record during this session. Hopefully, the many educational gains made nationwide through the several programs will rally greater congressional support with each annual reappraisal and tend to make the arguments of the past milestones that had to be passed in meeting the socio-economic needs of our constantly changing society.

The points I would make here are (1) federal educational legislation, to include these two laws, has been expanded and funded each year, the arguments notwithstanding, (2) the new programs enacted have not replaced the need for the continued extension and expansion of P.L. 815 and P.L. 874, and (3) had revenues been possible from local sources or from state grants, it must be assumed that the several federally supported programs would not have reached their present dimensions.

H.R. 5471 and H.R. 6118 propose a simple extension of P.L. 815. I concur with this extension because of the great need for school construction in the impacted school districts. The simple fact that application requirements for this year alone will total in excess of $100,000,000 supports this position. It would seem appropriate that this legislation be continued and financed as long as the eligibility requirements can be met by the participating school districts. Indeed, I would suggest that this basic legislation could be a vehicle for an expanded school construction program that would provide classrooms wherever they are needed. The use of P.L. 874 as such a vehicle for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act provides adequate precedent.

H.R. 6558 would add a new category of eligible pupils to P.L. 874, pupils living in low cost housing. Such an amendment would provide general fund monies to both the large cities, the nearby suburbs, and, possibly, to those impacted districts whose housing has been sold or assigned to a muncipality.

Prior to the introduction of this proposal, I had circulated a questionnaire to each of the Great Cities and to the suburban school districts in Wayne, Macomb, and Oakland Counties in Michigan to determine the number of pupils living in housing units built with federal funds. The rationale behind the survey was (1) pupils living in federal housing projects were eligible pupils during the period of federal ownership, (2) the pupils now in school were there as a direct result of the federal project, (3) the transfer of title to another unit of government did not lessen the cost to the local school district of educating the pupils living therein, (4) the payment-in-lieu-of-taxes does not meet the per pupil costs of the school district, (5) where private ownership occurred, the taxable value of the units was so low that costs were not met, (6) many of these units become centers for the educationally and economically deprived pupil.

A summary of the questionnaire for twelve of the Great Cities is attached. The magnitude of the problem is reflected in the number of pupils reported as living in such units, 284, 760. These pupils are, for the most part, living in areas designated as eligible for project allotments under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The very small per pupil allocation from payments in lieu of taxes in almost every city is so small that the allocations under Title I are, in effect, diluted, since the local contribution rate for the entire district is drastically reduced by including these pupils from units with such limited tax potential. Every dollar received by a district that could qualify pupils in such units for payments under P.L. 874 would be providing a higher local base which still provides the greatest financial share of all programs.

An additional summary of the effect of such legislation on certain metropolitan communities will be sent to the Committee as soon as the tabulation is completed. The possibility of such aid to the suburban school districts would help substantially in providing educational programs that might very well forestall a repetition of the problems now being experienced in the center city.

I would be remiss if I did not speak of the need for a supplemental appropriation to meet the needs of the new educational legislation enacted by the Congress since July 1, 1966. Briefly summarized, in addition to those amounts necessary to meet the appropriations requirements of the acts mentioned above, the new authorizations would require for (1) the new provisions of Public Law 874, approximately $31 million; (2) the Adult Education Program (Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act), approximately $40 million, (3) Education of the Handicapped (new Title VI, ESEA), approximately $50 million; and (4) Public Law 815, approximately $100 million.

The Detroit Public Schools will qualify for approximately $800,000 under the new amendments to P.L. 874, which will not be forthcoming without a supplemental appropriation. I would also point out that the level of funds included in the Administration's budget for P.L. 874 for fiscal 1968 will mean proration for all impacted districts, since the new group of school districts qualifying under P.L. 874 was not included in the 1968 estimates.

In summary, I would make these points: (1) the historical arguments against the federal assistance programs now under review by this Committee have been skillfully submerged through bipartisan support, often formed within this Committee, that recognized and dealt with the ever-changing socio-economic needs of our dynamic society; (2) federal assistance programs which provide educational dollars cannot be withdrawn, nor even curtailed, because of the present revenue structure of state and local units, without directly affecting the welfare of the children involved; (3) federal responsibility or impact does not cease when direct federal relationships with local units end; (4) federal programs to assist in the education of the economically and educationally deprived youngster must be buttressed wherever possible by state and local funds, these locking with federal funds; (5) Public Laws 815 and 874 must be continued and expanded to meet the needs of the impacted districts; (6) impact legislation can be broadened to provide assistance in areas of density and sparsity; (7) regardless of the fine points of questions that can be raised in regard to basic rationals, all money expanded in these programs has provided a direct benefit to children, the future citizens of the United States; and, finally, (8) it must be said that programs authorized must be fully funded.

I have enjoyed appearing once again before this Committee. Finally, I must say that this Committee has caused many changes in the provision of education at the elementary and secondary level, and, without these changes, the changing needs could well have left our vaunted public educational system a far less useful instrument of progress.

Mr. SIMMONS. Thank you very much, Mr. Ford. I am delighted to be here with my colleagues.

I will go directly to the point of the impact legislation rather than spending any time discussing the amendments of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and I am sure these were conducted in great detail on last Wednesday when our great city school superintendent attended here and stayed with this committee until almost 6 o'clock in the evening.

My interest in Public Laws 874 an 815 go back over the years when I was an impacted school district in Congressman Ford's congressional district. More recently, through the action of this committee last year, your liberalizing amendments, now all of our great cities— and when I speak of the great cities' organization, I am speaking of those 17 school districts that have the largest school populations in the country-I might say I am staff chairman of their Federal legislative program, so I am in the business of collecting the statistics that relate to the effect of your liberalizing amendments on those districts during the past 2 years.

I would point out that this legislation, though, before I discuss anything specific, seems to me to have developed some real merit over the years as time has gone on. It has been my observation and it was one of the reasons why I worked considerably with the Congress in trying to see all of the school districts of this Nation qualify.

I would say, Mr. Meeds, your question concerning general aid to education, I think Public Law 874 does indeed provide a real conveyance for a wider application of the general fund moneys that flow from that. I would say also that Public Law 815 could certainly be expanded to take care of many needs we had.

Mr. MEEDS. If I may interrupt, I would suggest you press this strongly with Congressman Ford and the problem you have.

Mr. SIMMONS. I can assure you this will not be my last discussion with Mr. Ford concerning this particular matter. I think Public Law 815 provides an excellent possibility for providing construction funds that are badly needed in the metropolitan areas.

I speak also of many of the suburbs also that many of you gentlemen here serve.

I want to say I am completely in agreement with the need for an extension of Public Law 815, of course. I would say in that regard that we cannot ignore this need for appropriations for this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Rose indicated that scaling down even the bearest requirements of his survey it would be difficult to fund those construction needs that have all of the elements of eligibility for less than $100 million.

Even though there is only going to be one large city, that of San Diego qualifying for funds, should the Congress see fit to make full appropriations, we certainly are in favor of this kind of money going to construct needed school facilities for boys and girls.

There is a proposal in by Representative Pucinski of this committee that I am particularly interested in. That is one that adds a new category of eligible pupils to Public Law 874 and these would be pupils living in low-cost housing.

I do think that we must make some observations concerning the proposal that we have before us, which is H.R. 6558. He has directed his legislation at low-cost housing under the Housing Act of 1937 and I am in complete agreement with this.

However, I would say just prior to the introduction of his bill, I did a survey of the Federal housing in the large cities of this Nation for which funds had never been received under Public Law 874 with the exception of the three cities that have qualified at different times. Large numbers of housing construction projects start as Federal projects but are later turned over to the municipalities.

This housing remains, no tax base, the boys and girls are there, and the Federal Government withdraws. I think that the proposal that this be reinstated-and, by the way, this would not only apply to large city districts. Take, for example, in Mr. Ford's district where there are a number of school districts which are underway. With Mr. Ford's permission, I will send him a complete report on the number of housing units that still remain and create problems in those school districts. Mr. O'Hara's district has a number of the same problems and, indeed, many of these gentlemen here at the table still face some housing that has been vacated by the Federal Government, and it is partly the reason that they are faced with this business of low per-pupil valuation because the Federal Government did indeed bring these facilities there; the kids are there, with no tax base and, as a result, that is why they are forced to report this type of low valuation.

I would call to your attention the public housing survey that is attached to my testimony. There is the report on 12 of our cities. It seems to me that it is something that deserves some consideration when we take a look at the number of units built as Federal projects136,434. These are units for which, in most instances, with the exception of San Diego, any funds were ever flowing from Public Law 874. This would be translated at the rate of 1.43 pupils if you analyze the other columns there, and it would show you the tremendous number of boys and girls who are living in these metropolitan areas that are not receiving any kind of assistance except that under the title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Act.

I would say that the funds are directed into those communities where the housing projects are; namely, because the housing projects have become this kind of center where the low-income family is found. In reality, without some way to buttress the tax base that we do not have for those people in the houses, we are actually diluting the amount of money we are receiving under the bill for special project areas.

I believe you indicated a 10-minute time limit, Mr. Ford. I will close at this particular time and be ready to answer any questions when you get to that stage later today.

Mr. FORD. Thank you.

Before leaving, the chairman asked me to recess the meeting until this afternoon, so we will continue with this panel when we reconvene, with the next panel immediately behind them.

I see Mr. Lillywhite here and although we do not have your name on the schedule, Mr. Lillywhite, we had testimony from the Commissioner of Education the other day that he has some prospective amend