thus be under $140 million a year. The second category for which payment would be made relates to areas designated by the Secretary of Labor as areas of substantial unemployment. In January there were 39 such areas throughout the country.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at this point in my remarks a listing of these areas and the number of families receiving unemployment compensation benefits be printed.

(There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:)

Areas of substantial unemployment as of mid-January 1964

All the foregoing areas with these exceptions have had substantial unemployment for a period of at least 9 months.

NOTE. Total number of benefit payments, 449,100.

Average number of children per unemployment compensation benefit families estimated at 2.6. Number of children on whose account school district payments by virtue of unemploy ment compensation benefit relationship is 1,167,660.

Estimated cost based on 25 percent of local contribution rate (average payment made by Federal Government to school districts under category A of Public Law 874 for children whose parents are both employed on and who lives on Federal property), $78,815,050.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, Senators will note that the geographical distribution ranges from Fresno, Calif., and Seattle on the west coast through the MidwestMinnesota and Indiana are on the list-to the east coast and Southern States of Florida, Tennessee, and Texas.

It is estimated that the school district would receive payments based upon 2.6 times the number of unemployment compensation benefits. The rate of payment

in this category would also be set at 25 percent of the payment made for a child whose parent both lives and works on Federal property.

I am currently in the process of deriving cost figures for this portion of the program, but, in my judgment, the total cost of the program initially would not exceed $200 million annually, or less than is being appropriated for category A and B payments under Public Law 874.

The important point, however, is that this money would be funneled directly into those areas by these twin standards having a great need for additional school funds. Every large metropolitan center would receive help from the Federal Government to educate these youngsters for whom the Federal Government through the twin programs of aid to dependent children and unemployment compensation benefits has already assumed a responsibility.

I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not wedded to the precise language of the bill. It would be my hope that hearings upon it could perfect the detail and the langauge.

I suggest to Senators that the bill has certain adanvtages in its approach. These include:

First, the decision as to which school district the aid shall go, and the amount is automatically determined by objective verifiable factors associated with depressed areas whether rural or urban

The ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE. The time of the Senator has expired. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Oregon may have an additional 10 minutes.

The ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. MORSE. Second, the certification to the school district from local welfare offices and unemployment compensation offices of the numbers of children in each category could be accomplished with a minimum of clerical expense, and in addition, such a program should not increase Federal employment perceptibly; Third, under the procedure no question of Federal control of local education is raised;

Fourth, all metropolitan areas and many additional school districts, particularly in areas such as Appalachia, could qualify for assistance, thus adding significantly to the political support for the program;

Fifth, since this is not a general aid bill but rather it is a pinpointed assistance to economically distressed school districts bill, I would hope that it could escape the church-state and racial issue controversies; and

Sixth, it possesses a philosophy or logic for the aid given—the children in the two new categories are already related to Federal programs.

The Federal Government is contributing to their housing, clothing, and food through the AFDC and the unemployment compensation programs. These children and their families are not in economic brackets whereby the local tax base is enhanced by their presence. By adopting these amendments we would be recognizing that the Federal Government has a responsibility, in part, to help to educate the children so that in the future, through education, perhaps these cycles of poverty could be broken. School districts which have large numbers of children from very low income families have costs which are greater in many instances than high income suburban school districts-yet far too often they do not have the revenues to finance the types of program which are needed if the native talent and ability of the child is to be developed. The additional $200 million or more annually that this program might cost is justified if it serves to reduce the ranks of the future unemployed.

One thing we can be sure of, unless we strive to find ways to meet the problem of poverty, we will serve only to perpetuate it. Education may not be the only key to the door of opportunity, but without education that door will remain locked.

The bill has two main sections. The final section of the bill is designed to guard against the disruption of an ongoing program in the event of a cancellation of the military or defense activity. At the present time the phaseout of Federal assistance would take place within a year. I am suggesting that the Commissioner be given authority to stretch out the termination of this impacted area program for 3 years when he finds this to be appropriate. I can foresee that the elimination of a defense activity in an area can cause just as great or greater problems for a school system as the establishment of such a program. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill as introduced be printed at this point in my remarks.

I also ask unanimous consent that the bill be held at the desk for additional cosponsors until the close of business, February 28.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be received and appropriately referred; and, without objection, will be printed in the Record and held at the desk as requested.

The bill (S. 2528) to amend Public Law 874, 81st Congress, in order to provide assistance to local educational agencies in the education of children of needy families and children residing in areas of substantial unemployment with unemployed parents, introduced by Mr. Morse (for himself and Mr. Metcalf), was received, read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, and ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 1 of the Act entitled 'An Act to provide financial assistance for local educational agencies in areas affected by Federal activity, and for other purposes', approved September 30, 1950 (20 U.S.C. 236) is amended (1) by inserting ‘(a)' after 'SECTION 1,' and (2) by inserting at the end of such section a new subsection as follows:

"(b) It is further declared that in recognition of the continuing policy and responsibility of the Federal Government to promote full employment throughout the Nation and to encourage education necessary to such employment, it is also the purpose of this Act to provide assistance to local educational agencies in the education of children of needy families and children residing in areas of substantial unemployment with unemployed parents.'

"SEC. 2. Such Act is further amended by inserting after section 4 a new section as follows:

"'CHILDREN OF NEEDY FAMILIES AND CHILDREN RESIDING IN AREAS OF SUBSTANTIAL UNEMPLOYMENT WITH UNEMPLOYED PARENTS

"Authorization

“'SEC. 4A. (a) For the purpose of computing the amount to which a local educational agency is entitled under this section for any fiscal year, the Commissioner shall determine the number of children who were in average daily attendance at the schools of such agency, and for whom such agency provided free public education, during such fiscal year, and who, while in attendance at such schools

"'(1) were dependent children for the purposes of title IV of the Social Security Act, or

"(2) resided in an area, which during a major portion of such year was designated by the Secretary of Labor as an area of substantial unemployment, with one or more parents neither of whom was regularly employed and at least one of whom was drawing State unemployment compensation.

"For the purposes of this section a child may not be counted under both clauses 1 and 2 of this subsection for the same period.

66 'DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT

"(b) The amount to which a local educational agency is entitled under this section for any fiscal year shall be an amount equal to (1) 25 per centum of the local contribution rate (determined under section 3(d)) multiplied by (2) the number of children determined under subsection (a).

"MINIMUM REQUIREMENT

"(c) No local educational agency shall be entitled to receive any payment for a fiscal year with respect to a number of children determined under subsection (a) unless the number of children who were in average daily attendance during such year and to whom such subsection applies

"(1) is ten or more; and

"(2) amounts to 3 per centum or more of the total number of children who were in average daily attendance during such year and for whom such agency provided free public education.

"Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this subsection, the Commissioner may waive the 3 per centum condition of entitlement whenever, in his judgment. exceptional circumstances exist which would make the application of such condition inequitable and would defeat the purposes of this section.

""DETERMINATION OF NUMBER OF CHILDREN

"(d) The determination whether a local educational agency has met the percentage requirement for eligibility under this section for any fiscal year shall be made on the basis of estimates by the Commissioner prior to the close of such year, except that an underestimate made by the Commissioner pursuant to this subsection shall not operate to deprive an agency of its entitlement to any payments under this section to which it would be entitled had the estimate been accurate.'

"SEC. 3. Sections 3(f) and 4(d) of such Act are each amended (1) by inserting after 'such agency is otherwise entitled under this section for such year' the following: 'and the two succeeding fiscal years', and (2) by striking out 'current expenditures for such year' and inserting in lieu thereof 'current expenditures for such years'.

"SEC. 4. Section 5 of such Act is amended (1) in subsection (a) by striking out 'or 4' and inserting in lieu thereof '4, or 4A', and (2) in subsection (c) by striking out ‘and 4(a)' and inserting in lieu thereof ‘4(a), and 4A'.

"SEC. 5. Section 9 of such Act is amended by inserting at the end thereof the following:

"(11) The term "State unemployment compensation" means unemployment compensation paid to an individual under State law or title XV of the Social Security Act.'"

"SEC. 6. The amendments made by this Act shall be effective for fiscal years beginning after June 30, 1964."

REMARKS OF SENATOR MORSE ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE, THURSDAY,
JUNE 25, 1964

EDUCATION LEGISLATION-IMPACTED AREAS AMENDMENTS

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I wish to speak on another matter. I owe an obligation to a colleague in the Senate to make this statement.

Mr. President, earlier this year I introduced two bills designed to broaden the scope of the impacted areas statutes, Public Laws 815 and 874. Since that time I have been receiving substantial and increasing support for the concepts contained in those two bills. Therefore, I propose to discuss briefly each of them and to insert into the Record certain background data which I believe will be helpful to Senators who have expressed to me their interest in the proposals.

8. 2528, PUBLIC LAW 874, IMPACTED AID EXPANSION

The first measure, S. 2528, is enacted, would add two additional categories of children among those who would be counted in the computation of benefits under Public Law 874. Public Law 874, as it now is written, recognizes the Federal responsibility for financial aid to school districts based upon the number of pupils serviced by those districts whose parents either live or work on Federal property. There are, it is true, certain exclusions from the computation process of the children of certain Federal employees, such as those whose parents are employed by the Post Office Department in the community. This is a separate question not touched upon in S. 2528 but it is a question which I believe, in our hearings on S. 2528, ought to be reexplored by the subcommittee. The two new categories which would be added to the act under the terms of S. 2528, thus serving to increase the total amounts paid to the school district are: First, those children on whose behalf a parent is receiving an aid-for-dependent children grant; and second, in certain areas of the country which have been certified by the Secretary of Labor as being areas of substantial unemployment, those children whose parents are receiving unemployment compensation benefits.

The logic of the proposed expansion of the act rests upon two propositions. The first is that the children whose parents are receiving an aid-for-dependentchildren grant are, in fact, federally connected to a degree approximating the Federal connection of the children whose parents either live or work in the facility serviced by the school district. The Federal Government through its contribution to the family income, is paying for their food, in part, is helping to clothe them in part, and it is paying a share of the rent for the roof over their heads. This is a laudable and necessary expen liture, but the families, by the very nature of their need, are not able to contribute to the local taxes which maintain the local schools, to the same degree as those homeowners

who are in higher income brackets. It would seem quite proper, therefore, for the Federal Government, which pays a share of those other costs, to make a direct contribution to the local school district which has the responsibility of providing an opportunity for education to those young people to pay for part of the cost of educating them. Many of them need a type of training which is more costly to the school district than the standard educational program. English, for example, when it is a second language for the child, requires specially trained teachers. Guidance and counseling services in the schools are particularly important if the youngster is to be able to realize his talents. Since the Federal Government does not bear the sole responsibility, however, the payment proposed is but a fourth of that which it makes in the case of a child whose parents both live and work on Federal property.

The second proposition is that the aid proposed is calibrated in terms of community need; whether it is rural or urban is immaterial; both types of communities would benefit to the degree that the problem, as measured by the number of children in these two categories, exists in that school district. The proposal is not a general Federal aid-to-education-grant concept, much though I should like to see such a program enacted, rather it is pinpointed assistance to those districts most needing help. It is a limited program with a built-in responsiveness to changing conditions-as the need drops the payments drop. as the need increases, the assistance mounts.

Mr. President, at this point in my remarks, I ask that there be inserted a table which shows the dollar amounts which would have flowed to the counties of the several States if section 4(A)(1) of S. 2528 had been operative in 1960. (There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:)