Mr. IRWIN. Mr. Chairman, in the State of Washington, we look at about 2.6 to 2.9 percent of appropriations on the campus-based, and ours is falling. Senator PELL. What is your proportion of the population? Mr. IRWIN. Well, we are a high access State in higher education. We are second in the country as far as access to higher education. Senator PELL. No. What is your population? Mr. IRWIN. Our population is about 4 million. Senator PELL. Four million. Then you are doing better than the average. Mr. IRWIN. We have been consistently. Senator PELL. Yes. So you should not be complaining in Washing ton. Mr. IRWIN. Well, we are looking at the full implementation of fair share. Senator PELL. I appreciate your objectivity and concern for the national well-being, but if it was adjusted, you would lose. Do you have any thought as to what the formula you would like to see should look like? Mr. IRWIN. Well, right now we would talk about the possibility, if we could persuade the Office of Education rather than start implementing fair share. Last year what the Office of Education did was they gave everybody 100-percent guarantee, conditional guarantee. So they held everybody harmless for 100 percent of the funds that they had received the previous year and distributed the rest of the appropriations based on this fair share formula. We would encourage the Office of Education to do that again this year. However, the Office of Education is talking about implementing or phasing in fair share. What they are planning on doing this year or at least conversation is that they going to only conditionally guarantee 90 percent of the funds and distribute the rest of them through the fair share mechanism. Our concern, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that we have an opportunity to take this whole fair share concept, keep it in place, and have an opportunity to study it and get some analysis on it rather than just move ahead and implement it. We are afraid that it is going to be a disaster if it is fully implemented, and of course, the figures that I have given you today are full implementation of the program of fair share. We are afraid of the program until we have a chance to analyze it. So all we are trying to do is ask the Office of Education to slow down and really study the information and study this program to see if this is a good distribution process. And they seem a little reluctant to want to do that. Senator PELL. Mr. Paley, if, for some reason we do not increase the supplemental educational opportunity grant figure, what would that do to the half-cost compromise? Would the whole thing fall apart,then, do you think? Mr. PALEY. Yes; that is absolutely imperative to our maintaining support for the compromise. Without the SEOG increase it is no longer a compromise, and as I mentioned previously, Mr. Chairman, I really believe that what we are doing here by building in the SEOG movement along with the movement of BEOG to a point where the half-cost becomes 60 percent, it is a very balanced approach, and it is a very, very sensitive instrument. If we were to remove the SEOG provisions to this, as Chancellor Eggers mentioned before, it would impose a severe disincentive for families to be able to select independent institutions. Senator PELL. My recollection is in the last go-around on the Senate floor, every trigger was knocked out. Mr. PALEY. Yes, I understand that. In this particular case, the triggering mechanism, you know, the control of it remains with appropriations. If you all decide you do not want to move this, the triggers do not take effect. Senator PELL. But another point here, too, I think is that this whole so-called half-cost compromise might be pie in the sky because it involves the expenditure of more funds than are presently programed, and I do not see any indication of that coming to be. Mr. PALEY. I heard what Dr. Coor mentioned before with respect to cost here. There are other factors than cost which I have not heard mentioned in these hearings heretofore-I may have missed some of them-with respect to the general increase in inflation and movement of income by families in this country they are going to remove an awful lot of people from eligibility for various programs, and you will have, along with the decline in the higher education population, a probability of some substantial savings. Well, the impact in costs which I think most of the people are looking at is completely the negative side of this thing. We do have opportunity to obtain some savings here. And incidentally, with respect to SEOG being a component of this, for those States which have high proportions of independent sector enrollments, while their efforts may be extraordinary on behalf of students, their overall outlays for institutions are such that they are able to reduce their State effort and capture savings at the State level. Senator PELL. Thank you very much. Senator Stafford? Senator STAFFORD. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. Senator JAVITS. I just have one question of Mr. Paley, who is an old friend. What can we do to give a greater incentive for these State programs dealing with scholarships, et cetera, which with Senator Pell's and Senator Stafford's and other help we got started with? Mr. PALEY. Well, Senator, as one of the architects of the whole concept of incentives, I think that you would be one of the first to realize the need to exclude the agency, in this case OE, or as our junior Senator refers to it as "the thing," from control and tampering with the intent of the Congress. I do not think it was your intent to impose upon the States disincentives. It was because of your sponsorship, because of Senator Bell's commitment to this thing that our Governors and our State legislatures invested enormous effort in this, and we are now leading the country in State effort on tuition assistance, and we are getting our head knocked off for it by OE. Senator PELL. Thank you very much indeed, gentlemen. Now, we have, not an unexpected surprise, but a nice surprise in Senator Moynihan, who is with us here. I am delighted to have him come. Do you want to sit up here? Senator MOYNIHAN. No, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to sit down here. Senator PELL. I am sure the Senator from New York would like to introduce the Senator from New York. Senator JAVITS. He has introduced himself pretty well, not only to us but to the world. [Laughter.] Senator PELL. Senator Moynihan? STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Senator MOYNIHAN. Mr. Chairman, Senator Stafford, Senator Javits, may I have the pleasure of introducing my colleague Dr. Chester E. Finn, Jr., who is an associate of mine and who has been much involved in educational policy matters, is an author in this regard and is associated with me in the matter I would like to speak to you about. There are a number of points I would like to make. I have some prepared testimony which I would like to submit for the record, if I may. Senator PELL. It will be inserted in the record in full. Senator MOYNIHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator JAVITS. Senator, could you allow me to say that I apologize in advance. I have to go in about 10 minutes. I would very much like to hear what you have to say. Senator MOYNIHAN. You could not be kinder, Senator Javits. Mr. Chairman, I would take the opportunity, not having appeared before this subcommittee until now, to acknowledge the debt which all of us owe you, this generation and generations to come, for your enterprise and leadership in 1972 in establishing the basic educational opportunity grant program, the Pell grants program, which has been, at least since the original World War II GI bill, certainly the most important enactment in higher education that we have known. It fell to me to draft the Presidential message to Congress in 1970 that called for some response to the need which you answered, and it is more than ordinarily relevant to me that you did, and I would like to express my appreciation to you. The public never says its thanks very well, Senator Pell, and I would like to assume that role at this moment. Senator PELL. Thank you. Senator MOYNIHAN. I would say that I have before you a bill which simply extends the provisions of the Pell grants to elementary and secondary schools. This is S. 1101, and it is not, in any way, to be distinguished in its form, its purpose or its administration from the BEOG program which is now in place, especially since the major expansion which you carried out last year, the Middle Income Student Assistance Act, extending and improving the program. Our purpose in this is to make such grants available to low income students who attend nonpublic schools of which there are altogether some 5 million students in the country. About 12 per cent of them would be eligible for these Pell grants, if you will, and analysts at the Congressional Budget Office have estimated that, when fully in effect, such a measure would cost some $160 million a year. The average grant would be about $270. Now, the purpose here, very clearly, is to provide aid to the low income students who attend nonpublic, in the main, church-related schools, and the object in my mind is to overcome an anomaly in our domestic social policies. We are the only democratic society in the world that does not provide aid to church-related schools in the most routine manner. Canada does; Denmark does; so do Holland, Norway, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand, to mention but some. In consequence, these schools are closing in the United States. I would like to make the point that these are sometimes regarded as new institutions, somehow novel and competitive with an older principle, that of the public school. They are not. It is the public schools that are new. Nongovernment schools are the original school systems of our country. Some of them go back to the 18th century. They have always been parochial, by which they meant neighborhood schools; some are not; some are private schools in the general sense of the word. But in the main, they are neighborhood schools. They respond to a tradition of educational pluralism which has been a treasure to this country. They are not our first concern. Our first concern is the public schools. But we have provided for those schools. We have not provided for nonpublic schools, and they are commencing to disappear. I take the liberty to tell the subcommittee of a dinner I attended in Buffalo, N.Y., on Sunday night at which Bishop Head, the bishop of the Roman Catholic diocese in western New York, who is a friend of mine and of my revered senior colleague, Senator Javits, spoke about his school system which had been there since the beginnings of settlements on the shores of Lake Ontario, and which thrived over the years. Now in the face of among many forces-Government requirements, the general cost of education-his school system has been cut in half in the last 10 years. He said, "One by one, our schools are dying, falling like leaves from the trees in autumn," and he said it with some feeling. These were the work of a century and a half, an institution of great value. And he made one point, and with this, I will conclude, he told of the educational activities of the archdiocese. He said, "If the public were required to take up this educational purpose, and teach these children, it would cost $170 million to the counties involved," and he said, "and it costs us $65 million, and we just do not have it." He was making the point, although not intending it, that these schools, these nonpublic schools, on balance, educate children at about 40 percent of the per student cost of the public schools. I was struck by the setting in which he did it. This was the Niagara frontier near Niagara Falls. Back under Franklin D. Roosevelt, the State of New York set up the New York State Power Authority with the object, as Roosevelt had it, of establishing a public yardstick against which to measure the costs of operations Now, we have, not an unexpected surprise, but a nice surprise in Senator Moynihan, who is with us here. I am delighted to have him come. Do you want to sit up here? Senator MOYNIHAN. No, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to sit down here. Senator PELL. I am sure the Senator from New York would like to introduce the Senator from New York. Senator JAVITS. He has introduced himself pretty well, not only to us but to the world. [Laughter.] Senator PELL. Senator Moynihan? STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Senator MOYNIHAN. Mr. Chairman, Senator Stafford, Senator Javits, may I have the pleasure of introducing my colleague Dr. Chester E. Finn, Jr., who is an associate of mine and who has been much involved in educational policy matters, is an author in this regard and is associated with me in the matter I would like to speak to you about. There are a number of points I would like to make. I have some prepared testimony which I would like to submit for the record, if I may. Senator PELL. It will be inserted in the record in full. Senator MOYNIHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator JAVITS. Senator, could you allow me to say that I apologize in advance. I have to go in about 10 minutes. I would very much like to hear what you have to say. Senator MOYNIHAN. You could not be kinder, Senator Javits. Mr. Chairman, I would take the opportunity, not having appeared before this subcommittee until now, to acknowledge the debt which all of us owe you, this generation and generations to come, for your enterprise and leadership in 1972 in establishing the basic educational opportunity grant program, the Pell grants program, which has been, at least since the original World War II GI bill, certainly the most important enactment in higher education that we have known. It fell to me to draft the Presidential message to Congress in 1970 that called for some response to the need which you answered, and it is more than ordinarily relevant to me that you did, and I would like to express my appreciation to you. The public never says its thanks very well, Senator Pell, and I would like to assume that role at this moment. Senator PELL. Thank you. Senator MOYNIHAN. I would say that I have before you a bill which simply extends the provisions of the Pell grants to elementary and secondary schools. This is S. 1101, and it is not, in any way, to be distinguished in its form, its purpose or its administration from the BEOG program which is now in place, especially since the major expansion which you carried out last year, the Middle Income Student Assistance Act, extending and improving the program. Our purpose in this is to make such grants available to low income students who attend nonpublic schools of which there are altogether some 5 million students in the country. About 12 per |