Mr. SMITH. Would you go ahead and elaborate? Mr. Michel asked, "Why?".

Mr. MICHEL. The key question is: Why won't it work? Just because it is something different?

Dr. HARVILL. If I understand it correctly, the interest subsidy would permit borrowing and would permit borrowing at a lower rate. Mr. SMITH. The Government would pay the difference between 3 percent and whatever you had to pay on your bonds.

Dr. HARVILL. It would be a great help, but I would think that it would not adequately provide the requirements. It postpones to the future the payment of that, you see, and our burden of students and the costs of providing for them is going to be increasing very drastically in the future.

Mr. SMITH. It just postpones your problem, in other words?
Dr. HARVILL. Yes; it postpones the problem until the future.

We have, as I mentioned, now at the university a big deficit in the matter of facilities. In the case of loans to students, I would like to say the students are going to pay back in the future in terms of income taxes and other taxes greatly over the costs incurred in education in the future. There are some plans-this is getting off the main subject we are discussing now-there are some plans to provide tax credits and that sort of thing that, in my judgment, do not help solve the problem.

Mr. SMITH. Do you want to ask any more on this?

Mr. MICHEL. No.

Mr. SMITH. One other thing before I yield: Several have alluded to the impacted aid problem and the background, of course, is that last year money was asked to bring impact up to 100 percent and the same House of Representatives and Congress that granted it, refused to increase title I money even up to 50 percent. Now, for years you people and the organizations you represent have been coming in here and helping the people that are anxious to get 100-percent funding under category B, but there has not been reciprocation. You have not gotten equivalent financing for your programs. In effect, what it did was take away money from the programs you were interested in. There is no doubt about it, under the limitation of funds last year, adding the $155 million for category B of the impact program to fund it 100 percent, took money away from title I and other programs that are based upon the disadvantaged districts impacted with children, compared to the districts impacted with higher-than-average salaried Government employees.

This is the fourth administration that has tried to change this, tried to get some kind of a formula for category B that is more equitable. Are you going to continue to fight every administration and come in here and help them get 100 percent and take it out of money for the disadvantaged, or are you going to change your ways?

Mr. CASEY. Who are you addressing that to?

Mr. FLOOD. That is what is known as a gut guestion.

Dr. KIRKPATRICK. I think it is a gut question. I would take the position that I have no quarrel with the men who feel that they need impacted area funds. I would submit to you in all seriousness that I would, first of all, like to see the approach be full funding of all funds. I recognize you may consider that weaseling out of your

question, but it is very sincere. I am sensitive because I have heard on many occasions that school administrators are not relevant to the times, they are not with it, and so on.

I would submit to you that we have never had the chance to really take a program fully funded. Therefore, as I mentioned in my previous remarks, we are not interested in reshuffling. We think that the basic answer is a commitment to all programs.

Mr. SMITH. Then what you are really saying is that you want to continue the 100 percent funding for category B impact even if it results in less than 50 percent for title I; is that right?

Dr. KIRKPATRICK. No, sir.

Mr. SMITH. There is not any possibility of getting 100 percent for both, you know that.

Dr. KIRKPATRICK. I think, then, that we shall say we will continue to do our darnedest to bring about, to work out, to get people to see why the full funding of all these things is important. You are making an excellent point, sir, and I am not in disagreement with your assessment. What I am saying is from my point of view my target is eventual full funding.

Mr. FLOOD. You know that between 350 and 400 Congressmen have districts that receive funds from the impacted area program.

Mr. SMITH. And in almost every one of those Congressional districts, only a small portion of the local school districts get the impact money and the others are being denied money they need. That is what really happens. What we need is a revision of the formula itself. Everybody on this committee admits some of these districts need the money but a few of them that need the money are being held captive for some very rich districts so that they can get the 100 percent funding, too. It seems to me that if the people that you represent do not try to help straighten this out-and this is the fourth administration that has tried to do something about it-I don't know how it will get done. Would you like to make a comment, Monsignor?

Monsignor DONOHUE. We have always supported impacted areas, but I think that my personal feeling is, as your is, I would certainly agree that there are probably some so-called impacted areas that do not need the money.

Mr. FLOOD. Some?

Monsignor DONOHUE. Some. That is an understatement.

The problem goes just a little bit beyond this in the field of education these days, that is, the problems that the private schools are presenting to some communities, our schools in particular that are closing down in great numbers because we do not have the finances nor the personnel to run them. We are down half a million students nationwide in the past 2 years. This is impacting some public school districts with a vengeance, and we would be in a very poor position that we would oppose any type of impacted area legislation, given what is happening to us.

Mr. SMITH. I just wanted to point out that these problems are not really simple. Now, we know we are going to have an expenditure limitation again this year, and if we do have there isn't any question about it, as sure as I sit here if we fund 100 percent of category B, it is going to come out of ESEA one way or another.

People are fooling themselves if they think they can fight every administration on resisting this formula without hurting support for other programs.

Mr. FLOOD. Padre, you have heard it said this way: You cut off 6 inches from the bottom of the blanket and you sew it on the top because the blanket is not long enough. That is about where we are on this side of the table.

Mr. Shriver?

Mr. SHRIVER. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Hull?

Mr. HULL. Thank you; no, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FLOOD. Mrs. Reid?

Mrs. REID. No questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Casey?

Mr. CASEY. No; thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FLOOD. Thank you, gentlemen.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 1969.

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

WITNESS

HON. THOMAS N. DOWNING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

Mr. FLOOD. We are pleased to have with us today the Honorable Thomas N. Downing, a colleague of ours from the State of Virginia who has been kind enough to appear and present a statement for the record commenting upon the budget for vocational education. Mr. DOWNING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A review of our educational system indicates the immediate need for the establishment, construction, development, and maintenance of more vocational-technical training schools. Our educational system, as noted by many well-known educators, has failed to provide the proper educational facilities for the training of that tremendous number of students who do not desire or are not adapted to college-level education.

We must not fail to realize that the intricate mechanism designed by the highly educated scientist cannot be constructed without the work of the skilled mechanic who likes his work, is proud of it, and is properly trained for it.

The man who operates the compound lathe, the gear-cutting machine, or the drill press, makes possible the economic stability of this country. By failing to provide proper training for our youth to fill these and other vital careers we are weakening our economy and contributing to the vast and growing army of malcontents who in the final analysis have nothing to sell. The ability of a man to produce is the true measure of his value to society and to himself.

I would like to cite one situation in my district which I believe is typical of many localities throughout the country. The city of Virginia Beach is one of the fastest growing urban centers in the Nation.

It operates the third largest school system in Virginia. Its present vocational offerings are limited to homemaking, distributive education, and business education.

Approximately 50 percent of the high school students do not go on to college. They need some type of vocational education. Of the 544 school dropouts at Virginia Beach during the 1967-68 school year, it has been determined that 418 would be qualified for technical-vocational training.

During 1968, 1,643 juveniles between the ages of 15 and 18 were involved in activities which brought them in contact with the police at Virginia Beach. I feel that a large number of these young people might not have run afoul of the law if we had been able to provide vocational or technical training for them.

In 1967, with the aid of the State department of vocational education, Virginia Beach started planning a centrally located vocational education center. Last year the citizens gave their approval by a substantial vote in a bond referendum. Plans have been drawn, but to date no supporting funds are available.

Public Law 90-576, as amended, authorized $812,500.000 for vocational education for fiscal year 1970. The budget, as submitted, calls for only a small portion of those funds. Without a substantial increase by this committee it is extremely doubtful that Virginia Beach and numbers of other communities throughout the Nation would be provided with the funds that are necessary in order to construct badly needed vocational centers.

Gentlemen, this training is badly needed in order to equip those of our youth who will not go to college. It is needed to support the technological advances which our society continues to make. It is needed for the stability of our economy.

The funding cannot be provided entirely by State and local governments. I urge that every effort be made to provide for the granting of the authorized funds in order that these desperately needed technical-vocational schools might be established.

Mr. FLOOD. Thank you for an excellent statement, Mr. Downing. Mr. DOWNING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 1969.

IMPACTED AREA AID

WITNESS

HON. ALEXANDER PIRNIE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. FLOOD. We are now pleased to have with us the Honorable Alexander Pirnie from the great State of New York, an old friend and colleague who has been before this committee on prior occasions.

He comes today to present a position in connection with one of the elements of the appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health, Education, and Welfare. He is a distinguished and experienced member of the great Committee on Armed Services and through that position and his own personal experience, is knowledgeable indeed of many of our problems. We welcome his contribution.

Mr. PIRNIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad I could have been here for these last few minutes because it may serve as an introduction for the subject I would like to discuss with you. But before I begin my statement I would like to just acquaint you with the area that I represent and the background against which I am presenting this testimony. I am from the 32d District in New York, which is in the heart of the State and has Griffiss Air Force Base as its military installation. Our experience perhaps illustrates some of the points rather graphically with which you have to grapple in dealing with impacted aid. Namely, the in-and-out status of an installation and the treatment of a community which responds to serve installation needs and which can find itself sawed off-as we did in that area to a certain extent. We had a reduction of approximately 5,000 personnel which made a big difference.

I am going to try to give you in my statement some of the basic facts so that a specific illustration will show you how we view this need and the equity which may be involved in the decision which you have to make.

I have been interested, in this Public Law 874 not only during the six terms that I have represented the district but as a member of the community before, serving on a committee of citizens which related to this problem and to this installation.

This program is important to me-not only because it has a direct and material effect on thousands of school children in my congressional district, but because it is a program of proven worth which has contributed significantly to the educational system of this Nation. For example, last year over 52 percent of all the school students in America benefited from Public Law 874. This record is certainly very fine as compared with any other Federal education program.

Despite the fact that this noncategorical program has been a model as far as derived educational benefit is concerned, administration after administration-including the present one-has attempted to reduce its funding level. The approaches have been many and varied but the objective has been the same eliminate the impacted areas program. Fortunately, for the schoolchildren of impacted areas, these attempts have failed and I am here today to urge this committee to reinstate the amount necessary for full entitlement under this program for fiscal year 1970. I think the reasons for doing so merit your consideration. It has never been entirely clear why the executive branch is opposed to Public Law 874, but I recognize that there is some merit in the assertion that changes in eligibility may be required. I have taken the position that if revisions are needed and I think some are in orderthey should be made only after a thorough study and hearings by the House Education and Labor Committee, at which all interested parties will be offered the opportunity to testify. In contrast to this procedure, succeeding administrations have advocated severe appropriation cuts as the mode of change. This year, the Nixon administration has gone further than any of its predecessors by not requesting even a token amount for the "B" category students.

I have opposed these reductions before when my own party did not control the executive branch and I do not intend to lessen my commitment to this vital program simply because my party is now in control.