that millions of dollars are being spent on nonmigrants, the charge that no parent involvement is evident, the charge that OE went out and reviewed rules and regulations at the peak of migrancy, the charge that we have ignored and indeed there are instances of subversion where many of the children are not being served.

I would like to take his comments and just simply state to you that I know that we haven't completed our mission. I know that we still have a lot more to do and I am going to take part of his testimony and use it as a positive force to continue to take the message out to those who do not believe that migrant education children should be provided specific supplementary-special programs that can assist them in the areas of need.

But I would hope that any agency that investigates the migrant program would go in with an open mind, and while they have formulated some basic premises that there are some things wrong out there, I would like for them to formulate some premises that there are a lot of good thigns out there also.

He said a lot of things that I believe need to be done. I think his recommendations in essence were recommendations that I could very clearly support, and I would have no difficulty in supporting those.

I would hope that there would be a supplement to the booklet, "Promises to Keep" and I would hope that it would be entitled, "The Promises that have been Kept" by the States to the Congress in their support of the migrant education program.

Mr. FORD. Thank you very much.

I just would like to make one observation as one who for 13 years on this committee perhaps has not been appreciated, or appreciated too much, by people in State departments for my constant criticism of their role and preference for dealing directly with local educational agencies, that there is one exception. I am continually being made aware of the capability of States to use Federal Migrant education funding to positively benefit migrant children. There is no parallel to what is being done in migrant education with the kind of delivery of educational services administered by the State to a particular constituency.

The role of the State office is very much different in the other programs. One of the reasons that the role has been limited in the way which it has in other programs has been the consistent feeling that local educational agencies had a greater capacity to administer funds more wisely and well.

But I don't think that we really have heard over the life of this program serious complaints about the failure of the State agencies to allocate and use the funds well.

A few years ago, a GAO report on migrant programs pointed out that in my State, one of the counties most heavily impacted by migrant children refused to participate in any kind of migrant education program. It was only because of the pressure from the Superintendent of Public Instruction and from Jesse Soriano that they were finally dragged kicking and screaming into the twentieth century.

There is no way under the laws of Michigan you could ever force these people to accept their responsibility except through the pres

sure exerted in a gentle way by the State Department of Education. If anybody is looking for an argument in favor of more funding for the State operation of education programs, the only one that I would be willing to consider offhand is the migrant program, because it has worked marvelously well. It has produced more in terms of what our original expectations were when we first started tentatively with it, in a very small way back in 1966 than any other program. It will have no difficulty standing on its own merits. Its only difficulty is the one that has been stated earlier today, and that is, that migrant parents don't organize and camp on their Congressmen's doorsteps demanding their rights. We have a political system that has a tendency to provide the most grease to the wheel that squeaks the loudest, and this type of activity is not within the nature of the people served by this program.

Unfortunately we don't have testifying on behalf of this legislation the people who benefit most directly from it in terms of their pocketbooks.

A couple of years ago I took advantage of an invitation extended once-it has never been renewed-to talk to the National Association of Fresh Fruit Growers at their San Francisco convention. Cesar Chavez was picketing them outside and I was scolding them inside, and they haven't invited either of us to come back. I invited them at that national meeting to recognize that we don't supplement the health, housing, education, transportation or any other aspects of General Motors workers or for any other large corporation for that matter, who come to work in factories. But we do use taxpayers' money to make possible the continued existence of the migrant family as the only source of labor that most of that industry depends on. And it's a very prosperous industry. As a result of that invitation I believe that we have had one group-the Apple Growers Association-which has appeared before us to testify in favor of migrant programs, that is out of all of these people in agribusiness of this country who directly benefit from every bit of supplementary help that we give to their work force.

I hope we will be able to extend that invitation in the media in some way, so that people begin to realize that the people with the most at stake are either saying nothing about this kind of program or if they are saying anything, they are sitting out there complaining about balancing the budget and saying that as taxpayers, they resent the expenditure of money in the Labor-HEW appropriations. With that, we will recess the hearings until 9:30, Tuesday, proceeding on Title I itself.

Dr. SORIANO. I wonder if I might add one other thing, and that is, I am sorry that Congressman Quie wasn't here, and that is because one of his major concerns has always been the basic skills and what Title I has been doing with basic skills.

I think migrant programs, migrant education programs, surely in view of the basic skill list we have developed for math and for reading, are to be commended; and if basic skills are being taken care of at all, they are being taken care of through migrant education and migrant education programs.

Mr. FORD. Thank you very much, and we will be sure that is called to Al's attention.

[Whereupon, at 2:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, the subcommittee to reconvene at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, October 18, 1977.] [Appendix material follows:]

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1

Title I, Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965

PROGRAMS FOR MIGRATORY CHILDREN

SEC. 122. (a) (1) A State educational agency or a combination of such agencies, upon application, shall be entitled to receive a grant for any fiscal year under this section to establish or improve, either directly or through local educational agencies, programs of education for migratory children of migratory agricultural workers or of migratory fishermen. The Commissioner may approve such an application only upon his determination

(A) that payments will be used for programs and projects (including the acquisition of equipment and where necessary the construction of school facilities) which are designed to meet the special educational needs of migratory children of migratory agricultural workers or of migratory fishermen, and to coordinate these programs and projects with similar programs and projects in other States, including the transmittal of pertinent information with respect to school records of such children;

(B) that in planning and carrying out programs and projects there has been and will be appropriate coordination with programs administered under part B of title III of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964;

(C) that such programs and projects will be administered and carried out in a manner consistent with the basic objectives of clauses (1) (B) and (3) through (12) of section 141(a); and

(D) that, in planning and carrying out programs and projects, there has been adequate assurance that provision will be made for the preschool educational needs of migratory children of migratory agricultural workers or of migratory fishermen, whenever such agency determines that compliance with this clause will not detract from the operation of programs and projects described in clause (A) of this paragraph after considering the funds available for this purpose.

The Commissioner shall not finally disapprove an application of a State educational agency under this paragraph except after reasonable notice and opportunity for a hearing to the State educational agency.

(2) If the Commissioner determines that a State is unable or unwilling to conduct educational programs for migratory children of migratory agricultural workers or of migratory fishermen, or that it would result in more efficient and economic administration, or that it would add substantially to the welfare or educational attainment of such children, he may make special arrangements with other public or nonprofit private agencies to carry out the purposes of this section in one or more States, and for this purpose he may use all or part of the total of grants available for any such State under this section.

(3) For purposes of this section, with the concurrence of his parents, a migratory child of a migratory agricultural worker or of a migratory fisherman shall be deemed to continue to be such a child for a period, not in excess of five years, during which he resides in the area served by the agency carrying on a program or project under this subsection. Such children who are presently migrant, as determined pursuant to regulations of the Commissioner, shall be given priority in this consideration of programs and activities contained in applications submitted under this subsection.

(b) Except as provided in sections 124 and 125, the total grants which shall be made available for use in any State (other than Puerto Rico) for this section shall be an amount equal to 40 per centum of the average per pupil expenditure in the State (or (1) in the case where the average per pupil expenditure in the State is less than 80 per centum of the average per pupil expenditure in the United States,

98-491 O 78 - 12

of 80 per centum of the average per pupil expenditure in the United States, or (2) in the case where the average per pupil expenditure in the State is more than 120 per centum of the average per pupil expenditure in the United States, of 120 per centum of the average per pupil expenditure in the United States) multiplied by (1) the estimated number of such migratory children aged five to seventeen, inclusive, who reside in the State full time, and (2) the full-time equivalent of the estimated number of such migratory children aged five to seventeen, inclusive, who reside in the State part time, as determined by the Commissioner in accordance with regulations, except that if, in the case of any State, such amount exceeds the amount required under subsection (a), the Commissioner shall allocate such excess, to the extent necessary, to other States whose total of grants under this sentence would otherwise be insufficient for all such children to be served in such other States. The total grant which shall be made available for use in Puerto Rico shall be arrived at by multiplying the number of children in Puerto Rico counted as provided in the preceding sentence by 40 per centum of (1) the average per pupil expenditure in Puerto Rico or (2) in the case where such average per pupil expenditure is more than 120 per centum of the average per pupil expenditure in the United States, 120 per centum of the average per pupil expenditure in the United States. În determining the number of migrant children for the purposes of this section the Commissioner shall use statistics made available by the migrant student record transfer system or such other system as he may determine most accurately and fully reflects the actual number of migrant students.

(20 U.S.C. 241c-2) Enacted August 21, 1974, P.L. 93-380, sec. 101, 88 Stat. 492, 494.

RESERVATION OF FUNDS FOR TERRITORIES

SEC. 124. There is authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year for purposes of each of sections 121, 122, and 123, an amount equal to not more than 1 per centum of the amount appropriated for such year for such sections for payments to Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands under each such section. The amounts appropriated for each such section shall be allotted among Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands according to their respective need for such grants, based on such criteria as the Commissioner determines will best carry out the purposes of this title.

(20 U.S.C. 241c-4) Enacted August 21, 1974, P.L. 93-380, sec. 101, 88 Stat. 494.

MINIMUM PAYMENTS FOR STATE OPERATED PROGRAMS

SEC. 125. No State shall receive in any fiscal year prior to October 1, 1978, pursuant to sections 121, 122, or 123 an amount which is less than 100 per centum of the amount which that State received in the prior fiscal year pursuant to such section 121, 122, or 123, respectively.1

(20 U.S.C. 241c-5) Enacted August 21, 1974, P.L. 93-380. sec. 101, 88 Stat. 495; amended April 21, 1976, P.L. 94-273, sec. 3 (8), 90 Stat. 376; amended October 12, 1976, P.L. 94-482, Title V, Part A, sec. 501(b) (1) (A), 90 Stat. 2236; P.L. 91–482, Title V, Part A, sec. 501 (o), 90 Stat. 2238.