CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE

December 5, 1967

35076

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, in 1965, when we first considered and approved Public Law 89-10, I stated that I felt it to be our principal objective to enact a meaningful Federal program of assistance to the States for elementary and secondary education. I felt at that time, and so stated, that the bill was not a perfect bill, but I felt that legislation for the purpose of Federal assistance to our elementary and secondary schools was long overdue.

We now have an opportunity to observe and examine Public Law 89-10 in action and we are now in a position to make improvements on our original bill.

I extend my congratulations to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare and to those who have worked out the amendments of 1967 to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

I am particularly grateful that the committee has written into the bill a repealer of the provision in Public Law 89-750 which requires the use by the States of mandatory group rate provisions under Public Law 874. This repealer provision is extremely important to several Maine communities receiving funds under Public Law 874. Our federally impacted small towns would not be able to maintain their present school systems if required to enter into a mandatory grouping formula.

Limestone, Maine, the home of Loring Air Force Base, provides a striking example of the effect mandatory grouping would have on a community. The loss to Limestone under mandatory grouping would be $147.76 per student. Under the grouping plan, the town would be eligible for a total amount of $394,057.40. Under the comparable schools plan, using last year's entitlement figure, Limestone would be eligible for a total amount of $675,614.08. The loss to the community would be $253,401.01.

I also wish to express my appreciation to the committee for the new title in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act which provides for bilingual education programs. Early this year I submitted to the Special Subcommittee on Bilingual Education a proposal to include

French-speaking children in the bill which the special subcommittee was considering. In the St. John Valley, in northern Aroostook County, Maine, 95 to 98 percent of the pupils are of French descent. Their home language is French; and they learn English only when they enter school.

There is a high degree of linguistic solidarity in the community. Their culture is oriented toward the culture of Quebec Province and the French-speaking section of the Province of New Brunswick. Maine has other large concentrations of French American families and students located in the industrial communities in southern and central Maine. The Superintendent of Schools at Van Buren, in northern Aroostook County, reports to me that those pupils who speak French exclusively at home score 3 years below national norms. Other surveys have shown that the average achievement scores are far below the national average. It is clear that equality of opportunity is severely limited for our French-speaking children in Maine, and I am hopeful that by giving them special language instruction in school, we will have given these children a more equal chance.