LABOR-HEW APPROPRIATIONS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1970 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:36 a.m., in room 313, Capitol Building, the Honorable William M. Colmer (chairman) presiding. Present: Messrs. Colmer, Madden, Delaney, Bolling, O'Neill (Massachusetts), Sisk, Young, Pepper, Matsunaga, Anderson (Tennessee), Smith, Anderson (Illinois), Martin, Quillen, and Latta. Staff present: Laurie C. Battle, counsel; Mary Spencer Forrest, assistant counsel; and Robert D. Hynes, Jr., minority counsel. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order. Mr. Mahon, we will be pleased to hear from you on H.R. 15931, appropriations for the Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, and Welfare, and related agencies. STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE H. MAHON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor-HEW Appropriations, Mr. Flood, is here. He is very knowledgeable on the bill, and I would prefer that he carry the ball generally. Mr. Bow is also here. And Mr. Michel, the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, is here. The problem is that this is the 17th day of February, 1970, and the Labor-HEW appropriation bill should have become the law about July 1, 1969, the beginning of the current fiscal year. We passed the Labor-HEW bill in the House last July. The Senate did not pass it until December 17. On December 18, the President notified us that he was going to veto it. We adopted the conference report in the House December 22 but the Senate held it up over the Christmas period, and adopted the conference report January 20. The President vetoed the bill on January 26, and on January 28 the House sustained the veto. Last week we had the Lincoln Day recess. Mr. Ford and others asked that we not move the bill last week. Today is Tuesday. We are hoping that we can get this bill on the floor tomorrow. Because of the 3-day layover rule we would have to wait until Thursday for it to be in order to call up the bill since we did not report it until Monday. So, we need a rule on that ground if we are to proceed on Wednesday. A main objection of the President in vetoing the bill-one of the main objections-was to the amount for the impacted school aid pro gram and to the formula for distribution. The impacted aid program has merit but in some respects it is widely agreed that the legislation needs amending. In the new bill we took account of the President's veto message on this. We raised the President's budget in the bill before you by $238 million, to a total of $440.2 million, which is $160 million short of the amount in the vetoed bill. On page 28 of the bill, we make some legislative provisions that will make the impacted aid program more workable, and we need a rule waving points of order on that. The CHAIRMAN. Excuse me, what page was that? Mr. MAHON. Page 28 of the bill. The changes are outlined very clearly on pages 3 and 4 of the report. In response to the President's veto, we changed the figures in six appropriations, which are shown on page 3 of the report. The language on impacted school aid, and section 411 dealing with so-called mandatory programs-both are subject to points of order, and we need a rule to protect them. The school year is two-thirds over. It is the fault of Congress that we did not handle the Labor-HEW bill months earlier. We need the rule now Mr. MADDEN. You say it is the fault of Congress or the Senate? Mr. MAHON. Congress is, of course, made up of the House and the Senate. Mr. MADDEN. I know, but you said a few moments ago that it was on account of the Senate that it was held up. Mr. MAHON. This is true. Mr. MADDEN. Why did you want us to get associated with that delay? Mr. MAHON. I do not want to be associated with it, but the Congress has to accept the blame for all this delay which occurred prior to the veto. Mr. MADDEN. That is all. Mr. MAHON. I would just hope that we can now move forward. The President has made his point clear that he thinks Congress is going too strong in education and health spending at this time. Congress has made its point clear that we think we ought to go stronger than the President. Now, the problem is: how can we extricate ourselves from this situation and get on with the business of calendar year 1970 and get behind us the bill that we were supposed to have enacted into law last year. The subcommittee and the full committee did the best they could. Nobody is fully pleased with it. But it was the best we were able to do. I mentioned the impacted aid problem. We have cut the original bill by $445.6 million. The committee has inserted-I did not vote for it-a new sectionsection 411-which sets aside the so-called mandatory provisions and gives the President, for this fiscal year only, wide discretion to freeze funds that he does not want to spend. It is subject to a point of order. That is a very controversial matter which the Committee on Rules will have to decide. Mr. Bow and I are authorized to seek a rule waving points of order on the three things to which I have referred. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mahon, you refer to the impacted area appropriation, and you are aware, of course, this is something that affects possibly half or more of the congressional districts. Mr. MAHON. It affects mine. The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir. I will be as frank as the gentleman from Texas is, it also affects mine. Now what have you done there-in other words, dollarwise now, what does your bill provide as against what the previous bill provides? Mr. MAHON. It is $160 million below the vetoed bill. It totals $440.2 million. It is $238 million above the President's original budget. In other words, instead of providing about $600 million, as the original bill did for impacted school aid, it provides $440.2 million. The bill provides that for category A students, 90 percent of entitlement will be paid. In category B, school districts would be paid somewhere in the area of 55 percent of entitlement, but there is an escape hatch, so to speak, to deal with those cases where the impact of the reduction would otherwise be too great. There is about $8 million included to take care of these unusual and difficult cases. This would, maybe, assist in focusing on the importance of revising the impact aid legislation, which we could not undertake to do in the appropriation bill. We tried to make this livable for the remainder of this fiscal year. The CHAIRMAN. I think, Mr. Mahon, we all agree that this provision for impacted areas has been abused. It, like population, has grown, grown, and grown. I can recall when this first started, before we had the authorization legislation. We used to have to fight the Appropriations Committee on the floor to get $4 or $5 million for the whole United States. Specifically, now to get back to the bill: As I recall, the President either in his veto message of somewhere else, said that no school would get less than 5 percent of what it previously got. Mr. MAHON. May I read the paragraph on page 4 of the report in the middle of the page: The major part of the balance of the $440,167,000— We talked about category A, and now we are talking about category B The major part of the balance of the $440,167,000 in the new bill is $249,070,000 for payments for category B students. While some districts may be paid a minimum of about 55 percent of maximum entitlement for category B students compared to 90 percent provided by the vetoed bill, another provision in the bill provides that additional assistance will be provided to any school district which, as a result of this reduction in category B payments, would lose an amount exceeding 5 percent of its total school budget for last year. That is the point. That is where the 5 percent comes in. That was in the President's message. Continuing to read: This provision will result in some of the districts with a large percentage of federally connected children receiving considerably more than 55 percent of entitlement for category B but it affects relatively few school districts and, therefore, the total cost of providing this fund to relieve hardship is estimated at only about $8 million out of the $249,070,000 available for category B students. That is, I think, well said, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Well it may be, but I want to get it a little clearer, if I may, in my own mind. Are you saying there that $8 million will bring the category B up to the point where they would not lose more than 5 percent? Mr. MAHON. No. We are saying that, ordinarily, the category B schools will get 55 percent. But in order to take care of any special hardship cases, we say that if the reduction in the Federal payment is more than 5 percent of the total school budget, we will bring the amount of the Federal payment up to that level. So the impact will not be as great on certain schools, and there are only a limited number of these, and these would cost about $8 million. The CHAIRMAN. I guess I will have to look this up. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Michel is an expert on the details of this. Also, Mr. Smith. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, we will hear Mr. Smith. STATEMENT OF HON. NEAL SMITH, MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA Mr. SMITH. I can give you some examples, perhaps. There is several million of this money that goes to school districts which have really relatively few federally connected children. The parents work, for example, in leased post offices. The number of children is so few compared to the total budget in the school district that reducing them from 90 percent for category B down to 55 percent takes so little compared to their total budget that it is less than 5 percent of their total local budget, so they would get 55 percent. On the other hand, if it happens to be a school district that has a large number of federally connected children, reducing them to 55 percent would create considerable hardship, and in that case the $8 million would be used to bring them up to where they would not lose more than 5 percent of their own total budget. Mr. YOUNG. Is that enough money? Mr. SMITH. That is the estimate the Department gives. Mr. MAHON. No school district would lose more than 5 percent of its total budget as a result of the action of this legislation. The CHAIRMAN. I think that answers the question. Mr. Sisk. Mr. SISK. Just to clarify this, you are not saying it loses less than 5 percent of their Federal entitlement, but of their total school budget? That is what you are talking about? Mr. MAHON. Right. Mr. SISK. From all sources of revenue used to support the schools? Mr. MAHON. Exactly. Mr. SISK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mahon, further, with reference to this language, as I understand it, you feel that you have to have a rule waiving points of order, otherwise that would be subject to a point of order? Mr. MAHON. It would be subject to a point of order. Without the language, you could not take care of the emergency situation, and you would cut down the category A, which is the most meritoriousthough there is merit in both category A and B. So, by giving category A 90 percent and then category B 55 percent, and having this escape clause, we thought it a reasonable solution, The CHAIRMAN. But so far as this committee is concerned, and your request, if a rule is not granted waiving points of order on this particular matter, then it may go out on the floor subject to a point of order? Mr. MAHON. It would undoubtedly go out. Somebody would object. It is just a matter of giving the House a chance to vote on it. The House, of course, could strike out the language if it desired, and the same would be true on the language having to do with the so-called mandatory provisions, section 411. It is a matter of giving the House an opportunity to work its will on these items. I would hope that a rule waiving points of order would be granted on the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mahon, finally, what is the total difference in the bill that you are bringing back now and the one the President vetoed? Mr. MAHON. $445.6 million. We have reduced the previous bill by $445.6 million. The President indicated that he was willing to accept about $449 million of the increases. He went up $449 million on certain items. We came down about $445 million. Here is the no man's land between The CHAIRMAN. What is that no man's land? Mr. MAHON. It is about $500 million on one way of figuring it. I insert two paragraphs from the report: The net increase in the vetoed bill, over the President's budget requests was $1,139 million. In his letter of February 2 the President stated that he was willing to accept $449 million of the increases in the bill. This would leave a net increase of $690 million. To be fair in presenting figures, another method of comparison is that the gross amount of the increases in the vetoed bill was $1,397 million above the President's budget requests. Subtracting the $449 million he has indicated he is now willing to accept leaves $948 million to which he still objects. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith, do you have any questions? Mr. SMITH of California. Just one. Mr. Mahon, the way I understand it, you are asking to waive all points of order against the bill and the 3-day rule. I understood you to say that you and Mr. Bow were authorized to ask for this on three points, and if so I missed one. Mr. MAHON. Well, we were authorized to request a rule. The three matters involved are the 3-day limit, the impacted aid angle in the bill, and waiving the mandatory language. Those are the three points involved. Mr. SMITH of California. In other words, just waiving all points of order and the 3-day rule? Mr. MAHON. That is right. Mr. SMITH of California. You are not asking for a closed rule? Mr. MAHON. No, this I think would be impractical. But of course if we cannot get this bill passed, I do not think we ought to try to get another continuing resolution. I think we have got to knuckle down and pass something and get it to the President. I just am not in favor of our delaying and going forward later this month with another continuing resolution. We have just got to get this bill behind us and enacted into law. Mr. SMITH of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MADDEN. I just want to get clear what the President's veto accomplished in the way of reducing the funds for education and wel |