would be if there were only the general rise in school population caused by the increased number of children born since 1946, a number which continues to become greater each year.

The growth of suburban areas around the cities has generally not followed a careful plan. Local governments, organized and developed to deal with rural problems, were unprepared for the multitude of new transportation, health, welfare, education, and community organization problems. The school districts were equally unprepared to deal with educational problems typically associated with city living.

Yet houses and groups of houses and organized subdivisions of houses have been filling in the areas ringing the central cities. These are more than suburbs. They are metropolitan rings crisscrossed by many local governmental and taxing jurisdictions, not all of which have been able to provide adequate facilities or coordinate existing services, let alone forecast needed actions or lay out physical, financial, and governmental plans for foreseeable growth. The rapid growth of school construction has been one of the remarkable accomplishments of these areas. The needs are still great, as one can see from the statistics describing the tremendous growth that is taking place.

Our problem of schools and other community facilities has been concentrated in a large measure in these rings. Nearly 50 percent of the entire population increase between 1940 and 1950 was in the areas around our central cities, and the trend is toward further accelerated growth.

Some of their financial problems are temporary; for example, waiting for assessments to catch up with building. Many are related to tax and debt limits that were not designed to cope with wholesale expansion. Providing schools, sewers, water, and streets rapidly on former farmlands requires large capital outlays beyond their debt limitations in many of these areas. The multiplicity of overlapping, small, inexperienced political subdivisions involved in various types of facilities, and services, is a complicating factor especially when it comes to financial planning.

In the less urbanized States the needs tend to be predominantly for replacement of buildings and reorganization of school districts to provide larger and better schools.

Now, from 1930 to 1950 there was an actual reduction in the number of classrooms available.

Obsolescence of buildings, abandonment of 1-room schools by consolidation, destruction by fire and other similar causes reduced the total and, at the same time, replacement construction was slowed by depression and war conditions.

Since 1950, construction has accelerated, and accompanying the enrollment increases has been a significant advance in construction.

Within the last year or so, construction has matched or surpassed the number of classrooms needed to house the annual enrollment increases.

Looking ahead to the 1959-1960 school year we foresee a progressive narrowing of the gap of need. Our present construction rate of approximately 60,000 classrooms a year is helping to build needed class

rooms.

Senator DOUGLAS. Mr. Chairman

Chairman HILL. Senator Douglas, do you want to ask a question?

Senator DOUGLAS. I wonder if it would be appropriate to ask a question on the subject matter as it is being presented at this time? Chairman HILL. Yes, go ahead.

Senator DOUGLAS. Mr. Brownell, I congratulate you for your statement that we have a long standing deficit of classrooms which needs to be made good. I hope you will not think it ungracious of me if I inquire why it is that you did not recognize this last year and that this recognition has been apparently a matter of very recent date in view of the fact that we had a very thorough survey of school building needs which were published, I believe, at the end of 1953?

Dr. BROWNELL. Mr. Senator, I think that I would like to remindperhaps members of the committee may recall, that I did appear before this committee a year ago and presented this chart which has been brought up to date, and did call attention to the fact that there has been this deficit which has been growing, and indicated that that was one of the problems that needed careful study, and on which we need to take action.

Senator DOUGLAS. Is my recollection faulty that at that time you opposed any immediate action on the part of the Federal Government to make good this deficit in classrooms?

Dr. BROWNELL. No. I think I would not say that, Senator. I think I would say this

Senator DOUGLAS. Is my memory faulty that you did oppose then any immediate action, or is it correct?

Dr. BROWNELL. I do not like to say that any Senator's memory faulty, but I would like to say what I did recommend.

Senator DOUGLAS. Yes.

is

Dr. BROWNELL. And what I recommended was that we take immediate action to mobilize the forces in our 48 States so that the States would take action to solve this problem, recognizing that with the tremendous size of the problem, that most of the activities would be by the people themselves in the several States.

Senator DOUGLAS. And any Federal action be postponed until after the White House Conference on Education; is that right?

Dr. BROWNELL. I do not believe that the recommendation was that any action be postponed until after the White House conference. There I would have to, I think, check myself on the record.

Senator DOUGLAS. Well, was not that the attitude of the administration, that there should be no permanent Federal action until after the White House conference?

Dr. BROWNELL. I think the answer was that no long-range program should be undertaken until after the White House conference; I believe that is correct.

Senator DOUGLAS. And that was not to be until the fall of 1955 ? Dr. BROWNELL. That will be this fall; yes, sir.

Senator DOUGLAS. So that your recommendation last year was that no action be undertaken until 1956.

Dr. BROWNELL. No permanent legislation until after that time. Senator DOUGLAS. Is this permanent legislation that you are now submitting?

Dr. BROWNELL. No, sir; this is a 3-year program.

Senator DOUGLAS. Well, I mean, 3 years tend to become somewhat permanent.

What I am interested in is why there has been a change of heart and a speed-up for the Administration, for which I personally wish to commend you

Dr. BROWNELL. Thank you.

Senator DOUGLAS (Continuing). But I am interested in a little psychoanalysis on this point.

Dr. BROWNELL. Secretary Hobby wishes to reply.
Secretary HOBBY. Mr. Chairman, may I answer that?

Senator DOUGLAS. Yes, Mrs. Hobby.

Secretary HOBBY. May I respond to Senator Douglas' question? Dr. Brownell came with the Office of Education about November as of a year ago.

Senator DOUGLAS. November 1953.

Secretary HOBBY. He had been here a very short time when your Congress met. You will recall that we had an unfortunate circumstance in that we lost our first Commissioner of Education through death. I think he was from your State, Senator McNamara.

We were somewhat handicapped. We knew the need last year and, frankly, told you that. I think this chart that we referred to is the same we sent to you to use for your television show, Senator Douglas, and I think it was the same chart that we used a year ago, so this committee did see this chart. The Senator from Illinois, I believe, was not on this committee last year.

Chairman HILL. Oh, yes.

Secretary HOBBY. I still feel that a long-range solution to the school construction problem that will be increasing from year to year should have the best thought the White House Conference on Education can give it, and the State Conferences on Education can give it.

Senator DOUGLAS. Are those to follow the White House conference? Secretary HOBBY. No, sir, Senator Douglas.

Senator DOUGLAS. They precede it?

Secretary HOBBY. Those state conferences are in process now.
Senator DOUGLAS. Are preceding it?

Secretary HOBBY. Yes, sir.

Even with an annual rate of school construction of $2 billion this year, it was obvious that we must find a way within the next 3 years to take care of this deficit. We did not want to come to the Congress with a 5-year or a 10-year plan to build school buildings that really should have been built years ago.

As I said a while ago, from 1930 to 1955, I suppose many thousands of children have gone through their entire school lives in the kind of buildings that we believe they should not have used.

That was the reason, Senator Douglas, for a comprehensive plan which would attempt to help every school district and every State build schools, and build them in a 3-year period.

I do hope the White House Conference on Education will review any and every proposal made to this Congress or made elsewhere for the financing of public school construction in the United States.

Senator DOUGLAS. Well, Mrs. Hobby, I appreciate what you say but, as I remember it, a bill was introduced by Senator Cooper of Kentucky last year, which called for the appropriation of $250 million a year, and it was for only 2 years.

Secretary HOBBY. That is correct.

Senator DOUGLAS. And the proposal of the Senator from Alabama, Senator Hill, in which some of us have joined, is only a 2-year proposal, so that these bills have not tended to lay down a permanent policy but to meet a present need.

Now, I am not interested in scoring points nor am I unappreciative of the fact that late hour additions to the ranks of the righteous should not receive full credit. I do not wish to deny them credit, but I am a little interested as to why the bill of Senator Cooper's last year and the bill this year of Senator Hill met such a chilly reception from your Department.

Secretary HOBBY. May I answer that, Mr. Chairman? I think I covered that point before the distinguished Senator from Illinois arrived.

When I said that I did not believe then-and I do not believe nowthat any single approach to solving the classroom shortage in the United States will be effective and effective quickly, I said it because the bill was a single approach to solving the classroom shortage.

My position has not changed at all. I did not believe then that the bill would have been an effective device to build the classrooms which were needed in the United States. That, I again say, Senator Douglas-and I beg the Chairman's pardon for repeating myself-is the reason the administration came up with what we believe is a comprehensive and a flexible four-point program to solve the classroom shortage in the United States.

Senator DOUGLAS. I do not want to get into a discussion of the details of the program, but am I correct in my understanding that the administration's bill rejects, virtually rejects, the idea of Federal appropriation for school construction generally, and centers its attention upon making it easier for States and localities to issue bonds to finance school construction?

Secretary HOBBY. Titles I and II, as you will hear, Senator Douglas, do exactly that. The administration's grant-in-aid approach is directed at school districts which have not the economic resources to help themselves.

Senator DOUGLAS. In other words, it is not flexible so far as outright Federal appropriation is concerned, and chooses the approach of making it easier for States and localities to finance construction through bond issues.

Secretary HOBBY. That it does, Senator. We have not been able to find any State in the Union that has to pay as much of its budget as the Federal Government does on its debt service, mindful always of the fact that each political subdivision in the United States has money problems. They also have responsibility problems.

Senator DOUGLAS. I have some questions on finances which I would like to reserve for a later time.

Chairman HILL. Go ahead, Doctor.

Dr. BROWNELL. The next points I would like to make have to do with the fact that in our approach to the problem of why districts do not build schools, we found that there were several methods by which school buildings are financed.

Our basic approach was the idea that school districts want to build schools, and the question is one of their inability to finance them, and we wanted to see, therefore, what are the financing means and what could be done to make it possible for any district that wants a school

to be able to finance it; and we found there are four different methods that are used to build schools.

There are a few communities, either rather wealthy communities in terms of the per capita income or some of our large cities, that have capital outlay programs that are able to finance their buildings from current revenue-these are very few.

Most of the communities in all of our States, under the laws of the State, are able to borrow money and issue bonds, secured by taxes, for the purpose of capital outlay, which in the case of school districts, is for building schools. That is a predominant pattern or predominant way that was set up in the State laws and constitutions.

Some states provide for State loans or grants to school districts. However, those are not, for the most part, general grants. They are grants for specific types of schools. For instance, we have the type of situation in some States where they will have funds and where there is a consolidation of schools, the State will assist in the new building; and then there are several States that have what is known as agencies or authorities where the authority, which may be the State department of education or may be the local school board, or it may be some other group that is incorporated, is permitted to issue bonds and to build a school building and rent it to the school district.

Those were the four financing methods that we found used for the building of schools.

Senator DOUGLAS. Mr. Chairman, I wondered if the Commissioner would state, would give for the record, the States which have these four methods of financing.

Dr. BROWNELL. That is right here on that chart, Senator Douglas. On this map of the United States are shown the States with the different types of aid. Those that are in the gray, dark gray, color, are the States where they have some kind of grants that are made for school construction. As I say, most of them are limited grants.

Those that have the purple circles are the ones that have some plan of loans to school districts. Actually, there are two other States I have found that we did not get on the chart, New York and Florida, which also have a plan of making loans to school districts of certain kinds.

There are four States-Maine, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Georgia-where they have these grants-I mean where they have these authority programs.

Senator DOUGLAS. Are the Maine and Indiana laws operative now or are they being held up in the courts?

Dr. BROWNELL. The Maine law is operative at the present time, as I understand it. The letter from the assistant school superintendent or assistant commissioner, who is also, I believe, chairman of the School Building Authority, indicated that some 41 schools, I think it is, have been built under that act.

Senator DOUGLAS. And the Indiana law?

Dr. BROWNELL. In Indiana they have two laws: one is the State school building authority, which is not operative at the present time because of some technicality, although the State superintendent has indicated that there is being presented to the legislature at this session the necessary proposal to make that operative as a State agency, but they also have a law for authorities, which are local authorities, under