Page images


MONDAY, MAY 27, 1963




Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:05 a.m., in room 4232, New Senate Office Building, Senator Ralph W. Yarborough presiding.

Present: Senators Yarborough (presiding pro tempore), Randolph, Kennedy, Goldwater, and Jordan of Idaho.

Committee staff members present: Stewart E. McClure, chief clerk; Charles Lee, professional staff member of the subcommittee; Michael J. Bernstein, minority counsel; and Ray D. Hurley, associate minority counsel.

Senator YARBOROUGH. The Subcommittee on Education will come to order. The hearings will be resumed on S. 580 and related bills for the improvement of education in the United States.

We are honored this morning to have as our first witness the Honorable Frank E. Moss, a U.S. Senator from Utah. It is a great pleasure for me to welcome Senator Moss to the subcommittee for several reasons, mainly, of course, because of his energetic, able, and continuing hard work for the improvement of education. I take my hat off to him and his State.

In the last statistical compilation that I saw, 64 percent of the young people between the ages of 18 and 21 were in college in Utah, making Utah the No. 1 State in the Union in the percentage of young people of that age attending college. And among many other personal reasons for my high regard of him is the fact that Senator Moss and I served in the same unit for some months in World War II. Army Ground Forces, and became well acquainted with each other at that time.

It is a great pleasure to welcome you to this subcommittee, Senator Mos. You may proceed in your own way.


Senator Moss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity of coming and testifying before you this morning, and before Senator Goldwater and other members of the subcommittee.

I appreciate the comments about the efforts that my State makes in the field of education.

We do indeed devote more of our uncommitted income to education than any other State of the Union, and yet we find ourselves in deep trouble, trouble so deep, at this time, that it appears that we might have a problem in opening our schools next fall. When the State legislature, this year, attempted to deal with the problem of teachers' salaries and operating expenses of our schools, the legislature fell so far short of what it provided that the teachers at this time have decided, by a vote of their organization, not to enter into contracts for next year. This is a very serious impasse in the State of Utah, at this time, and it seems to me it is an eloquent argument for some form of Federal aid to a State that is poor in resources-that is, personal income and a State that makes a great effort in the field of education, devotes a large part of its income to education, but still can't quite meet the standards.

Salaries of our teachers are below the national average. In fact, they are below the average of most of the Mountain States, and we just haven't been able to solve the problem.

But I would like to proceed with my statement which I will run through as rapidly as possible.


As the chairman well knows, in both the 86th and 87th Congresses, I was a cosponsor of legislation to provide Federal aid for primary and secondary schools. I testified in committee; I joined in the fight to pass a realistic bill on the Senate floor.

In each instance, when a bill providing even a measure of Federal aid for our grammar and high schools was passed, I was most gratified. The bill was never exactly what I wanted in every respect, but I felt it was a first step toward helping to equalize the financial burden among the States, and assuring that every American child would be given a chance to get a quality education. I looked hopefully to the House of Representatives for favorable and final action on a similar


We all know what has happened. With each adjournment we have had to swallow our disappointment, and admit there would be no school aid bill that year. The whole question of Federal aid for primary and secondary schools has become more and more enmeshed in religious controversy, and this, combined with the conservative opposition which has always been there, has been enough to stymie the Federal aid to education bill in the House Rules Committee.

I am not as close to the situation as the chairman is, or as members of this subcommittee are, but if I read the discussions on this correctly, or if the arguments are coming through clearly to me, I cannot see that we are any closer to settling the divergent points of view now than we were in the last Congress, or in the Congress before that.

I stand as strongly as I ever did on the principle of Federal aid to education, but I am wondering if those of us who believe we should do something now for America's schoolchildren might not be wise to examine other avenues through which we might give some measure of assistance to our most hard-pressed educational institutions.


I am thinking specifically of the impacted area laws-Public Law S4 and Public Law 815. These laws have been in operation now since the 81st Congress-or for 12 years. That they have been extremely successful, and that they have had wide support, is beyond dispute. No one raises the question of "Federal control" with respect to the impacted area laws because these laws have been in open operation in almost all sections of the country, and everyone knows that a charge of "Federal control" would, to use a lawyer's phrase, “be laughed out of court."

I realize that the purpose of these laws has been, and still is, to provide assistance to school districts whose enrollments have been Swollen by an influx of children whose parents reside on Federal property, or are employed on Federal property, or where there has been a sudden and substantial increase in school attendance as a result of Federal activities, or the revenues available to school districts from local sources have been reduced as a result of the acquisition of real property by the United States. We all agree this basis is sound, and should not be subverted.

But I do want to point out that during the 12 years of the operation of Public Laws 874 and 815 they have been extended many times, and have been adjusted again and again to meet new situations and to iron out inequities. Public Law 815, which provides construction funds, was extended, or its provisions modified to adjust assistance to recently modified needs, three times in the 83d Congress, three times in the 84th Congress, three times in the 85th Congress, three times in the 86th Congress, and once more in the 1st session of the 7th Congress.

Public Law 874, which provides operation and maintenance funds in federally impacted areas, was extended, or modified, with similar purposes in view, three times in the 83d Congress, five times in the 4th Congress, twice in the 85th Congress, three times in the 86th Congress, and once in the 87th Congress, 1st session.

You Members of the Senate who sit on the committees responsible for the impacted area laws have shown admirable willingness to adjust the laws to fit newly emerging situations, as have your counterparts in the House, and the Congress has given almost unanimous support to your recommendations.

As a result, in 1963, approximately 11 million schoolchildren, or close to one-third of all pupils attending public elementary and secondary schools, were in attendance at a school in 1 of the 4,065 school districts receiving aid under 1 or more of the impacted area programs. Federal property forming a basis for this assistance totaled 255 million acres. There were some 5,288 different Federal properties claimed by applications as a basis for federally connected children. I quote these figures to indicate how widespread the programs are, and the immense impact this assistance has on all public elementary and secondary education in the United States.

In my State of Utah, in 1962, 12 school districts were aided under Public Law 874, the operation and maintenance law, receiving a total of $2.257,342. Two school districts were helped by Public Law 815, the school construction law, receiving $1,094.329. In a relatively

small State like Utah, where there is a high birth rate, a personal income average below the national average, and more children in public schools per capita than in any other State, the $3 million in school assistance provided by these two laws was most welcome, and indeed, indispensable.

Some provisions of these valuable laws have been made permanent, but others are under temporary extension, and we are faced with extending them before June 30 of this year. When we make that extension as I am confident we will-I suggest that we consider adjusting these laws once again, this time to broaden the programs slightly to allow other schools to participate and to clear up some of the inequities which have grown up since our last adjustment.

S. 415

On January 22, I introduced a bill, S. 415, which is cosponsored by Mr. Pastore, Mr. Randolph, Mr. Bible, Mr. Young, of Ohio, Mr. Fong, Mr. Long, of Missouri, Mr. Gruening, Mr. McGee, Mr. Cannon, Mr. Hart, and Mr. Brewster.

This bill provides not only for extending the provisions of Public Laws 815 and 874 for 2 years-that is, to June 30, 1965-but would amend it in two principal respects. I offer the bill for subcommittee consideration, and I would like to explain what the adjustment on the formulas I have suggested would do.


My bill changes the eligibility requirements of Public Law 874 for school districts with 35,000 children or over. At the present these large districts must prove that 6 percent of their children in average daily attendance are federally connected.

My bill would lower this percentage to 3 percent, which is the same figure now used for eligibility for districts with enrollments under 35,000. Some of the large school districts are now eligible on the basis of 3 percent federally connected children, and all of the smaller districts. It seems to me that all districts should be made eligible on the same basis-it costs all of them just as much to educate the children in question.

Adjustments of this provision would make some 20 to 25 additional large school districts in the country eligible, at a total estimated cost to the Federal Government between $18 to $20 million.

I have been advised by Mr. M. Lynn Bennion, superintendent of schools in Salt Lake City, that Salt Lake City has now reached a figure of 4.3 percent federally connected children. A reduction to a 3-percent qualification would, therefore, immediately make this important large district in Utah eligible.

Among other large city districts which probably could be qualified are Los Angeles, Chicago, New York City, Richmond, Detroit, Dallas, and Miami. There are probably more, but since many of them have not made recent surveys-because they knew they could qualifyfigures are not available. But I am sure new surveys would qualify more schools. Also, some of the larger consolidated school district's might qualify.


My bill would extend Public Law 815 for 2 years until June 30, 1565, and modify the minimum requirements in two instances. It would cut from 5 to 3 percent the minimum requirement of a percentage increase in federally connected children with parents on Federal property during a 2-year increase period over the base year (sections 5(A) (1) and (2)), and reduce from 10 to 5 percent the minimum requirement for children of parents brought into the community because of defense contracts (section 5(A) (3)).

Children who are classified as 5(A) (1), you will all remember, are those who live on Federal property with parents who work on Federal property. 5(A) (2) children either live on Federal property or with parents who work on Federal property. Children classified as 5(A) (3) are those brought into the district through the actions of a Federal contractor, or activities directly relating to the Federal contract.


An adjustment in requirements in these categories, would probably make the Granite School District in Utah eligible for building funds. Granite just recently qualified for operation and maintenance assistance under Public Law 874, but does not quite qualify for Public Law 15 assistance. My most recent communication from its administrative assistant, Dr. Ted T. Peterson, reports that the Granite School District now has 3.9 children in the 5(A) (3) category, and 2.10 children in the 5(A) (2) category, which combined make a total of 6.10 percent, well over the 5 percent which would be required under the change in formula I suggest.

Granite is one of the most hard-pressed districts in the State. Its school population is bursting at the seams of its buildings. News of Federal building assistance would be most welcome.

There has been increasing difficulty on the part of school districts to meet the requirement of a 5 percent increase in membership over a 2-year period of children connected with Federal property so the district can make application for new school construction.

The non federally connected school population has increased in many districts that have been applicants under Public Law 815 in past years, an increase induced partly by the increased Federal activity in a community. Approximately one-half of the applicants whose applations were processed after recent cutoff dates under Public Law 15 have failed to meet the minimum requirements for eligibility, not because they did not need the classrooms for federally connected children, but because the minimum requirements were too exacting.

An analysis of the applications processed after the last 5 cutoff dates of June 19, 1961; December 11, 1961; June 25, 1962; November 19, 1962: and June 24, 1963; indicated 812 applications filed, of which 6 have been processed. Of these 312, or 44.8 percent, were declared eligible for various causes. There were 114 districts which did not meet the required 5 percent increase in school membership, during a 2year increase period, of children connected with Federal property, and

which were ineligible for other reasons such as (1) an insufficient umber of unhoused children, (2) insufficient growth in the nonfed

« PreviousContinue »