This prohibits reimbursements from being paid at this time an limits appropriations only for construction that is actually needed nov Mr. FOGARTY. Did you recommend this change in the language Mr. LINDMAN. Yes; we did. Mr. FOGARTY. You are in effect changing the basic act, then. Mr. LINDMAN. It means that, insofar as this limited appropriatio is available, it would apply only for urgently needed construction this time, but later appropriation would be required to take care the reimbursement feature of the act. REIMBURSEMENT APPLICATIONS UNDER SEC. 205 Mr. FOGARTY. How many applications for reimbursements und such conditions have you received? Mr. LINDMAN. We receive very few. I don't think they constitu more than 1 percent of the applications. Mr. FOGARTY. Do you have a list of those applications that yo could make available to us? Mr. LINDMAN. We can do that. (The material requested, subsequently furnished, is as follows:) Applications for reimbursements New Hampshire: NH-51-C-3A, school district of town of Rye, Rye, Reimbursem requested $46, 0 Tenn-51-C-6A, Manchester Board of Education, Manchester, 85, 0 Tenn-51-C-7B, Hawkins County Board of Education, Rogersville. 149, 00 518, 6 249, 1 89, 7 86, 0 Texas: Tex-51-C-51A, Channelview I.S.D., Channelview.. Utah-51-C-2A, Board of Education of San Juan County, Mon- Utah-51-C-5A, Board of Education, South Summit school district, Mr. FOGARTY. Under this language, even though it was authorize under the passage of this act last year, this language in the appropri tion bill would prohibit the reimbursement of any federally appr priated money to go to those communities who have built schools federally impacted areas; is that correct? Mr. LINDMAN. Yes. I should make it clear to you, Mr. Chairman, that the law itse requires that priority be given to construction projects and that the be taken care of before reimbursement payments are made. So with an appropriation of this size and with the size of the actu construction requirements, the law itself, giving priority to co struction requirements, would, in effect, delay or postpone any rein bursement payments. So I do not think the conflict will be significant under these appr priations, because of the priority which the law itself gives to co struction requirements as distinguished from reimbursement requir ments. But that was recommended to make it clear that they would n be paid from this particular appropriation. SUGGESTED LANGUAGE REQUIRING PRIORITY FOR DEFENSE PROJECTS Mr. FOGARTY. This language means in effect that the Commissioner would determine the authority within the available appropriation; is that what the rest of the language means? Mr. LINDMAN. Add one more item. Under the law, the priority is determined on the basis of urgency of need for school buildings. This requires the Commissioner to consider also the relationship of the proposed project to the present defense program in determining these priorities. This is in addition to the priority provisions of the statute, sir. Mr. FOGARTY. This gives him the power to make the priorities himself, does it? Mr. LINDMAN. He has the power to make them now, based solely on the relative urgency of the need of school buildings. This adds the other idea into the priority base, the relationship to the defense program. Mr. FOGARTY. Is that what you mean by "the Commissioner shall give special consideration to the extent to which the school facilities are needed in the interest of national defense"? Mr. LINDMAN. That is correct. In other words, if two communities have equal need for a school building and one is directly aiding in the defense effort and one is not, the preference would be given, under this language, to the one that was related to the immediate defense effort. Mr. FOGARTY. What would you estimate your appropriation to be for salaries and expenses for the maintenance and operation of these schools and surveys and construction of schools in 1953? STATE SURVEYS OF SCHOOL NEEDS Mr. LINDMAN. The matter of surveys and construction is a single appropriation of $3,000,000 and no further appropriations are authorized for surveys. So that, in a sense, is taken care of when it is initially appropriated and remains available until expended. Mr. FOGARTY. Is that included in the supplemental that you received for 1951? Mr. LINDMAN. We have earmarked from the appropriation for this fiscal year $3,000,000. Mr. FOGARTY. It has already been appropriated, has it? Mr. LINDMAN. It is already earmarked and set aside. Mr. FOGARTY. So there is no more further money to be authorized for surveys; is that correct? Mr. LINDMAN. That is right. Mr. FOGARTY. What do the States do with the $3,000,000? Mr. FOGARTY. On a dollar-for-dollar basis? Mr. LINDMAN. Dollar-for-dollar basis. Then there is a survey program to determine locations of the school buildings and needs, and we try to set up an over-all plan to State school construction, based on the States' own idea of how that should be done. Mr. FOGARTY. When do you expect that will be concluded? 79807-51-pt. 2-27 Mr. LINDMAN. We feel that the national statistics which will come from the survey will be in fairly complete form sometime next fall, but that the planning of actual locations of school buildings and matters of that kind will continue for possibly 2 or 3 years at the level of the State planning program. But the national statistics on the conditions of school buildings throughout the Nation will be pressed forward quickly and brought to a summary as rapidly as possible. OVER-ALL ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION UNDER PUBLIC LAW 815 Mr. FOGARTY. What do you anticipate will be your budget request for 1953 for construction and maintenance of these schools and salaries necessary to run this program? Mr. LINDMAN. Under the existing law for construction, unless there is contract authority in 1952, these would be no basis for an appropriation in 1953. This assumes that the entire amount required to carry out provisions of Public Law 815 will be available in 1952. Am I correct? Mr. FOGARTY. This is not going to be contract authority for 1952. The Bureau of the Budget has not allowed any contract authority in 1952, has it? Mr. LINDMAN. I stated yesterday that this law expires at the close of 1952, insofar as applications for Federal assistance are concerned. So that if the applications are in prior to the close of the next fiscal year, unless those applications are not paid for by the Federal Government, there can be no basis for an additional appropriation in 1953. The law contemplates that the entire program would be appropriated for in 2 years. That is what the law contemplates. Mr. FOGARTY. It did not say how much, though. Mr. LINDMAN. No. But the way it is set up, the applications have to be in by the close of next year. Then presumably we should be in a position to act upon those within a reasonable length of time. Of course, we cannot act upon them unless appropriations are adequate. The construction will continue into 1953; there is no question about that. But the actual setting up of the commitment in the application itself presumably would end in 1952. Mr. FOGARTY. What do you anticipate would be the over-all cost of construction? Mr. LINDMAN. We have anticipated here that the over-all cost of construction would be $380,000,000, as the total. That is set forth on page 39-D. Mr. FOGARTY. How much has already been appropriated for construction? Mr. LINDMAN. $46,500,000. Mr. FOGARTY. Does that include the $25,000,000 for contract authority? Mr. LINDMAN. Yes. Mr. FOGARTY. And you are asking this year in this budget for $50,000,000. You have a supplemental for construction of how much? Mr. LINDMAN. $100,000,000. Mr. FOGARTY. That is $196,000,000. So that would leave about $184,000,000. Mr. LINDMAN. That is correct. Mr. FOGARTY. Which, according to the plan, would have to be appropriated for fiscal 1952. Mr. LINDMAN. Yes. I am not sure it has to be appropriated. I know the law says the applications must be in prior to that time. It is quite possible we could act upon them in 1953, also, but they would have to be submitted prior to the close of 1952. Mr. FOGARTY. If they are acted on in 1952, how could you act on them if you do not know how much money you are going to get? Mr. LINDMAN. If we receive valid applications; if we find ourselves in this position that we have valid applications for more school building construction that we have money for, I assume those applications would be available for action in 1953, even though they were submitted in 1952. Mr. FOGARTY. These tables that you have on page 39, then, are obsolete, are they not, in view of your supplemental that you are requesting? Mr. LINDMAN. No. These are not obsolete. These show the total estimated need at the bottom. If you look at the table on page 39-F, you will find a column 7, called Gross entitlements. At the bottom of that page you will find our estimate of $366 million. From that must be deducted the value of previous Federal contributions for school construction. We did not have those figures sufficiently far developed to make a deduction from that. So we are estimating a deduction of $55 million from that figure, leaving a net of $311 million in entitlements to communities. That is the figure we used in drawing our summary on the preceding pages, $311 million, of net entitlements, as distinguished from the gross entitlements. Mr. HEDRICK. Referring to these reimbursements, are they supposed to pay back all the money, or part of it? Mr. LINDMAN. They get back such part of it as they are entitled to on the basis of the number of children in these various categories. They may have spent a million dollars for a high school, but the number of children in each category for which the Government recognizes responsibility might entitle them to only $400,000. So it is a case of reimbursement of such construction costs for which the Federal Government recognizes responsibility in this act. Mr. FOGARTY. On page 39-D you have a breakdown of your over-all estimate of $300,000,000. Mr. LINDMAN. That is correct. Mr. FOGARTY. I think we should put that in the record at this time; also that part of the table on page 39-E. We will also insert into the record at this point the following pages: 39-F, 39-G, 39-H, 39-I, 39-J, 39-K, 39-L, and 39-M. (The material referred to follows:) RECAPITULATION OF APPROPRIATIONS REQUIRED TO CARRY OUT PROVISIONS OF PUBLIC LAW 815 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1952 Public Law 815 requires that all applications must be submitted prior to June 30, 1952, and may not include enrollment increases beyond June 30, 1952, although disbursements for construction may continue into fiscal year 1953. Estimated entitlements to local school districts under sec. 202 Estimated requirements for providing temporary facilities pursuant to sec. 203____. Estimated requirements for constructing school facilities on military reservations, pursuant to sec. 204. Total amount required.... Amount appropriated for all purposes in fiscal 1951.. Amount required to complete total program. Amount requested for fiscal year 1952 (the total request for 1952 is $75,000,000; however, of this amount $25,000,000 is required to cover contract authority approved for fiscal year 1951). Amount remaining__ Amount $311, 664, 000 18, 000, 000 51, 000, 000 380, 664, 000 46, 500, 000 334, 164, 000 50, 000, 000 284, 164, 000 The $50,000,000 requested for fiscal year 1952 will permit a few of the most urgently needed school construction projects to be initiated. The vast majority of needed school construction projects in these communities must be postponed until additional funds are made available. |