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. 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. 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. 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. 29 It is a small organization, financed by funds from the organizations I mentioned; that is, Duke University, the University of North Carolina, and so forth. I have been engaged in bringing that organization into being running some experimental schools and some experimental teacher training programs, helping communities in North Carolina plan what they would do to take advantage of some of the newer Federal funding which has been available, and trying to make ourselves useful as a new innovation oriented organization in education in that State. In addition to the foregoing I have been a trustee of Yale University and of Vassar College. I also have been a trustee of the College Entrance Examination Board, and rather active in its affairs, having served as chairman of its committee on examinations for many years before becoming a trustee. I have engaged in various consulting functions in education related to helping communities, or states in planning connected with improvement of their educational systems. I came to Washington, where I was given the appointment by the President in mid-December, and took the oath of office in January. Mr. FOGARTY. How are you and Admiral Rickover getting along? Mr. Howe. We have not encountered each other directly. I have listened to him and he has listened to me. We have never had a chance really to talk it over. Mr. FOGARTY. Do you have a statement? Mr. Howe. With your permission, I will read it. GENERAL STATEMENT Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I welcome the opportunity to appear before you today to present the proposed 1967 budget of the Office of Education. As you know, this will be my first presentation to you of the total program that I have been asked to administer. It is a program that, in large measure, you gentlemen have helped to shape. It is a program that attempts to meet universally acknowledged needs. And it is a program which certainly constitutes a central portion of the administration's effort to achieve a society to which all citizens contribute and in which each citizen can live with freedom and purpose. We have witnesses with us today who will present to you the details of each of our appropriations. However, before we begin, I would like to give you an overview of our total program, of what we are doing and of what we are hoping to do in the forthcoming fiscal year. I hope that this will help to place in perspective the discussion of individual program elements which will follow. In presenting these introductory remarks, I am aware that many of you have participated over the years in the developments I shall discuss, and that you are more familiar than I with many aspects of them. I shall, therefore, make my observations brief. 1967 BUDGET The 1967 budget for the Office of Education contains some 20 separate appropriations, and will support more than 100 individual pro grams. Our total request for 1967 amounts to $3,478,900,000. On the assumption that the Congress will approve our presently contemplated 1966 supplemental appropriation requests of $212,450,000— an assumption which we hope is a valid one-our 1967 funds will reflect an increase over 1966 of $174,153,000, or approximately 5 percent. This budget and the budget which preceded it constitute what might be termed a near revolution in the fiscal role of the Federal Government in the support of education in the United States. Our total budget for fiscal year 1965 was $1.5 billion. In 1963, it was $662 million. EDUCATION LEGISLATION ENACTED DURING 89TH CONGRESS During the coming year the central task of the U.S. Office of Education will be to meet the challenge the Congress has set for it in the legislation of the last session. This will not be easy. As President Johnson has said, the 89th Congress made educational history. Our job is to continue to write that history in accordance with the principles the Congress has laid down. Particularly in the area of FederalState relationships in education, we have been and will be writing new chapters of history. We are determined that they shall reflect a constructive, growing partnership between State and Federal agencies and that the Federal partner shall not dominate or control. We are determined also to carry out our responsibilities for administration of the acts the Congress has passed so that the principles laid down in them are given careful attention and so that the intent of Congress is carried through. My own work in education in North Carolina for the past several years has given me the chance to see the beginning effects of the new legislation for which I am now responsible. At the State level and in local communities the impact of new energy available from Federal sources is clearly apparent. School people and community leaders are actively going about the business of planning for effective use of the new funds and in many places new programs are actually underway. My judgment of what I have seen and heard is that the legislation you have passed and funded, and for which we here ask continued funding, is beginning to have its intended effects. It is too early for us to present to you any comprehensive evaluation of the results of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Higher Education Act. But I do want to assure you that there is much hopeful activity already launched. We shall be evaluating the results of this new legislation, and we shall be reporting to you in the years ahead the outcome of our studies. I would make one further observation. It is that we need to keep a balanced view of our diverse educational system in this country. It is a system which has many problems and many shortcomings; it leaves many of our people without the services they require. All of us in education concede the need for improvement and we are working hard to provide it. |