Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. THOMAS. The enforcement agency under Davis-Bacon is over in the Department of Labor, but they want you to build a case for them; is that correct?

Mr. KELLY. That is correct.

Mr. THOMAS. What do you have in here, $200,000 for that?

Mr. KELLY. $200,000 is for the administration and the enlarged program, including this new responsibility.

Mr. THOMAS. Let us now look at your fellowships and grants here. How many fellows are you going to have?

Mr. MCCALLUM. We estimate 20.

Mr. THOMAS. I read from section 2, gentlemen, the third paragraph which is a good one:

To initiate this program in fiscal year 1962, the sum of $1.4 million is required, of which $100,000 will be used for research fellowships and $1.3 million to provide grants to teaching institutions to support training in the school year beginning in September 1962.

I continue to read:

Research fellowships: The research fellowship program complements the research grant and direct research programs. Its goal is to broaden the base of manpower

and so forth.

Research fellowships will be awarded to outstanding graduate scientists and engineers, enabling them to become highly skilled in research. The $100,000 request will provide for 20 fellowships in 1962.

That is $5,000 per copy. How are you going to pick these 20 gentlemen and where will you spend your $1.3 million for the universities, what will be the amount and for what purpose?

Mr. MCCALLUM. In answer to the first question

Mr. THOMAS (reading):

Research training grants support universities by enabling selected science and engineering departments to (1) expand their teaching capacities; (2) accommodate more students; and (3) provide stipends for promising postgraduate students

and you add a third element in there. You are doing more subsidizing, are you not?

In the initial year it is estimated that the average grants to an institution will be $25,000 and that 52 grants will be awarded, for a total requirement of $1.3 million.

RESEARCH FELLOWSHIPS

What will you get for your $25,000 per copy and where will it be spent? What universities get it? We will take that first and then will you tell us how you are going to get your 20 students. You might then tell us what the 1963 program will look like and what it will cost. Mr. MCCALLUM. What we have been interested in accomplishing is to get some of the schools who have paid no attention to this field-and I am thinking of chemistry departments, some very fine chemistry departments and physics departments-to participate in graduate research training with emphasis on water pollution control needs. What we had hoped was that this would bring into this field the training of some of the kinds of people we do not now have.

In water pollution control we do not have one physical chemist, either in the Federal Government or in the States.

Mr. THOMAS. How are you going to get these 20? Are you going to use the Princeton facilities over there to grade them and select them for you, like Dr. Waterman does at the Science Foundation or are you going to handpick them?

Mr. MCCALLUM. Perhaps Dr. Anderson or the Surgeon General would like to say something on this, but what I would propose is we have a procedure by which individuals can make applications and be selected on the basis of specific qualifications and requirements.

Dr. ANDERSON. We would have a board of expert scientists in this field to whom the research fellowship applications would be submitted and the awards would be made by the advisory body. This is with regard to the research fellowships, sir.

Mr. THOMAS. Are you going to let them compete for it?

Dr. ANDERSON. The individual applicants would compete against all the applicants.

Mr. THOMAS. How will you get wide distribution here?

Dr. ANDERSON. There would be an announcement. If the money is made available announcements would be distributed to the universities and colleges in this field, or in related fields from which people who are prepared basically to enter the research areas would

come.

Mr. THOMAS. Is this 5,000 on an annual basis, for 9 months, or 12 months?

Dr. ANDERSON. That would be on the basis of a school year.
Mr. THOMAS. They will all go to school for 1 year?

Dr. ANDERSON. That would be for the research fellowships.

Mr. THOMAS. What do you look forward to for your program for 1963, 1964, and 1965?

Dr. ANDERSON. At this moment we have no experience of the workloads in this area. I think we would want to take that into consideration in our planning for 1963, 1964, and 1965. This will be the first time we have entered this field.

TRAINING GRANTS

Mr. THOMAS. What will you get for your $25,000 at the universities?

Dr. ANDERSON. This would be a program of grants to the universities which would submit applications to a similar advisory body. These grants would be used by the universities to build up their course curriculums for the preparation of specialists and for stipends to students.

Mr. THOMAS. How many universities do you have in this beside North Carolina State?

Dr. ANDERSON. There are a number. I cannot give you all of their names but those in the Boston area have been very much interested in this program and in the Midwest, Michigan and Minnesota; and the west coast, there are schools that have been very much interested in this. I might say that currently, just in the field of sanitary engineering alone, there is an estimated need based upon a study done by professionals in this field for a thousand sanitary engineers to be produced annually. The current production rate of sanitary engineers from all schools is less than a quarter of that number. This is just the sanitary engineer component. What we are up against is tight com

petition for postschool employment from other scientific and engineering fields and the students tend to be attracted to these other areas. We would hope by this device to build a corps of workers who are basically prepared to enter the fields of sanitation and enable us to take care of the workload that we envisage in the field of water pollution control in the next 10 years.

This program of traineeships has been recommended by the professional organizations in the field of sanitary engineering. Our Water Pollution Control Advisory Board has urged this as a program of first priority for the Public Health Service, if the work that is going to be done in the next 10 years is to be done competently.

Mr. THOMAS. We agree with you. It is important. If you get these specialists you will have to train them. I do not see how else you will get them.

I notice the basic act increased the grants from $3 million to $5 million for these studies. You seek an increase of $2 million to bring it up to the total authorization for 1962.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act authorized the 5-year program. When will you give this money to these grants?

Mr. MCCALLUM. That goes to the State water pollution control agencies.

Mr. THOMAS. If you have not already allocated your $5 million, how will you allocate it?

Mr. MCCALLUM. It is allocated on the basis provided in the act, a third on population, a third on

Mr. THOMAS. You have a formula in the act?

Mr. MCCALLUM. Yes, sir.

Mr. THOMAS. There is no shortage of takers here, is there?

Mr. KELLY. There is a State table on page 12, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. THOMAS. In the research item it reads:

The 1961 amendments direct the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to develop and demonstrate under varying conditions:

(1) Methods and procedures for evaluating the effects on water quality and water uses of augmented streamflows to control water pollution not susceptible to other means of abatement;

(2) Improved methods and procedures to identify and measure the effects of pollutants on water uses, including those pollutants created by new technological developments; and

(3) Practicable means of treating municipal sewage and other waterborne wastes to remove the maximum possible amounts of physical, chemical, and biological pollutants in order to restore and maintain the maximum amount of the Nation's water at a quality suitable for repeated reuse. The act authorizes appropriations up to $5 million in a fiscal year and an aggregate of $25 million for these purposes.

Are there any questions before we move along?

Mr. KIRWAN. I have none.

Mr. JONAS. I have one.

Mr. BOLAND. I have no questions.

NEED FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ADMINISTER BACON-DAVIS ACT

PROVISIONS

Mr. JONAS. I do not understand why you need $200,000 and 20 people to figure out what the Bacon-Davis provisions are in 7 States. Are you not constructing facilities all the time in every State in the Union?

Mr. KELLY. I think I might have misstated that, Mr. Jonas, or been misunderstood. We now have a staff that is engaged in administering a program of $50 million of grants to States on a matching basis for the construction of waste-treatment projects. We are proposing to step that up from $50 million to $80 million and for this purpose

Mr. THOMAS. For this year alone; next year it goes up.

Mr. KELLY. Up to $90 million in 1963. For this purpose we re-. quested 20 additional positions to assist in adminstering this additional $30 million, but in the administration of these projects for the first time the Bacon-Davis provisions have been made applicable to these waste-treatment projects and so this establishes additional responsibility with respect to the whole $80 million.

Mr. THOMAS. The question Mr. Jonas is asking is do you need those. 20 employees?

Mr. KELLY. I wanted to be sure he did not think the whole 20 were for the Bacon-Davis Act. This is an additional responsibility. The basic increase is from $50 million to $80 million.

Mr. JONAS. Why do you need any additional people at all? You are talking about rates. You do not have to have a Bacon-Davis section to determine a wage rate for every construction project. You do that in an area or on a regional basis. Once you establish it, it applies whether you are building a hospital or waste treatment plant, does it not?

Mr. KELLY. I do not think our estimate would have been more than one or two positions different if they had not required the BaconDavis Act. Essentially we are asking for the staff to process the additional projects that will be constructed under the $30 million. We did want to point out to you that the law had been changed so that our responsibilities would change with respect to the Bacon-Davis Act. Mr. JONAS. You were going to distribute $50 million. Now you are going to distribute $80 million. You do not change the formula. It is just a question of allocating $8,000 to X State instead of $5,000. Why cannot the same people do the same work, regardless of how much money is being granted?

Mr. KELLY. Each individual project that is applied for under these funds and endorsed by the State is reviewed by the Federal staff for compliance with the law and each one of these projects is inspected during construction to see that they conform with the approved project.

Mr. JONAS. How many people do you have doing this to which you want to add 20?

Mr. MCCALLUM. We have about 80 now.

Mr. JONAS. Where are they located?

Mr. MCCALLUM. In the regional offices. We have a few, 10 or 15 here.

Mr. THOMAS. He wants to add 20 more.

Mr. JONAS. Every time Congress increases the authorization you are going to expect to add additional people. Can't your people carry a slightly increased workload? Every time another bill clears Congress there is a request for additional people even though the only thing involved is expansion of an existing program.

73884-61-28

Mr. MCCALLUM. That has been done. I think we have looked into the workload on this program as closely as anything I have ever seen in my entire professional career-the number of hours it takes an engineer to review an application, how long it takes to make an inspection, how much it costs. We estimate an additional 230 projects and that could mean a thousand additional field inspections.

FELLOWSHIPS AND GRANTS FOR AID TO STUDENTS

Mr. JONAS. Now referring to the fellowships and grants for aid to students, when you award them, are they on a 4-year, 2-year, or 1-year basis?

Dr. ANDERSON. They would be on a 1-year basis.

Mr. JONAS. How long is the course?

Dr. ANDERSON. The course could be for 1 year. For example, in the research field, the research fellowship would be reviewed at the end of each year to determine the individual's ability to progress.

Mr. JONAS. I know, but assuming that he is satisfactory, will it be recurring for 4 years or a 4-year term?

Dr. ANDERSON. It would be an exceptionally brilliant student who would receive support for that long a period of time.

Mr. JONAS. When you make these grants do you keep any strings tied to this person? How can you be assured that he will go into this work?

Dr. ANDERSON. You cannot. There are no strings you can tie to him.

Mr. JONAS. When he finishes his course which you financed he has perfect freedom of choice of jobs? He may go to industry, he may go

to the PHS?

Dr. ANDERSON. This could be the case. However, in relation to the industrial problem, and it is really a very serious one, Mr. Jonas

Mr. JONAS. I understand it is serious. I wanted to know whether there was any requirement on his part to engage in public health work or if he would have freedom of choice of a job.

Dr. ANDERSON. If he goes to industry, the great likelihood is that industry will employ him to work on their water pollution or waste disposal problems.

Mr. JONAS. The answer is there is no requirement?

Dr. ANDERSON. There is no requirement.

Mr. Bow. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. THOMAS. Yes.

Mr. Bow. I would like to ask whether there is any money in here or any other part of this HEW bill for the so-called National Plumbing Code or whatever other name it might be referred to.

Mr. MCCALLUM. No, sir.

Mr. Bow. There is nothing in any of your justifications, You know what I am talking about?

Mr. KELLY. Yes, sir. It was considered by the Senate but it is not included.

Mr. THOMAS. I did not see the word in the justification.

Mr. Bow. Sometimes it is buried someplace.

« PreviousContinue »