Page images
PDF
EPUB

Summary of changes

1965 unobligated balance brought forward.... 1966 enacted appropriation...

Comparative transfers from other accounts...

Total available for obligation, 1966---

Less: Unobligated balance brought forward, 1966----

Estimated obligations, 1966

Estimated obligations, 1967.--.

Total change.____

$13, 729, 679 5, 720, 000 30, 693

19, 480, 372 -16, 844, 583

2,635, 789 20, 924, 583

18, 288, 794

[blocks in formation]

Planning for an additional headquarters laboratory facility...
Additional construction funds, district facilities....
Additional equipment funds, district facilities....

Subtotal, program increases....

Gross increases.

16,844, 583 398, 000

17, 242, 583

950, 000 1,732, 000

1, 000, 000

3, 682, 000

20, 924, 583

[blocks in formation]

Unobligated balance brought forward.-A total of $16,844,583 from prior-year appropriations is brought forward in fiscal year 1967. Of this amount, $3,820,000 is needed for construction of Beltsville Laboratory No. 1, and $15,000 for portable equipment for the animal whelping building. The balance of $13,009,593 is for completion of the current district office modernization program, including construction at Chicago, Denver, New Orleans, Philadelphia, St. Louis, San Francisco, and Seattle.

Headquarters Laboratory facilities.-An amount of $950,000 is requested to plan a second laboratory building to house approximately 650 scientific personnel at the Beltsville site.

District office facilities.—A total of $3,130,000 is requested for the field facilities program. Of this amount, $398,000 is requested to provide portable equipment for the St. Louis and San Francisco district offices. Additional construction funds in the amount of $1,732,000 are requested for underfunded planning, site acquisitions and construction costs at Chicago, Denver, New Orleans, and Philadelphia. An amount of $1 million is requested to permit new fixed equipment contracts for the Chicago, St. Louis, and Seattle district offices.

EXPLANATION OF TRANSFERS

In 1966, a comparative transfer to "Buildings and facilities" totaling $30,693 is shown for the following account:

Comparative transfer from Pharmacological-Animal Laboratory Build- Amount ing, FDA...--

$30, 693

This transfer is shown in the budget schedules to provide comparability between the fiscal years 1966 and 1967 budgets.

1. Construction of headquarters laboratory facilities

[blocks in formation]

Beltsville Laboratory No. 2.-In recent years, funds have been appropriated to provide FDA with modern and efficient laboratory facilities for all of its scientific staff, both at headquarters and in the field. This program of improved laboratory facilities was undertaken to correct the substandard facilities occupied by FDA prior to 1960. The program has been supported by both the executive branch and by the Congress. This program is well along in the field. However, at headquarters, despite the recent completion of the downtown Washington headquarters building (Federal Building No. 8), satisfactory housing for all present and future scientific staff is not yet in sight. In fiscal year 1966, conversion of 15,000 square feet of office space to laboratories in Federal Building No. 8 will ease the space situation slightly, but no major relief will be obtained until the early part of fiscal year 1969 when Beltsville Laboratory No. 1 will be occupied. By then, the headquarters scientific staff again will have expanded beyond our building capacities. FDA's long-range forecast projects a buildup in the headquarters scientific staff of approximately 150 or more per year through fiscal year 1970. This growth is necessary if the agency is to meet the scientific and technological problems that will confront us over the period, and the consequent emphasis that must be placed on our research activities.

A projection of the FDA scientific staff needing laboratory facilities, assuming a growth rate of about 150 per year, indicates a space deficit for approximately 650 positions in fiscal year 1970 under current facility planning. This is because some space currently occupied must be relinquished in the next several years and Beltsville Laboratory No. 1 will not be ready for occupancy until the early part of fiscal year 1969.

To alleviate this headquarters space deficit, funds are requested in this budget for planning a second research laboratory building at Beltsville to house a staff of approximately 650 people. This facility, which would become available in early 1970, would permit FDA to concentrate its scientific staff in two locations: Federal Building No. 8 and Beltsville. In turn, this will permit better communication between our scientists and administrators and their colleagues in the Washington scientific community.

The fiscal year 1966 President's budget requested funds for a second laboratory at Beltsville. However, planning authority for that facility was not granted in the fiscal year 1966 appropriation. Not having this facilitty will hamper the agency's research and other scientific projects, and may necessitate continuation of laboratory operation under crowded conditions in substandard space, etc., until facilities are authorized and become available.

An amount of $950,000 is requested for planning this 650-man facility which will, in addition to the scientific staff, make provision for the necessary mainteTiance and custodial staff for the Beltsville complex.

In accordance with the House Appropriations Committee report on the fiscal year 1966 appropriation bill, FDA has conducted a study of the feasibility of decentralizing the research activity to the field. The results of this study will be made available to the Committee in the near future.

[blocks in formation]

Portable equipment.-Funds have been previously appropriated for construction of the facilities and all related fixed (built-in) equipment at two new district offices at St. Louis and San Francisco. There still remains, however, a requirement for portable equipment which is essential to full utilization of these facilities. Funds in the amount of $398,000 are requested for the purchase of this equipment in order to complete all equipment requirements for the district office modernization program.

Fiscal year 1967 program increase

A. Additional district construction costs.—Under FDA's district office modernization program initiated in 1958, the first 10 offices were lease-construction facilities built according to commercial standards. In 1963, a change in GSA's appropriation language prohibited this method of facility acquisition. This prohibition necessitated the establishment of a new account, "Buildings and facilities," in the fiscal year 1964 budget and FDA became involved in direct Federal construction. The seven remaining district offices had to be constructed under more rigid Federal construction standards which, consequently, require higher initial costs. In addition, the increase in price indexes during the construction delays increased the initial costs. It soon became apparent that budgetary construction estimates for these seven projects, developed on the basis of less costly commercial standards, were too low. To remain within appropriated funds, modifications to construction standards were worked out with GSA, where possible.

However, these modifications did not reduce construction costs enough and, therefore, a reduction in the size of several districts was determined necessary to prevent further delay in construction. Three districts were selected for reduction by 50-man increments. This revised field construction program was accepted by GSA and repriced to remain within the amount originally budgeted for the districts.

Based on this revised plan, architect and engineering contracts were negotiated by GSA in fiscal year 1965 for all seven of the remaining districts, and site acquisition was permitted to proceed.

In August 1966, we received revised estimates from GSA which show that a total funding deficit of approximately $1.7 million still remains, based on their negotiations with the contract architects (see table below). This deficit relates to underfunded planning, site acquisition, and construction costs at Chicago, Denver, New Orleans, and Philadelphia. After considering the number of adjustments to building sizes and requirements that have already been made, there appears to be no way to adequately finance the projected building program within current resource limitations, short of a further reduction in the planned capacity of all of the buildings.

As the construction schedule now stands, if the necessary funds are made available, GSA will be able to award the construction contracts for the seven remaining districts between November 1966 and March 1967. Otherwise, this program will be deferred even longer. Therefore, funds in the amount of $1,732,000 are requested to insure completion of the current district office construction

program.

[blocks in formation]

B. Additional fixed equipment funds.-Under the lease-construction program, FDA budgeted for fixed equipment for the buildings. In fiscal year 1962, when the lease-construction program was still in effect, fixed equipment funds were appropriated in FDA's annual appropriation act for the Chicago, New Orleans, and Seattle districts.

In carrying out Congress intent to use the funds for that purpose, fixed equipment contracts were executed for these three districts in fiscal year 1962 and FDA planned to notify the contractors of the estimated date of construction completion to allow sufficient time to fabricate and install the equipment. As a minimum, this normally involves a period of about 5 months. However, because the changeover to direct Federal construction and financing problems delayed the construction program, there has been no need to notify the contractors to proceed on these contracts. In fiscal year 1967, the construction awards for these districts will be let. It is standard and desirable practice to award the fixed equipment contracts at the same time. However, it is not practical to assume that these 5-year-old contracts can be renegotiated to provide the same performance specifications at the same price as was originally budgeted.

The Department intends to bring this matter to the attention of the General Accounting Office, and it is likely that a formal opinion will be rendered. It is also assumed that GAO will allow the existing contracts to be canceled and that new ones will be let. This assumption is based on: (1) the nearly 5-year delay that has occurred on these contracts, (2) the fact that one of the contractors has indicated that he intends to seek cancellation of his contract, and because of the time period involved, he most likely could obtain cancellation, (3) the fact that the building capacities for Chicago and Seattle have been increased, and (4) the developments that have occurred and the experience gained over the years that would tend to make the original equipment specifications unacceptable. Therefore, in anticipation of the current contracts being canceled, funds in the amount of $1 million are requested to provide fixed equipment for the Chicago ($400,000), New Orleans ($400,000), and Seattle ($200,000) districts. The previously appropriated S. & E. funds ($755,000) would lapse and revert to the Treasury except for approximately $23,000 which is necessary to reimburse the contractors for expenses incurred and satisfactory work accomplished.

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1966.

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

WITNESSES

HAROLD HOWE II, COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

ARTHUR L. HARRIS, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FOR ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

PETER P. MUIRHEAD, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

RICHARD L. BRIGHT, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FOR RESEARCH JOHN R. LUDINGTON, ACTING ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FOR ADULT AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

FRANCIS A. J. IANNI, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FOR RESEARCH

NORMAN KARSH, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION

JOE G. KEEN, BUDGET OFFICER

JAMES B. CARDWELL, DEPARTMENT DEPUTY COMPTROLLER

BIOGRAPHY OF COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

Mr. FOGARTY. Dr. Howe, we are pleased to have you with us today. You are the new Commissioner of Education, and so we will appreciate it if you will give us some of your background.

Dr. Howe. I have been on the job since about the middle of January. Do you want my background in terms of my education, experience, and so on?

Mr. FOGARTY. Yes; we ask this of all new appointees who appear before the committee.

Dr. Howe. I was educated at Yale University where I took a bachelor's degree and Columbia where I took a master's. I have also attended the University of Cincinnati and Harvard University.

I have taught history in several schools. I spent 5 years in the Navy and for the last 15 years or so I have been engaged in school administration. This has included the position of high school principal in Massachusetts, and Ohio, and that of superintendent of a school system in Scarsdale, N.Y.

For the past 2 years I have been the executive director of an organization called the Learning Institute of North Carolina.

Perhaps that requires a little explanation.
The Learning Institute of North Carolina-

Mr. FOGARTY. I regret that I never heard of it.
Mr. Howe. Most people have not.

It is a private nonprofit corporation in the State of North Carolina set up by the State university, Duke University, the State public school system and the State department of public higher education. Its purpose is to do innovative and experimental education work in the State with the hope that whatever it learns will be communicated throughout the South and will be applied to the pressing problems of education in that State.

60-627-66-pt. 2

« PreviousContinue »