In conclusion, I would urge you to concentrate on the most urgent problem. That problem is the critical teacher supply situation in these fields. Let's target our limited dollars there so we will get a maximum return. And let's look for results as quickly as possible. We must increase our pool of qualified teachers. Only with additional qualified teachers in mathematics and science can school boards raise local graduation requirements and enable the Nation to maintain its technological edge.

Thank you, Mr. Chairmen, for this opportunity to express my views to

this Committee.

Senator STAFFORD. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. I do have a couple of questions. Before I begin them, though, I am very happy that Senator Denton, a valued member of the committee has joined us this morning.

Senator Denton, do you have any opening statement you wish to

make?

Senator DENTON. No, Mr. Chairman. I want to acknowledge your expertise, leadership, and initiative in this area, and greet my friend Secretary Bell, whom I have admired for quite some time. I am just developing the understanding that yours and his initiative would be a good bit broader than the rather, I would say, hastily contrived, but well intended administration bill. Is that generally an accurate statement?

Senator STAFFORD. Well, the Chair is not prepared to characterize any of the bills in front of the committee thus far. And the Chair would say to Secretary Bell that Senator Pell and I intend to work out a chart showing the salient features of all of the bills that have been placed in front of us and what they cost. And then we hope to work out from that as a basis what we would recommend to this subcommittee and eventually to the full committee, if the subcommittee agrees, as a bill to strengthen mathematics, science, and languages.

Senator DENTON. If the gentleman would yield, the question addressed whether or not the Secretary did not support your broader based bill. Would you mind my asking him that?

Senator STAFFORD. Well, I would prefer to get the questions in order, but I will certainly allow that one because I expect the Secretary, as a good secretary, is supporting the administration.

Senator DENTON. I have a Veterans' Administration meeting; that is the reason I appreciate the privilege of asking questions because I am going to have to leave.

Secretary BELL. We feel that the bill that you were referring to, Senator Denton, ought to concentrate more of its resources on the retraining of teachers who are not now teaching in mathematics and science areas, but that we think could be prepared to do so within a shorter time, if we would concentrate our funds in that

area.

Secretary DENTON. All right. Thank you. I did not mean to interrupt, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for that opportunity.

Senator STAFFORD. Thank you very much, Senator.

Senator Kennedy, we are very pleased you are here this morning.

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; if you would be good enough to include my opening statement at an appropriate place in the record, as if read, I would appreciate it.

Senator STAFFORD. The subcommittee certainly will do that, immediately after those of Senator Pell, Senator Hatch, and myself. Senator KENNEDY. Fine. And I apologize to Secretary Bell for not being here during his presentation and welcome him back. I think the last time he was here I said this will probably be the last time he would be before the committee, but we are particularly fortunate to have him back.

Welcome. I hope you keep coming back.

Secretary BELL. Thank you, Senator, and I am pleased to be here, and it is a pleasure to appear before you.

Senator KENNEDY. Are we into the question period?

Senator STAFFORD. I was just about to start them and stay on a 5minute rotation basis, if that is agreeable.

Senator KENNEDY. That is fine.

Senator STAFFORD. Being from New England, I always try to be short winded on these things. [Laughter.]

Mr. Secretary, in thinking about the bill that Senator Pell and I have introduced and some of the others that were described yesterday and are in front of the committee, my first question involves what I perceive to be a weakness in my own bill.

And that if we are successful in creating a substantial increase in the number of teachers for science, mathematics, and languages, how do we keep them in those teaching posts after we have succeeded in producing them? That seems to be a worry that has occurred to me.

Secretary BELL. That is a very critical question, and as I respond to that, I think I will provide some opportunities for my colleagues from NEA and AFT to respond.

I feel that our approach to compensating teachers needs to be modified by school boards. I have been urging that we have a good basic structure with a single salary schedule, but that we ought to be providing opportunities for teachers to gain distinction and recognition beyond that. I think until we do that, we are not going to be able to cope with the problem of attrition for teachers.

Now, I would readily emphasize that the basic salary schedule is too low, but whatever the level is, I think on top of that we ought to have some flexibility that can help to cope with this problem. Until we have that, until we have some changes in the way that we approach this problem, I think are going to continue to have this erosion of teacher supply.

I am aware of the difficulties and the problems that can be created if you start building into the salary structure that certain persons teaching in certain subject matter areas get more compensation. But for the 5 years I had before I came to this job, I was commissioner of higher education with a statewide higher education system. And we found it necessary to pay engineering professors

and professors in medical school and others more money because the marketplace simply would not let them remain there if we did not.

And I think we need to work out some flexibility in that regard, although first of all, we ought to greatly increase the salary schedule because we are simply not paying all of the teachers enough. Senator STAFFORD. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. All of our witnesses before the subcommittee on this issue have indicated that a comprehensive Federal approach is absolutely essential to deal with the many problems of mathematics and science education.

The administration's proposal for the Department of Education would provide $50 million, as you pointed out, for increasing the number and skills of teachers. Do you feel that this is sufficient as far as the Federal initiative is concerned?

Are there other activities the Federal Government might undertake to address these problems?

Secretary BELL. Yes. Well, in addition to that, we have the initiative in the National Science Foundation, but if you added both of them up, you would not come to a dollar commitment, I would freely admit, that is related to any of the bills that we are discussing.

I would explain, Mr. Chairman, that the problem that I faced in fashioning this bill is that I had to work within a certain budget allowance. And I had to consider what the impact would be if I put more money into this and had a broader based program on student aid, aid for disadvantaged children or for the handicapped, and so

on.

In addition to that, we get to the philosophical question about what is the appropriate Federal role and what is the State and local responsibility. And we feel that the primary responsibility still remains with the State and local entities. Now, let me hasten to say that I know they are as hard strapped for funds as we are. But we felt, given the fact that all the money we could afford right now for this program was $50 million, that we ought to have the rifle shot approach.

And that is why we are proposing to target all of our resources on the teacher supply, teacher scholarship situation. And if I were to point out any deficiency in the other bills, I would say that they do not concentrate, even with more money, they do not concentrate as much money there as our much more limited bill does.

Senator STAFFORD. Thank you very much. I think the Chair will observe that we think you did very well in working through OMB and the administration to come up with $13.1 billion overall against about the $10 billion level that you had a year ago. And while this committee may not think 13.1 is enough, we do want to recognize the fact you really did a very persuasive job in getting the administration to come that high.

Secretary BELL. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We need to give the President credit because he made the ultimate decision that we would not come forward at this time and propose cuts in student aid and aid to the disadvantaged and handicapped, those priority

areas.

And I want to say before the committee that President Reagan was very supportive of me in the budget deliberations. I want to express my appreciation to him. It was not easy for him, Mr. Chairman, to come forward with a proposal for another Federal aid to education bill in face of all of the deficit problems that we are facing. It also shows where his priority is.

And I appreciated Senator Pell quoting from his state of the Union message on this.

Senator STAFFORD. Thank you. One more question and I will yield.

It is my understanding, Mr. Secretary, that you may be considering the possible transfer of a portion of your discretionary fund under the chapter II bloc grant to the Department of Defense.

Could you tell us if this is true, and if so, for what purpose should this be done?

This Senator, who believes our education budget is extremely slim, relative to the defense budget, would look with considerable disfavor, frankly, upon such a transfer. If you are considering doing this, could not your purpose be served within the confines of the Department of Defense budget itself?

Secretary BELL. Mr. Chairman, I have not given any consideration to transferring any of my funds anywhere. We are so hard pressed where we are with our resources. Apparently some member of my staff has been discussing that with someone besides the Secretary. There has been no such proposal put before me. And when it comes, it will be viewed with a very skeptical eye. We have so much demand on that discretionary fund that there is no discretion left in it. I cannot see where we would have any resources to send over to Cap Weinberger's department.

Senator STAFFORD. Well, that is a reassuring answer, Mr. Secretary. And I thank you.

Senator Pell, do you have questions?

Senator PELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I apologize for not being here to get the full benefit of your testimony. I will read it in the record. But we had another hearing down the hall in the Foreign Relations Committee.

In light of the situation we face in foreign language instruction, I was wondering why the administration called for the elimination of all Federal funding for international education and foreign language studies in fiscal 1984?

Secretary BELL. Yes. With the budget constraints that we had, I set out from the outset, Senator Pell, not to come before you with a proposed cut in student aid, not to come before you with a cut in education for the disadvantaged and for the handicapped, and as we related to these priorities, we made some painful choices.

Within the budget constraints that I operated under, I simply felt that the priorities were higher in other areas. Now, that is not to downgrade foreign language instruction, which I know is a great concern to many, but I felt within the constraints of the $13.1 billion budget I had to make some hard choices. This was one of them.

I would emphasize, Senator, that we propose and you dispose. And you may not agree with my priorities, but we hope you will

agree with the total dollar amount so we can hold that deficit down.

But if you do not do that, then there may be areas where you would fund differently than I would, even within the limits of the budget that we have had.

Senator PELL. As I said earlier in my opening statement, I think we are very lucky, those of us who believe in education, that you are fighting the battle for education as well as you do.

Secretary BELL. Thank you.

Senator PELL. I know that you are doing your best. You have been quoted as saying that we must consider setting new maximum competency goals by students and our citizens of enhanced math, science, and computer literacy.

How would you define these standards? How would we get to them? I have noticed that in general education communities seem to dislike the idea of tests and performance checks. I agree with you in this.

Secretary BELL. Yes. I feel that we have been concentrating unduly on minimum competency examinations. I agree with the concern that we can have too much testing. As important as it is to have evaluation, it can surely be overdone.

I feel that we need more challenge for our gifted and talented and for even the midrange in ability student than we now have. So I have been emphasizing wherever I have had the opportunity to have the podium before education groups, that we need to not abandon our commitment to the disadvantaged and the handicapped.

Surely, with all the progress that we have made in that area, we need to hang in there and continue to make more. But on top of that, we need to be challenging, the able students more. And that was the point I was trying to make when I criticized minimum competency examinations. I think we need education that challenges every student to the full limits of their ability.

And I feel that if we do not do that in this highly competitive world, that we are not going to be serving our Nation as well as we

should.

Senator PELL. Thank you very much.

Senator STAFFORD. Thank you, Senator Pell.

Senator Denton.

Senator DENTON. First, I want to defer to my colleagues here in terms of their senatorial experience and, I think, devotion to duty in the educational field. I do not challenge that, nor do I try to pretend that I have similar expertise. In 34 years in the Navy, however, about a third of it was actually spent in school as a professor teaching or involved with my seven children's education in a private capacity. So I do have about 7 years of ongoing involvement in education.

I wanted to correct any misimpression that might have been derived from my original remarks. I do think that we have to keep in mind-and I know that colleagues at the table here disagree with me on this-that we may have a crisis in the first mandate assigned Government, that is, provide for the common defense, and to promote the general welfare, which was mentioned second, and with a less active verb, if you will, promote rather than provide;