NOTE: Fiscal Year 1976 figures include only advance funding requests. $47.1 million; FY 1977 $49 million; FY 1978 $52 million. 1/ Includes Puerto Rico treated as a State: FY 1975 2/ Parentheses indicate figures not contained in bill. 3/ Includes all components. 4/ Includes $25 authorization for consumers education. 5/ Included in other Parts. 6/ New authorization. 1/ Estimate included in Section 3(a) and Section 3(b). 8/ Funds for the Right to Read program are requested under the Cooperative Education Act. 9/ A total of $1 billion is authorized to be distributed among fiscal years 1974-1976. · EMERGENCY SCHOOL AID Mr. FLOOD. In the President's original 1975 budget request. $75 million was requested for the emergency school aid program. Now these new education amendments continue the authority for 2 years. Where do you now stand with the budget in this program? Dr. BELL. We have a real problem on this, Mr. Chairman. Before I came here, the administration prepared new legislation called the Desegregation Assistance Act. This legislation is designed to eliminate the requirement that we allocate the desegregation aid money on a "formula by State" basis and instead give us more authority to target the money where school districts are under the pressure of new desegregation. The purpose of this proposed legislation is to let us focus on areas where desegregation problems exist. Under the current, existing legislation, funds must be apportioned to all States according to the legislative provisions for State formula allocation, thereby, providing money to some States and districts where the need is not as great as it is in others. In addition, $9 million-12 percent of the $75 million will have to be used to fund the three special projects activity setasides. This means that of the $75 million, a total of $66 million is available for State apportionment. So the hope was at the time this submission was put together that the Desegregation Assistance Act would move forward. If the funding level for the Emergency School Aid Act were higher than $75 million, this would not be so difficult. However, under our budget restraints and the situation to which I have referred, we felt $75 million would be adequate, provided it could be targeted directly to areas of need on a nonformula basis, as is proposed in the Desegregation Assistance Act. Mr. FLOOD. In view of all that, what are the chances of revising this legislation? Has a new bill been drafted? Dr. BELL. The new bill, the Desegregation Assistance Act, has been brought up to the Hill. It has not yet been introduced, I was surprised to find out. Mr. FLOOD. This is why I asked the question. Dr. BELL. My own personal opinion is that the probabilities of the Desegregation Assistance Act passing in time to meet the requirements of the circumstances right now are not very good. Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I think our first objective and the thing we are recommending most strongly to the Congress is still to consider our legislati recommendation. As Dr. Ben says, the likelihood is small that Congress will act. A second alternative on which we would be willing to work with the committee, should you be willing to consider it, would be to write appropriation language which would permit us to spend the $75 million in a non formula way and then we would not object to the $75 million appropriation under the existing legislation. Mr. FLOOD. You know the attitude generally around here about that kind of business. Mr. MILLER. We have done it before in education for school assistance in federally affected areas and for title I, ESEA. It is not unprecedented. Mr. FLOOD. At what funding level are you operating this program now under the continuing resolution? Dr. BELL. I will need to ask Mr. Wheeler if he would respond to that. Mr. WHEELER. The authorized level for the Emergency School Aid Act, under the continuing resolution, is $236 million, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MILLER. We have only obligated a small amount of money in the first quarter, Mr. Chairman. Essentially it is a forward-funded program and generally most funds are not obligated until the end of the fiscal year. We are authorized to spend at that level, but we have not been spending at that level in the first quarter until we see what happens on the appropriations. Mr. FLOOD. The witness is available for general questions. Mr. Michel. Mr. MICHEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I understand, we will have special witnesses on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, for the handicapped and impact aid and so forth? Mr. FLOOD. Yes. Mr. MICHEL. I will, therefore, confine my questions,. Dr. Bell, to those of a general nature. First, would you submit for the record a new and up-to-date table of organization for the Office of Education, so we can find out where everybody sits in this new game of musical chairs? Dr. BELL. Yes. [The information follows:] NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION Mr. MICHEL. What is your relationship as Commissioner of Education to the National Institute of Education? Dr. BELL. We are both under the Division of Education and we meet frequently. In fact, we met this morning before I came up here with the Director of NIE. We are striving to coordinate our activities, especially some of the project grant activities that the Office of Education has, to make sure we coordinate them with the NIE. This is done under the leadership of Dr. Trotter since she is Assistant Secretary over the Division of Education. Since I have been here, we have met quite often. Mr. MICHEL. Do we have a new top man? Dr. BELL. Dr. Glennan has resigned and we don't have a new Director now. We are in the process of a search for a new Director. Mr. MICHEL. Do you have an input there? Dr. BELL. I have an opportunity to recommend conditions. Dr. Trotter will also have a major voice in it. The Director is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, so it will have to go through that process. Right now I know that the Secretary has already asked for suggestions from the field of education. Mr. MICHEL. Did they express this morning in that meeting any concern with respect to the level of funding that is possible and in prospect? Dr. BELL. I should say that was foremost in the discussion this morning, sir. Mr. MICHEL. I understand the Senate committee yesterday didn't allow a dollar for it. Dr. BELL. They voted a zero appropriation. "HOLD HARMLESS" PROVISIONS Mr. MICHEL. You made brief mention of the "hold harmless" provisions of the new law. Do those apply to every category in the legis lation? Dr. BELL. The provision I mentioned applies to title I, Mr. Michel. What it does is to guarantee every local education agency at least 85 percent of what they received the previous year regardless of what the formula would bring them. Mr. MICHEL. That is the only "hold harmless" provision in the legislation? Dr. BELL. No; there is also a "hold harmless" provision for adult education. OFFICE OF EDUCATION PERSONNEL Mr. MICHEL. You spoke of stringent times and limited funds, making mention of some possible cutbacks in funding. What kind of reductions in personnel have there been, if any, in the Office of Education? Dr. BELL. We have had a 200-staff reduction in positions. Mr. MICHEL. Since when? Dr. BELL. Since last year. The 200-staff reduction was part of grants consolidation when it was planned for fiscal year 1975. |