PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACTIVITIES REQUIRING SPECIAL LANGUAGE TO REDUCE 1969 APPROPRIATION REQUEST DUE TO PRIORITY PROVISIONS IN BASIC LAW

"At least 15 per centum of a State's allotment under this subsection shall be available only to the State mental health authority for the provision under the State plan of mental health services." (Public Law 89-749, sec. 314(d)(7).)

" at least 70 per centum of such amount reserved for mental health services and at least 70 per centum of the remainder of a State's allotment under this subsection shall be available only for the provision under the State plan of services in communities of the State." (Public Law 90-174, amendment to sec. 314(d)(7).)

"From the sums appropriated under section 770 for any fiscal year and not required for making basic improvement grants the Surgeon General may make an additional grant for such year to any school of medicine, dentistry, osteopathy, optometry and podiatry which has an approved application therefor and for which an application has been approved under section 771...... (Public Law 89-290, sec. 772(a).)

Note: This is interpreted to require full funding of basic improvement grants before any special improvement grants can be funded.

"From the sums appropriated under subsection (a) for any fiscal year and not required for making grants under subsection (b), the Surgeon General may make an additional grant for such year to any training center for allied health professions which has an approved application therefor and for which an application has been approved under subsection (b)." (Public Law 89-751, sec. 792(c).)

Note: This is interpreted to require full funding of basic improvement grants before any special improvement grants can be funded.

"the new hospital portion of sums appropriated ... is twenty-five thirty-sixths (Public Law 88-443, sec. 602(a)(1)(B).) Note: This is interpreted to require that of the sums appropriated for sec. 601(b) 25% is to be for new construction and 1 for modernization

SOCIAL AND REHABILITATION SERVICE ACTIVITIES REQUIRING SPECIAL LANGUAGE TO REDUCE 1969 APPROPRIATION REQUEST DUE TO PRIORITY PROVISIONS IN BASIC LAWS

The following provisions of the basic law apply to the distribution of funds for each of the activities 1(a) through 1(g):

"Appropriations pursuant to sec. 501 shall be available for the following purposes in the following proportions:

"(1) In the case of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and each of the next 3 fiscal years (A) 50 percent of the appropriation for such year shall be for allotments pursuant to secs. 503 and 504, (B) 40 percent thereof shall be for grants pursuant to secs. 508, 509, and 510, and (C) 10 percent thereof shall be for grants, contracts, or other arrangements pursuant to secs. 511 and 512 * *

"Not to exceed 5 percent of the appropriation for any fiscal year under this section shall be transferred, at the request of the Secretary, from one of the purposes specified in paragraph (1) to another purpose or purposes so specified. For each fiscal year, the Secretary shall determine the portion of the appropriation, within the percentage determined above to be available for secs. 503 and 504, which shall be available for allotment pursuant to sec. 504." (Social Security Act, sec. 502.) For the activity (h) the following language applies: "Such portion of the appropriations for grants under section 501 as the Secretary may determine, but not exceeding one-half of 1 percent thereof, shall be available for evaluation by the Secretary (directly or by grants or contracts) of the programs for which such appropriations are made and, in the case of allotments from any such appropriation, the amount available for allotments shall be reduced accordingly." (Social Security Act, sec. 513(b).)

"... Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, of the amount appropriated for any fiscal year pursuant to section 501, not less than 6 percent of the amount appropriated shall be available for family planning services from allotments under section 503 and for family planning services under projects under sections 508 and 512." (Social Security Act, sec. 502.)

EDUCATION OF MIGRATORY CHILDREN

Mr. FLOOD. The largest part of this $9 million increase is $4,296,627 for migratory children?

Mr. ESTES. That is right.

Mr. FLOOD. Now, isn't it true that the number of migratory workers has been going down for the last several years? If this is so why the program increase?

Mr. ESTES. I think you are right. We would hope that within the next 10 years the number of migrant workers, and therefore the number of children of migrant parents, would be substantially reduced. That does not, however, preclude taking care of those children who have suffered deprivation as a result of the migrant stream over the past few years. In fiscal year 1968 we will be serving approximately 125,000 children who are in the migrant stream. This additional amount in excess of $4 million would make it possible for us to increase that to 160,000 children.

Mr. CARDWELL. We do have an estimate of the number of children who would be eligible for this assistance in 1969. That is 160,000.

Then, in addition, the provisions of Public Law 90-247 do require the application of a national per-pupil expenditure rate in calculating the distribution of the funds, and that also increases the requirement. Mr. FLOOD. Repeat that.

Mr. CARDWELL. It requires the use of a national per-pupil-expenditure rate in calculating the allocation for this purpose, and that has the effect of increasing the requirement in 1969 as well as an estimate like this.

Mr. FLOOD. What about this, Mr. Shriver?

Mr. SHRIVER. We don't have in our part of the country any of these people that I know of. I am not on the Agriculture Subcommittee, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FLOOD. I thought coming from Kansas you might be familiar. Mr. SHRIVER. We have none of those to my knowledge.

Mr. ESTES. You indicated, Mr. Chairman, that I was from Rio Hondo.

Mr. FLOOD. Yes.

Mr. ESTES. This is in deep south Texas.

Mr. FLOOD. What does that mean?

Mr. ESTES. This means 20 miles north of Brownsville, which is the southmost point. It is an area that has a large number of migrant families who live there. These families take their children out of school in April before the end of the school year and they go to some 22 States all the way from Montana, Wyoming, Michigan, Kentucky, even up into New York. Now, they leave in April, take their children out of school, children of all ages.

Mr. FLOOD. These are mostly of Mexican ancestry?

Mr. ESTES. That is right; mostly Mexican Americans. They do not return to Texas until November. They leave before the school year is out, and they do not return until after the next school year has started. In effect, they receive about 6 months of formal school training. Now, it is true that we have not served all of these children well under our existing program. It is also true that we are now losing about 2 million unskilled jobs each year. That is about 35,000 unskilled jobs a week that we are losing. Our dropout rate is 1 million a year, or about 17,000 a week. We must not turn boys and girls out of our schools without a skill to market, without the ability to make an adequate transition from school to the world that they are working in.

When I netered first grade in Rio Hondo we had 109 who entered the first grade with me.

Mr. FLOOD. Is Rio Hondo a municipality or an area?

Mr. ESTES. This is a metropolis of 801 people. It serves a large rural population, perhaps 40 square miles, busing children in from the agricultural areas.

When I graduated in 1946 we had 17 members in the graduating class. The remainder of the 109 had dropped out of school. At that time these young people could get a job on the farm or perhaps in some of the service occupations around the cities in the area. Today this is no longer true. We would maintain that we must make provisions for equipping these young people with employable skills that they can market when they leave school.

93-035 0-68 6

ALLOCATIONS TO DEPT. OF INTERIOR INDIAN SCHOOLS

Mr. FLOOD. How much do you have budgeted for Indian schools on Indian reservations?

Mr. ESTES. We have 89 million in this budget to serve about 50,000 Indian children in some 242 Indian schools.

Mr. FLOOD. It is true that historically the entire budget for these schools is submitted by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the appropriations are made to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Isn't that so? Mr. ESTES. Yes, sir.

Mr. FLOOD. What is the advantage of having two appropriations for the same purpose? This is one of the things the Appropriations Committee hopes to change some time. Why two appropriations for this same, identical purpose?

Mr. ESTES. I think it would certainly be inappropriate to include this in the budget for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. As I understand it, they are spending about $90 million a year on the maintenance and operation of BIA schools. However, it is true that the special supplementary program that we are attempting to emphasize here for deprived children is not included in the BIA schools, and I think it is entirely appropriate that it be included in this budget.

Mr. FLOOD. What control do you have over the expenditure of funds by the Indian Bureau ?

Mr. ESTES. We are responsible for reviewing the title I ESEA programs of projects for the Bureau of Indian Affairs schools.

Mr. FLOOD. You are responsible for what?

Mr. ESTES. Approving title I programs submitted by the Bureau of Indian Affairs schools, consistent with a criteria that we have estab lished.

Mr. FLOOD. This is a control over the expenditure of funds by the Bureau?

Mr. ESTES. This is a program accounting of the funds that have been appropriated for the purpose of title I and an indication as to the intent or consistency of these title I projects with criteria that have been established, consistent with the Act.

Mr. CARDWELL. I think, Mr. Chairman, one point might be emphasized in answering your question about why is this particular amount of money in this appropriation rather than in the appropriation for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Mr. FLOOD. You are a budget man. Maybe this question would be appropriate for you.

Mr. CARDWELL. It seems to me the purpose here is to give very special. very extraordinary attention to the problems of deprived Indian children, Indian children who are underprivileged. They do not have and have not had through the years the same educational opportunity as most other children. Keeping the money separate in this appropriation permits us to give this special emphasis, to underscore it, underline it. Mr. KELLY. I tend to think of the action that you take with respect to the Bureau of Indian Affairs as being an action in which the Congress is serving in the same capacity as a State legislature, that is. they are operating the school systems and funding those schools in the same way that every State and municipality is, in the same way that the Federal Government acts with respect to the District of Columbia:

that in these budgets you are serving the role, in a national overview and a national overlay of those programs and you are treating the Indian schools the same way you are treating all the others. You are not depriving them of the benefit of this because they are a separate school district.

Mr. FLOOD. Don't you see the obvious question? You mean, you know more about Indians than the Indian Bureau?

Mr. KELLY. No. I think what we are saying is that the disadvantaged Indian, disadvantaged youngster in the District of Columbia should be treated the same as if he were being educated in the school system that the Federal Government had nothing to do with. These funds are being made available to those school systems in exactly the same way they are being made available to every other school system that has similar children.

Mr. CARDWELL. I don't think it would be presumptuous to say that the Office of Education probably does know more about the design and conduct of special projects to introduce new and better learning and teaching methods and procedures than does the local school district, in this case the Bureau of Indian Affairs. They might quarrel with me, but from my point of view I think that is a correct statement.

SCHOOL DISTRICT PARTICIPATION IN PROGRAM

Mr. FLOOD. Now, Mr. Estes, your estimate for the basic part of the title I program is based on 92 percent of the eligible school districts taking part in the program?

Mr. ESTES. That is right.

Mr. FLOOD. What are the main reasons why the other 8 percent are not on board?

Mr. ESTES. By and large, this is due to the fact that they have so few pupils in the remaining 8 percent of the school districts that it simply is not worth their while to develop a proposal for approval to operate a title I program. These are school districts that would have very few children who are entitled to title I assistance.

EQUIPMENT AND "OTHER" COMPARED TO SALARIES AND CONTRACTED

SERVICES

Mr. FLOOD. Your justifications say that about $13 million less will be spent on equipment in 1969 than in 1968.

Mr. ESTES. That is right, $13 million less in fiscal year 1969.

Mr. FLOOD. And $10 million less on what you classify as-and it is your word, and I quote it-"Other." Now, instead of using this resulting increase in funds available as a transfer to salaries and contracted services-which you have apparently done-why couldn't Congress just cut out this $23 million? Would the heavens fall?

Mr. ESTES. I think you have to view the question of equipment against the background of the total amount that we have spent in elementary and secondary education for funds for equipment. In each of the past 2 years we have spent approximately $355 million from all ESEA programs for equipment, materials, and supplies. We are proposing or estimating that this coming year we will spend approximately $247 million on equipment and materials. This is purely an estimate, however, on our part. There is no way for us to know at this