August 23, 1978
Page 27329
UP AMENDMENT NO. 1717
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate now reverts to the consideration of the amendment (UP No. 1717) offered by the Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, does the Senator from Maine wish me yield to him? I have an amendment pending.
Mr. MUSKIE. Well, I would say to my good friend from New Mexico that since many of the issues in this bill have a budgetary impact, I do want to make an opening statement from the point of view of the Budget Committee early on, and I would like to do that as early as I can. May I inquire of the Senator as to how much longer he will take?
Mr. DOMENICI. I will say to my good friend from Maine that it will not take me over 5 minutes on this amendment. I have others, but on those I will defer to Senator MUSKIE and Senator HART, who has been waiting to offer an amendment.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
Mr. HART. The amendment I am going to propose does not have budgetary impact. We have discussed it with the committee, and I believe that it will be acceptable. It will take only 2 or 3 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. If we can have the understanding that I can be recognized after the present amendment and Senator HART's amendment, I am under no compulsion as to time, and I am certainly willing to yield at this point for the disposition of those amendments.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, may I make an inquiry of the Senator from New Mexico?
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield.
Mr. BIDEN. Assuming we move along the route just suggested, that the Senator from Colorado and the Senator from Maine speak to their issues, and we then go back to the amendments of the Senator from New Mexico, about how long does the Senator from New Mexico anticipate the remainder of his amendments would take? Does he have any idea?
Mr. DOMENICI. No more than 15 minutes, and probably less.
Mr. BIDEN. Fine. I would hope that at the end of that time, Senator ROTH and I would be able to be recognized to offer our amendment.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me on his amendment with Mr. ROTH.
Mr. BIDEN. Yes.
Mr. JAVITS. That will take considerable debate. I would not wish the Senator to assume that that would be dealt with quickly; I will have considerable to say about it, and I hope others do also.
Mr. BIDEN. I would hope so.
Mr. DOMENICI. Then, Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. DOMENICI. Do I, then, correctly understand that we will proceed with mine, then I will yield 5 minutes to Senator HART for his amendment, and then Senator MUSKIE will have the floor, after which the floor will revert to me?
Mr. BIDEN. And at that point, so we may have no misunderstanding, I would be recognized to offer my amendments?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state that it is the Chair's perception that a formal unanimous consent request has not been propounded to the Chair, and at this point there is no agreement on the sequence. The Chair is prepared to entertain such a request if submitted. At the moment, the Senator from New Mexico, under the previous unanimous consent agreement, has been recognized to deal with his amendment which is pending at the desk.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I propound that unanimous consent request: That the Senator from Colorado, then the Senator from Maine, then the Senator from New Mexico, and then the Senator from Delaware be recognized in that order.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Then, Mr. President, after the two Senators from Delaware, the Senator from South Carolina on his amendment to strike out title XII.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I hope I shall not have to object, this bill will only be before us until 2:00, it is my understanding from the leadership.
Mr. HOLLINGS. We will just have to take our chances under the time agreement.
Mr. JAVITS. I wanted to notify my colleagues to that effect. Other Senators may have other time exigencies. Therefore, I believe I would have to object unless the unanimous consent request were modified so that it applies only to the consideration of this bill today — in other words, that it will not carry over tomorrow.
Mr. HOLLINGS. That would be satisfactory.
Mr. BIDEN. That would suit me, also. I have no objection.
Mr. JAVITS. If it is limited to the consideration of the bill today, I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Delaware? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send to the desk an unprinted amendment and ask—
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has an amendment pending at the desk.
Mr. DOMENICI. This is a modification.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator wishes to modify the pending amendment, the Senator has the right to do so. The amendment will be so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following:
There is hereby authorized to be appropriated $1,200,000 for assistance to local educational agencies which are racially isolated as a result of geographic location of the school district of such agency, and which have adopted and are implementing, or will adopt and implement, a plan to aid school children in overcoming the educational disadvantage of minority group isolation,".
Mr. President, I move the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment (UP amendment No. 1718).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will say quickly that I am appreciative of the suggestions of the floor managers. What we have done is create a free-standing amendment authorizing funding of up to $1.2 million for these isolated school districts using their isolation characteristics as the qualifier for them.
I understand that these changes will make my amendment acceptable to the managers. I am most appreciative of their assistance.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, on the theory that this is another disadvantaged group of children—
Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.
Mr. JAVITS (continuing). And as a free-standing amendment with a limited authorization, with its being attached to the emergency school idea, I have noobjection to the amendment.
Mr. PELL. I agree with my colleague from New York. As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, I did not think that the point where it was originally proposed was the right section of the bill. I think it is attached to the right section now. It pertains to children who will remain isolated, no matter what we do, because of geography. For that reason, I have no objection to this amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senators. I move adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified, of the Senator from New Mexico.
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Chair recognizes the Senator from Colorado for the purpose of calling up an amendment.
UP AMENDMENT NO. 1719
(Purpose: To strengthen the provisions relating to applications for bilingual education programs)
Mr. HART. I send two amendments to the desk and ask for their immediate consideration, and ask that it be in order to consider them en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent request that the amendments be considered en bloc?
Mr. JAVITS. I object temporarily.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the amendments.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows :
The Senator from Colorado (Mr. HART) proposes an unprinted amendment numbered 1719.
On page 276, strike out lines 17 and 18, and insert in lieu thereof the following:
"(2) be accompanied by documentation of such consultation and by the comments which the Council makes on the application; and
On page 282, line 8, before the period the first time it appears insert a comma and the following: "including objectives of section 703(a) (4) (E) (iii) and section 703(a) (4) (F)".
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does theSenator renew his unanimous consent request?
Mr. HART. Yes, Mr. President, I do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Hearing no objection, the request is granted and the amendments will be considered en bloc. The Chair recognizesthe Senator from Colorado.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, this amendment deals with the issue of bilingual education in connection with the series of amendments being offered by the Senator from New Mexico, most of which I cosponsor. Specifically, the amendment at the desk and under consideration now relates to the issue of parental involvement in the bilingual education process.
Mr. President, because of my own personal, longstanding interest in title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, I have followed the committee's activities and the evolution of this act and its implementation fairly closely. I am personally pleased to see that the proposed changes in title VII offered by the committee take a definite step forward in providing quality and equality of education for all children.
The amendment at the desk is designed to strengthen the language already proposed by the committee, and thereby insure that the intent of the legislative changes in the act are properly observed. Specifically, this amendment would strength the committee language relating to consultation with parental groups by requiring that a project application and annual refunding request be accompanied by some documentation that that kind of consultation with the parental organizations and groups has in fact taken place.
The amendment also contains a provision which will improve student performance by giving parents the opportunity to learn of their child's or children's progress or their lack thereof under this title. The amendment does not require any substantial increase in reporting, which would place an added burden on already-cramped staff, time, and resources.
This is a very important item, Mr. President, because I know of the committee's concern and the distinguished floor manager's concern about additional paperwork.
If there is anything about which we are all aware these days, it is that we do not want to add to the burden of people administering Federal programs forms and reports that already are mounting up almost to an unacceptable degree.
The changes I am proposing are designed to open avenues for parental involvement in areas such as program planning, priority setting, proposal development and submission, program implementation, personnel decisions, curriculum development and overall program design, implementation and evaluation, and school and community relations.
Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has required parent participation from the outset. However, experience in the area indicates that so-called parent involvement, in reality, is often an empty exercise. Parents are often informed of decisions after they have been made, or are not given sufficient information to permit their effective participation. S. 1753 deals with this shortcoming by requiring local education agencies to consult with parent advisory committees during the preparation of grant applications and during actual project implementation.
It has been over a decade now since Congress recognized the importance of meeting the needs of linguistically different children through title VII. And, during this decade, personnel responsible for the schooling of linguistic minority children have been faced with increasingly complex demands and specifications for quality program design, and at times have heard strong criticism about the program's success. We must recognize the achievements that have already been made in title VII, and continue to work toward an even better program,
For years, educators and social scientists alike have stated that one of the greatest obstacles in the education of linguistic minority children is the lack of parental involvement in the educational process. The local school is the most significant place for the participatory process. Participation should devolve increased responsibility to the citizenry and should increase the quality of services. To have these results, the process must begin — but not end — with parents of children being served.
It is in that spirit, Mr. President, that I offer this amendment. I think it is in keeping with the purpose of the proposals of the committee. It merely makes more explicit the degree to which the parents are to be involved. It would not, as I have already indicated, increase paperwork burdens on those conducting these programs.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the objective is obviously good, to increase parental involvement. My question is, what is meant by documentation?
Mr. HART. What I mean is something greater than a mere listing of dates on which parents or parent groups were consulted. However, I do not mean that additional reports, or additional forms be filled out. I think a reasonable standard of documentation in the program application is one that shows that parent advisory groups have actually participated at every step of the preparation of those programs.
Mr. PELL. As the Senator knows, one of the objectives of this bill is to reduce the amount of paperwork which the school administrators and teachers have to fill out each year. The estimate of the President's Commission on Paperwork is $100 million a year that we are now spending on paperwork, et cetera. In this connection, would a new government form need to be printed?
Mr. HART. It is certainly not the intention of the proponent of this amendment to add any forms or additional reports but merely to incorporate in the reports and the proposals already being filed a strong indication that parental groups have been involved in the process of filling out and developing those proposals.
Mr. PELL. There could be one further box for a checkoff in a form that already exists?
Mr. HART. That would certainly be one way to approach it. I have no specificsolution, but I want it clear in the record that what is contemplated here is not additional forms or reports.
Mr. PELL. I thank the Senator.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I have no objection to taking this amendment, provided that the argument made, that it will involve no material additional paperwork, stands up in conference. We do not know what the Department or the other body may produce on that score. I think the idea of Senator HART is a very good one and I am glad to go with it, but I must take it with that understanding, subject to that reservation.
Mr. HART. I appreciate the position of the minority floor manager. I hope the record made today through the repeated assurances of the sponsors of this amendment will make it clear that we are in no way suggesting increased paperwork. It is my hope that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and those writing regulations and implementing this language will be clear on intent of Congress. Ways can be devised in the manner that have been suggested by the Senator from Rhode Island to incorporate this requirement without expanding the paperwork burden.
Mr. JAVITS. I can assure the Senator that, that being part of the Senate bill, I shall make every effort in that regard.
Mr. HART. I thank the Senator from New York.
Mr. President, I move adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments, considered en bloc, offered by the Sena-tor from Colorado.
The amendments were agreed to en bloc.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendments were agreed to.
Mr. JAVITS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
ORDER OP PROCEDURE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Chair recognizes the Senator from Maine.
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator from Maine yield for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. MUSKIE I am happy to yield.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments I shall call up be put on the list immediately following Mr. HOLLINGS, who is the last in the order.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I did not hear the request.
Mr. HATCH. I am asking unanimous consent that my amendment be called up immediately after the last one on the list, so people will be put on notice.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, again, I am compelled to object, unless that is confined to today. In other words, no unanimous consent on the order of recognition goes over after the consideration of this bill today.
Mr. HATCH. That is fine with me. I do not care. That can be part of the unanimous consent request, that I follow immediately after Senator HOLLINGS.
Mr. JAVITS. If the Hollings amendment is not disposed of, the Senator will not be recognized and there will be no unanimous consent.
Mr. HATCH. No, wait, I expect my amendment to be called up, whether it is today or later. I just want to get on the list and be in order so I know about when my amendment is going to be called up.
Mr. JAVITS. But the order which the unanimous consent agreement covers will cover only the consideration of the bill today.
Mr. HATCH. That is right.
Mr. JAVITS. The Senator, as I understand it, has several amendments. Could we have an idea as to what he intends to call up?
Mr. HATCH. I intend to call up three amendments at this time. I may not call up all three, but the most I shall probably call up are three amendments and one substitute. And if it is possible to have it on the order today, I shall try to call it up immediately today. If not, then I shall want to follow Senator HOLLINGS tomorrow or whenever
Mr. JAVITS. No, that I will not agree to. I will not agree to follow anybody tomorrow. It is only effective today.
Mr. HATCH. All right, but I want to beable to call up my amendments whenever, today or after Senator HOLLINGS—
Mr. HOLLINGS. After my amendments?
Mr. HATCH. After the Senator's amendments.
Mr. HOLLINGS. After my amendmentis disposed of?
Mr. HATCH. Correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous consent request, as the Chair now understands it, extends only to the sequence of recognition for the purpose either of debate, which is the case with the Senator from Maine, or of offering an amendment today.
Mr. JAVITS. That is during the consideration of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. During the consideration of the bill today, and it does not apply beyond the consideration of the bill on today.
Mr. HATCH. And my unanimous consent request agrees with that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the request for an amendment of the Senator from Utah?
Mr. HATCH. I would like to be in sequence following Senator HOLLINGS as of today on any and all amendments and substitute that I have. If it does not come up today, then we shall work on it tomorrow.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I make the observation that I think this is a good idea and I hope we can work through these this evening, if necessary, as late as might be required.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the unanimous consent request is agreed to.
The Chair, under the previous order, has recognized the Senator from Maine for purposes of debate.
Mr. HATCH. I thank the distinguished Senator from Maine for yielding.
THE EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1978
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the bill before us would modify and extend programs which represent the cornerstone of Federal aid to our Nation's elementary and secondary schools. It presumes, as did the first U.S. Commissioner of Education, that "education prevents being poor."
True to that principle, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was originally enacted as flagship legislation at the inception of the Nation's war on poverty. Since the administration of Lyndon Johnson, the primary role of these Federal programs has been to improve the educational opportunities and achievements of the disadvantaged, the handicapped, those with limited English-language skills, Native Americans and other minorities.
Federal education resources are not only well matched to those in greatest need but they appear to have a positive impact as well. The Budget Committee has consistently supported the compensatory purposes characteristic of this Federal education policy.
S. 1753 would authorize $11 billion in fiscal year 1979 and would have a cumulative 5-year cost of $55.1 billion. If the authorized levels were fully appropriated, the cost of this bill would exceed the targets adopted by Congress in the first budget resolution and the ceilings as reported in the second resolution for the elementary and secondary education mission for function 500 — education, training, employment and social services.
I know that the Labor-HEW Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee fully intends to stay within its allocation under the first budget resolution. Certainly, the work of that subcommittee to date, under the able leadership of its chairman (Mr. MAGNUSON) is consistent with that allocation.
However, provisions in the bill before us would make it very difficult for the subcommittee to stay within its allocation. I am referring specifically to provisions which would provide unjustified expansion in the impact aid program.
These provisions, when coupled with the so-called tier system of funding for impact aid, would severely limit the discretion of the Congress to determine appropriate funding levels for this program.
The impact aid program was originally designed to provide Federal payments in lieu of taxes in jurisdictions which were highly impacted by the Federal presence. However, this bill would provide an expansion of this program which has no relation to the Federal burdens on local tax bases.
There have been consistent attempts to amend this legislation in the prior two administrations. The current administration proposed reforms that would result in savings of $76 million in fiscal 1979 and a cumulative savings of $1.1 billion through fiscal year 1983.
During full committee consideration of this bill, Senator BELLMON and I sent a letter to members of the Human Resources Committee urging that they adopt as many of the administration's reforms as possible.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that letter be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,
Washington, D.C.,
August 7, 1978.
Hon. HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, Jr.,
Hon. JACOB K. JAVITS,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR WILLIAMS AND SENATOR JAVITS: We are writing to express our concern over several of the provisions contained in legislation reported by the Human Resources Committee for consideration this summer. Our concern centers around the proliferation of new and continued funding requirements which impinge upon the responsibilities of both the Appropriations and Budget Committees.
While we do not disagree with the policies implicit in each and every proposed funding requirement, there are many which directly impact upon the appropriations process by mandating certain levels or percentages of funds to be provided for various programs. These provisions will inevitably result in excessive appropriations. We believe that each program should be allowed to stand on its own merit and not have its funding directly or indirectly tied to funding levels for other programs. Congress, through its appropriations and budget processes, needs the flexibility to set funding levels which are consistent with the general economic conditions.
Some of the most troublesome provisions are included in the Education Amendments of 1978 (S. 1753). The House and Senate versions of the Education Amendments of 1978 contain 44 different appropriations-forcing mechanisms — 19 of these are new. The bill includes automatic set-asides with mandatory appropriations levels for the new concentration grants and state incentive grants under ESEA Title I.
Of particular concern is the continuation of the tier system for Impact Aid. While we are sympathetic to payments in lieu of taxes in federally-impacted districts, continuation of the tier funding structure usurps the prerogative of the Appropriations Committee in funding proposed program expansion.
There are other provisions in S. 1753 that are also troublesome. Among these are the percentage set-asides for the Special Projects and the program for gifted and talented children, as well as the funding requirements for guidance and counseling.
The College Opportunity Act (S. 2539) , the President's and the Human Resources Committee's alternative to the Higher Education tax credit, includes provisions that force the Appropriations Committee to choose between fully funding the $1.4 billion envisioned in the bill or reducing grants to current low-income recipients in order to supply grants for 1.5 million new middle income recipients. The bill also includes increased mandatory funding provisions for two other programs: College Work Study and Supplemental Grants.
The Comprehensive Employment and Training Amendments of 1978 (S. 2570) as reported by the Human Resources Committee requires that at least $3 billion must be appropriated for public jobs under Title II (the new structural title), before any funds can be made available for public service employment under Title VI (the new countercyclical title). Although we may agree with the spirit of this requirement, there is no question that it would constrain the Appropriations Committee.
In order to insure that the Appropriations Committee retains its funding prerogatives, we are considering a series of amendments to eliminate many of these appropriations-forcing provisions to be offered when the bills reach the Senate floor.
We have been informed that the Administration is also opposed to these appropriations-forcing provisions and supports any efforts to modify or eliminate them.
We hope that you will give careful consideration to this matter and hope that we can reach an accommodation prior to the Senate consideration of these bills.
Sincerely,
MILTON YOUNG,
HENRY BELLMON,
WARREN G MAGNUSON,
EDMUND S. MUSKIE
Mr. MUSKIE. However, Mr. President, this bill not only does not include any of the administration's proposed reforms, it reverses reforms made in 1974 and expands the eligibility of school districts for payments under this program. I will support amendments to limit eligibility in this program.
It is important to note, Mr. President, that the Human Resources Committee recommended none of these budget-busting changes in impact aid in its March 15 report to the Budget Committee. I know of no change since then in the nature of the Federal burden on local property tax bases which can explain the sudden need for this expansion.
Therefore, Mr. President, I intend to support amendments to delete any or all of these costly impact aid expansions. I intend to support the amendment offered by Senator EAGLETON and others, to reduce this expansion by approximately $222 million. Senator EAGLETON is to be congratulated for working out this compromise package of amendments. This is a step in the right direction, although it does not go far enough.
In addition, I am greatly concerned with the entitlement-like structure of the impact aid program.
The Education Amendments of 1974 greatly increased the complexity of the impact aid program by establishing an intricate payment procedure, the tier system. As a result of the tier system, 64 computations are required before a local school district knows how much money it will receive.
The formula for the distribution of funds to local education agencies contains a payment structure composed of three "tiers" and a requirement that the first and second tiers must be funded on an "all-or-nothing" basis. The Congress has little choice but to fully fund both tiers 1 and 2 and has done so since fiscal year 1976.
Coupled with the impact aid expansions which I have just discussed, this funding mechanism would result in at least $235 million in additional appropriations being required. The 5-year cumulative cost of these amendments will almost certainly increase funding in the impact aid program by $2.1 billion over current law assumptions.
The President's reform proposal recommended elimination of the tier system for the allocation of funds. The committee rejected this recommendation, as it did all of the administration's recommendations on impact aid.
Senator MAGNUSON will offer amendments, which I have cosponsored, which would enhance congressional discretion over funding increases for the impact aid program.
This amendment would make funding for the most costly expansion — increased entitlements for public housing children at a cost of $117 million — subject to the discretion of the Appropriations Committee.
Senator EAGLETON's and Senator MAGNUSON's amendments in combination will halt the runaway growth in this program.
Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of amendments to be offered by Senator MAGNUSON to eliminate other provisions in this bill which have the practical effect of limiting congressional budgetary control.
For example, S. 1753 would authorize $400 million for the so-called concentration grants proposed by the President as part of his urban initiative. Unlike the House bill, which contains a separate authorization for this program, the Senate bill would reserve the first $400 million appropriated for title I for these concentration grants. Thus, unless the Congress wishes to reduce funding for the regular title I program, we will be virtually required to fully fund this new program.
The bill also authorizes a new program beginning in fiscal year 1980 of matching grants that would give States $1 in extra title I funds for every $2 they spend on their own compensatory programs. CBO estimates the cost of the provision to be $200 million annually. Funding for this program, as with the concentration grant provisions, must be provided first before the regular title I program can be funded. Once funded, it must continue to be funded at the preceding year's level.
Provisions such as these make the exercise of congressional discretion in its funding decisions virtually impossible. If we are ever to get control of the Federal budget, we must stop trying to lock in funding for each pet program.
Finally, Mr. President, this bill provides for a major expansion of Federal elementary-secondary education support to nonpublic schools. Funds for this major new program were not recommended in the Human Resources Committee's March 15 report and were therefore not assumed in the first budget resolution for fiscal year 1979.
This program seems unnecessary, given other provisions in the bill that would strengthen the participation of nonpublic schools in the existing elementary and secondary education programs.
For these reasons, Mr. President, I will support Senator HOLLINGS' amendment to delete this new program.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, before the Senator yields the floor, will the Senator yield to me?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, of course, I yield.
Mr. JAVITS. I have listened to the Senator with great interest. I also have read with great interest the views of the Senator and Senator BELLMON and the Appropriations Committee. They are entitled to the greatest respect.
We have had our staffs working with the staffs of Budget and Appropriations in an effort to resolve these problems. The reason I asked the Senator to let me say a word is that I would not wish for a moment to have it appear that Senator PELL, Senator STAFFORD, Senator WILLIAMS and I, in some cavalier way, disregarded it.
Of course, we did not. We took it seriously, this critical element of this measure. I pledge myself to Senator MUSKIE, before we are through with the bill, to work it out satisfactorily, because we have the utmost regard for our colleagues and there is no desire whatever to steal a march on appropriations or on budget.
But we do realize the complexity of the problems which the Senator knows as well as I do: Impact aid is of critical importance to many Members of the House and the Senate.
The administrations have generally been against it, not only this one, but previous administrations. They do not like the idea.
We all, including me, think it essential to our communities, so we have to stand our ground.
I cannot expect the administration will cheer it, but I am certainly not going to get into any hostilities with the Appropriations or Budget Committees. We perfectly understand the Appropriations Committee will decide to appropriate or not to appropriate. We perfectly understand the appropriations must be within the budget parameters.
All we say is that, if appropriated, it is our belief that these preferences are desirable, not unlike the hold harmless provision we have in many bills.
In other words, if the money is available, then the law would say it goes in the following priorities. We have, of course, the perfect power to change those priorities.
So I am glad for what the Senator said. But I did not wish to leave any impression we have just overlooked or disregarded his concern. On the contrary, we have taken it with deep seriousness. It is our purpose to try to achieve a practical solution with the Senator's committee, and with Senator YOUNG's and Senator MAGNUSON's committee, in order to deal with the problems which the Senator very properly raised.
Mr. MUSKIE. I appreciate the Senator's comments. They are consistent with his demonstrated respect for the budget process and the procedures which that reform act established.
The reason I spoke today was to make sure that all Members of the Senate were aware of these issues.
I should have indicated and, I am glad the Senator has stated that we are in consultation with the staffs, and eventually, personally, over these matters. I am very hopeful we can resolve our differences. I do appreciate the cooperative attitude that is being displayed.
I repeat that the reason I made these points now is so that the Senators would know what the problems are, and now they will also know that the managers of the bill and other interested Senators are applying themselves to the problem.
Mr. JAVITS. I thank my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Maine yield the floor?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New Mexico is now recognized to call up his amendments.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I first say to the distinguished Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) that I greatly appreciate the fact that the kind of discussion he has had with the Senate should come very early on.
Because my time schedule was not going to permit otherwise, the committee accommodated me in bringing up the bill this morning, so that I could offer my amendments and contribute what I had to contribute. That is why I was reluctant to yield prior to the time I did. But I do understand the responsibility and commend the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) for his early-on analysis of this kind of bill, which I think the Senate needs. I could not yield sooner, and for that I apologize.
Mr. MUSKIE. No apology is necessary. I understood fully the Senator's problem. I found it perfectly consistent with what I wanted to do.