only insufficient funds to provide the minimums but there would be no funds for allotment on the basis of population. Each State would receive the same amount for the three specified purposes. DISTRIBUTIVE OCCUPATIONS (SEC. 2) A. The estimates "by objects" do not show any funds to be allotted for distributive occupations as provided in section 2. On the other hand, the language for the appropriation bill provides "for carrying out the provisions of sections 1, 2, and 3", of the George-Deen Act. Discussion. If some portion of the $3,000,000 is to be used for distributive occupations with the proviso that the minimum allotments shall be $10,000, not only is an administrative problem created similar to those already described as arising from section 1, but in addition the problem is further complicated by reason of the resulting reduction in the amount left available for section 1. This would mean that the States would receive smaller allotments for the purposes specified in section 1. As a matter of fact, the amounts available for agriculture, home economics, and trades and industries would be less than the appropriations for these purposes for the past 3 years. TEACHER TRAINING (SEC. 3) The administrative situation relating to teacher training is the same as that described for distributive occupations in section 2. NEW BASIS FOR MATCHING FEDERAL FUNDS All present acts grating aid to the States for vocational education require Federal moneys to be matched by an equal amount of State or local money or both. The George-Deen Act provides that for a period of 5 years the States may receive $2 of Federal money for each dollar of State or local money. For another 5 years the matching basis increases until it is dollar for dollar. STATE BUDGETS Information received from State boards indicates that State legislatures and local boards of education are being asked to make provision for developing the program on the basis of the authorizations provided in the George-Deen Act. Such budgeting provisions, in most instances, must be made on a biennial basis. Discussion.-The administrative problem is one of advising the States in reply to requests for information on the extent to which Federal funds will be available for cooperation with the States in the further development of the program. Forty-one State legislatures meet in regular session during the month of January 1937. The State of Florida meets in the month of April. In addition, the States of Alabama, Louisiana, Ohio, Virginia, and Mississippi have already convened special sessions of their legislatures. ADMINISTRATION (SEC. 4) Section 4 of the George-Deen Act of June 8, 1936, authorizes $350,000 to be appropriated for administrative purposes. The estimates include the sum of $73,000, which corresponds to the amount now available under the GeorgeEllzey Act. Discussion. If vocational education is to be further developed as provided in the George-Deen Act, the problem arises as to how the personnel in the Vocational Division of the Office of Education, necessary to safeguard the use of Federal funds for the purposes for which they were appropriated and to cooperate with the States in the further development of the program, may be secured. MINIMUM AMOUNT REQUIRED TO OPERATE UNDER GEORGE-DEAN ACT Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Let me suggest that the doctor follow up what he was saying awhile ago and give the committee the minimum that he could operate on, as has been suggested, but on which he never did reach a final conclusion. Dr. STUDEBAKER. I think I analyzed the problem on several bases. I was about to take the $3,084,000, plus the same proportion of the authorization for the two new activities, which was 25 percent, plus the amounts required to provide the minimums-plus the amount needed for administration in the office. These sums amount to $5,305,000 plus $178,000. Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. I wonder if the gentleman could get up a definite statement on that, and get the figures in the record. I never did get the total. Dr. STUDEBAKER. $5,305,000. Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. $5,305,000? Dr. STUDEBAKER. Yes. And then, there is $178,000 that we need with which to administer the act. Dr. WRIGHT. We have $73,000 included in the estimates. Dr. STUDEBAKER. Then it would be $105,000 additional to be added to the sum of $264,060 included in the estimates, or a total of $369,060 under the combined Smith-Hughes and George-Deen Acts. Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. $105,000? Dr. STUDEBAKER. Yes. Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Then, is this committee given to understand that you could operate for the next year on $5,483,000 instead of $14,000,000, as authorized under the George-Deen Act? Dr. STUDEBAKER. That is why I asked Mr. Rich a question earlier in the day when he put a question to me. I asked if he was asking me what the minimum amount was that we could operate on. I asked him whether he was asking me in terms of what I thought our needs. are, or on some other basis. I understood from him that he only wanted the minimum necessary to continue the present program in agriculture, home economics, and trade and industry with a proportionate amount for the two new activites. That is why described in detail the bases on which I have arrived at $5,483,000. Mr. RICH. That is right; and I was only asking what was the absolute minimum, on the basis of what he is doing now. So that does not have anything to do with regard to the total amount suggested under the George-Deen Act. Dr. STUDEBAKER. No, sir. Mr. JOHNSON. I wanted to get that clear. Dr. STUDEBAKER. Of course, it is clear, is it not, Mr. Congressman, that if we had $3,084,000 to supplant the $3,084,000 that we had under the George-Ellzey Act, we could at least do as much with it now a we could under the George-Ellzey Act. Mr. LAMBERTSON. But there would not be any new schools added at all, would there? Dr. STUDEBAKER. No. Mr. LEAVY. How would you distribute it, in the light of the fact that the authorization provides for the distribution in a particular manner? Dr. STUDEBAKER. I do not know. Mr. LEAVY. For instance, Alaska has no agricultural population, and you distributed to them $88.07 this year on that basis. Under this provision there would be $20,000 going to Alaska for agriculture. The District of Columbia last year had no home economics whatever, no distribution from that amount, and here they would be entitled to $20,000. Am I right on that, or am I wrong, or would it not require a change of language? Mr. STUDEBAKER. As I understand it, this is a different act from the Smith-Hughes Act. It is similar in basic structure to the GeorgeEllzey Act. The Smith-Hughes Act made a permanent appropriation, and this act authorizes an appropriation. Mr. LEAVY. Yes. Dr. STUDEBAKER. Now, I would understand that the purpose of the change from appropriations to authorizations is to enable Congress from time to time, within the limits of a given act, to appropriate sums of money not in excess of the authorization under the act. Is that not correct? Therefore, Congress may appropriate less than is authorized, if it desires to do so, on some basis. I should think that if an act including minimums is devised in such a way that there is a definite relationship between the amounts in the minimums and the possible amounts to be received if all of the other funds in the act are appropriated, then, surely, whatever that relationship is between the minimums and the total amount authorized for allocation that relationship should be maintained in any resolution that would be passed and which would appropriate less than the total of the act. Now, I must say, Mr. Congressman, I do not know exactly how the basic relationships were determined in the act. Mr. LEAVY. Doctor, I asked you the question because it seems to me that it presents some extreme legislative difficulties here, but I assume, perhaps, the Bureau of the Budget, when they had this matter up, or when you were before them, discussed the manner in which they proposed to meet the terms and the conditions of the bill by cutting the limitations down to $3,000,000? Dr. STUDEBAKER. No; that was not discussed. Mr. FITZPATRICK. As to this table on page 11 of your justifications, are those the only States in which you spent money for those three different activities? Dr. STUDEBAKER. No, the table on page 11 is illustrative only. It shows what those particular States would receive if $3,000,000 were distributed without regard to the minimums. Mr. FITZPATRICK. What they would receive? Dr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, what they would receive on a population basis. Mr. FITZPATRICK. The reason I asked you about that table is because on this map of New York you have up in my congressional district something marked out, and I do not find anything about it here in this table [indicating]. Dr. STUDEBAKER. Those States were selected to show the wide variation in allotments on a population basis. ALLOTMENTS TO STATES AND TERRITORIES OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATIONAL FUNDS UNDER VARIOUS ACTS Mr. FITZPATRICK. Would it not be well to put in each State, showing what they received out of the total amount? Dr. STUDEBAKER. Yes; we can get that for you. Mr. FITZPATRICK. For both last year and this year? You pick out my congressional district, but there is nothing in the what we are going to receive. table to show Mr. RICH. Might it be just as well if he would insert that in the record, Mr. Fitzpatrick? Mr. FITZPATRICK. Yes. Dr. STUDEBAKER. We have some tables showing what each State now receives under the Smith-Hughes Act, what they have been receiving under the George-Ellzey Act, and the additional amount each State would receive under the George-Deen Act. Mr. FITZPATRICK. Just put it in the record. Allotment to States and Territories of vocational education funds appropriated under the Smith-Hughes and George-Ellzey Acts for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1987; increase, effective July 1, 1957, in allotment authorized under the George-Deen Ad over allotment under the George-Ellzey Act; total allotment authorized for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1938 1 In addition to amounts shown here Hawaii receives $30,000 under special act. 110,000.00 80,000,00 80, 446.71 259,993.94 80, 896. 47 Mr. RICH. Was there any other statement you wanted to make with reference to vocational education before the members of the committee ask questions? Dr. STUDEBAKER. No; I think not. Mr. RICH. If any members want to ask Mr. Studebaker questions, do so at this time. any Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. I was interested in the last statement you made with reference to the amount each State would receive under the George-Deen Act. Does that contemplate an appropriation of $14,483,000, the amount authorized, or $3,000,000? Dr. STUDEBAKER. This table was drawn to show what each State would receive in addition to what it is now receiving if the full authorization were appropriated. Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. The appropriation of $14,483,000.? ALLOCATION TO STATES AND TERRITORIES, UNDER GEORGE-DEEN ACT, BASED ON $3,000,000 APPROPRIATION Mr. FITZPATRICK. I asked about the moneys that each State would receive. You must have a budget prepared yourself. Dr. STUDEBAKER. New York last year received under the GeorgeEllzey Act $190,615.77. This was on the basis of $3,084,603, under the term of the George-Ellzey Act. Mr. SCRUGHAM. Is that the George-Deen Act or the GeorgeEllzey Act? Dr. STUDEBAKER. The George-Ellzey Act. Mr. SCRUGHAM. You should have said the George-Ellzey Act. Dr. STUDEBAKER. Yes. The George-Deen Act is the present legislation. Mr. FITZPATRICK. Yes. Dr. STUDEBAKER. Now, Congressman Firzpatrick, I am a little confused, frankly, to know how to answer your question as to what New York would receive if $3,084,603 were distributed under the George-Deen Act. Mr. LEAVY. Cannot you tell? Dr. STUDEBAKER. I do not know how to answer that question. Mr. LEAVY. Congress is going to have to meet that situation. Dr. STUDEBAKER. That is why, Mr. Fitzpatrick, I traced this through rather cautiously, and stated the basis on which I was trying to think it out, but I am not satisfied that the conforms to the GeorgeDeen Act. I was making certain assumptions. Mr. RICH. If after thinking this over you can comply with the request of Mr. Fitzpatrick and can put that in in writing or supplement the record to that extent, we shall be glad to have you do it. Dr. STUDEBAKER. I think what I have here will answer that question on the basis of the way I shall trace the problem through. We take $3,000,000 and distribute it on a population basis, and then we take 25 percent of the authorization for distributive cocupations, and 25 percent for teacher training, because $3,000,000 is 25 percent of the total authorization of $12,000,000 for the three major activities, and then add to these allotments the amounts necessary to meet the minimums. That makes a total of $5,305,000, but there are some difficulties in that that you might see as you examine this table, which I will be glad to put in the record. |