We have a whole roomful of people who feel the budget is too low for elementary and secondary education. What do you do?

Dr. TROTTER. I would be very sympathetic with them. I would try to explain what the programs were and where the increases were, and what we were trying to do in terms of the total Federal budget. That is all I could do.

I, myself, would feel that I should find out about their concerns. All we can do is talk about what we can hope to do the next time the budget comes around.

Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Michel?

DEVELOPMENT OF FISCAL YEAR 1976 BUDGET

Mr. MICHEL. Dr. Trotter, you have been on board some 3 months, and the budget for 1976 obviously was in the process of being made up, or really started several months prior at lower echelons. Then, you don't get an opportunity for presentation until November or December or so, prior to the President making a state of the union message. Do you feel you are going to have significant input into the budget makeup for fiscal year 1976?

Dr. TROTTER. Well, I certainly hope that we all are going to have something to do with that budget. We still have an opportunity to do this. Although the budget is pretty much in place in terms of some of the directions, I believe we will have a chance to have an input.

Mr. MICHEL. Have you been in that program long enough to look ahead and see what potential this new Budget Committee of the House and Senate might have in helping the Congress to share this role of determining the allocation of these limited resources and revenues, and of going back to the people to ask for a tax increase if there isn't enough money? Has anybody down there thought about what the views of the Congress might be on that?

Dr. TROTTER. I am aware of the fact that we do have a new system of budgeting this time. This is the first round that we have had in terms of working together. I think this can be very helpful to both the executive branch and the legislative branch. The fact that we can work this out together.

Mr. MICHEL. No more questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Natcher?

COMPARISON OF BUDGET REQUESTS FOR 1974 AND 1975

Mr. NATCHER. Mrs. Trotter, as I understand the requests before the committee at this time for $2,180,218,000 for fiscal year 1975, as set forth on page 58, "Elementary and Secondary Education," is that figure correct?

Dr. TROTTER. I believe that figure is right.

Mr. NATCHER. With regard to elementary and secondary education, what figure have we before this committee at this time in the supplemental for elementary and secondary education?

Dr. TROTTER. $5.1 billion.

Mr. NATCHER. That includes your handicapped?

Dr. TROTTER. It includes title I of elementary and secondary education. It includes the State grants for education of the handicapped

and rehabilitation, and includes the consolidated education grants program.

Mr. NATCHER. How much is that package?

Dr. TROTTER. $5.1 billion.

Mr. MILLER. That covers 2 academic years.

Dr. TROTTER. We are here asking for forward funding, as you probably know. I do think this is going to be one of the most helpful things we could possibly do for the States, asking for this forward funding.

Mr. NATCHER. What is the difference between the amount now pending before the committee for elementary and secondary education, and the amounts authorized and appropriated for fiscal year 1974? Dr. TROTTER. I would have to get that figure for you.

Mr. MILLER. I have a figure, but I think it omits a piece of it. The actual amount for fiscal year 1974 for the programs for which we are requesting funds, is $1.8 billion; and the comparable amount in the piece of the budget that is for the current year, is $2.2 billion. I think we will have to revise the record because I don't think that includes part of the amounts that were appropriated in 1974.

Mr. NATCHER. On the worksheet before us under "Comparison of Budget Estimates" with authorization under H.R. 69, the President's budget figure for 1974 totals $3,186,800,000 for education. Is that correct?

Mr. MILLER. Is that the authorization figure, Mr. Natcher?

Mr. NATCHER. That is on the worksheets we have before us. That is your 1974 figure?

Mr. MILLER. I am sorry, Mr. Natcher, but I seem to be working from a different worksheet than you are. I am not sure we are working from the same table.

Dr. TROTTER. It looks to me like it is $2,891,914,000 in 1974 appropriations.

Mr. NATCHER. Mr. Miller, may I pass this to you? See if this figure is correct.

The figure I have in mind is under the President's budget column. Fiscal year 1975, $2,967.3 million, which is the total for education. The $3,186.800,000 is the overall figure for fiscal year 1974. Is that right, Mr. Miller?

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Natcher, I believe that is right.

I am sorry, Mr. Natcher. I thought the difference was in those programs where we were not requesting funds in fiscal year 1975, but it is not. I see some of these funds are part of the consolidation.

Mr. NATCHER. Can you give me any idea as to the difference in these figures now? That is what I have in mind.

Dr. TROTTER. Between 1974 and 1975?

Mr. NATCHER. That is correct. You ought to have those figures. Mr. MILLER. Let me say this. Mr. Natcher. I think we have to straighten out the figures, and I don't want to prolong the hearing by trying to do it here.

The principal difference though is in the impact area aid program and in the emergency school assistance program.

Mr. NATCHER. Can you give me the total as to the difference there? Mr. MILLER. I will be able to do it in a few minutes. It is about $300 million, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BELL. Those are the only figures that are down in those two

areas.

Mr. MICHEL. Isn't that about $274 million in the "B" category for impacted aid? That is the one big chunk, isn't it? Mr. MILLER. It is about $234 million.

Mr. BELL. And a decrease in emergency school aid.
Mr. NATCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

LAU V. NICHOLS, SUPREME COURT DECISION

Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Shriver?

Mr. SHRIVER. You mention the case of Lau v. Nichols. Would you describe in the record the requirements of that order?

Dr. TROTTER. This is the bilingual education program.

Mr. SHRIVER. You may put it in the record.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

[The information follows:]

The Supreme Court decision in Lau v. Nichols focuses attention on the special problems of some children in our society in achieving equal access to educational opportunities available to others in their community, and the need for the public school systems of this country to deal explicitly and effectively with such problems. The decision held that failure to rectify the English language deficiency of students was a violation of their civil rights. In its simplest terms, the Supreme Court in Lau affirmed the responsibility of local educational agencies (LEA's) to comply with title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and HEW regulations and guidelines issued pursuant thereto. These guidelines and regulations require that school districts take affirmative action to rectify the language deficiencies of limited and non-English-speaking children in such a fashion that they may enjoy equal access to the education opportunities provided to all other students by the school system.

In the Lau case, no specific remedies were sought, and the Supreme Court prescribed none, but rather remanded the case to the district court level for "fashioning of appropriate relief." The Court, therefore, left open the nature of the appropriate relief required. While much about the nature and application of remedies for English language deficiencies remains unclear in the Court's decision, it is clear that local educational agencies are obligated to develop effective affirmative action programs for dealing with such problems. This supplemental increasing the original request for title VII from $35 million to $70 million reflects the Department's response to new demands placed on the LEA's as a result of Lau v. Nichols. The increase reflects a new emphasis on capacity buildingwhereby the Federal Government assists in training teachers and developing and disseminating materials to thus enable local districts to launch their own programs.

REPRESENTATION OF TOTAL EDUCATION PROGRAM

Mr. PATTEN. This is the first time I have talked to a specialist who didn't mention her own specialty.

Your background is home economics?

Dr. TROTTER. That is right.

Mr. PATTEN. You think those other things are all very important and you haven't said a good word for home economics?

Dr. TROTTER. That was a terrible omission, Mr. Patten, and I will be glad to correct that.

I really feel I have a responsibility for the total program in education and Home Economics is an important area within this program. However, I think it is my responsibility to look at the total program and not at any one part of it as being more important.

1/ Authorized funds for FY 1973 of $100,000,000 were made available through December 31, 1973 on July 1, 1973.

NUTRITION PROGRAM

The Title VII Nutrition program operates within the same conceptual framework as Title III, since the delivery of low cost meals and related services is one component of a comprehensive, coordinated, service system. The nutrition program is designed to improve the capacity of State and area and local agencies to meet the nutrition, health, and other social service needs of the elderly by developing community-based nutrition projects on a nationwide basis. State and Area Agencies on Aging will be strongly encouraged to work out mutually satisfactory agreements with contractors and grantees under Title VII designed to bring about meaningful coordination between them and the providers of services under Title III.

Funds under this program will be allocated by formula grant to States to pay up to 90% of the cost for the establishment, maintenance, operation, and expansion of low cost meal projects, including nutrition training and education, and supporting social services. Funds allotted to States are to be awarded by grant or contract, to public or private non-profit institutions, organizations, agencies, or political subdivisions of the State which meet the conditions of the Act.

Objectives FY 1975:

There is no projected increase in the total amount requested for nutrition in BY 1975. State administrative cos:s which were allowable charges to Title VII in early FY 1974 will be transferred to Title III State Agency Activities. The availability of such administrative funds and the availability of funds used in the initial years as capital investment is expected to offset the increasing costs of delivering meals against FY 1975 funds.

The major objective of this activity in FY 1975 is to improve the capacity of State and local agencies to meet the nutritional and related social needs of the elderly. The program will continue to serve approximately 200,000 meals per day five days per week. Most of these meals will be served by the 665 projects central serving sites while some meals are delivered to homes. Since these resources will address the nutrition needs of only a portion of those eligible elderly, they will be concentrated where the need is the greatest, in target areas with a high proportion of low-income and minority elderly.

Nutrition program packages will also be developed and designed in such a manner as to draw, in addition to those available under Title VII, on Federal dollars under the adult service titles of the Social Security Act, general revenue sharing funds, and other public and private resources. Once these packages have been developed, the Administration on Aging will work through the Regional Offices to encourage State

governments to, in turn, encourage local governments to undertake their implementation so as to broaden the base of Title VII projects and to set up nutrition projects outside of areas covered by the Title VII program.

Accomplishments, 1974:

The Title VII Nutrition Program was implemented in the first quarter of FY 1974. Although this implementation was delayed bacause of the late appropriation of FY 1973 funds, all of the preparatory ground work at the Federal level had been completed. Since the allocation of funds to the States, 55 State plans have been approved. State agencies have developed their capability for planning and administering a nutrition program that will provide at least 200,000 low cost meals per day along with related social services to persons aged 60 and over. They have made 665 project awards in locations with a high concentration of low-income and minority elderly population; and have provided technical assistance to local nutrition projects. average project grant is $150,000.

The

The Nutrition Program is scheduled for full scale operation by March 31, 1974.

Short term training has been provided at selected training centers to approximately 1,300 persons including program directors and site managers to enable them to effectively operate local nutrition programs and coordinate them with other local service programs for the aged.

An evaluation of the nation-wide program impact is being initiated.