Muskie Congressional Record: SCR 43 Roth 2

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE

September 9, 1977

Page 28466

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I oppose the amendment of the Senator from Delaware and, in due course, when we both use what time we want, I will move to table the amendment.

My argument is as much addressed to that procedure as it is to the substance of the amendment.

The effect of the amendment offered by the Senator from Delaware (Mr. ROTH) would reduce the budget resolution revenue floor by $175 million to accommodate enactment of a college tuition tax credit.

It is inappropriate, Mr. President, as a matter of procedure for the budget resolution to be a vehicle for expressing Senate approval of individual tax provisions, such as the tuition tax credit, which have not been previously considered by the appropriate substantive Senate committees. Otherwise, the budget resolution will be fulfilling a function of a forum for evaluating individual structural tax proposals — a role it clearly was not intended to fill.

There is, as the record discloses, considerable controversy over the merits of a college tuition tax credit. The administration opposes it: both the Treasury Department and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare oppose it. A significant segment of the higher education community also opposes it. In these circumstances, the credit should be given close Senate scrutiny before it is assumed as part of the congressional budget. However, this close scrutiny has not been given to the credit.

The amendment should be rejected because the credit would result in extremely high, long term revenue losses and increased budget deficits. The $175 million first year cost is only the camel's nose under the Treasury's tent. The version of the credit introduced earlier this year by Senator ROTH would lose $1.1 billion in the first full year, and over $2 billion annually when it is fully phased in. Now these estimates assume only a maximum credit of $500 per qualifying student, as provided in the current version of the bill. However, Mr. President, $500 does not go very far any more in paying for college tuition and expenses. Thus, if the credit were enacted, once the principle is a matter of law, you can be sure subsequent efforts would be made to enlarge the credit to $750, $1,000 or even more. Thus, the ultimate annual cost of the credit will be extremely high at a time when the Congress may well be trying to pay for numerous highly attractive but costly programs such as National Health Insurance.

Moreover, these high revenue losses would result from a tax credit which would constitute inappropriate tax policy and inefficient education policy. The credit would constitute inappropriate tax policy because it would complicate the tax forms of large numbers of taxpayers at a time when the Congress has made tax simplification a major priority of tax legislation. The credit also would be relatively difficult to enforce and administer in terms of the relatively low maximum benefit available to each recipient.

A college tuition tax credit, Mr. President, also would constitute inefficient education policy. Federal grant and loan programs more effectively deal with increasing tuition costs than a tax credit because such programs target relief to the specific needs of particular families. On the other hand, the tax credit approach would provide the same benefits to families regardless of income or actual education expenses. Wealthy families would get the same credit as low income taxpayers. Families with children in already subsidized State and local public colleges would get the same credit as families with children in more costly private institutions. The credit would rarely constitute the financial assistance necessary to allow a student to attend college.

Furthermore, Mr. President, to a substantial extent, a widely available tax credit would enable colleges to raise tuition rates. This would nullify the benefits of the credit to families and students. And in the case of persons not qualifying for the credit, it even would raise their education costs.

Mr. President, for all the reasons I have mentioned briefly — inconsistency with the intent of the budget process, high cost, and inefficiency — I urge the Senate to reject the Roth amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.

Mr. MUSKIE. Two more minutes, Mr. President.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I have received a letter from the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare dated September 9, 1977, in which he stresses at somewhat greater length the points I have made. If I may, for example, read from one paragraph, he says:

There is no question that college costs are rising and that many families must make hard choices to finance college education. Reduction in a family's standard of living or increased borrowing is often necessary to meet educational expenses. However, there are many combinations of grant and loan programs which would deal with that problem better and more fairly than a program of tuition tax credits, by distributing assistance according to the severity of the particular family's problem. For example, a highly paid professional sending his child to a low tuition community college would get as large a benefit under some proposals as a blue collar worker sending his child to an expensive private college with no other aid. A family with income so low that it pays no tax would receive no aid at all. The "solution" proposed by such legislation badly matches the problem.

He then says:

A tuition tax program would be a radical departure from policies underlying present direct Federal expenditures for education. Two factors presently determine the amount of aid a student receives from Office of Education programs: the family's ability to pay, and the cost of the chosen college. When ability to pay is subtracted from cost, we have need, and in this sense all the Office of Education programs are need based. Perhaps, as some argue, different ways of determining need should be considered, or assignment of responsibility for meeting need among different programs could be improved. I cannot, however, imagine endorsing a student grant program which would completely discard need as a relevant factor in the manner of some tuition credit proposals.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the letter be printed at this point in the RECORD, and I am happy to yield my good friend from Massachusetts, Senator KENNEDY.

There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,

Washington, D.C.,

September 9, 1977.

Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,

Chairman,

Committee on Budget,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: You have inquired with respect to the use of tuition tax credits to provide aid to families with college age students.

This, of course, implies an answer to your question regarding whether such a program would target Federal funds to those who need assistance. Such grants would have little relationship to need because almost all students, even those attending low tuition public institutions, incur sufficient tuition charges and other expenses to be eligible for the maximum credit. A reduction in the allowable credit would occur only where the student received grant or scholarship assistance, and, since today most grants and scholarships are awarded on the basis of need, such a reduction would almost always result from receipt of a need based grant or scholarship.

A direct targeted grant program in which both family ability to pay and costs of attendance determine the amount of the student's grant is a desirable way of equalizing educational opportunities, and is highly complementary to loan programs. However, for many of the upper middle income families which would likely benefit from a grant program such as a tax credit proposal, I suspect a loan program would be preferable. What they need most is to spread college costs over an extended number of years, as is currently done under the Guaranteed Student Loan program. I think most of these families, when faced with large college costs in a particular year, would prefer a $2,500 long term 7 percent loan to a $250 to $500 grant. Where the issue is not ability to pay, but convenience, I believe the loan alternative becomes the more desirable.

The distribution of benefits under a grant program patterned after some proposals would appear to be inequitable among income groups. Benefits would be largely the same, despite differences not only in college costs, but also in income. We estimate that at least 60 percent of tax credit benefits would probably go to families with incomes of $18,000 or more — which are considerably better off than the national average. Further, only 30 percent of the benefits would go to families sending children to private colleges, although they have almost 60 percent of the financial need of all families likely to benefit from the credit.

A tuition tax program would be a radical departure from policies underlying present direct Federal expenditures for education. Two factors presently determine the amount of aid a student receives from Office of Education programs: the family's ability to pay,and the cost of the chosen college. When ability to pay is subtracted from cost, we have need, and in this sense all the Office of Education programs are need based. Perhaps, as some argue, different ways of determining need should be considered, or assignment of responsibility for meeting need among different programs could be improved. I cannot, however, imagine endorsing a student grant program which would completely discard need as a relevant factor in the manner of some tuition credit proposals.

Sincerely,

JOSEPH A. CALIFANO, Jr.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes remaining.

Mr. MUSKIE. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support the position of the Senator from Maine.

This proposal is unwise tax policy, and it is unwise education policy, and I hope that the Senate will not approve it.

If we examine this amendment and calculate the cumulative cost of the amendment by 1982, we would find it to be in excess of $9 billion. Here we are at 2:15 p.m., with three Members of the U.S.Senate talking about an amendment of reducing tax revenues by $9 billion.

It is extraordinary to me, as one who has been struggling in the areas of education, health, housing, legal service programs, programs for the elderly, and other major social programs, that when we come to the floor and ask for $5 million or $7 million or $10 million, many in this body immediately react that we are breaking the budget and adding to the deficit. They look at any direct appropriation with a microscope. However, when it comes to tax expenditures, the door of the Treasury is wide open.

It is interesting, as the Senator from Maine has pointed out, that many of the leading educational groups — the National Student Lobby, the Coalition of Independent College and University Students, the American Council of Education and other education groups, as well as the students themselves, are strongly opposed to this amendment. As the Senator from Maine has pointed out, they see what the likely prospects are — if we provide across-the-board tax credits, it will follow, as the night follows the day, that the universities and colleges will raise their tuition fees by enough to absorb the tax credit. If this amendment is successful, the credit will be captured by the colleges and universities.

Those who hope to benefit from this tax credit would no longer obtain any benefit, and those who would not benefit — the low income students — would have an additional burden to meet because their colleges have raised their tuition costs.

The Education Subcommittee on which I serve has examined in considerable detail the whole range of scholarship and loan programs, the work study programs and the educational opportunity programs. These programs make an extraordinary difference for the young people. In my State of Massachusetts, approximately 60 percent of the students who attend community colleges and institutions of higher education are dependent in some form on scholarship or aid programs. Those programs are absolutely indispensable. They are absolutely necessary. And they are targeted upon the needs of the students whose need is greatest.

We are talking about billions of dollars in this amendment. It would make a great deal more sense, as the students understand and as their organizations have expressed, to target those resources on areas where the need is the greatest and where the benefit can be most substantial.

Mr. President, the amendment is premature. The administration's comprehensive tax reform proposals are scheduled to be submitted to Congress later this month. The debate over the college tuition tax credit belongs in the debates on tax reform. A major goal of tax reform is to reduce the number of tax deductions and tax credits, and to use the savings to pay for across-the-board tax relief for all taxpayers, not just those with children in colleges. A tuition tax credit violates the goals of fairness, simplicity, and efficiency.

There are serious objections against the credit on the merits: First, a direct subsidy is preferable to a tax subsidy in this area. Federal grant and loan programs are better able to deal with the rising burden of college education costs, because such programs can target the relief to the specific needs of particular families.

Second, the tax credit is inequitable. It gives the same benefits to families, regardless of income, need or education expenses.

Families with incomes too low to pay taxes get no benefit at all, since the credit is not refundable.

Even for upper middle income families, a long term loan would be preferable to the tax credit, because the full college costs would be spread over several years.

The benefits of the tax credit would be distributed unfairly among income groups, with 60 percent of the benefits going to families with incomes over $18,000 a year.

The benefits of the tax credit would also be distributed unfairly on the basis of college costs. Only 30 percent of the benefits would go to families with children in private colleges, although they have 60 percent of the financial need of families benefiting from the tax credit.

Third, the tax credit is inflationary. As I have mentioned, colleges will "capture" the subsidy through $250 tuition increases. Colleges are unable to do so now, with existing programs, because the direct Federal subsidies are targeted to the smaller group of needy students, and tuition cannot be raised without driving away unsubsidized students. But it is estimated that 77 percent of all students would be subsidized by the tuition credit, so colleges will find it easier to have across-the-board tuition increases.

Fourth, the tax credit is complex. It puts IRS in the education business; adds complexity to the tax laws, and it adds another layer of bureaucracy to education programs.

Fifth, as I have mentioned, college costs are not rising as rapidly as income.

Recent studies by the College Scholarship Service and the College Entrance Examination Board show that the problem is easing, with college cost inflation rates down and student aid up. For 1977-78, college inflation is estimated at 4.3 percent, compared to 7.5 percent last year, 8.8 percent the year before, and 17.3 percent in 1973-74.

In addition, scholarship money is now increasing more rapidly than college costs — 11 percent this year, and 12 percent last year. Since enrollments are down, there is more aid money to spread among fewer students.

In fact, in recent years, incomes have been growing at a more rapid rate than education costs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the median family income grew by 73 percent from 1968 to 1975, but college costs grew by only 57 percent. The need for the tax credit is declining as family income goes up.

For these reasons, Mr. President, I believe that adoption of the credit would be a serious step in the wrong direction, and a waste of scarce Federal education dollars that could be better used in other ways.

The Senator from Delaware points out that this is an amendment whose time is due. I think it is an amendment whose time has passed, if its time ever existed.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.

Mr. MUSKIE. I yield the Senator 1 additional minute.

Mr. KENNEDY. There is no question that many families in this country are heavily pressed in trying to provide their children with the opportunity to obtain a higher education. But if we are going to provide this large amount of Federal subsidy, it should be directed in ways which are fair and equitable to the students and to the families — to the lowest income families, to the middle income families, and to the other young people of this country. This amendment does not meet that test.

The President has announced that he is going to send an extensive tax reform program to this body in the next few weeks. We will be debating tax expenditures and tax reforms extensively, I am sure, in the early and mid part of next year. It is appropriate that we have the opportunity to debate this issue at that time. This is neither the place nor the time for favorable consideration of this amendment. I join the Senator from Maine in opposing the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD an exchange of letters on this issue between Secretary Califano of HEW and myself earlier this year. In his letter, the Secretary raised a number of these objections to the tax credit and called it a radical departure from Federal education policy.

There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

U.S. SENATE,

Washington, D.C.,

March 8,1977.

Hon. JOSEPH A CALIFANO, Jr.,

Secretary,

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: I am writing to request your Department's analysis of the proposed tuition tax credit for education expenses. As you know, this proposal was passed by Senate last year in its consideration of the Tax Reform Act of 1976. Although the provision was dropped by the Senate-House Conference Committee, there is a continuing interest in the proposal, and it may well be offered as a rider on the Senate floor to the Administration's tax bill.

I believe that it is important for the proposed tax credit to be analyzed as a Federal education program. I would therefore appreciate receiving your comments on the measure, viewing it as a Federal program to provide financial assistance for education. It would be helpful if your analysis could recast the proposed tax credit as a direct federal grant program, equivalent to the tax expenditure, and then address such questions as:

Is there an overall need for the program? Are the federal funds targeted to the persons that need federal assistance?

Is the form of the program — direct grants — more desirable than other forms of aid, such as loans?

Is the distribution of the benefits equitable among income groups?

Would the proposed program be consistent with the policies underlying the benefits provided by existing direct federal expenditures for education?

In sum, I would like your view as to whether the Department would support the education program contained in the proposed tax credit if it had been proposed as a direct program to be administered by HEW.

Unfortunately, there is some urgency to the proposal, since it may be offered as a rider to the tax bill coming soon to the Senate floor.

With best wishes, and I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

EDWARD M. KENNEDY.

THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,

Washington, D.C.,

March 31, 1977.

Hon. EDWARD M. KENNEDY,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR KENNEDY: I am writing in response to your request for an analysis of proposals for the use of tuition tax credits to provide aid to families with college age students.

There is no question but that college costs are rising and that many families must make hard choices to finance a college education. Reduction in the family's standard of living or increased borrowing is often necessary to meet educational expenses. However, there are many combinations of grant and loan programs which would deal with that problem better and more fairly than a program of tuition tax credits, by distributing assistance according to the severity of the particular family's problem. For example, a highly paid professional sending his child to a low tuition community college would get as large a benefit under some proposals as a blue collar worker sending his child to an expensive private college with no other aid. A family with income so low that it pays no tax would receive no aid at all. The "solution" proposed by such legislation badly matches the problem.

A direct, targeted grant program in which both family ability to pay and costs of attendance determine the amount of the student's grant is a desirable way of equalizing educational opportunities, and is highly complementary to loan programs. However, for many of the upper middle income families which would likely benefit from a grant program such as the tax credit proposal, I suspect a loan program would be preferable. What they need most is to spread college costs over an extended number of years, as is currently done under the Guaranteed Student Loan program. I think most of these families, when faced with large college costs in a particular year, would prefer a $2,500 long term 7 percent loan to a $250 to $500 grant. Where the issue is not ability to pay, but convenience, I believe the loan alternative becomes the more desirable.

You ask whether the proposed program would be consistent with policies underlying present direct Federal expenditures for education. It would be a radical departure. Two factors presently determine the amount of aid a student receives from Office of Education progams: the family's ability to pay, and the cost of the chosen college. When ability to pay is subtracted from cost, we have need, and in this sense all the Office of Education programs are need based. Perhaps, as some argue, different ways of determining need should be considered, or assignment of responsibility for meeting need among different programs could be improved. I cannot, however, imagine endorsing a student grant program which would completely discard need as a relevant factor in the manner of some tuition credit proposals.

Sincerely,

JOSEPH A. CALIFANO, Jr.

Mr. JAVITS and Mr. JOHNSTON addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 1 minute?

Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I am rather pleased that I arrived in the Chamber at this particular moment.

I should like to express my agreement with Senator KENNEDY. I am the ranking minority member of the committee which deals with education, and I support very strongly our conclusions.

If there is one thing we have not learned adequately in this country as compared with other societies, it is how to deal with the need of the 15 percent. That is one thing we have not yet licked. The big things they consider vital to them are equal opportunity and education. Now we have a big agitation about merit as to earning scholarships, and so forth.

It seems to me that to go this route is very attractive. Most of my constituents love it. My mail is enormous. But I know it is not right for America. It is regrettable, but I feel, therefore, that I shall vote against the amendment.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Delaware yield me 4 minutes?

Mr. ROTH. I yield.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the distinguished Senator from Delaware. I congratulate him for his leadership in this area. I am happy to join him as a coauthor.

Before I begin my remarks, I ask this question of the Senator from Maine: Did not this question come up in the Budget Committee, and did I not ask, as I recall, whether or not there was room in the resolution as drawn for $175 million for the tax credits?

Mr. MUSKIE. I checked my recollection against that of the staff. The question came up but there was no specific amendment presented, no specific proposal or addition to the second resolution to assume it. Of course, the pending amendment of Senator ROTH assumes that there is not room in the budget resolution for this program.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I do not state that as a matter of facts. I am drawing on my recollection.

I wish the staff, in the interim, would check the transcript, because either in the first or second resolution I raised the question. I believe I raised the question and the response was, there was room in the numbers as drawn for this amendment. I could be mistaken. I think the transcript will bear out what I have said. I wish the staff would check that, and perhaps it can be inserted in the

RECORD on Monday.

Mr. MUSKIE. Whatever the record may be, if it is as the Senator remembers it, that is something different from a Budget Committee recommendation. The Budget Committee, as the Senator knows as a member of the committee, does not specifically approve individual items either in the revenue programs or the spending programs. We deal with appropriation bills or revenue bills that come to the floor as they do, and we measure them against the budget as the budget may stand at that moment. So there is no way of assuring Senators what the ultimate composition of the Internal Revenue Code will be at the end of a fiscal year based simply upon the numbers in the budget resolution.

What Senator ROTH had available as choices were two: One was to try to get his proposal included in a revenue measure, a tax measure, and take his chances that that would somehow be accommodated under the budget resolution without the specific approval of the budget resolution; or two, what he is doing this afternoon, which is to modify the budget resolution to specifically endorse his proposal.

He has chosen the second course, and that course is not supported by any action taken by the Budget Committee.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I understand that and, of course, I recall there was no specific amendment on it, but I thought I did recall some conversation on it.

Let me ask one question, if I may, and since my time is so limited get a brief answer, if I may. Is there room in the budget at this time for the $175 million?

Mr. MUSKIE. When one is talking about an overall revenue floor of $395 billion to say that an item of $0.175 billion could or could not be accommodated when the Committee on Finance has completed its work on the tax code is a pretty ambiguous question. I mean it may be, and that is where I would recommend to Senator ROTH that he take his proposal to the Committee on Finance which will be considering major tax reform legislation and which, presumably, also would include recommendations for tax cuts. If he can persuade them to fit it into their revenue proposals, that is one thing.

But to come to the floor and ask the Senate in a budget resolution to specifically endorse this so that the Committee on Finance would have no choice but to include it is another proposal.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 4 minutes of the Senator from Louisiana have expired.

Mr. ROTH. How much time do I have, Mr. President?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware has 3 minutes remaining of debate time on the amendment, and the Senator from Maine has 1 minute remaining.

Mr. ROTH. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the distinguished Senator from Delaware.

Mr. President, the Senator from Delaware has correctly said this is an amendment whose time has come. I think that is so transparently true from the action of the House by voting 311 to 76, and it is supposed to be the body which is closest to the American people, and that kind of margin, I think, shows beyond any peradventure of doubt that the House is for it.

The Senate has voted for this measure in votes of 68 to 20 and 62 to 21 on two different occasions, and those votes are reflective of the broad feeling in this land that average Americans, middle class Americans, need relief from college tuition.

You do not have to be an economist to know that college tuitions are rising, and rising exorbitantly and beyond the rate of inflation, and that average Americans are eaten up by tuition.

The average Americans save all their lives to try to put their children through school, but they still have to go into debt. With all the money we spend, Mr. President, for all kinds of programs, be they social programs for the poor, which I support, and I supported the distinguished chairman of this committee on the last vote, or whether they be tax write-offs for foreign corporations or for oil companies or for anybody, we spend billions.

It is time we took a measly little $175 million to give some beginning of tax relief to people for tuition. The American people want it, the House wants it, and the Senate wants it.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? If we can do it for $175 million I will support the amendment.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, all this does is to reduce that level by $175 million. I am quite sure it would be more than that by the time we end up with it, and it ought to be. But in a budget of the size we have here it ought to be. There is no purpose in this Government which, in my view, has any higher priority than some relief from tuition for the middle class in this country.

We have helped everybody else. Every session of the Senate we come along with things for the poor and things for the rich, and it is just about time we helped middle class people on tuition, and that is the most worthy goal I think we can get, the education of the youth of this country, and the relief in some small measure for middle class people.

Mr. President, I think this is one of the best measures in the Senate before us this entire year, and I think the vote is and ought to be corresponding to what it has been before, overwhelming, and this is the year to pass this legislation.

I thank the distinguished Senator from Delaware.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Louisiana has expired.

Who yields time? The Senator from Maine has 1 minute remaining.

Mr. MUSKIE. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I just had a 15 second question.

Mr. MUSKIE. I will take the question.

Mr. KENNEDY. Am I not correct that if this amendment is adopted, by 1982 the cost in terms of tax expenditures will be approximately $9 billion?

Mr. MUSKIE. That is assuming the credit stays at $500, and the prospects are it would rise above it, but the Senator is correct, $9 billion.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.

Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I wanted to simply raise the point that this is not the proper place to take up an amendment of this kind. It should be considered in the context of the fiscal year 1979 budget as part of our forthcoming tax reform legislation.

I, perhaps, could support the amendment at that time. However, I strongly oppose its inclusion in the budget resolution for 1978.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, as soon as all time has expired I will move to table the amendment of the Senator from Delaware. The Senator has another minute.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.

Mr. ROTH. I just want to point out that all the arguments we are hearing today are the same old arguments that have been made year in and year out. What it amounts to is no tax relief for middle America.

Time and again there appear articles in the newspapers spelling out the fact that middle Americans are the only ones who cannot afford to send their children to college. Just last week it was pointed out in Newsweek that—

Families are making similar sacrifices to pay for the other item of middle class life, college.

Going way back in our history, the notion of the educated man has been almost synonymous with the middle class families. But middle class families — too affluent for financial aid but too poor to afford many colleges without it — are often being squeezed out of the educational market.

In closing, I just want to say it is about time that this Senate and this Congress listened to the demands of the middle class working people. They want the opportunity, they want the right, to send their children to college, and that is what I intend to support.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at that point?

Mr. ROTH. I yield.

Mr. LONG. Permit me to say that while I do not like this approach, I must recognize the fact that the Senate has addressed itself strongly in favor of the type of thing the Senator from Delaware is trying to do. It did it in connection with the tax reform bill, and it is clear that, when offered the opportunity to vote fairly on the merits, this is the kind of thing the Senate would like to do.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Delaware on the amendment has expired.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I think I have a few seconds remaining.

That being the case I yield back whatever time remains to me, and I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays on the motion to table have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.

Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Chair withhold that?

The Senator from Louisiana did not finish what he was saying. I am glad to yield him some time on the bill for the purpose of concluding his remarks. I do not want to be in the position of cutting him off.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 1 minute?

Mr. MUSKIE. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Louisiana.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized for 1 minute.

Mr. LONG. I just wish to say that, if we had some tax bill such as a tax reform bill or some measure where we raise revenue so that the Senator could have the opportunity to offer his amendment, I would not be voting for it at this point. But we are not going to have that. I do not see anywhere in the picture that we are going to be able to offer the Senator an opportunity to offer his proposal on any measure that would give the Senate an opportunity to do something about it in this 1978 fiscal year unless we do agree to this amendment. That being the case, Mr. President, I will vote for the amendment by the Senator from Delaware, feeling regretful that when we added it to a previous tax bill we were not able to bring it back from conference. That was clearly the will of the Senate at that time.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute on the bill to remind the Senator from Louisiana that this is not a piece of legislation. Adopting this amendment is not going to give this policy the effect of law. It would have to be implemented by actual tax legislation which the Senator has just told us is not coming down the pike. If that is the case, then I would say we should wait until the major tax reform legislation which will have effect in 1979 comes along and consider the proposal then.

The budget resolution does not create programs. It takes legislation to do that, as the Senator knows. So I think the Senator from Louisiana is giving us the best argument for not assuming this amendment in the 1978 budget resolution because it is clear legislation would not be available until the 1979 budget resolution at the earliest.

Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.

Mr. BELLMON. If we put this money in the budget resolution and the legislation does not follow, then there is just this much money floating around in there to be spent for something else.

Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct.

Mr. President, I renew my motion to table and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, it is a clear fact that the Senator from Maine has taken time on the bill.

Mr. MUSKIE. I yielded a minute to the Senator's spokesman and took a minute myself.

Mr. ROTH. The Senator from Oklahoma spoke.

Mr. MUSKIE. All right. I will yield another minute. I simply promised Senators we would clean up this bill at a reasonable time and I do not want to delay the bill.

I yield to the Senator 1 minute.

Mr. ROTH. That is all I want.

I simply want to make the observation that the first step in getting the college tax credit is through this kind of an amendment, and I think the opportunity will come during the next year to offer that amendment. For that reason I urge that the Senate vote down the motion to table my amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to table.The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I am not going to request a roll call vote on the amendment. I think the numbers are clear enough. The will of the Senate is clear enough. I have no desire myself to request the yeas and nays. There may be Senators who might like the yeas and nays. If there are, I would suggest they so indicate at this time.

I gather there is no desire for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Could we have order in the Chamber? Will Members please take their seats and cease conversations? Will Members please clear the aisle.

The Senator from Maine.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, if I may have the attention of my colleagues, to the best of my knowledge there is only one additional amendment pending, an amendment to be offered by the Senator from Georgia (Mr. NUNN). If there are other amendments which any Senator is considering, I hope we might be informed now.

I gather not. The Nunn amendment has a 30 minute time limitation.

Mr. LONG. I do have a statement to present. It will require 15 minutes.

Mr. MUSKIE. We have 30 minutes on the Nunn amendment, though we might. take less, and 15 minutes on the statement by Mr. LONG. Then we will proceed to a roll call vote on final passage. The Nunn amendment will not require a roll call vote.