ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS Senator MCCLURE. Thank you very much. And I have some other questions, which I will submit for the record, for response to the record, if you will, please. And if there are other members of the subcommittee who have questions, we will provide them to you. Thank you again, very much. Mr. URQUHART. Thank you. [Pause.] [The following questions were not asked at the hearing but were submitted to the Agency for response subsequent to the hearing:] ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS Question. The Commission conducts reviews of Federal and District of Columbia master plans and projects such as street alley closings and transfers of jurisdiction. At what level do you expect these activities to continue in fiscal year 1986? Answer. We expect the Commission to be involved in approximately 160 plan reviews in fiscal year 1986. Question. How does that compare with fiscal year 1984 and fiscal year 1985? Answer. The projected 160 reviews represent increase over the 133 reviews conducted in fiscal year 1984 and slight decrease from the 188 reviews projected for all of fiscal year 1985. Question. Can you tell me specifically what you will be looking at in fiscal year 1986? Answer. Based on staff coordination with Federal and District departments and agenIcies we have identified several projects and plans that we anticipate will be submitted during fiscal year 1986. These lists reflect representative samples of the types and distributions of plan reviews that can be anticipated. REVISED MASTER PLANS National Institutes of Health (both Bethesda and Poolesville campuses). U.S. Coast Guard Station-Alexandria. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Goddard Space Flight Center. Arlington Hall Station. Andrews Air Force Base. National Zoological Park. National Arboretum. Baltimore-Washington Parkway. Smithsonian Institution Subarea of Suitland. Claude Moore Farm Subarea of the George Washington Memorial Parkway. PROJECTS Alterations to the guest house at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Permanent visitors center at Arlington National Cemetery. Administrative addition-Operations Building at Fort Belvoir. Spacecraft systems development and integration facility at Goddard Space Flight Center. Health and research facility at the National Zoological Park. Preliminary planned unit development and map amendment for Wisconsin and Western Avenues, NW. (Friendship Heights). Question. It is the Commission's responsibility to prepare and coordinate plans for various Federal planning sectors or areas in the region which contain concentrations of Federal installations and in which there is a high degree of Federal interest. Specifically, what plans does the Commission plan in this area for fiscal year 1986? Answer. The Commission initiated the preparation of the sector plan for the monumental core area in fiscal year 1985, which includes the Mall area, the Federal Triangle, and the Pentagon-Arlington Cemetery area. In fiscal year 1986, the Commission has scheduled completion of the monumental core sector plan and beginning the preparation of a sector plan for the Beltsville Federal planning area. The Beltsville area contains a high concentration of contiguous Federal facilities, including the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Goddard Space Flight Center, U.S. Secret Service Training Facility, food and drug laboratories, the BaltimoreWashington Parkway, Naval Surface Weapons Center, and the Harry Diamond Laboratories Research Center. Question. It is also the Commission's responsibility to review long-range general plans prepared by State and regional agencies in order to determine their consistency with the comprehensive plan and their impact on Federal interests in the region. How many plans will the Commission review in fiscal year 1986? Answer. It is anticipated that the Commission will review at least 4 State, 6 regional, and 17 local plans or programs in the National Capital region in fiscal year 1986. Question. How many did the Commission review in fiscal year 1985 and fiscal year 1984? Answer. In fiscal year 1984, the Commission reviewed 4 State, 4 regional, and 16 local plans or programs in the region. In fiscal year 1985, the Commission and its staff reviewed 2 State, 5 regional, and 18 local plans or programs in the region. Question. How will the brochure "Monumental Washington" be utilized? What was the cost of this brochure? How does it differ from other brochures on Washington? Answer. It is proposed that production of the brochure "Monumental Washington" should coincide with completion of an NCPC exhibit, and that it's content should (in summary) closely parallel that of the exhibit. The NCPC exhibit is a 20 panel graphic representation of the history and image of the National Capital with special emphasis on the Federal Government's planning role therein. The exhibit is capable of being a traveling show, in response to continuing requests and invitations from other national capitals. The exhibit is unique in that it depicts many activities in and around and pertaining to a National Capital combined with the aspects of life in an American urban setting. It is educational, informative, and interesting to an audience which varies from the visiting intermediate school student, the average citizen, or the visiting foreign dignitary. It broadens and strengthens the public's general image of the National Capital. The "Monumental Washington" brochure will be used both in conjunction with the exhibit and as a separate informative graphic. Exact cost estimates for production of the brochure will not be available until the required number of copies and the specific level of information detail is determined. This brochure differs from others in that it will provide a comprehensive overview of the planned development of the National Capital and the role of the Federal Government, stressing the special qualities and beauty that make Washington a unique National Capital. To our knowledge there is no other brochure of this broad scope available. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF INDIAN EDUCATION STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE F. DAVENPORT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACCOMPANIED BY: FRANK A. RYAN, DIRECTOR, INDIAN EDUCATION PROGRAMS HAKIM KHAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, INDIAN EDUCATION PROGRAMS SALLY H. CHRISTENSEN, DIRECTOR, BUDGET SERVICE, OFFICE OF PLANNING, BUDGET AND EVALUATION PREPARED STATEMENT Senator MCCLURE. We will turn to the Office of Indian Education, please. The fiscal year 1986 budget request for the Office of Indian Education totals $67,292,000, a decrease of $112,000 below fiscal year 1985 appropriations to date. Mr. Davenport, it's a pleasure to welcome you again before this subcommittee. Your complete opening statement will be included in the record at this point. And if you will introduce those who are at the table with you, we will proceed directly to questions. [The statement follows:] STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE F. DAVENPORT We appreciate this opportunity to appear before you to discuss the 1986 budget request for the Indian education programs. We are requesting $67.3 million for fiscal year 1986, $112,000 less than the 1985 appropriation. This request recognizes the urgent need to curtail expenditures and control the Federal deficit while maintaining the Federal Government's commitment to provide equal educational opportunity for American Indians. At the 1986 request level, no major changes in budget policy, program strategy, or funding distribution are proposed from this year's activities. The only change will be a modest decrease for program administration. The Indian Education Program will continue to collect and analyze information on the educational needs of Indians and the operating effectiveness of our program to use in developing a 1987 legislative proposal. GRANTS TO LEA'S AND INDIAN-CONTROLLED SCHOOLS (PART A) Part A is by far the largest component of the Indian Education Act, reaching the majority of the Nation's Indian students in elementary and secondary schools. The budget request in 1986 for part A programs is $50.3 million the same as the 1985 appropriation. Under this part of the act, $45.9 million in formula grants is targeted to public school districts where more than 80 percent of all Indian children are educated. It is anticipated that part A formula grants will be made to about 1,066 public school districts enrolling approximately 312,500 students and to 51 BIA contract schools enrolling Answer. The Commission initiated the mental core area in fiscal year 1985, " angle, and the Pentagon-Arlington Cer has scheduled completion of the mo aration of a sector plan for the contains a high concentration of Agricultural Research Center, P Center, U.S. Secret Service Tr Washington Parkway, Nava' atories Research Center. Question. It is also the prepared by State and the comprehensive pl plans will the Com Answer. It is a and 17 local pla Question. H 1984? Answer. local pla reviewe Qu the struction in triba. ..ated that the Department of -controlled schools and local educationa nis would provide an average award of $147,000 an student of $832. SPECIAL PROGRAMS FOR INDIAN STUDENTS (Part B) are designed to increase educational opportunities and improve educational his budget also requests $11.8 million for the eight programs that comprise part B and resources they need for careers in education and other professions. They also enquality for Indian children. These programs assist Indian people to gain the credentials courage planning and developmental efforts that can result in improved curricula and other programs for all Indian children. Toward these ends, we will provide part B funds for service projects for Indian children, planning, pilot, and demonstration projects, programs that help Indian people enter professional careers not only in education, but in other critical fields as well, and for resource and evaluation centers that are working to upgrade the quality of our Indian education programs. Each of these programs will be continued at their 1985 levels. An estimated 66 discretionary grants will be made, approximately 211 fellowships will be awarded, and five resource and evaluation centers will be funded. SPECIAL PROGRAMS FOR INDIAN ADULTS (PART C) Under part C of the act, $2.9 million is requested to support basic education programs for Indian adults. This program seeks to find and serve traditionally hard to reach Indians-both those in remote areas on reservations and those in isolated pockets of poverty within our cities. Through part C programs, Indian adults of all ages have the opportunity to learn to read and write, improve their basic skills, become better informed consumers, earn high school equivalency diplomas, and generally enhance their employability and become more productive citizens. No major changes in program strategy or funding distribution from the 1985 appropriation levels are proposed in 1986. An estimated 22 discretionary grants will be awarded under the two programs in part C and approximately 5,989 adults will participate on a part-time or full-time basis, depending on their needs and the nature of the projects. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION (PART D) the For fiscal year 1986, $2.1 million is requested to cover administrative costs of the Indian Education Programs Office and $218,000 is requested for the National Advisory Council on Indian Education, for a total of $2.3 million. This request is $112,000 less than in 1985. This decrease reflects a Governmentwide policy to reduce salaries by 5 percent and to reduce the number of GS-11 to GS-15 positions. Some additional administrative reductions will also be made. ze part A proe Senator MCCLURE. And I assume the rest of u well. Mr. DAVENPORT. Yes, sir. Senator MCCLURE. Thank you. Mr. DAVENPORT. Go right ahead. LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL vn what I think I you said that in ormula that you do in coming 'oring of that level? n do? Pro *ffi Senator MCCLURE. According to the justification, the Department wi be submitting a legislative proposal next year in which special attention will be given to eliminating duplication between your program and that administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. al Following the establishment of the formula funding mechanism for BIA schools, the committee has tried to ensure that all schools funded by the BIA are treated equitably. It was for that reason that language was included in an appropriation bill several years ago prohibiting the payment of Johnson and O'Malley funds to BIA contract schools. The Department of Education, however, treats contract schools as public schools and funds them accordingly. Will you be addressing this issue in the legislative proposal? Mr. DAVENPORT. On the Johnson-O'Malley program? I wasn't quite sure I understood the question. Senator MCCLURE. On their treating of contract schools as public schools. Mr. RYAN. I believe that the proposal will take that into consideration, that they will be looking at, under part A, the Formula Grant Program; local education agencies and tribal schools are eligible. And tribal schools are those schools which are controlled-are those schools which meet the requirements and standards published by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and they are also those schools which exist under Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act contracts. |