DEFERRAL AND RESCISSION OF APPROPRIATIONS, 1975-1976 SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR AND HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Henry A. Neil, Jr., Frederick F. Pfluger, Robert L. Knisely, Nicholas G. Cavarocchi, and Gemma M. Weiblinger, Subcommittee Staff TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1975. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION WITNESSES DR. T. H. BELL, COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION ROBERT R. WHEELER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR SCHOOL SYSTEMS DR. EDWIN W. MARTIN, ACTING DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR EDUCATION OF THE HANDICAPPED PAUL V. DELKER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADULT EDUCATION PROGRAMS, BUREAU OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ADULT EDUCATION JOHN D. PHILLIPS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION MRS. CORA P. BEEBE, ACTING DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND BUDGETING DIVISION JOHN EVANS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR PLANNING AND EVAL UATION CHARLES MILLER II, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, COMP Mr. FLOOD. We now have the Office of Education, and the presentation will be made by Dr. T. H. Bell, the Commissioner of Education. I see you are accompanied by members of your staff, Doctor. We have (1) your biographical sketch which we will insert in the record at this point. [The biographical sketch follows:] BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Name: Terrel Howard Bell. Position: U.S. Commissioner. Birthplace and date: Lava Hot Springs, Idaho; November 11, 1921. Education: Southern Idaho College of Education, 1946, bachelor of arts; Universtiy of Idaho, 1954, master of science in educational administration; University of Utah, 1961, doctorate in educational administration with allied field in political science; graduate study (no degree), Stanford University; Southern Utah State College, 1970, doctor of humanities (honorus causa). Experience present: U.S. Commissioner-1971-74: Superintendent of the Granite School District, Salt Lake City, Utah; 1970-71: Deputy Commissioner, U.S. Office of Education, and Acting U.S. Commissioner of Education; 1963-69: Utah State superintendent of public instruction; 1962-63 processor and department head, Department of Educational Administration, Utah State University; 1957-61: superintendent of schools, Weber County School District of Ogden, Utah; 1954-56: superintendent of schools, Star Valley School District of Afton, Wyo.; 1947-53: superintendent of schools, Rockland, Idaho; 1946-47: science teacher and athletic coach, Eden, Idaho; 1942-46: first sergeant, U.S. Marines in Pacific Area (World War II). Association memberships: Presidential appointee (with U.S. Senate confirmation); the National Council on Educational Research (the governing board of the National Institute of Education); President's Commission on School Finance (1970 and 1971); President's Committee on Employment of the Handicapped; Gallup Poll Advisory Panel (1973); board of directors, Utah Symphony; National Capital Area Council of Boy Scouts of America (1970 and 1971); president, National Federation of Large School Systems. Publications: "Your Child's Intellect," Olympus Publishing Co. (1972); “MBO: A Performance Accountability System for School Administrators," Prentice Hall (1974); "Effective Teaching," Exposition Press (1962); "A Philosophy of Education for the Space Age," Exopsition Press (1962); "The Prodigal Pedagogue" (a novel), Exposition Press (1955); "Parenting and the Public Schools" (to be published in 1974 by Olympus Publishing Co.); over 27 articles in journals and magazines. Honors and awards: Distinguished Service Award of the National Association of State Boards of Education (1973); Secretary's Special Citation for Outstanding Contributions to the U.S. Office of Education (HEW) (1970); Certificate of Appreciation, U.S. Office of Education (1971); Distinguished Service Award of the Council of Chief State School Officers (1970); Distinguished Service Award of the Utah School Boards Association (1969); Distinguished Service Award of the National Advisory Council for Adult Education (1970); Phi Kappa Phi National Scholarship Honorary Society. Mr. FLOOD. I see you have a prepared statement. Do you want us to read your dramatis personae? Dr. BELL. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we could just comment on the statement and go into questions, or I would be most happy to present it. Mr. FLOOD. I think we know your varsity there pretty well. It is your show. OPENING REMARKS Dr. BELL. Our proposals on rescissions, just a few comments on them. We should indicate that, of course, the administration has accepted a number of the increases above the budget. The feeling is that possibly the Congress hasn't had an opportunity to address itself to some detailed recommendations, some specific items with which it may want to agree with the administration on reducing the size of the appropriation and the amount of the spending. I won't go into much of a comment about the economy and the size of the Federal deficit this year. I am sure that is well known and doesn't need any emphasis from us. In selecting where we might respond to the administration as to where recommended rescissions might be made, we looked for programs which might be considered to be more than others a State and local responsibility. I wouldn't want to imply that any of these are totally State and local responsibility because if that were so, of course they wouldn't be on the books at all, but those under the pressing times that we have and the difficult budget circumstances and the huge deficits that the Government is running, those that may more than others be a State and local responsibility. Those are in my message as one category of proposed rescissions for the consideration of the committee. Then programs that don't focus upon areas that we felt had as high a pressing need as other programs might have, and some programsfor example, the supplemental education opportunity grants where funds may be available out of loans and out of basic opportunity grants and others of that nature-is another category of our proposed rescissions as I am trying to summarize quickly here what is in the longer statement that I am submitting for the record, Mr. Chairman. Then, finally, some of the higher priority programs that receive some of the larger increases in the fiscal 1976 budget. We selected out of them some other areas where we might recommend rescissions in order to come up with the sum total of the dollars that are recommended to the committee that the administration felt that they wanted to propose to you for rescissions. So that was the rationale, Mr. Chairman, of the proposals that we have before you, and I think with that and submitting the statement for the record we would be happy to respond to questions. [The statement follows:] STATEMENT BY THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we are appearing before you today to discuss rescissions which are proposed for the Office of Education in fiscal year 1976. The recission package includes 32 separate programs totaling $1.312 billion. Favorable Congressional action on these requests would reduce the total fiscal year 1976 appropriations for the Office to approximately $6 billion. These proposals are designed to help reduce overall Federal expenditures and budget deficits by curtailing or eliminating support of lower priority education programs. We have identified three major categories of programs which we believe constitute the most responsible opportunities for reduction: those that are primarily the responsibility of State and local jurisdictions; those which fail to focus effectively on major areas of need or duplicate other available Federal assistance; and those which support diminishing or less critical needs. These are the criteria we used in making these difficult reductions. A fourth category contains proposed reductions in some high priority programs which received increases in the fiscal year 1976 appropriation. We have grouped our recommendations into these four categories as outlined on the attached listing. With your indulgence, I would like to go over some of the details and assumptions which constitute our proposal. PROGRAMS WHICH ARE PRIMARILY STATE AND LOCAL RESPONSIBILITIES The activities in this category are ones for which State and local agencies should have the primary funding responsibility and for which the Federal role should be a catalytic one of supporting demonstrations and capacity building. Included are seven rescissions totalling $251.3 million. For the impact aid program, we are requesting a total rescission of $243.8 million of which $183.3 million falls into this category. The figures differ from those in the President's message of November 16, 1975 by $22,805,000 and will be included in the next rescission message to Congress. Let me apologize for providing new figures. The difference results from a more refined estimate of the effect of the 22 percent absorption factor. We continue to urge reform in those aspects of the program which are inequitable and which are not properly the responsibility of the Federal Government. A major portion of this reduction ($122.9 million) would affect the so-called "B" children whose parents carry their full load of property taxes for local schools and, thus, do not cause an adverse Federal impact. Under our proposal, however, no district would lose more than 21⁄2 percent of its prior year's operating budget. Most of the remainder of this reduction ($57.8 million) represents a return to our long-standing position of not funding payments for children associated with low-rent public housing, a provision of Public Law 874 which is only marginally related to the basic purpose of compensating local school districts for loss of revenue due to Federal presence. The rest of the reduction in this category ($2.5 million) would affect those school districts receiving payments under the minor provision of the law. Again, no school district will lose more than 22 percent of the prior year's operating budget. Bilingual education is an example of an area in which we believe the Federal role should be one of facilitation and capacity building, with States and localities having responsibility for the provision of basic services. Our proposed reduction of $27.8 million would return the program to the President's budget level of $70 million; this amount would still enable us to support 289 demonstration projects and training for 15,000 bilingual education personnel. The requested rescission of $17.5 million for follow through reflects the approaching conclusion of the experimental efforts of this program to identify effective methods which can be incorporated into the major compensatory service program funded at Federal, State, and local levels. Under the rescinded level, no new entering class would be supported in school year 1976-77, effecting a $12 million reduction. The remaining savings of $5.5 million will result from termination of 20 of the 164 existing sites. For right to read, the $5 million proposed reduction would maintain the 1975 level of $12 million, sufficient to carry out an adequate demonstration program. Other programs, such as title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, provide large sums for reading improvement. We would terminate the environmental education program ($3 million) on the grounds that its major objectives-alterting the public to environmental issues and stimulating non-Federal efforts have been largely achieved. University community services would be terminated since the activities that would be supported are more properly a matter of State and local concern. We would also phase out support for State postsecondary commissions since the Federal role of demonstrating the advantages of these planning activities has been performed, and their continuation should come from State resources. PROGRAMS WHICH DO NOT FOCUS ON AREAS OF PRESSING NEED OR ARE DUPLICATIVE This category rescinds $749.6 million in 12 programs in higher education and personnel development. We believe that these activities are not effective in targeting on the areas of greatest need or are duplicative of other Federal assistance. We would terminate the supplemental educational opportunity grants program by rescinding $240.1 million. Significant scholarship aid is available under the basic opportunity grants program which provides a more equitable basis for |