These things we have done as a people. These are the things which have made us a great Nation.

If it is in the interests of the people of this country that we stamp out hog cholera, that we fight hoof-and-mouth disease, that we do something for the development of power and resources in order that industry might move throughout this Nation of ours and grow and expand, then, too, is it not to the interest of the people of this Nation and of the Nation itself that we do something for the greatest asset that we have, the children of this Nation?

Testimony has been given here today with respect to the inferior type of teachers that we are getting now simply because of the inadequate salaries that it is possible for us to pay. Statements have been made that there are a number of our citizens in many States wh oget no opportunities at education because the funds are not available.

I am not able, nor do I believe any other person is able, to estimate the amount of revenue that might be made available to the Federal Government and through the Federal Government to the States for education through the medium of this particular amendment to Senate bill 107. At the present moment no one knows the extent of the fields under the seas offshore. They will not know until there has been much more development of those fields.

It is necessary for certain types of geological work to be done and then drilling to determine the boundaries. It may be that millions of dollars, rather than the $2 million listed here by one of the Senators, I believe, will be available for this purpose. Whatever amount there may be in revenue from these lands should in our opinion be the property of the Federal Government.

Because the lands do not lie within the continental boundaries of the United States, the moneys should be used in the interests of all of the people and in the field of education.

I believe that completes my statement.

Senator BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Knight.

Are there any further questions?

Senator LONG. Are you familiar with the conservation laws of the various States, Texas, Louisiana, and California?

Mr. KNIGHT. Are you speaking now of the oil conservation laws? Senator LONG. Yes, the oil conservation laws.

Mr. KNIGHT. I do know that many of the States of the Nation have laws whereby they regulate the amount of production in the interests of conservation, among other things.

Senator LONG. In the interest of draining and various things. Have you ever had occasion to make any study of the laws in Louisiana and Texas and California on that subject?

Mr. KNIGHT. No, sir. I am not a lawyer, as I have said.

Senator LONG. Of course, you perhaps know that we in Louisiana do derive a large portion of our funds for education from oil and gas. In fact, I suppose that is by far the largest single source of educational revenue. Perhaps two-thirds of our aid for education in Louisiana comes from the production of oil and gas. Did you know that?

Mr. KNIGHT. Yes, I do know that the State of Louisiana a few years ago conducted quite a campaign at that time, a taxation cam

paign, and so forth, and were in conflict for a number of years with the oil industry until they got their program into effect, and by reason of that fact under the leadership of the then governor of the State of Louisiana, there were developed considerable funds for the utilization and educational purposes. But in my opinion this law, contrary to a statement made, would not affect the resources or the moneys, the funds, that the State obtains from he land in the State itself. This law, I believe, relates itself only to the oil under water offshore. Senator LONG. I believe the record would show that it was my father, who was a former United States Senator and former Governor of that State, who probably battled harder against the oil interests than anyone to make them pay for free schoolbooks through the

severance tax.

I was at one time the counsel to another Governor by the same name, who happened to be my uncle, and helped him to increase the tax, to treble that same severance tax because the price of oil had gone up very much.

That is the main source of support for education in my State, which makes it important for the State of Louisiana, if we are to educate our school children, that we share in the benefit of that oil production. If I were giving a guess, I would guess that a vast majority of the oil and gas industry opposed me when I ran for the United States Senate. I say as one public official that certainly my interest and the interest of many of us in our State is to see that whatever disposition is made is one that will permit us to receive what we believe is our fair share of revenues for the benefit of the school children of our State. As a matter of fact, that was a very difficult thing for me to explain in the last Presidential campaign supporting a Democratic candidate and trying to explain that tidelands was not the only issue involved in the campaign.

Mr. KNIGHT. Senator, you have been very fortunate in the State of Louisiana, much more fortunate than we have been in the State of Colorado. As of this moment we do not have an adequate tax law insofar as the oil industry is concerned. We have talked severance tax, we have talked all sorts of taxes, but there is very little in the way of taxes on the oil industry in Colorado.

Perhaps if we had Governor Long up there, we might have been able to do something, but we have not so far. By watching the operations of the oil industry in that State, their ads in the papers, watching their lobbyists work in the State legislature, I have formed an opinion that in the State of Colorado at least they get a better deal than they would from the Federal Government.

Senator LONG. Here are the interests you would have to face as far as the offshore oil beyond my State's shores are concerned. If you ratify State leases and permit the State to have police power in that area, we would be able then to collect our severance tax, which is admittedly a high tax. It averages about 25 cents for every barrel extracted.

If the Federal Government pursues the approach of the Anderson bill and does not permit us to exercise police power and taxing power in that area, then our State would lose that share of revenue that would go into education. The Federal Government would not get it because they would be ratifying under the terms of the Anderson bill the existing lease without permitting the State to have police power

and collect its taxes in that area, which of course would make it difficult in our State to receive the revenues that we very much need to support our educational system in the State. Are you familiar with. that fact?

Mr. KNIGHT. I am certainly aware of the position taken by the State of Louisiana, the State of Texas, and the State of California in respect to this particular bill, and I

Senator LONG. We want support of education. We have been battling to get funds for education.

Mr. KNIGHT. May I say to you that I have no particular animosity toward the representatives of the State of Louisiana or Texas or California or the people because of the attitude that they take. On the other hand, I am firmly convinced that the boundaries of the States of Louisiana, Texas, California, and all of the other coastal States do not extend 9 miles or 10 miles or 150 miles out into the water. I am convinced of that. I do not think that that concept even existed in the minds of the people of the States of Louisiana, Texas, or California, until there was the discovery of this vast natural resource out in the land under the water, at which time they launched their claim.

Senator LONG. The point I am making is that with regard to the kind of deal you get on these existing leases, if those leases are ratified under the terms of the present language of the Anderson bill, and the States are not permitted to collect their severance tax, then to the extent of 25 cents on every barrel of oil extracted, the oil company would be getting a better deal in terms of money for the oil company as against money for education and money for the States than they would under the terms of a bill that would permit us to have police power and taxing power in that area.

Mr. KNIGHT. Senator, if there are deficiencies in other laws governing the development of that oil reserve under lease with the oil companies-I am speaking now of the Federal laws-then it would seem to me that rather than reject this law and the entire concept of Federal control, the proper thing for the Government of the United States to do would be to rectify the laws which are deficient, and if there is in addition a leasing charge, that should be made and a royalty, a severance tax also, put on it.

I do not have the power to institute those bills, but you gentlemen up here do have. I am not here trying to get a better deal for the oil companies; I am here trying to get a better deal for the people of the United States insofar as their control of these so-called offshore oils are concerned and insofar as the educational opportunities for the people of the country are concerned.

Senator LONG. Your organization, I believe, was in support of statehood for Alaska in the last Congress.

Mr. KNIGHT. Yes, sir.

Senator LONG. That bill, as I recall it, would have permitted the State of Alaska to receive about 20 million acres of land which they could select outright in addition to the land that was in the incorporated municipalities and areas of that sort. Did you know that? Mr. KNIGHT. You are talking about land in Alaska?

Senator LONG. Yes.

Mr. KNIGHT. Inside the continental boundaries?

Senator LONG. Yes.

Mr. KNIGHT. What is wrong with that?

Senator LONG. You are the one who is saying, apparently, that we should not give away resources that we have.

Mr. KNIGHT. You misunderstand me.

Senator LONG. Beyond that point, if the bill had passed in that form, the State of Alaska would have received 372 percent of all the revenues from 550,000,000 acres in Alaska and it would have been entitled to share in a reclamation fund where only a limited number of States would have had the benefit of all the minerals to be produced in that area for reclamation purposes. That would not have been a case of permitting all the people who share in it, would it?

Mr. KNIGHT. You see, we are not talking here about the oil that lies within the boundaries of the State of Louisiana or Texas or California. We are talking about the oil that lies offshore. In Alaska, as in many other States as they were admitted, certain concessions I presume have been made or will be made by the Federal Government. I assume that those also were made in Wyoming, in Colorado, and in many other States.

As the Federal Government began to expand-the Louisiana Purchase is an example of one way that it expanded-the Federal Government gained control of a lot of land, and they have disposed of it by many methods. They have granted some to the railroads, some to the schools, some to the people.

Senator LONG. Of course the Holland bill-

Mr. KNIGHT. I have no quarrel with that. I am not interested in what happens at this particular point, nor is this bill interested in what happens inside the continental boundaries of the United States. We are talking about something entirely different.

Senator LONG. For the most part, however, the land referred to in the Holland bill, which you are opposing, does fall within the limits of those States?

Mr. KNIGHT. As you define them or as the Supreme Court defines them?

Senator LONG. Even as the Supreme Court defines it. It is pretty generally recognized that the State's boundaries in almost every case go out at least 3 miles.

Mr. KNIGHT. Do the States of Louisiana, California, and Texas so recognize? If they do, there is not much of a quarrel here, is there? Senator LONG. There is a quarrel over what the disposition of the property should be. That is contended to be Federal property located within those States. That is the basis upon which I presume the bill you are supporting would propose that the States would get 37% percent within their boundaries.

Mr. KNIGHT. I did not negotiate that deal. I would not know. Senator BARRETT. If there are no other questions, we thank you very much, Mr. Knight.

Mr. KNIGHT. You are quite welcome.

Senator HILL. I realize it is late. I have one other witness from out of town, who comes from the State of North Carolina which is some distance, as you know. I understand he has a short statement. I wonder if he might summarize that statement for the committee?

STATEMENT OF SAMUEL R. LEVERING, ARARAT, VA., ON BEHALF OF FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION

Senator BARRETT. Your statement may be inserted in the record at this point, Mr. Levering, and you may proceed and summarize it. (The prepared statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF SAMUEL R. LEVERING, ARARAT, VA., ON BEHALF OF THE FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION

My name is Samuel R. Levering. I am a vice chairman of the Friends Committee on National Legislation. My address is Ararat, Va., where I own and operate an orchard on the southwest slope of the Blue Ridge.

I appear here today for the Friends Committee on National Legislation to express our hearty approval of the amendment to S. 107 introduced by Senator Hill on behalf of himself and 22 Senators, the "Oil for Education" amendment. This great natural resource-perhaps of $40 to $60 million value-should be used for the education of America's children and youth.

There is a very long historical precedent for using some of the national heritage of public land and resources for education. It began in my home State of Virginia in 1618 and was used notably in the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862, which was important in developing my alma mater, Cornell University. This use of public funds has proved wise, and should be continued, to meet our Nation's serious educational needs now and for the future.

Funds from this source should be used for education just as soon as the Congress can pass legislation governing their use. These funds will do our country much more good if used for education than if added to defense appropriations. The real strength of our Nation rests in the quality of its citizens. Education is vital in developing the kind of citizens necessary in a democracy.

We urge prompt acceptance by the Congress of the principle that this great resource is to be used for education. Delay might mean that this great opportunity would be lost forever. There is an urgent, immediate need for additional funds for education. Other witnesses have documented that need with alarming figures on the shortage of schools and teachers, and the prospective increases in school enrollment. May I illustrate the plight of the schools from the experience of my own community and family?

I live in Carroll County in the southwest Virginia mountains. Our farming country is far from wealthy. Our mountains and hills produce relatively little to sell. We have little industry. Our tax rate runs about $5 per $100 assessed value. We simply can't tax enough to support good schools. The State helps, but there isn't enough money.

I have 6 children, 4 now in school, the fifth starting next year. Three children in a displaced person's family live with us. What should I do? My oldest 3 children attended the local mountain school through fifth, fourth, and first grades. Results were not satisfactory. The shortage of qualified teachers, overcrowding, lack of equipment, inadequate equipment, poor meals, poor toilet facilities, and a playground which is not safe were factors. Windows were often knocked out, making the job of the pot-bellied stove impossible in warming the schoolhouse.

My wife and I felt that we could not permanently handicap our children's future by submitting them to such conditions. So now they rise at 6 a. m., leave home at 6:40, reach there at 7:45 a. m., and wait an hour for the Mount Airy schools to open. We drive in to get them at 3 p. m., or they would have to come back on the bus, and would reach home at 6 p. m., altogether too long a day for children. We pay tuition at Mount Airy, across the State line, as well as the bus fære, of course. I realize that I am fortunate in being able to afford to send my children to another school. Most parents in our community cannot do this.

Schools are better in our community than when I was a boy. Then mother taught us 3 children at home, through the eighth grade, bringing in neighbor children also, because public schools were so poor. Then I came to Washington to attend high school. But our schools are still not worthy of our fine mountain children. Too many are being handicapped for life. This is a tragic shame. This situation is by no means confined to the South-it is a nationwide problem. Only last week, two dramatic incidents revealed the inadequacy of some schools in New York State, which spend more on education per capita than any other