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

and consequently the profits of private utilities such as electrical utilities.

There should be some public equivalent to keep the other honest, as it were. And it seemed to me that in our time, with the Government sector so greatly grown, we could usefully have the concept of a private yardstick to measure Government performance.

There is no question that these schools-of every denominationthroughout the country perform their tasks at less than half the public cost and do it as well.

And it seems to me that there is a huge public wrong and inequity to be set right here. You know my views on this, that the Court decisions that have been rendered since 1947 are wrong, that the Supreme Court would reverse itself, as the Court many, many times has reversed itself over almost two centuries now, declaring, simply, that "Well, we no longer hold that."

They reversed themselves in Plussey. They reversed themselves in Adkins. They reversed themselves in Lockner. They will reverse themselves in Everson. They have never even thought to challenge the Pell grants which go to students in church-related institutions of higher education. There is no difference in principle between those and elementary and secondary schools.

Senator PELL. Excuse me. Those grants go to the children, to the youngsters themselves.

Senator MOYNIHAN. The grants go to the individual. That is exactly so. And that is my testimony, sir. I simply wanted to come and to say that. I have one other general comment. I would like to draw your attention to the proposal for a National Periodical Center and commend it to you.

It is the kind of aid that higher education so much can use, and it is very small. It is the efficiency of the Federal Government providing a service like that which is unequalled and ought to be encouraged.

But it is to this matter that I wish to draw your attention and that of Senator Stafford and, of course, Senator Javits.

Senator PELL. Responding to your remarks, first to the National Periodical Center, that is going to be discussed at the White House Conference on Libraries. We await the benefit of their thoughts, and in that regard there is going to be a joint hearing immediately following the conference to receive the conference's recommendations.

As you know, it is somewhat controversial because of copyright provisions, and the industry is not all that enthusiastic for it. Senator MOYNIHAN. If the matter has engaged your attention, I

am content.

Senator PELL. Thank you.

Now, with regard to your basic proposal, as you know, I recognize the need for help for private schools, the nonpublic schoolSenator MOYNIHAN. You were emphatic in that respect.

Senator PELL [continuing]. And with the help of the subcommittee, the full committee, we reported out last year title XII, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments which gave a grant of one-half billion dollars to be assigned by the Commissioner of Education to the nonpublic schools.

We thought of this approach and discussed it with the committee members. To me, I liked the approach. The question is would it fly. Is there any other way of skinning the cat to help these youngsters in nonpublic schools and their families?

From a constitutional viewpoint-I am not a lawyer-but as you point out, the Court has often reversed itself, but my understanding of the Court as it is made up today leads me to believe that it would probably not smile benignly on this approach. I do not know. Do you have any thought on that, Senator Javits?

Senator JAVITS. If I may speak from here, I think Senator Moynihan is right. The courts have reversed themselves. Plussey is a very good example. There have been others. They may very well reverse themselves in this.

I think what he has advocated for a long time, and I think we should think about it very seriously so we do not have to put it up to the Court now if we are satisfied on the public policy involved.

So when we do get together as a subcommittee, I think what we ought to consider is, first, the public policy. If we are satisfied with the public policy, then it may be that I, too, would be willing to see it put up to the Court.

There is a considerable time lag, and indeed, this is a matter of real urgency. It is really, if I may just finish my thing—so I will do that, join with the subcommittee in that thinking and exploration. The other thing that appeals to me is that we have never been able to make this work. In terms of service, that is very regrettable. We have tried to often. We have kicked so many people in the tail, as the saying goes, to try to get them to do what title I expects them to do, and there may be an effort on that straw someway or another, notwithstanding that the local education agencies have this duty under the law that has not been effective, that somebody, somehow, somewhere is always dragging his feet and nothing really important happens.

Now, we have a new department. It may be that this gives us a new opportunity, but, again, this is something we should very seriously consider on the staff level.

Senator PELL. I think there are really three approaches. One is the approach of Senator Moynihan. Two would be the approach we passed out of the committee last time with the direct grants to be allocated by the Commissioner, and, three, I understand thought is being given for a loan program to parents of children in tuition changing schools.

All three of these approaches all seem to have merit. The question will arise also whether we should attach any to these to this bill, where the concern might not be germane to this legislation. Senator JAVITS. I think in fairness to Senator Moynihan, if we want to do it, we can find the bill.

Senator PELL. Or we can pass out a separate bill.

Senator Stafford?

Senator STAFFORD. I have no questions at this point.

Senator MOYNIHAN. I Wonder if the chairman would be kind enough to let me extend my remarks just a moment to confirm what Senator Javits said. The services approach has not succeeded. I was in the executive branch in 1964 at a time when Federal aid to education was stymied by this question, and it fell to me to

and consequently the profits of private utilities such as electrical utilities.

There should be some public equivalent to keep the other honest, as it were. And it seemed to me that in our time, with the Government sector so greatly grown, we could usefully have the concept of a private yardstick to measure Government performance.

There is no question that these schools-of every denomination— throughout the country perform their tasks at less than half the public cost and do it as well.

And it seems to me that there is a huge public wrong and inequity to be set right here. You know my views on this, that the Court decisions that have been rendered since 1947 are wrong, that the Supreme Court would reverse itself, as the Court many, many times has reversed itself over almost two centuries now, declaring, simply, that "Well, we no longer hold that."

They reversed themselves in Plussey. They reversed themselves in Adkins. They reversed themselves in Lockner. They will reverse themselves in Everson. They have never even thought to challenge the Pell grants which go to students in church-related institutions of higher education. There is no difference in principle between those and elementary and secondary schools.

Senator PELL. Excuse me. Those grants go to the children, to the youngsters themselves.

Senator MOYNIHAN. The grants go to the individual. That is exactly so. And that is my testimony, sir. I simply wanted to come and to say that. I have one other general comment. I would like to draw your attention to the proposal for a National Periodical Center and commend it to you.

It is the kind of aid that higher education so much can use, and it is very small. It is the efficiency of the Federal Government providing a service like that which is unequalled and ought to be encouraged.

But it is to this matter that I wish to draw your attention and that of Senator Stafford and, of course, Senator Javits.

Senator PELL. Responding to your remarks, first to the National Periodical Center, that is going to be discussed at the White House Conference on Libraries. We await the benefit of their thoughts, and in that regard there is going to be a joint hearing immediately following the conference to receive the conference's recommendations.

As you know, it is somewhat controversial because of copyright provisions, and the industry is not all that enthusiastic for it. Senator MOYNIHAN. If the matter has engaged your attention, I am content.

Senator PELL. Thank you.

Now, with regard to your basic proposal, as you know, I recognize the need for help for private schools, the nonpublic school-Senator MOYNIHAN. You were emphatic in that respect.

Senator PELL [continuing]. And with the help of the subcommittee, the full committee, we reported out last year title XII, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments which gave a grant of one-half billion dollars to be assigned by the Commissioner of Education to the nonpublic schools.

We thought of this approach and discussed it with the committee members. To me, I liked the approach. The question is would it fly. Is there any other way of skinning the cat to help these youngsters in nonpublic schools and their families?

From a constitutional viewpoint-I am not a lawyer-but as you point out, the Court has often reversed itself, but my understanding of the Court as it is made up today leads me to believe that it would probably not smile benignly on this approach. I do not know. Do you have any thought on that, Senator Javits?

Senator JAVITS. If I may speak from here, I think Senator Moynihan is right. The courts have reversed themselves. Plussey is a very good example. There have been others. They may very well reverse themselves in this.

I think what he has advocated for a long time, and I think we should think about it very seriously so we do not have to put it up to the Court now if we are satisfied on the public policy involved.

So when we do get together as a subcommittee, I think what we ought to consider is, first, the public policy. If we are satisfied with the public policy, then it may be that I, too, would be willing to see it put up to the Court.

There is a considerable time lag, and indeed, this is a matter of real urgency. It is really, if I may just finish my thing-so I will do that, join with the subcommittee in that thinking and exploration. The other thing that appeals to me is that we have never been able to make this work. In terms of service, that is very regrettable. We have tried to often. We have kicked so many people in the tail, as the saying goes, to try to get them to do what title I expects them to do, and there may be an effort on that straw someway or another, notwithstanding that the local education agencies have this duty under the law that has not been effective, that somebody, somehow, somewhere is always dragging his feet and nothing really important happens.

Now, we have a new department. It may be that this gives us a new opportunity, but, again, this is something we should very seriously consider on the staff level.

Senator PELL. I think there are really three approaches. One is the approach of Senator Moynihan. Two would be the approach we passed out of the committee last time with the direct grants to be allocated by the Commissioner, and, three, I understand thought is being given for a loan program to parents of children in tuition changing schools.

All three of these approaches all seem to have merit. The question will arise also whether we should attach any to these to this bill, where the concern might not be germane to this legislation. Senator JAVITS. I think in fairness to Senator Moynihan, if we want to do it, we can find the bill.

Senator PELL. Or we can pass out a separate bill.

Senator Stafford?

Senator STAFFORD. I have no questions at this point.

Senator MoYNIHAN. I Wonder if the chairman would be kind enough to let me extend my remarks just a moment to confirm what Senator Javits said. The services approach has not succeeded. I was in the executive branch in 1964 at a time when Federal aid to education was stymied by this question, and it fell to me to