see only the things that we did not do that we ought to have done, but when we take a look at what was accomplished, I want to say that it could not have been accomplished without the loyal support of such men as the Senator from Texas and such organizations as the organizations that are testifying here this morning.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I thank my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Oregon, for these kind remarks. I feel very keenly about this GI bill because that group of young people is the only group that the Federal Government pulls out of their environment and denies an education. These bills we have here deal with children whose opportunities are lessened by public disasters that strike their areas, by the fact that they live in areas of substantial unemployment. with unemployed parents with needy children and needy families.

All of those things are things that the Federal Government did not want, did not will, did not bring about. They came about against the will and hopes and desires of the Federal Government.

Now in the case of GI's, the Federal Government has reached out and drafted 44 percent of the young men. Only 44 percent serve, 44 percent in the best physical condition, and many with high IQ's. It puts them in service for over 2 years each, which puts them more than 2 years behind the 56 percent of the young men who do not serve. And then they are cast back out on the civilian population without training for jobs, without education, and yet the Defense Department is the foremost opponent of the GI bill. Apparently they want to keep these men in the status of "dogfaces," as they called them and force them to reenlist. And it is the greatest injustice this Government, the U.S. Government, has perpetrated.

In most fields in this country, this Government is working to try to prevent any injustice. In this field, this Government both perpetrates and perpetuates injustice.

I have supported this bill since January. I shall never cease to fight for it so long as I am in the Congress and the bill is unpassed. I thank the distinguished chairman for mentioning it. I thank him for his constant, vigorous, and public support of that measure. And with 39 Senators cosponsoring it, it takes a lot of obduracy in the executive department of the Government to thwart the hopes of this many millions of people at this time. I think it is time that the executive department in all of its branches, mainly the Budget and Defense Department, awakens to justice and reality in this country. We have over 4 million college people in this country under the bills of World War II and the Korean war, and a number of them sit in the Halls of Congress. Two of them are in the Cabinet of the United States. I would place those bills in the same class as the Morrill Land Grant College Act of 1862, the great constructive education legislation of the Congress of the United States. It is matched only by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 for its impact on education. I am grateful to the distinguished chairman who brought this bill up. I was waiting for it, Mr. Chairman. You beat me to it. Thank you.

Someone said every time you have an educational bill, I bring up the GI bill regardless of the field. I am reminded of the playwright's statement, "when justice is to be done, my Lord, all seasons are summer and all voices are singing." Now, to come back to this specific legisla

tion, Mr. McKay, in this S. 2528, in the first section of it, page 2, lines 7 and 8, it provides assistance to local education agencies in the education of children of needy families.

You discussed that. But concerning children residing in areas of substantial unemployment with unemployed parents, do you have any statistics on that latter clause in there?

Mr. McKAY. Yes, Senator. As of January of this year, 1964, the Secretary of Labor had designated 39 such geographic areas.

Senator YARBOROUGH. You say these are already designated? Mr. McKAY. Yes. This is a process which the Secretary of Labor periodically goes through for other purposes and I think the index to which the chairman refers reflects this condition. There are 39 of them in the country. I am sure that counsel has a list available for the record and for the Senator. There are a number in the Appalachia area, at least a portion of it in Pennsylvania.

Selfishly, from my regional position in the West, there are four areas in the great and supposedly wealthy State of California that are included in areas of substantial unemployment, including San Diego, San Jose, Stockton, and Fresno. I at the moment fail to see any from the-yes, there is one, the Beaumont-Port Arthur area in Texas. I believe that is the only one from your home State, sir. But this is a tabulation which is already established by the Secretary of Labor.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I request that the tabulation be placed in the record.

Senator MORSE. I believe it is already in the record. If not, it will be put in the record.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you. You used the criteria already determined by the Department of Labor for the application of other laws, unemployment laws, relief laws, et cetera.

Mr. McKAY. Not for educational purposes, sir, but for other

purposes.

Senator YARBOROUGH. That is what I mean. These are established for other purposes.

Mr. MCKAY. Yes.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Under this bill, you would take those areas previously established by the Department of Labor for other purposes? Mr. MCKAY. That is true.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Under their criteria for determining what are areas of substantial unemployment?

Mr. MCKAY. That is true.

Senator YARBOROUGH. And you would use this?

Mr. McKAY. That is right.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I want to say here, Mr. Chairman, I think there is a great deal of peripheral benefit from this impacted area aid in another score. We know the great resistance in this country to Federal aid to education. I believe that about a third of the children of America in public schools go to schools in districts that receive Federal aid as impacted areas.

Senator MORSE. That is right.

Senator YARBOROUGH. It is about a third or so. As to these districts, it seems to me, a great deal of education work is going on with he help of Federal aid. When we consider that one-third of the

36-177 0-64 -5

students in the schools over the United States are in districts now receiving aid, many fears of Federal aid should be allayed.

While the chairman has pointed out it is not necessarily on the basis of need that aid is given in each case; it is in many cases. I had two superintendents in my office this week from small districts with large Federal installations nearby in which over 50 percent of the pupils were Federal pupils.

Senator MORSE. There is great need for it. I want to eliminate the abuses that have crept into it.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you.

Mr. MCKAY. Mr. Chairman, may I express the appreciation of the NEA for the chairman's kind remarks about the NEA and again express the appreciation of the NEA for the tremendous contributions which the distinguished chairman has made in the field of higher education, vocational education and other areas of need in the educational field.

For the record, may I also indicate the concurrence of the NEA in the Senator's observations with respect to the need for continuing the impact program. It is the belief of the NEA that the present factors used in determining eligibility are too narrow and should be expanded, and we are delighted that this bill reflects at least two of the possible ways of doing it. There are others which we hope may be explored by this committee and by other arms of the Congress. We appreciate very much this opportunity to express our point of view and we are most grateful to the Senator for his courtesy, and Senator Yarborough also.

Senator MORSE. You have been very helpful. We are going to continue to draw upon your knowledge and assistance to us next year. The next witness will be Mr. Richard H. Lawrence, coordinator of legislation and special projects, Los Angeles city schools, California. We are delighted to have you with us. Take a seat and proceed in

your own way.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD H. LAWRENCE, COORDINATOR OF LEGISLATION AND SPECIAL PROJECTS, LOS ANGELES CITY SCHOOLS, CALIFORNIA

Mr. LAWRENCE. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am grateful for the privilege that has been accorded me to submit this testimony in support of the proposed amendments to Public Law 874, S. 2528.

Gentlemen, I am Richard H. Lawrence, coordinator of legislation and special projects in the office of the superintendent for the Los Angeles city school districts.

The Los Angeles school districts are the second largest school system in the United States, and serve over 740,000 students contained in an area of approximately 880 square miles. This student population represents slightly less than 20 percent of the total student population for the entire State of California. In other words, one out of every five students in California attend schools in Los Angeles.

In speaking to you this morning, I am speaking at a point in the history of our Nation that may be referred to as the "era of society's organization for continuing change."

The challenge that faces America today is unique in the annals of our history. We, as a people, are facing a backward step in educational programs. While progress in our knowledge of the sciences. and other disciplines has been expanding at a phenomenal rate, so has our understanding of adequate methods of teaching our young people in the field of education.

While our schools are faced on the one hand with greater responsibilities toward society, they are faced on the other hand with reduced. effective financial support. Thus, the problems of the large school districts are even more demanding and pressing because of the tremendous impact of urbanization. This leads inevitably toward a deterioration of programs by school systems as they attempt to prepare the next generation to meet their emerging responsibilities.

The problems created by urbanization are numerous and varied. Providing equal educational opportunities within the limitations of a large school district with its ever-expanding and demanding responsibilities without additional sources of revenue to provide the compensatory programs needed to meet the new challenges of our changing communities, poses special problems of tremendous magnitude. In our own Los Angeles school districts we face this problem by several ways. We are in a vice. The school district is at a tax ceiling. We have been there for 2 years. Voters have rejected increases. Our State legislature is giving us on a decreasing percentage less money in relation to the local contribution, and the amount of Federal funds we receive is less than 1 percent of our total budget.

In the past, the Congress, in its wisdom, has seen fit to offset, at least in part, the problems created for school districts because of Federal activities.

Because of your extensive field studies and hearings on the subject of Federal activities, Public Law 874 was first enacted in 1950. I am sure you are aware that this act deals with the problem which has persisted for many years; namely, that of financing the educational services for children who reside on or have parents employed on tax-exempt Federal property. This problem will remain as long as the Federal Government continues to own a large part of the land area of the United States. It now owns approximately one-fifth of the Nation's total land area, and approximately 47 percent of the land area in the State of California.

The Los Angeles city school districts had been aware of the provisions of Public Law 874, and had long considered the possibility of entitlements that might be available if the district were to qualify. The school district's first application, following the results of an initial survey conducted in the fall of 1958, failed to produce the required percentage of federally connected pupils. The survey evidenced 18,436 federally connected in the elementary district; 5,215 federally connected in the high school district; and 565 federally connected in the junior college district, making a grand total of 24,216 federally connected pupils within the three Los Angeles city school districts at the time of the survey. The elementary and high school districts, being above 35,000 in average daily attendance, were required to establish a 6 percent on the "old three-count survey" procedure. The total federally connected was 5.06 percent in elementary and 4.55 percent at the high school level; and it was the decision of the Federal repre

sentatives, as well as the local governing board and staff, that the additional surveys could not produce enough federally connected pupils to qualify the district for entitlements under Public Law 874.

With no appreciable change in Federal activity in this area since 1958, the districts have not attempted to establish a survey and to consider their qualifications under the law. However, if we were to apply the same 1958 percentages of impact to our present enrollments, it is estimated that there would be a total of 27,342 federally connected within the Los Angeles city school districts. Therefore, we wish to recommend for your serious consideration, once again, the reduction of the 6-percent requirement for large school districts to the same 3percent requirement as now permitted for all others, and we urgently request that you give every consideration to including this amendment during the current session of Congress.

I have just given you a brief explanation of how the Los Angeles city school districts have been concerned and interested in Public Law 874 up to this time, and since the original enactment in 1950. Because of this interest and concern we have had over the years, we have maintained our contacts with Members of Congress and with representatives of Federal, State, and local governments, in order to keep apprised of any subsequent changes to see if our school districts would be eligible to again make application for Federal entitlements under Public Law 874.

It was, therefore, with great renewed interest and concern for us to learn of the proposed amendments to Public Law 874 now under consideration by your committee. The addition of two new categories to Public Law 874(1) to include children of needy families, and (2) to include children residing in areas of substantial unemployment with unemployed parents, appears to be categories that would allow this school district to participate in the entitlements, if the bill is enacted

into law.

When we first heard of the pending legislation, we made contacts with the local agencies responsible for these two categories of children and received estimates that we can present to you this morning, which may give you some idea as to their effect upon the Los Angeles city school districts; that is, the schoolchildren and taxpayers of our school districts.

In consideration of the first category, the Los Angeles County Bureau of Public Assistance has estimated that approximatly 65,124 children in the Los Angeles city school districts, between the ages of 6 through 17, are children of needy families receiving aid for dependent children. Had this provision been included in Public Law 874 during the 1963-64 school year, this number of students would have represented approximately 10 percent of the total average daily attendance of the Los Angeles elementary and secondary schools.

Senator MORSE. That is a remarkable figure. If people would just pause to consider the implications of that figure, I do not think we would have so much difficulty on this committee, and you would not have so much difficulty in your school administration work in getting a public recognition that all of us have a responsibility to come to the assistance of the school district that is carrying that kind of a load. Ten percent.