ATEMENT BY C. TAYLOR WHITTIER, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am C. Taylor Whittier, perintendent of schools in Montgomery County, Md. I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before this committee. H.R. 7140 if enacted by Congress would adversely affect the public school stem of Montgomery County. Federal assistance under Public Law 874 would reduced from $1,915,824 to $1,112,563 for 1959-60 according to the figures ported in the Washington Post and Times Herald on May 13, 1959. This is reduction of $803,261 and equals 41.9 percent. This may not sound like much oney to people who deal in billions but to our school program it represents: 1. The total cost to educate 4,095 kindergarten pupils; or 2. The total cost to educate 2,143 pupils in grades 1 through 6; or 3. The total cost to educate 1,634 pupils in grades 7 through 12; or 4. The entire cost of the junior college program consisting of 1,257 pupils. The attached statistical and financial data shows: 1. The constant increase in the tax rate for school operations. 2. The rapid increase in population, total pupils, and federally connected pupils. 3. Rapid increase in bonded indebtedness. 4. Capital funds appropriated by county, State, and Federal (Public Law 815). 5. Operating budget receipts by county, State, and Federal (Public Law 874), and Federal all other. 6. List of Federal installations located in Montgomery County. Objection is made to the sections of H.R. 7140 that reduce the rate of reimrsement for pupils whose parents are employed on Federal property within the hool district from 50 to 40 percent and for pupils whose parents are employed Federal property not in the school district from 50 to 25 percent. I must conss that I am unable to establish in my own mind what the exact rate of reimrsement should be. However, the 50-percent rate has been considered fair nd equitable since the inception of the program. In light of the financial probms associated with public education today, it would appear unwise to foster y change that would aggravate the situation. The evidence I have heard pears to justify retaining the present program. Governmental services including public education is a business, big business. overnment like industry hires people, procures supplies, then produces material ings such as roads and buildings or renders services such as operating legistive bodies, courts of justice, and public school systems. Government operaons are financed through taxes which in general are classified as income, sales, id real estate. How the revenue from these taxes is distributed to any particur governmental service is difficult to analyze. Employees and employers pay income, sales, and real estate taxes; hence, rough their efforts produce the funds to support all governmental operations. he Federal Government is by far the largest employer in the area. In fact proximately one-third of our pupils are federally connected. The Federal overnment as a non-tax-paying employer meets its obligation to support public ucation through Public Law 815 and 874. The employer's obligation should not less when the location of the employment is outside the school district. In closing, I would like to say that Public Laws 815 and 874 were originated d developed through the combined efforts of school people and legislators to eet a school problem. Congress is to be commended for the manner in which has handled the Federal impact problems in the past. I feel that if given the cts Congress will again recognize and solve the present Federal impact probThe representatives of the U.S. Office of Education have administered legislae acts of Congress diligently and fairly. While considerable data is prepared support eligibility for funds there has been no evidence of Federal control of ucation. n. I personally believe that Montgomery County is justified in receiving Federal 1 under Public Laws 815 and 874 for the children of parents employed on deral property in Montgomery County and the surrounding area, at the existg reimbursement rates. Therefore, I respectfully request the committee to render an unfavorable report on H.R. 7140. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ROCKVILLE, MD. Schedule of school tax per $100 of assessed value Schedule of population, total pupils, and federally connected pupils Rate $1.67 1.72 1.83 1. 95 2. 19 1 Does not include incentive fund receipts until 1957-58 as receipts were applied to debt service. LIST OF FEDERAL PROPERTIES LOCATED IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD. AAA Missile, Derwood. AAA Missile, Olney. AAA Missile, Rockville. Atomic Energy Commission. Dalecarlia Filtration Plant. David Taylor Model Basin. George Washington Memorial Parkway. Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, 8621 Georgia Avenue. Little Falls project. National Capital Parks, C. & O. Canal. National Institutes of Health. National Naval Medical Center. Naval Ordnance Laboratory. Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Forest Glen Annex. Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Glen Haven housing site. Mr. WHITTIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to ask Dr. Whittier the same question I asked Mrs. Cook. Do you believe that an individual taxpayer who is employed by the Federal Government is unable to make the same contribution toward the cost of educating his own children than someone who is not employed by the Federal Government? Mr. WHITTIER. I think the point there is as an individual taxpayer, the answer she said would be "No." The point is that his effort contributing toward the improvement of a business is not recognized in the same manner. It seems to me it is that distinction that one would keep in mind. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Is not recognized in the same manner? Mr. WHITTIER. That is right, in the same manner as his contribution to a business, which obviously builds up the business, which then is a potential tax support. It is not in the same relationship. That would be the distinction as I see it. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Your argument again is that because he is working for a business which does not contribute anything in the form of taxes on its property, there is created an obligation? Mr. WHITTIER. That is one of the reasons; yes, sir. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I assume that a great many of these are people whose property is being taxed. They live in the district. As you say, one out of every three is a Federal employee, and those individuals contribute in the way of individual taxes themselves as people who work for a private employer. Mr. WHITTIER. That is right. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I have no further questions. Mr. BAILEY. Mr. Lafore? Mr. LAFORE. No, thank you. Mr. BAILEY. Thank you. Mr. Foley, we are going to have to move along rapidly here. Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to inform you that we have representatives from both Frederick County and Washington County who have very brief statements, and I would like to call from Frederick County Mr. Chase C. Gove, Jr., a member of the board of education for that county, and Mr. Harry V. Frushour, who is assistant superintendent of schools. STATEMENTS OF CHASE C. GOVE, JR., MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, AND HARRY V. FRUSHOUR, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, FREDERICK COUNTY, MD. Mr. GOVE. I am Chase C. Gove, Jr., a member of the Board of Education of Frederick County. We do not have a prepared statement. We will try to make our comments very brief. Mr. Frushour has some statistics that apply immediately to our county and I hope again he will be brief with them. I would like to point out that I think we can feel that there is some room for consideration of this bill rather than coming here in flat opposition to it. We would like to point out an area of it that perhaps is a little bit unfair and works a hardship on the budget of the Federal Government. It may be a little different approach, but we have people in our county who are commuting in excess of 50 miles one way to work and we are receiving Federal assistance for those people. We like to receive that Federal assistance. We are honored that they choose to live in Frederick County, but we realize again that perhaps that is not fair in the overall picture. The definitions in one of the bills define that we shall receive assistance if the children live within reasonable commuting distance of the school, but there is no commentary in there with respect to the parents' reasonable commuting distance of work, and perhaps some boundary could be drawn if the committee has to make some cut in this appropriation, but definitely we feel that where there is an operation such as we have within the boundaries of the city of Frederick, Fort Dietrich, which came in and purchased over 1,200 acres of our city boundary and established an operation and made substantial improvements, which are tax-free, and a great many children live on that installation within the boundaries of it in Government housing, there is a need. Mr. Frushour, our assistant superintendent, has some statistics which I think he will present at this time. Mr. FRUSHOUR. Mr. Chairman, 1210 percent of the total school enrollment of Frederick County is represented by the Federal impacted children; 910 percent of the total enrollment in Frederick County are children whose parents reside on the post or work on the post at Fort Dietrich. Recently the board of education was forced to condemn 12 acres of land within the corporate limits of Frederick City and we paid $5,000 in condemnation proceedings for that per acre. Now, representing Fort Dietrich, 1,250 acres within the corporate limits of Frederick would place a value in excess of $6 million on the land that Fort Dietrich is located on. Our assessed valuation in Frederick County is based on 55 percent of the total value of the land. This would then represent a loss as far as taxable wealth is concerned of in excess of $3 million. This represents 8 cents on the tax rate in Frederick County. If House bill 7140 is enacted, it will be a loss of $31,592 to Frederick County. We would have to have a 2-cent increase in the tax rate in Frederick County to absorb this loss. Therefore, I urgently request that the committee turn down the portion of the bill which would lower the percentage of assistance for |