activities which cause the problem the same as in the case of privately owned taxable industries. Since it has been in the Federal Government's interest, as well as essential to the national economy to distribute its activities throughout all States of the Nation, the educational programs of the schools serving them should have at least some national aspect rather than being completely limited by State or local educational standards.

3. We stand ready to assist in accomplishing any modifications of this legislation which will help it do a better job without doing violence to these fundamental principles.

The following tabulations of 1966 fiscal data from the 10 largest city school districts in Oklahoma which educate approximately 40 percent of the pupils in the State will serve to illustrate the application of these principles in actual operation.

One of the gentlemen here this morning mentioned the tremendous turnover in the school system heavily impacted with Federal activities. Therefore, children coming from many States of the Union are necessary to carry on the work of the Federal activity. They have to have a feeling that their children are going to have at least a minimum standard of education that the Federal Government would be in favor of.

I mention these fundamental principles because the impact area legislation in some quarters has been somewhat criticized, and with these I don't think anyone can disagree and we stand ready to help establish them in support of this program that has done so much. Now, I give you a tabulation here which I will mention which shows these 10 largest city school districts in Oklahoma.

(The tabulation follows:)

TABULATION I

Maximum operating funds available from high to low without Public Law 874

Now, as you can see, I ask the question: Can the school children of the impact area school districts expect an educational program comparable to other schools within the State without the continuation of Public Law 874?

It will be noted that the two most heavily impact aided schools in this group are in 8th and 10th place as far as funds available per pupil without Public Law 874 funds are concerned. Thus, the only conclusion is to answer the above question in the negative with reference to a large segment of the school children in Oklahoma. While

all but two of these schools receive some Public Law 874 funds, it is obvious that the percentage varies materially. The two which do not receive Public Law 874 funds are Nos. 1 and 2 in total local revenues available with which to purchase an education program.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 contemplates that the funds provided under it will be used to improve the educational opportunity for disadvantaged children. Thus, it cannot be thought of as taking the place of other available funds such as those received under Public Law 874. This tabulation showing ESEA funds along with total other local, State, and Federal will serve to indicate the result should Public Law 874 be discontinued because of enaction and funding of ESEA.

2. Does Federal activity effect the educational tax base (value of taxable property per pupil) of the impact area school district. (Tabulation II follows:)

TABULATION II.-Assessed valuation per pupil in each school district

Again we find the taxable value per pupil to support education locally places these schools in almost the reverse order as the Federal funds received under tabulation I. The most heavily impact area. schools, Lawton and Midwest City, have by far the least taxable value per pupil of the 10-school group. This directly results from the taxexempt value within the respective school districts.

It has been raised that ESA funds could take the place of the impacted area funds. I threw in that column and I am sure you can find that each of these two wonderful pieces of legislation do and are designed to do a different job.

Mr. ALBERT. May I interrupt just a minute, Mr. Chairman. This is my first appearance as a member of this committee. I had hoped I would get here in time to present Mr. Rose. I do want to say he is one of the distinguished leaders in the education world in my State. He comes from a Midwest City school that has probably had more growing pains with education problems than any school in our part of the country. Right now he is Congressman John Jarman's

constituent.

I do not have the honor of representing him but he has done a great job for all of the school districts of Oklahoma and particularly those in every district of our State that has had difficulties due to expansions resulting from military and other governmental activities. I am very pleased to see him here. He is a friend of mine and has been for many years, is well informed on the issues in which he is interested, and I know that the committee will receive a lot of valuable information from his testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me.

Mr. FORD. Thank you, Mr. Albert. I have enjoyed no end the honor of being in the chair when the distinguished majority leader has made his appearance on the floor, as he announced as he was introducing Mr. Rose, he is the newest member of this committee and will be

sitting with this committee in consideration of the legislation that is now before us.

We on the committee are, of course, honored by his presence not only because he is the majority leader, but also, as those of us who have had a chance to work with him know, because he is a strong supporter of education. I can only say with the combination of Oscar Rose and the majority leader working on this legislation, education in Oklahoma has no problem.

Mr. ROSE. Thank you.

Mr. ALBERT. I thank my distinguished colleague.

Mr. FORD. I have been keeping my eye on you since you have been working around the Hill, but I did not think you were going to start packing this committee.

Mr. ROSE. I will do anything to help education. Let's put it that way.

I also have a tabulation there which shows the valuation per pupil in each of these 10 districts. Again, it shows for the tax-exempt Federal property which, in a sense, is a primary basis for the original enactment of this legislation and also for its continuation it will show that two impact area school districts are far below the others and I will hasten to say this is not because of low assessments in those two places because they have nothing to do with their assessments in the State of Oklahoma.

Oklahoma has a State equalization board and, therefore, the percentage of assessment is very uniform. It may be too low and our levies may be too high. Frankly, we do have a policy of low assessments and high levies but it gets the same amount of money if you had high assessments and low levies.

I will now refer you to the tabulation on page 5. (Tabulation III follows:)

TABULATION III

Since the tax levied represents the only factor over which local citizens have control it is a direct index to the effort made at the local level.

It will be noted that the total effort, (tax levy) ranges from 31.96 mills to 53.79 mills for educational purposes. Again we find tremendous variation in the effort made among these 10 large school districts. However, it is pointed out that the school district receiving the greatest percentage from Public Law 874 funds makes the greatest effort. Thus we find little or no evidence that the receipt of Public Law 874 funds by school districts reduces its local effort in support of its school program.

On September 30, less than 3 weeks after it was proposed, this impacted area school voted that 10 mills and used it and still had consid

erably less funds with which to buy an education than the schools not federally impacted.

I will turn over then to one other statement which I think is worthy of my emphasizing. It is my understanding that each time the Congress has authorized its membership, and it has done that a number of times during the 17 years of this legislation, to make a task force study or to observe on-the-spot conditions they have found the impact area schools not only needed the funds presently provided under Public Law 874 but in many instances they find that even with them these school districts are financed on a basis far below the school districts not affected by tax-exempt Federal activities.

Due to spiraling costs and other Federal assistance, very little of which goes to the heavily impacted school district, I believe that if this legislation is not extended or if the funds from it are reduced it will result in the deterioration of the present school programs to a disparity greater than that which they faced prior to 1950. This fact which is well known by the Congressmen regarding the schools in their own congressional districts has had much more influence in establishing their position in support of this legislation with full funding than what might be termed political pressures applied by the local school superintendents or citizens. They know first hand that any other course of action will result only in a poorer educational opportunity for the children in these school districts located within their own congressional districts.

Since the school district in which I administer an educational program received an average of only $51,445 under title I and an average of only $36,087 under title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, I cannot speak from much experience with reference to the value of this legislation during these 2 years. However, I have read with a great deal of interest and pride the testimony of the Commissioner of Education presented to you on last March 2. I think it was a very fine progress report on the accomplishments achieved through legislation designed to improve the educational program for the disadvantaged child as well as to encourage a more daring approach in attacking other educational problems for all the children of both the public and private schools of America.

I testified before this committee supporting this bold and innovating approach to improve American education each of the last 2 years, and I am especially proud that the favorable experience of "Impact Area Legislation" which I had worked for during the preivous 15 years could make a contribution to this massive infusion of Federal funds into another area of dire need in the total educational responsibility to all children. However, I was disappointed that his testimony did not likewise mention the continued progress and contribution to the education program of over one-third of the children of America through Public Law 874 and 815.

I feel these public laws are due much credit for their own accomplishment as well as serving as a vehicle for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

I also want to commend the Commissioner for offering amendments to further perfect the operation of the six titles of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act title of this legislation. I can find no fault with his proposed amendments as embodied in H.R. 6230.

However, I would propose additional amendments to Public Law 874 and Public Law 815 titles of this legislation as follows:

1. The extension of Public Law 815 for either 1 or 2 years as introduced respectively by Mr. Perkins, chairman of this committee under H.R. 3649, and by Mr. William P. Ford, a member of this committee, under H.R. 6118. As evidence of the need for a further extension of Public Law 815 I am including a tabulation showing the applications filed by States as of the first cutoff date- February 20, 1967under the 1-year extension of this legislation approved by the 89th Congress. This information was received from the State departments of education of all 50 States and shows that 329 applications were filed from 43 States of the 50 States with a total Federal funds requested in the amount of $176,929,000. I dealt with the various State departments of education and had excellent cooperation. The U.S. Office of Education will have one more cutoff date, June 30, 1967, under this extension, and I am sure thata great number of other applicants will at that time establish entitlements in addition to those shown in this tabulation.

Certainly we can expect that if the entitlements under Public Law 815 have reached this extent during the current fiscal year that there will be a further continuing justifiable need in the 1 or 2 years immediately following. Unless this legislation is extended for another 1 or 2 years, the Federal Government. will have no legislation under which it can meet its responsibility for constructing facilities in the impact area school districts.

Then I have a tabulation showing the number of applicants and the Federal funds requested.

(Tabulation referred to follows:)

The following is a tabulation of the applications under Public Law 815 (school construction) filed in the various States as of the recent cutoff date, February 20, 1967. This information was sent to me at my request from the various State departments of education.

States reporting, 50; States filing applications, 43; States without applications, 7.