Mr. BRADEMAS. Not in depth.

Commissioner MARLAND. Very good. It was not the subject of today's testimony, that is why it was not in the written record.

It came up as a question about broader financial problems of which it is very much a part.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Then we are in agreement.

Commissioner MARLAND. Absolutely, and I hope we are in agreement on our attitude towards the history of great legislation which has come out of this committee, which I have testified to year after year, not as necessarily a part of the administration. But I still hold, where we reach the point, where these categories now being put togetherChairman PERKINS. Mr. Hansen.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I might say with all due respect to my good friend from Indiana, I think I do have a different pair of spectacles as I read and listen to the same testimony.

I would commend both of the witnesses for what I think is a very excellent statement, and a statement that does face up to the issues that we will have to deal with in the future.

Now, as I read your testimony, it is not so much an indictment of the categorical approach in past years, as it is a judgment that it is not going to work in the future in the same pattern that we have seen it in the past.

Now, I happen to be one of those who believe very strongly that the Federal support of education must increase.

I think the Serrano decision makes it very clear that we are going to have to undertake some basic changes in the support of education across this country, and the Federal role will have to increase, so the question then becomes through what kind of delivery system, through what kind of vehicle, through what kind of mechanism, can we channel the Federal resources into education, and obtain the best results. It seems to me, also, that one of the strengths of the revenue-sharing concept is that it preserves the principle of the local school which is threatened as more and more of the funds are channeled through complicated and complex redtape coming from the Federal Government to the local school district.

I think it is important that we retain that local identity which the flexibility implicit in revenue-sharing promises.

Let me ask two brief questions, if I have an opportunity within my time limit.

The first one is a followup of a question raised by my friend from California, Mr. Bell.

It is with respect to the effect on State departments. It was pointed out that it would not necessarily increase what was termed the bureaucracy at the State level.

Does this mean, on the other hand, that there will be wholesale termination, or shifting or transfers within the State educational organization?

Commissioner MARLAND. I would think not, Mr. Hansen, any more than there would be in the Office of Education.

It would mean the talented and competent professional people would be able to turn their energies to teaching and learning, as distinct from administration and paperwork. There should be certainly no termination of such people.

Their freedom from paperwork should be obtained, and they should be permitted to be truly professional people, Mr. Hansen.

Mr. HANSEN. You also spoke of full comparability on basic expenditures as a precondition of a State being eligible to receive funds.

Could you explain that in a little more detail, and talk about the kinds of standards and criteria that might be applied to meet the test of full comparability?

Commissioner MARLAND. I would be pleased to.

I think it may help to respond to Mr. Brademas' earlier charges, that comparability is unnecessary and unintended by the Office of

Education.

We felt that title I in all of its very important priority, its concerns, as a product of this Congress, should go to the children for whom it was intended, and that it be a sum of added money to that school district, devoted to the needs of those children qualifying.

This is what comparability means. We found throughout the country there were delinquencies in the ways in which the moneys appropriated by Congress, and the laws passed by Congress, were truly not always reaching the child intended, and that those moneys were either substituted for local moneys or moneys that were spent in other ways than intended.

I would ask Deputy Commissioner Mattheis to add his experience on that subject.

It is an important subject.

Dr. MATTHEIS. I think we have had many cases, Mr. Hansen, and members of the committee, where school districts have been spending unequal amounts of dollars for education of given children within a given school district.

What comparability does, is simply to start at a base line where an equal amount of dollars is spent on all of the children, and then add title I to the education programs, to give them a better program, a greater program.

There is one exclusion, which is with regard to salaries paid to teachers because of longevity. Including teachers' salaries, based on longevity. That would have provided for a compounding factor that would have been intolerable.

Comparability is simply a matter of trying to get equal dollars spent on children, and then adding title I funds to those programs, so they could have more of a program.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much.
Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Pucinski.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

This legislation before us now really does not offer the school districts across the country any immediate meaningful assistance to deal with the problems of keeping their schools open.

I would not want anyone to get the impression that it does somehow or other.

Commissioner MARLAND. Not at all. It was never intended to do

that.

Mr. PUCINSKI. The additional $200 million, that would be merely to beef up the existing categorical programs?

Commissioner MARLAND. Only to hold harmless in the event of a formula that could not precisely equate present levels. It is not intended to be an increase.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Now, Commissioner, the desegregation bill that is now bogged down in conference, and which we hope we will be able to get out of conference, as soon as we return, that is also a categorical aid bill, and that is not going to give them any free money?

Commissioner MARLAND. That is not categorical in the sense it will be implicit in revenue sharing. It is programmed money, where an individual community would present its case, and be awarded funds in terms of its planned program, therefore, it would not be appropriate to include it here under revenue sharing.

Mr. PUCINSKI. In your colloquy with the Chairman earlier, you indicated that the administration would have some suggestions, hopefully, very soon on some form of direct aid to the schools.

What form do you think that might take?

Commissioner MARLAND. I think it is premature to try to assess other administration initiatives on the question of school financing. We are not ready in terms of the extremely complex subject upon which we are engaged.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Are you aware of any discussions now being carried on, either in your shop, or in HEW, or in the high command of the White House, to impose upon the American people some Federal sales tax a value added tax-earmarked for education?

Commissioner MARLAND. I would not be in a position to know about that. Certainly there is nothing of that nature going on in the Office of Education.

Mr. PUCINSKI. But there is some discussion on some form of additional revenue raising machinery that the Federal Government will contribute to the local districts for education?

Commissioner MARLAND. I would not be in a position to know, Mr. Pucinski.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I would find this to be somewhat perplexing, and maybe Mr. Kurzman in HEW can give us some idea.

Surely, at this point there is going to be undoubtedly a program to be discussed by the President very shortly. There must be some preliminary discussion as to whether or not this administration is planning a Federal sales tax to pay for education.

Mr. KURZMAN. If there were discussions on any particular item, Mr. Pucinski, obviously we would not be able to discuss them.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I construe that answer to mean there is some discussion in that direction.

Mr. KURZMAN. There is discussion underway on a whole variety of matters.

Mr. PUCINSKI. What are some of the options being discussed?

We have a number of bills before this committee. The Chairman has introduced a number of bills. Mr. Quie, myself, every member of this committee has introduced various approaches to helping school districts deal with the problem. We have done this within the framework of the committee, looking upon this as a responsibility that would come out of some form of general revenue.

I am wondering whether or not there is some consideration being given now to setting up some new tax approach which would go to the Ways and Means Committee as a tax bill, to deal with this.

This is why I raise these questions, for a very, very valid reason. Mr. KURZMAN. I think your questions are valid, but I think our inability to discuss the matter is also valid.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Do you know then one of the alternatives or options being discussed is a value added tax for education?

Mr. KURZMAN. I just cannot confirm or deny it, because I am not involved in the subject.

Mr. PUCINSKI. But are discussions going on on the broad subject? Mr. KURZMAN. I earlier indicated there is considerable discussion going on by the administration as to what the program might be.

Chairman PERKINS. Now, I do not want you to make any inferences that the jurisdiction of this committee will be taken away. Are you doing that?

Mr. PUCINSKI. I am not only making the inference, but I am telling you the realities of life, and the realities of life are that I have reason to believe that there is going to be some effort made to propose some form of a new broad tax program such as an added value for services tax, or a national Federal sales tax for education, or some form of fund raising.

Chairman PERKINS. Let me say to my colleague, I am of the opinion that any proposals that the administration comes up with will be referred to this committee.

Mrs. GREEN. Perhaps that well is dry. We ought to start drilling some other place.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Most respectfully, Mr. Chairman, I think Senator Pucinski has hit a gusher.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I just want to make sure, as we proceed with these hearings, in this committee, to try to come up with a program, working with the administration, to help with the school districts of America, that we are not going to see the President-a great football strategist-come up with a new end run play and then come up with a new form of tax for education, which will go to some committee other than ours. That is the only reason I am asking these questions, simply because I want to make sure, as we move forward in a honest and sincere effort to find an answer to these questions, we are not spinning our wheels.

Dr. MARLAND. As I stated to the Chairman, we would welcome an opportunity to return at the earliest possible date, to share whatever the administration developments would be, and we hope it will be soon. Mr. RUTH. Will the gentleman yield?

I have the privilege of serving on Mr. Pucinski's Subcommittee, and on occasion he said, "I will let you know my plans when I am ready," and I think the least you can do is give the President of the United States the same prerogative.

Mr. PUCINSKI. The Catholic Bishop's Conference criticized the special revenue sharing bill as weak in its provisions regarding the participation of private school districts.

What is the plan within this program to give these youngsters some fair share of participation? There are 7 million children attending church related schools, or parochial schools in this country, and it seems to me the concern of the bishops is a valid one.

Mr. KURZMAN. It certainly is, Mr. Pucinski, and in fact, section 7 of the bill is entitled "Participation of Non-Public School Children." It requires that the State agency administering special revenue sharing must provide the children involved in nonprofit private elementary or secondary schools the opportunity to participate on an

equitable basis in programs for which funds are made available under various sections of this bill.

It further provides that if the Secretary determines that provisions of State law prevent any State agency from complying with that Subsection (a), the Secretary shall, if he finds the State is otherwise eligible to participate in this program, permit such State to participate. He shall arrange, by contract or otherwise, for children enrolled in the nonprofit private elementary and secondary schools to receive services provided from the funds made available under those other sections to public school children within such State.

Mr. PUCINSKI. In the testimony before the Senate Education Committee, it was asserted that if the formula in this bill had been in effect during fiscal year 1972, there would have been a cut of 31 percent or $176 million in the amount spent on vocational education. Now, I know you have spoken out time and time again in support of vocational education.

I understand that you had a tremendous reception at the AVA convention for your remarks there on career education and I am just wondering, is this correct, is this formula going to reduce vocational educational expenditures?

Commissioner MARLAND. I do not know what the source of those figures might be you just quoted, Mr. Pucinski, but they are not consistent with the purpose of this proposed law.

The funds going to vocational education, and career education, as you will recall, are precisely the same as they would be under existing legislation.

Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Ruth.

Mr. RUTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I notice the questions are longer than the answers, and I would like to yield my 5 minutes to the witnesses in case they need the time to answer some of the questions.

Chairman PERKINS. Mrs. Hicks.

Mrs. HICKS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly want to associate myself with Congresswoman Green with regard to her concerns relative to this measure, and the question that I would like to pose to the Commissioner and to Dr. Kurzman, would be, do you contemplate that in turning over to the States the money that they could in any way impose a matching requirement on the local agencies?

Commissioner MARLAND. Not under this bill.

Of course, they would be free to exercise State legislation affecting finance, but in terms of the distribution of these moneys, our bill makes it quite clear, I believe, that there are no opportunities for the State to hold in jeopardy the intent of those funds.

Now, the States increasingly must be raising their own resources, as was cited by Mr. Brademas earlier.

Many States contribute a relatively modest proportion of the cost of elementary and secondary education, and the trend would be exactly the opposite way, Mrs. Hicks, from that of presuming an increased local effort.

Mrs. HICKS. I was concerned regarding the decision in that case in California.