some means must be found of securing revenue from other sources than property taxes, and particularly from rural property taxes. If some means could be found whereby the tax base could be broadened on a local level, I would be for it. But we have done something in that respect in Ohio. In 1951 the State tax commission was given authority and an appropriation to equalize property valuations. They have pretty well completed that job. I think they have done a good job for the most part in Ohio. Property is taxed in Ohio now approximately at 50 percent of its true value. And that was found by taking the sales which were made of property over a period of 5 years and putting on the tax duplicate about 50 percent of true value.

We, in Ohio, have constitutional and statutory limitations which prevent the local districts from going any further than most of them have gone. The tax base must be broadened locally. The State must give more support than it has given in the past biennium, where the State has appropriated $3 million to assist local districts in building classroom facilities.

In the previous biennium, $2 million was appropriated. That might be expanded or any further help would need to come from the Federal Government.

Coming from Ohio, I cannot come down here and advocate Federal subsidies on the basis of the gain that we would receive in Ohio. I think statistics show that we would pay in more taxes than we would get back in subsidies. However, I think we have reached the pointand I am willing to concede the point-that we are probably on the national level where were were a number of years ago on the State level.

At one time we expected local school districts to maintain their schools and build their buildings locally. We found that that couldn't be done. In practically every case now we have the States giving assistance. We may be at the place now where the Federal Government may need to give assistance.

In connection with this particular bill, I want to say that I do not see that Ohio could gain much from the provisions of this bill. In the first place, title I would permit the Federal Government to purchase bonds presumably at a low rate of interest.

In Ohio we have had no difficulty in selling our bonds. The $127 million that was voted in November, most of them I suspect are pretty well sold now, most of them are sold around 2 percent. I know of no case where any bonds, regardless of how small the district or how poor it may be, sold for more than the 34 percent as far back as I can check.

We have no difficulty in selling our bonds, and therefore, I see no relief provided in title I.

Title II, which provides a public school building authority-we checked into that problem 4 years ago. We went to Pennsylvania; checked carefully on their setup. We came back and reported to our general assembly and the Governor, at that time, that we could not see how a building authority could be made to function in Ohio.

We have another bill introduced in our general assembly now, providing for a State building authority. I still don't see how it can be made to function.

Senator DOUGLAS. Why is that? Why couldn't it function?

Mr. EYMAN. I do not see how our local districts, Senator Douglas, could pay the lease. For example, we have a limitation as far as bonds are concerned. We have a 10-mill constitutional limitation. We can neither have levies or bonds beyond the 10 mills without a vote of the people. Every school district in the State of Ohio has to vote an additional levy to operate their schools. Every district.

Senator DOUGLAS. They are all up to the ceiling?

Mr. EYMAN. They are beyond the ceiling. Every district has to have a vote levy beyond the 10-mill limitation to operate their schools at the present level.

That levy can be voted at a special election for 2 years only, at a regular election it can be voted or 5 years only. I do not see how a school district, if we had a building authority that would set a building in their community, right now, how any school district in Ohio could agree to pay a lease on that building over a period of 30 to 35 years when they can only vote on a levy for 5 years.

So I see no relief as far as the public school building authority. I would still say that if it can be made to function in Ohio, this bill will probably be passed and we will have a State authority setup. I think probably it will not pass. It didn't 4 years ago. It never got out of the committee, because no one else could find the way to make it function.

I am somewhat opposed to it even if it could be made to function, because, as was mentioned here by Dr. Fuller and Dr. Bailey, I do not favor setting up another Authority. We, in Ohio, are in the process of setting up a State board of education. The General Assembly has that task before them now. Certainly it appears to me that that should be the agency in Ohio which would carry out any assistance of that type.

Under title III there would, of course, be some assistance given, presumably, to the weak school districts as a direct grant in aid. But if I understand the bill properly, I doubt that our districts could qualify under that section because, as I understand, they must first try to qualify under title I, or title II.

Title IV would grant some relief to States, I think, who want to make a study over a long-range program to determine their needs and determine what could be done, but the fact is that we have had a school-survey committee which has been functioning for 18 months, and I think has done a pretty good job. I think we well know our needs. So I don't see much relief in title IV.

I think in conclusion, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I would say that the only possible relief that I see for the situation in Ohio and I do believe it is bad-would be under title II, the Public School Building Authority, and if that can be made to function, I can assure you that it will function in Ohio without any bill from the United States Congress.

Chairman HILL. Any questions, gentlemen?

Doctor, we want to thank you. You come from a great State. You were represented here by a great Senator and great American, Senator

Bob Taft. He was the author of one of the bills that this committee voted out on Federal Aid to Education. That bill passed the Senate by an overwhelming vote. You have come here, may I say, in the Taft tradition, made a very interesting and able presentation, and we certainly appreciate that.

Mr. EYMAN. Thank you, sir. I did not send a telegram to Dr. Fuller, because I felt I was close enough to Washington so I could come and testify in person. I have done that.

Chairman HILL. Dr. Frank Wright, Associate State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Sacramento, California.

We are very happy to have you here. Just proceed in your own way, please, sir.

STATEMENT OF DR. FRANK WRIGHT, ASSOCIATE STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, SACRAMENTO, CALIF.

Dr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee: I am here today representing the Department of Education and Dr. Roy Simpson, Superintendent of Public Instruction on this problem that is before you today. I might say that when we received in California the message by President Eisenhower on his interest in the public school problem, we were quite gratified that such recognition had taken place, and in analyzing his address, we believed that there were very fine things said there, but we will have to admit that the bill that complements the message was not one which we believe would do us very much good in California.

I have a prepared statement I would like to read and inject a few items as I go along.

I might say further, that I listened with a great deal of interest to what Dr. Fuller has said today, and I can say we are fully in agreement with the statements he has made and the analysis of this bill, and the relationship to other bills and the effect thereof on the taxing problems in general, because we believe they apply very adequately to the State of California.

Title I of the bill provides that the Federal Government shall purchase bonds from local school districts when such districts find it impossible to provide necessary school housing, due either to inability to sell bonds or to sell them at a reasonable interest rate. There is not a single district in the State of California which has issued bonds which has found it impossible to sell them in the open financial markets at a reasonable rate of interest. Such bonds have been sold at an interest rate of less than 2 percent and, currently, at from 212 percent to 3 percent. Therefore, in the opinion of the State Department of Education, title I would be inoperative to the interests of the various school districts of California.

Title II, which provides for a State school building agency, contemplates that the State and Federal Government shall join together to provide certain funds to set up a reserve fund to meet the first year's obligations in the repayment of obligations that might be authorized by the local school agency and to make repayments to the Federal Government for advances which would be made to provide the necessary school construction. Under this proposal the districts would have the buildings built for them by the State school building authority, financed jointly by the State and Federal Governments. Then such

buildings would be rented to the school districts and the districts would be required to pay annually an amount equal to the principal and interest. This payment would be made from annual operating funds for a period not to exceed 32 years.

In California the law would have to be changed materially to provide for special taxes for this purpose in lieu of bond taxes, as State bond funds cannot now be used for the payment of rent, which is a current expense. This might be done if the State law were amended to permit bond receipts to be used for current expenditures.

I might say that statement needs to be amplified, because it is likely that under this sort of an authority the districts would be required to sell up to the maximum of bonds, anyway, and on top of that, they would have to pay the necessary rental for the use of the building which would make a very difficult tax rate for the districts to bear.

In California about 4 years ago, the legislature authorized a study on various phases of schoolhouse construction. We have been in this business with a State plan for 7 years, and California has voted aid to school construction to the extent of $1 billion, of which approximately $590 million has been spent to assist districts beyond their bonding capacity.

This interim committee investigated this State building authority plan which has been referred to at various times as the Pennsylvania plan and a report was made to the legislature. They were completely discarded as impractical and not feasible in our State. I see no possibility of reviving that sort of thing to make it work in our situation.

Our experience with buildings constructed by the Federal Government, when title to such buildings remains with the Federal Government in any manner, has not been very satisfactory. There is always. a question as to where the title rests and who has responsibility for maintenance, alteration, and general repairs.

I refer to the Lanham Act buildings. They were built during the war. They were erected by the Government. The district got use of them through a permit system, and there has been constant difficulty all during the period of that use as to who owned the buildings. The districts were required to maintain the buildings, provide insurance, and that sort of thing, the maintenance and repair being one thing that was kicked back and forth between the district and the Federal Government, with the result that nothing was done. Door knobs fell off, and then there was a big argument as to who was responsible for it. We have had a similar situation more recently with the construction of the Public Law 815 buildings on Federal property, known as section 204. We have about 12 to 14 installations in that regard. The same thing is true there. The buildings are owned by the Federal Government, given back to the districts under some sort of a permit to use.

The difference between the plan we have in California where the State assists in building buildings and this other type of authority thing is that the district builds its own buildings with its own architect and under its own contract, and they know they will take title to the building, and it is their building for all intents and purposes. Under this permit arrangement it doesn't work that way. We believe that sort of thing would make itself felt very definitely in a lease plan which would undoubtedly have to be a lease arrangement likely from