April 26, 1978
Page 11555
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Education, Arts, and Humanities, I am deeply concerned that the first resolution on the budget does not contain any allowance for the increased costs of student financial aid programs which are contemplated upon enactment of the President's proposed College Opportunity Act. I am aware of the dialog that took place yesterday between the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Maine, but I still would appreciate some further reassurance.
I can understand the reluctance of the Budget Committee to include this item in the absence of a formal budget request from the President. However, I am pleased to note that such a request, for an additional appropriation of $1.210 billion for fiscal year 1979, has finally been transmitted to the President of the Senate by the President and the director of the Office of Management and Budget. Therefore, I believe that this request should be reflected in the budget resolution.
The chairman of the Budget Committee noted in his opening statement that the budget resolution includes funds for tax credits but not for the President's bill. It is my hope that this position could be changed and the resolution might be amended to include additional student aid funds, although I recognize the constrictions under which the Senator works.
I add a note here: A letter from the President indicates that it is his firm intention to veto any bill that contains tax credits, so we may well be left in such circumstances that no money at all will be available for helping middle-income Americans educate their youngsters.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the letters to which I have referred printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
THE WHITE HOUSE,
Washington,
April 24, 1978.
The SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Sir: I ask the Congress to consider amendments to the request for fiscal year 1979 appropriations in the amount of $1,210,000,000 for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
The details of these proposals are set forth in the enclosed letter from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. I concur with his comments and observations.
Respectfully,
JIMMY CARTER.
Enclosures.
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
Washington, D.C.,
April 24, 1978.
The PRESIDENT,
The White House
Sir: I have the honor to submit for your consideration amendments to the request for appropriations transmitted in the budget for the fiscal year 1979, in the amount of $1,210,000,000 for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The details of these proposals are contained in the enclosure to this letter.
I have carefully reviewed the proposals contained in this document and am satisfied that these requests are necessary at this time. I recommend, therefore, that these proposals be transmitted to the Congress.
Respectfully,
JIM McINTYRE.
Enclosures.
This proposal would provide funds to support an additional 403,000 new loans. This will increase outlays in fiscal year 1979 by $50 million.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
Washington.
The PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE,
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Today I transmitted to the Congress 1979 requests for appropriations totaling $1.2 billion for the proposed Middle Income Student Assistance program.
These funds are requested on the condition that Congress enact my proposed amendments to the Higher Education Act. I continue to believe that this program will be more effective in bringing assistance to middle income students than any of the proposed tuition tax credit bills, and I intend to veto such tax credit legislation if it reaches my desk.
Respectfully.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Senator and I have discussed this concern, and this colloquy is responsive to the discussion.
The budget resolution does accommodate the Roth college tuition tax credits proposal. I voted against this, as I always have voted against this, but a majority of the committee voted in favor of it. So there is room for it in the budget totals.
With respect to the refundable portion of the tax credit, there is room for it in function 500, the education function.
With respect to the President's program, he had not submitted it at the time we marked up the budget, because he did not want to see both programs approved. He was doing his best to discourage the enactment of the college tuition tax credit program in order to make room f or his direct spending program. I did not want to see both programs in the budget resolution.
Whatever happens at the end of the legislative line, whether or not education tax credits or the President's proposal are finally approved by Congress, it seems to me that, in the broad sense, there is room in the budget for some form of college tuition assistance for middle income families. If the education tax credits are finally rejected by Congress, or vetoed by the President with the veto upheld by Congress, the room in the budget for the tuition tax credit could be transferred by the second budget resolution to the spending side of the budget, if that were the will of the committee and if that were the will of Congress.
So, given the dilemma of trying to avoid approving both programs while approving in committee the tax credit program, we could not at this point make explicit provision for the President's program.
Mr. PELL. When is the second budget resolution due for consideration by the Senate?
Mr. MUSKIE. We have to adopt that by the 15th of September; so that by late summer I think we will be marking up the second budget resolution, and we will take into account whatever the status of this particular issue will be at that time.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. PELL. I yield.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Does the program that the Senator from Rhode Island istalking about propose an increase in the amount we are going to appropriate for BEOG's?
Mr. PELL. It would, by about $1.2 billion.
Mr. MAGNUSON. It would increase the BEOG program?
Mr. PELL. It would increase that program by increasing the limitation as to those who are eligible for assistance.
Mr. MAGNUSON. In other words, the eligibility of the BEOG program would be changed so that more middle-class people could take advantage of it — or lower-middle class?
Mr. PELL. Exactly. So that instead of the present cutoff of $12,500 family income it would go up to $25,000, which would be approximately the top limit of those eligible.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Under the BEOG program, I say to the Senator from Maine, we are now contributing within the eligibility BEOG program $1,800 a year.
There has been a discussion that the way to get at it is that instead of having the tax credit to take care of the lower middle class or middle class income people, just liberalize the eligibility under the BEOG program, which would amount, as the Senator says, to $1.2 billion. That legislative program has not been enacted.
Mr. PELL. That is correct.
Mr. MAGNUSON. That would have to come up in a supplemental. I do not think we can put $1.2 billion in the regular bill right now. In fact, I am sure the Appropriations Committee would not do so. Then, that would be plenty of time for the Senator from Maine and our Budget Committee to take a look at whatever is going to be decided by that time. I think it would be unwise to haveit in this budget resolution now.
Mr. MUSKIE. Exactly.
Mr. PELL. In other words, the fact that we do not put it in now in no way sets the climate of bias of the Senate against the program to increase the basic educational opportunity grant program.
Mr. MUSKIE. I think there should be and I think there is flexibility to permit Congress as a whole to resolve that issue. However, if the Senate recommendation on this issue should survive the conference with the House, the Congress will have decided through the budget process that it wishes to spend only $0.6 billionon middle income tuition assistance. This amount is not enough to fund the Senator's bill. Of course, the Congress can later decide to change its mind and spend more on college tuition assistance,thereby adding more to the budget deficit.
If Congress makes that choice, the second budget resolution could reflect that increase.
Mr. PELL. I thank the Senator from Maine for this colloquy and for his illumination.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I listened with considerable interest to this colloquy. I want to make certain that I am clear in my understanding.
I assume that the provision in the budget resolution that provides for college tax credits has exactly the same strength and support of the Budget Committee that the other provisions have.
When the Senator says that it should be the decision of Congress to go another route in the college tax credit and that the second resolution could meet that change, that is true of any provision in the budget resolution. Is that not correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am not sure I understand what the Senator is driving at.
Mr. ROTH. Any provision we have in the budget resolution, whether it is for health, safety, or defense, can be modified between now and the second budget resolution. Is that not correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. There is no question about that.
Let me say this, because I find that my statements are picked up against me, and I want to be sure that what I say is properly qualified.
The targets we are stating in this resolution, I hope, will have some meaning and will impose some restraint on what we do between now and September.
I would not want to find myself in the position of saying that anything that Congress may want to do, whether or not it was covered by this resolution, can be covered in the second concurrent budget resolution. Otherwise, the target setting would be meaningless. So, it is not in that sense that I made the statement I did to the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. ROTH. May I assume what the Senator just said applies to the college tax credit as well as to the other provisions of the budget?
Mr. MUSKIE. The college tax credit is provided for in this resolution.
Mr. ROTH. That is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. So if Congress in fact enacts the college tax credit, it is already covered by this resolution, and I am sure that would be repeated in the second concurrent budget resolution.
The committee did not include the other proposal, that of the President and Senator PELL. I am simply speculating, in an attempt to respond to Senator PELL's inquiry, as to what may happen, and it seems quite clear that both issues will in some way be considered by Congress and decided.
Congress may conceivably approve both, in which case we would have to make provision for both, or it may choose one as an alternative over the other. It is the tuition tax credit that is already provided for in this budget. If tuition tax credits are rejected either by Congress or by the President, with a veto sustained by Congress, then there will be room for at least part of the other proposal and Congress may or may not approve that.
All I was saying to the Senator from Rhode Island is that in my judgment there is flexibility to deal with any of those eventualities as they materialize.
Mr. ROTH. I agree with what the Senator from Maine is saying. I was making the additional observation that in my judgment, of course, that is true of any provision of the resolution at this stage. It could be modified by the action of Congress at a later time.
Mr. MUSKIE. All right. Maybe I did not understand what the Senator was saying clearly. Yes, I would agree with that statement.
Mr. ROTH. For example, it would even be as it was proposed yesterday where Congress was asked to decide on a $25 billion tax cut effective October 1 as the President proposed. That would be within the budget.
Mr. MUSKIE. No; that would not be within this budget. It would violate the revenue and deficit targets of this budget. Of course, the Congress could choose to change the policy which is inherent in this budget and add to the deficit.
Mr. ROTH. The same thing is true here.
I just want to draw the parallel, that both are subject to subsequent action of Congress.
Mr. MUSKIE. If it were done before the second concurrent budget resolution, it would breach the target set in the first concurrent budget resolution, and the Senate would be asked by myself and Senator BELLMON to take into consideration the fact that the first concurrent budget resolution does not provide or make room for that. The Senate could, of course, then decide that notwithstanding that it would decide to make it effective October 1. The Senator is correct.
Mr. ROTH. I thank the Senator from Maine.
Mr. PELL. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. President, I have a couple of questions regarding the provisions of the pending budget resolution with respect to function 500 as it relates to education. Specifically, I am concerned with the totals including for budget authority and outlays for the elementary, secondary, and vocational education accounts and those for higher education.
In the report accompanying Senate Concurrent Resolution 80, it is stated that the committee recommends budget authority of $12.2 billion and outlays of $10.9 billion. The report on page 116 states that these totals should be sufficient to accommodate increases in title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and to provide increases in other programs such as Head Start and Emergency School Aid.
Mr. President, I am concerned with this report language as it relates to career education, and particularly to funding of the Career Education Incentive Act. This legislation was signed into law on December 13, 1977, after having been approved unanimously by this body, with the unanimous cosponsorship of the Senate Committee on Human Resources.
The Committee on Human Resources included in its recommendations to the Budget Committee as a specific highlighted item in function 500, funds for implementing this act. It recommended an earmarked $120 million in budget authority to accommodate $40 million in fiscal year 1979 program funding, and $80 million in fiscal year 1980 forward funding. These would require outlays of $18 million.
Likewise, for the higher education account for post-secondary career education, this committee recommended $10 million budget authority, and $8 million in outlays.
These same recommendations were transmitted as a joint letter to all members of the Labor-HEW Subcommittee and signed by a number of my distinguished colleagues.
Mr. President, I ask that this letter be printed in the RECORD at this point.
The letter follows:
COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES,
Washington, D.C.
February 28, 1978.
Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MAGGIE: During the upcoming deliberations of the Subcommittee on Labor HEW with respect to further FY 1978 supplementals and FY 1979 appropriations, we urge your favorable consideration of sufficient funds to implement the Career Education Incentive Act (P. L. 95-207, enclosed). This legislation was signed into law by the President on December 13, 1977.
The Act proposes a fundamental and necessary refocusing of our educational system on the world of work. It received the strong support of every major education group, organized labor, the Chamber of Commerce, the NAACP, women's groups, and many other groups.
Nonetheless, the President's Budget as submitted to Congress contains no funds to implement this Act. Rather, the Budget proposes level funding for FY 1979 of $10,135,000 for a continuation of career education demonstration under the prior existing statutory authority contained in Section 406 of the Special Projects Act.
It was Congress' determination that sufficient demonstration had occurred over the past seven years, involving over $200 million in Federal funds, and projects in virtually every state. What was needed at the elementary and secondary levels was not further demonstration but implementation. The overwhelming votes In the House and the unanimous support of the Senate underline this determination.
P. L. 95-207 authorized $50 million for FY 1979, $100 million in FY 1980 and FY 1981, $50 million in FY 1982 and $25 million in FY 1983 for elementary and secondary career education implementation, and mandated that these funds be distributed on a formula basis to all states and territories. It also authorized $15 million in FY 1979 and each year thereafter through FY 1983 for post-secondary demonstration projects.
The Career Education Incentive Act provides short term catalytic Federal funding to the states to allow for full implementation of career education at the elementary and secondary levels and confines demonstration solely to the post-secondary level. The bill is specifically worded to require that Federal funding increase gradually, then decline and ultimately phase out at the end of five years, while state and local funds increase concomitantly.
The law was purposefully drafted to require that no funds could be appropriated in any years subsequent to FY 79 unless some appropriation had occurred in the prior year, in order to insure that the integrity of this structure be maintained.
It is therefore critically important that an appropriation be made for the FY 79 initial program year, either through a FY 78 supplemental appropriation, to provide the benefits of forward funding, or through inclusion in the FY 79 Labor-HEW Appropriation bill. The former course would allow the state and local educational agencies to know in advance what their formula allotments would be and to plan accordingly. In fact, the law mandates forward funding of program years FY 80-83, consistent with other education legislation. Thus program funds for FY 80 must be included in the FY 79 Labor-HEW appropriation.
Given the ongoing problems of youth unemployment, its effect on our national economy, and the tremendous waste of human potential through misdirected pursuit of unpromising or nonexistent career opportunities, the modest level of funding required for this Act would justify itself many times over by any criteria of effectiveness. But a particularly clear benefit flowing from implementation of this legislation would be a greatly decreased need for Federal programs which are essentially Band-aid in nature — unemployment compensation, youth jobs programs, and so on. Rather, by providing each of our students from the earliest grades onward with the skills and experience to seek and retain productive and meaningful employment, we would finally be implementing a strategy intended to eliminate the causes of these societal problems. On this basis, it would seem that any budgetary considerations would further heighten the need for these funds.
We therefore urge you to give strong consideration to including in an FY78 supplemental appropriation not less than $40 million for elementary and secondary career education implementation and not less than $8 million for post-secondary demonstration programs for the FY79 program year of the Career Education Incentive Act. At the same time, we urge that the FY79 Labor-HEW bill include as forward funding for the FY80 program years not less than $80 million for elementary and secondary implementation and not less than $10 million for post-secondary demonstration. Both program years could be included in the FY79 Labor-HEW bill, but as pointed out, this would be less advantageous to the school districts involved.
If members of your staff have further questions or need additional information. they should contact John Doyle at 4-2095.
Sincerely.
Harrison A. Williams, Jr., Chairman. Committee on Human Resources, William D. Hathaway, Alan Cranston, Robert T. Stafford, Jennings Randolph, S. I. Hayakawa, Gary Hart, Orrin G. Hatch, Claiborne Pell, Chairman, Subcommittee on Education, Arts and Humanities, Donald W. Riegle. Jr.
Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. President, these sums were agreed to unanimously by the Committee on Human Resources and transmitted to the Budget Committee on March 15. On that same day I testified before the Subcommittee on Labor-HEW of the Committee on Appropriations, chaired by the distinguished Senator from Washington (Mr. MAGNUSON).
On that occasion, Chairman MAGNUSON indicated his interest in providing funds to implement this important act, and the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. SCHWEIKER) , a cosponsor and strong supporter of the bill, indicated his interest as well. While final action of that committee will await its formal markups in May, at this point I am reasonably optimistic that sufficient funds will be made available.
My question then, Mr. President, on which I would appreciate hearing the response of the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, is whether the totals included in Senate Concurrent Resolution 80 and the accompanying report language, present any problems in this regard?
Mr. MUSKIE. In arriving at functional totals in function 500 the committee did not specifically assume any amounts for career education. We did assume a full $1 billion increase over fiscal year 1978 appropriation for elementary, secondary education and additional moneys for higher education as well. The final distribution of all these funds is, as you know, up to the Appropriations Committee. However, if the Appropriations Committee does choose to fund the Career Education Act, it will have to take these funds from other education programs that were assumed by the Budget Committee under this resolution, such as Head Start, emergency school aid or the expansion for the title I program.
Mr. HATHAWAY. Is it then correct to assume that the failure of the Budget Committee's report to mention career education in no way was intended to prejudice the deliberations of the Appropriations Committee in this regard?
Mr. MUSKIE. That's correct.
Mr. HATHAWAY. I thank my friend and colleague for clarifying this matter.