Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4526444
label
Michigan Association of Nonpublic Schools, Grand Rapids, MI, August 28, 1972
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526444
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Michigan Association of Nonpublic Schools, Grand Rapids, MI, August 28, 1972
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Federal aid
Legislation
Private schools
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526444
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1972-08-31
month
8
year
1972
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1972-08-01
month
8
year
1972
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
530f694c8d19db55
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D33, folder "Michigan Association of Nonpublic
Schools, Grand Rapids, MI, August 28, 1972" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press
Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
20 capies of Mr. Ford
Office Copy
REMARKS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
REPUBLICAN LEADER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
BEFORE THE MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS
CIVIC AUDITORIUM
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
MONDAY EVENING, AUGUST 28, 1972
FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY EXPECTED AT 8:00 p.m. MONDAY
Let me say at the outset that Federal aid to nonprofit nonpublic schools has
a better chance of congressional enactment today than at any other time in the
24 years that I have served in the House of Representatives.
This does not mean success is assured. But it does mean we have reason to
be hopeful--in fact, maybe just a little bit optimistic.
Much work lies ahead, but I do believe we have a decent chance to come out
on top. The reason I say this is that we have the President of the United States
with us, and we have the chairman of the tax-law-writing House Ways and Means
Committee in our corner. That's a pretty good start.
As you know, President Nixon has repeatedly stated his strong belief that
nonpublic schools are a vital part of this country's educational system and has
vowed that he will do everything in his power to find a way to help them.
As long ago as March 3, 1970, the President declared in a Message on
Education Reform: "The nonpublic schools provide a diversity which our educational
system would otherwise lack. They also give a spur of competition to the public
schools--through which educational innovations come, both systems benefit, and
progress results. Should any single school system--public or private--ever acquire
a complete monopoly over the education of our children, the absence of competition
would neither be good for the school system nor good for the country."
In a speech before the Knights of Columbus in New York City in August 1971
the President stated: "We must see to it that our children are provided with the
moral and spiritual and religious values so necessary to a great people in great
times. And, as Cardinal Cooke has pointed out, at a time when we see those private
and parochial schools which lay such stress on these religious values, as we see
them closing at the rate of one a day, we must resolve to stop that trend and turn
it around. You can count on my support to do that."
(more)
Digitized from Box D33 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
-2-
Last April 6 President Nixon warned that nonpublic education faces "a crisis
of the first magnitude" and reiterated his commitment to Federal help for nonpublic
schools.
Speaking before the National Catholic Education Association at Philadelphia,
the President asserted: "I am irrevocably committed to these propositions: America
needs her nonpublic schools; that those nonpublic schools need help; that therefore
we must and will find ways to provide that help."
Last March the President's School Finance Commission recommended that
Congress consider tax credits, tax deductions or some other method to reimburse
parents for nonpublic school tuition. The next month--last April--the School
Finance Commission's Panel on Nonpublic Education urged Federal aid to nonpublic
schools through tax credits, construction loans and tuition subsidies. As you know,
Ivan E. Zylstra of the National Union of Christian Schools was a member of the
School Finance Commission and of its Panel on Nonpublic Education and is now pushing
for Federal aid to nonpublic schools as secretary of Citizens Relief for Education
by Income Tax.
I feel as strongly as Mr. Zylstra that we must provide Federal aid to
nonpublic schools. There are many reasons why I feel as I do.
I believe the needs of our nonpublic schools cannot be ignored by the
Federal Government or the financial burden on the country's public schools will
become intolerable.
I feel very strongly that parents should be able to choose between public
and nonpublic education for their children and that this freedom of choice is in
jeopardy because of increases in tuition costs and the closing of so many nonpublic
schools.
It also seems only fair to me that parents sending their children to
nonpublic schools receive some measure of tax relief since they are, after all,
taxpayers who carry a dual educational cost load.
As we all know, parents of nonpublic school children pay the cost of public
schools as taxpayers while educating their children at their own expense outside
of the public school system. This dual burden has created a crisis in nonpublic
education which is clearly reflected in declining nonpublic school enrollments
and a rise in public school pupil loads.
The number of children in nonpublic elementary and secondary schools has
dropped by 1.4 million since 1963. These students have shifted to the public
(more)
-3-
schools, pushing up public school costs by billions of dollars.
As the President's Panel on Nonpublic Education observed in its report dated
April 14, 1972, "If the decline (in nonpublic education) continues, pluralism in
education will cease, parental options will virtually terminate, and public schools
will have to absorb millions of American students.'
The Panel continued: "The social and economic costs to the Nation are too
high to bear when compared to the lesser costs for effective public intervention.'
I thoroughly agree with the Panel, and that is why I have cosponsored with
Rep. John W. Byrnes of Wisconsin, senior Republican on the House Ways and Means
Committee, a bill--H.R. 13020-which would give the parents of nonpublic school
children a 50 per cent tuition income tax credit up to $400 per child, with a
phasing out of the credit for those taxpayers with incomes above $25,000.
Now, what has happened to nonpublic school tax credit legislation since
Mr. Byrnes and I introduced our bill last Feb. 9?
Ways and Means Chairman Wilbur Mills of Arkansas and Rep. James Burke of
Massachusetts, third-ranking Democrat on Ways and Means, introduced an identical
bill--H.R. 13495--and asked the Office of Management and Budget for a report on it.
In reporting on the bill, OMB Director Caspar Weinberger endorsed the
principle of tax credits for nonpublic school tuition but urged that the credit
be pegged at 100 per cent and limited to $200 per child.
Mills thereupon joined with Rep. Hugh Carey of New York, another Ways and
Means Democrat, to introduce a 100 per cent credit-$200 limit bill but coupled
the tax credit chapter with a chapter providing $21/4 billion a year in block grants
to the states for public elementary and secondary education. This bill is H.R. 16141
Ways and Means began hearings on H.R. 16141 and on my bill and related bills
on August 14. The hearings continued through August 18 and will resume Sept. 5,6
and 7.
Administration witnesses supported the goals of Title II, the tax credits
for nonpublic school tuition chapter, while suggesting modifications. They opposed
Title I, the chapter providing massive block grants to public elementary and
secondary schools.
Title I of H.R. 16141 does not meet the President's educational finance
reform objectives. He seeks a fair and adequate system of school financing;
property tax relief; and preservation of local control of education. Title I
(more)
-4-
does not meet the first two of these tests because its aid formula does not require
true value uniform property assessments but actual assessed valuations instead--and
it does not provide property tax relief. The Administration will continue to work
with Congress on this problem.
However, the Administration's endorsement of the general thurst of nonpublic
school tuition tax credits is unequivocal.
I personally believe Congress should approve nonpublic school tuition tax
credit legislation on its own merits.
I understand why Hugh Carey tossed in the equalization aid for public
schools.
Carey figures it would improve the chances of the nonpublic school tax
credit legislation if he packages with it a massive shot of Federal funds for the
public schools.
The courts have been ruling that the American educational system is not
properly financed. They are saying, in effect, that a program is needed to achieve
the equalization of educational opportunities within the several states. That is
the rationale behind Title I of H.R. 16141.
However, I repeat that whatever the merits or deficiencies of Title I of
H.R. 16141, the Congress should proceed to enact nonpublic school tuition tax
credits.
I have no pride of authorship. If it should turn out that the 100 per cent-
$200 limit proposal becomes the vehicle for nonpublic school tax relief, then I
would support it wholeheartedly although I personally feel the Byrnes-Ford bill
is preferable.
In any case, it is mandatory that the Congress enact legislation which will
enable the parents of nonpublic school children to enjoy some measure of tax
relief and to avoid at least to some extent a double financial load.
In my view, the United States Constitution guarantees Americans a freedom
of choice in education.
When rising costs of education make it difficult or even impossible in some
instances for parents to enjoy that freedom of choice, then the Congress must act.
Nonpublic schools are closing down in increasing numbers. Those that are
surviving have been forced to increase their tuition rates. The burden upon
parents has become very heavy. It is a situation which destroys freedom of choice.
(more)
-5-
To give American citizens freedom of choice without penalty, the Congress
should provide tax credits for nonpublic school tuition.
I firmly believe that tax credits for nonpublic school tuition are
Constitutional.
The constitutionality test has hitherto been a stumbling block to aid for
nonpublic schools. It is my opinion that aid to parents would be constitutionally
acceptable.
As Treasury Secretary George P. Shultz pointed out in testimony before the
Ways and Means Committee last August 14, the Internal Revenue Code has allowed
deductions since 1916 for contributions to nonprofit nonpublic schools and for
church contributions which are, in fact, used to support schools.
Said Secretary Shultz: "The fact that the tax benefit would come in the
form of a credit, rather than a deduction, would serve to make the benefit more
uniformly available to all taxpayers, regardless of their marginal tax rates."
"We do not," he added, "believe the use of a credit as distinguished from a
deduction raises any constitutional problems.'
Congress should, then, hasten to enact tax credits for nonpublic school
tuition. This will not solve the problems of nonpublic school parents completely.
But it will help tremendously.
Federal income tax credits for parents of nonpublic school children are only
fair. And enacting this tax relief will strengthen our entire system of
elementary and secondary education in the United States.
# # #
Distribution : 20 copies u/Mr. Ford
M affice Copy
REMARKS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
REPUBLICAN LEADER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
BEFORE THE MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS
CIVIC AUDITORIUM
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
MONDAY EVENING, AUGUST 28, 1972
FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY EXPECTED AT 8:00 p.m. MONDAY
Let me say at the outset that Federal aid to nonprofit nonpublic schools has
a better chance of congressional enactment today than at any other time in the
24 years that I have served in the House of Representatives.
This does not mean success is assured. But it does mean we have reason to
be hopeful--in fact, maybe just a little bit optimistic.
Much work lies ahead, but I do believe we have a decent chance to come out
on top. The reason I say this is that we have the President of the United States
with us, and we have the chairman of the tax-law-writing House Ways and Means
Committee in our corner. That's a pretty good start.
As you know, President Nixon has repeatedly stated his strong belief that
nonpublic schools are a vital part of this country's educational system and has
vowed that he will do everything in his power to find a way to help them.
As long ago as March 3, 1970, the President declared in a Message on
Education Reform: "The nonpublic schools provide a diversity which our educational
system would otherwise lack. They also give a spur of competition to the public
schools--through which educational innovations come, both systems benefit, and
progress results. Should any single school system--public or private--ever acquire
a complete monopoly over the education of our children, the absence of competition
would neither be good for the school system nor good for the country."
In a speech before the Knights of Columbus in New York City in August 1971
the President stated: "We must see to it that our children are provided with the
moral and spiritual and religious values so necessary to a great people in great
times. And, as Cardinal Cooke has pointed out, at a time when we see those private
and parochial schools which lay such stress on these religious values, as we see
them closing at the rate of one a day, we must resolve to stop that trend and turn
it around. You can count on my support to do that."
(more)
-2-
Last April 6 President Nixon warned that nonpublic education faces "a crisis
of the first magnitude" and reiterated his commitment to Federal help for nonpublic
schools.
Speaking before the National Catholic Education Association at Philadelphia,
the President asserted: "I am irrevocably committed to these propositions: America
needs her nonpublic schools; that those nonpublic schools need help; that therefore
we must and will find ways to provide that help."
Last March the President's School Finance Commission recommended that
Congress consider tax credits, tax deductions or some other method to reimburse
parents for nonpublic school tuition. The next month--last April--the School
Finance Commission's Panel on Nonpublic Education urged Federal aid to nonpublic
schools through tax credits, construction loans and tuition subsidies. As you know,
Ivan E. Zylstra of the National Union of Christian Schools was a member of the
School Finance Commission and of its Panel on Nonpublic Education and is now pushing
for Federal aid to nonpublic schools as secretary of Citizens Relief for Education
by Income Tax.
I feel as strongly as Mr. Zylstra that we must provide Federal aid to
nonpublic schools. There are many reasons why I feel as I do.
I believe the needs of our nonpublic schools cannot be ignored by the
Federal Government or the financial burden on the country's public schools will
become intolerable.
I feel very strongly that parents should be able to choose between public
and nonpublic education for their children and that this freedom of choice is in
jeopardy because of increases in tuition costs and the closing of so many nonpublic
schools.
It also seems only fair to me that parents sending their children to
nonpublic schools receive some measure of tax relief since they are, after all,
taxpayers who carry a dual educational cost load.
As we all know, parents of nonpublic school children pay the cost of public
schools as taxpayers while educating their children at their own expense outside
of the public school system. This dual burden has created a crisis in nonpublic
education which is clearly reflected in declining nonpublic school enrollments
and a rise in public school pupil loads.
The number of children in nonpublic elementary and secondary schools has
dropped by 1.4 million since 1963. These students have shifted to the public
(more)
-3-
schools, pushing up public school costs by billions of dollars.
As the President's Panel on Nonpublic Education observed in its report dated
April 14, 1972, "If the decline (in nonpublic education) continues, pluralism in
education will cease, parental options will virtually terminate, and public schools
will have to absorb millions of American students.'
The Panel continued: "The social and economic costs to the Nation are too
high to bear when compared to the lesser costs for effective public intervention.'
I thoroughly agree with the Panel, and that is why I have cosponsored with
Rep. John W. Byrnes of Wisconsin, senior Republican on the House Ways and Means
Committee, a bill--H.R. 13020--which would give the parents of nonpublic school
children a 50 per cent tuition income tax credit up to $400 per child, with a
phasing out of the credit for those taxpayers with incomes above $25,000.
Now, what has happened to nonpublic school tax credit legislation since
Mr. Byrnes and I introduced our bill last Feb. 9?
Ways and Means Chairman Wilbur Mills of Arkansas and Rep. James Burke of
Massachusetts, third-ranking Democrat on Ways and Means, introduced an identical
bill--H.R. 13495--and asked the Office of Management and Budget for a report on it.
In reporting on the bill, OMB Director Caspar Weinberger endorsed the
principle of tax credits for nonpublic school tuition but urged that the credit
be pegged at 100 per cent and limited to $200 per child.
Mills thereupon joined with Rep. Hugh Carey of New York, another Ways and
Means Democrat, to introduce a 100 per cent credit-$200 limit bill but coupled
the tax credit chapter with a chapter providing $21/4 billion a year in block grants
to the states for public elementary and secondary education. This bill is H.R. 16141
Ways and Means began hearings on H.R. 16141 and on my bill and related bills
on August 14. The hearings continued through August 18 and will resume Sept. 5,6
and 7.
Administration witnesses supported the goals of Title II, the tax credits
for nonpublic school tuition chapter, while suggesting modifications. They opposed
Title I, the chapter providing massive block grants to public elementary and
secondary schools.
Title I of H.R. 16141 does not meet the President's educational finance
reform objectives. He seeks a fair and adequate system of school financing;
property tax relief; and preservation of local control of education. Title I
(more)
-4-
does not meet the first two of these tests because its aid formula does not require
true value uniform property assessments but actual assessed valuations instead--and
it does not provide property tax relief. The Administration will continue to work
with Congress on this problem.
However, the Administration's endorsement of the general thurst of nonpublic
school tuition tax credits is unequivocal.
I personally believe Congress should approve nonpublic school tuition tax
credit legislation on its own merits.
I understand why Hugh Carey tossed in the equalization aid for public
schools.
Carey figures it would improve the chances of the nonpublic school tax
credit legislation if he packages with it a massive shot of Federal funds for the
public schools.
The courts have been ruling that the American educational system is not
properly financed. They are saying, in effect, that a program is needed to achieve
the equalization of educational opportunities within the several states. That is
the rationale behind Title I of H.R. 16141.
However, I repeat that whatever the merits or deficiencies of Title I of
H.R. 16141, the Congress should proceed to enact nonpublic school tuition tax
credits.
I have no pride of authorship. If it should turn out that the 100 per cent-
$200 limit proposal becomes the vehicle for nonpublic school tax relief, then I
would support it wholeheartedly although I personally feel the Byrnes-Ford bill
is preferable.
In any case, it is mandatory that the Congress enact legislation which will
enable the parents of nonpublic school children to enjoy some measure of tax
relief and to avoid at least to some extent a double financial load.
In my view, the United States Constitution guarantees Americans a freedom
of choice in education.
When rising costs of education make it difficult or even impossible in some
instances for parents to enjoy that freedom of choice, then the Congress must act.
Nonpublic schools are closing down in increasing numbers. Those that are
surviving have been forced to increase their tuition rates. The burden upon
parents has become very heavy. It is a situation which destroys freedom of choice.
(more)
-5-
To give American citizens freedom of choice without penalty, the Congress
should provide tax credits for nonpublic school tuition.
I firmly believe that tax credits for nonpublic school tuition are
Constitutional.
The constitutionality test has hitherto been a stumbling block to aid for
nonpublic schools. It is my opinion that aid to parents would be constitutionally
acceptable.
As Treasury Secretary George P. Shultz pointed out in testimony before the
Ways and Means Committee last August 14, the Internal Revenue Code has allowed
deductions since 1916 for contributions to nonprofit nonpublic schools and for
church contributions which are, in fact, used to support schools.
Said Secretary Shultz: "The fact that the tax benefit would come in the
form of a credit, rather than a deduction, would serve to make the benefit more
uniformly available to all taxpayers, regardless of their marginal tax rates."
"We do not," he added, "believe the use of a credit as distinguished from a
deduction raises any constitutional problems."
Congress should, then, hasten to enact tax credits for nonpublic school
tuition. This will not solve the problems of nonpublic school parents completely.
But it will help tremendously.
Federal income tax credits for parents of nonpublic school children are only
fair. And enacting this tax relief will strengthen our entire system of
elementary and secondary education in the United States.
###
NONPUBLIC
EDUCATION
AND
THE PUBLIC GOOD
THE PRESIDENT'S PANEL
ON NONPUBLIC EDUCATION
FINAL REPORT
The President's Commission on School Finance
NONPUBLIC
EDUCATION
AND
THE PUBLIC GOOD
THE PRESIDENT'S PANEL
ON NONPUBLIC EDUCATION
FINAL REPORT
The President's Commission on School Finance
President's Commission on School Finance
1016 Sixteenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 382-1646
Neil H. McElroy, CHAIRMAN
Mary T. Brooks
William G. Colman
Hilda A. Davis
John B. Davis, Jr.
John H. Fischer
Dorothy M. Ford
Norman Francis
Eugene Gonzales
Warren P. Knowles
April 14, 1972
David H. Kurtzman
William E. McManus
The President
Duane Mattheis
The White House
Wendell H. Pierce
Washington, D. C. 20500
William G. Saltonstall
W.B. Thompson
Clarence Walton
Dear Mr. President:
Ivan E. Zylstra
On March 3, 1972 your Commission on School
Finance submitted to you its Final Report,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
covering the aspects of our study which were
Norman Karsh
required by Executive Order 11513, dated
March 3, 1970.
Within the Commission you appointed a four-member
Panel on Nonpublic Education with directions to
report to you on matters of special concern to
the Nation's nonpublic elementary and secondary
schools.
The Report of the Panel on Nonpublic Education
is submitted herewith. In reading this report,
it is important to recognize that it represents
the views of the Panel members and that it has
been neither reviewed nor approved by the
Commission as a whole.
Respectfully submitted,
Eeroy
Neil H. McElroy
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402 Price 60 cents
Stock Number 1780-0972
462-107 0 72 2
The President
Page 2
President's Panel on Nonpublic Education
will be on some seven of our most populous States and on large
urban centers, with especially grievous consequences for
1016 Sixteenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 382-1646
poor and lower middle-class families in racially changing
Clarence Walton, CHAIRMAN
William E. McManus
William G. Saltonstall
neighborhoods where the nearby nonpublic school is an
Ivan E. Zylstra
indispensable stabilizing factor.
RESEARCH ASSOCIATE
The social and economic costs to the Nation are too high
April 14, 1972
Raymond Boileau
to bear when compared to the lesser costs for effective public
The President
The White House
intervention. The Panel, therefore, makes these four major
Washington, D. C. 20500
recommendations:
Dear Mr. President:
(1) A Federal Assistance Program for the urban poor
I have the honor to submit to you the final report of the
through a four-pronged approach which includes:
(a) reimbursement allowances to welfare families
President's Panel on Nonpublic Education which you restablished
for expenses connected with sending their children
to nonpublic schools as well as supplemental in-
on April 21, 1970. Throughout its deliberations the Panel has
come payments to the working poor for this same
purpose, (b) experimentation with voucher plans
kept uppermost in mind your request for recommendations "that
for parents of inner-city school children,
(c) strict enforcement of the Elementary and
will be in the interest of our entire educational system."
Secondary School Education Act so all children
receive the full benefits to which they are entitled,
and (d) adoption of a Commission on School Finance
Our findings confirm your initial assessment of the non-
recommendation for an urban education assistance
program to provide interim emergency funds on a
public school situation: enrollments are falling and costs
matching basis to large central-city public and
nonpublic schools;
are climbing. The trends, however, are neither inexorable
(2) Federal income tax credits to parents for a portion
nor inevitable if certain initiatives are undertaken. We have
of nonpublic school tuition expenditures;
sought to discover reasons for, and implications of, enrollment
(3) A Federal construction loan program;
losses. While the causes are multiple, interrelated, and
(4) Tuition reimbursements on a per capita allocation
formula in any future Federal aid program for education.
difficult to isolate, the implications are clear. If decline
Because the crisis is most acutely felt by church-related
continues, pluralism in education will cease, parental options
schools, notably Roman Catholic, the Panel has given serious
will virtually terminate, and public schools will have to
attention to the constitutional issue. It is persuaded that
absorb millions of American students. The greatest impact
The President
Page 3
Contents
although direct aid to nonpublic schools is prohibited, aid
to parents and to children will pass judicial muster.
Anticipating that such recommendations may provoke a debate
Page
CHAPTER I.
Prologue: Mandate and Beliefs
of significance to all American education, the Panel presents
criteria which, hopefully, will prove germane and useful.
A. The Mandate
1
B. Basic Beliefs
2
But the recommendations have not sought to evoke public
response only. Much can be done by the nonpublic school
CHAPTER II. The Nonpublic Schools: A National Asset
community to help itself. Concrete suggestions, which can
A. A Varied Enterprise
5
be adjusted to the needs of different nonpublic schools, have
B. Current Status
6
also been made. Conscious of the great needs in the public
C. A Posture of Confidence
10
sector, the Panel has acted on the premise that while non-
1. The Serrano Decision
10
public schools need and deserve outside help, large efforts
2. The Washington Seminar for Nonpublic
of self-help are also required. A private voluntary enter-
School Leaders
11
prise (a waning aspect in American life) must retain
3. The USOE Bridge
11
substantial responsibility for its own affairs, lest it
4. The Airlie House Conference
12
become private and voluntary in name only.
5. The President's Commission on School
Finance
12
One final note: the next few years are critical to the
future of pluralism in education. Whatever is done must be
CHAPTER III. The Public Price for Private Failure
undertaken with a profound sense of urgency.
A. State Nonpublic Enrollment Patterns
15
Respectfully submitted,
B. Urban Impact
17
C. Transfer Costs
19
Clarence C. Walton, Chairman
CHAPTER IV. Constitutional Foundations for a Public
Response
A. The Federal Framework
25
B. State Requirements
29
C. Latest Judicial Benchmarks
29
D. Constitutional Guidelines
30
VII
Page
CHAPTER V.
The Public Response Through Legislative
Action
A. Are Responses Adequate?
32
B. Major Recommendations
34
1. Federal Assistance to the Urban Poor
34
CHAPTER I
2. Tax Credits
38
3. Federal Construction Loan Program
42
PROLOGUE:
4. Tuition Reimbursement
42
MANDATE
C. Funding New Programs
44
AND
D. Conclusion
44
BELIEFS
CHAPTER VI.
The Private Capability
THE NATURE OF THE MANDATE set before the President's
A. Recommendations
47
Panel on Nonpublic Education as well as the Panel's related beliefs
B. Summary
50
must be clear from the outset. For this reason the Panel immediately
addresses itself to a clarification of these aspects.
CHAPTER VII. Toward a Meaningful Public Discussion
A.
CHAPTER VIII. Summary
The
A. Findings of Fact
55
Mandate
B. Implications
56
The President's Panel on Nonpublic Education came into existence
C. The Public Interest
56
on April 21, 1970, when President Richard Nixon established this
D. Recommendations
57
four-member group and charged it to do three things:
E. Valedictory
57
1. To study and evaluate the problems concerning nonpublic
schools;
2. To report the nature of the crisis confronting nonpublic
schools;
3. To make positive recommendations to the President for action
which will be in the interest of our entire national educa-
tional system.
The Presidential mandate, therefore, directed the Panel's investi-
gations into the formally structured programs carried on by schools.
In its deliberations, however, the Panel became keenly aware of an
important and sometimes overlooked fact: While schooling is
education, education is more than schooling.
Research findings which deal with early childhood learning may
turn out to be more significant than evaluations of present structures.
Small illustrations signal large issues. The fact that eighteen-month
olds reveal little difference in learning capacity and three-year olds
exhibit sharp differentials tells us how much more we need to know
about this critical and relatively short time span of early life. Little
is known of and less is done with ways to help parents understand
and fulfill their teaching role in the infant's life, to encourage families
to help other families with the very young, to spur churches to go
VIII
1
beyond ritualistic preparations for baptisms, confirmations, or bar
person, the child's dependency on others for fulfillment, the primacy
mizvahs in their relationships to the child, and to deploy public
of the parental role, the necessary supportive involvement of society
resources so effectively that teachers interact more constructively in
through its school systems, the large uncertainties on how growth
the parent-child relationships.
and maturity are best achieved. Because various people read these
In a more enlightened day, we shall learn how to respond more
implications in different ways, a summary of our convictions is ap-
innovatively to the coming of a new and precious resource, the new-
propriate. Our credo is easy to state, noble to contemplate, difficult
born child. For the present, however, it is important to remember that
to realize.
the Panel's charge was to focus upon the child after he has entered the
formal schooling process. And even within this time frame and within
We believe that when parents send offspring to school, a unique
this institutional setting are enough complexities to excite the energies
kind of contract comes into being. Parents, literally and figuratively,
ask the teacher: "Will you help our child learn?" They invite some-
of all and chasten the ambitions of most.
A proper response to the President requires answers to seven im-
one outside the family to participate in the quasi-mystical, highly
intimate, and deeply reverent enterprise of launching a human being
portant questions:
into the "being human" stream. Long before the child reaches adult-
1. What is meant by nonpublic schools?
hood, millions upon millions of stimuli (books and people, sights
2. What positive features and what forces make their preserva-
tion a desirable and an achievable objective?
and sounds, tastes and touches) will pound and batter the youth.
3. What negative factors severely jeopardize their future?
It is the teacher's function to help sort out and transmit proper
4. What are the added costs, economic and cultural, to the
signals; it is the teacher's role to share in the parental responsibility.
American public if nonpublic schools decline and deteriorate?
Home and school unite in a sacred trust!
5. What should government do in a constitutionally acceptable
and economically viable way to help nonpublic schools?
We believe nonpublic schools, in their variety and diversity, offer
6. What should the nonpublic school community do for itself?
important alternatives to state-run schools. It is conceivable that in
7. What criteria are most relevant when Americans engage in
years to come a larger degree of diversity will become characteristic
the debate on the future of American education?
of the public school system. But until public schools offer wider
Answers to these questions are governed by facts and conditioned
alternatives, it is not only legal but right that nonpublic options be
by beliefs. How the Panel's conclusions have been affected by its
available. Whether these nonpublic schools be rich or poor, tradi-
basic philosophy may be best perceived through a straightforward
tional or experimental, boarding or day, church-related or not,
statement of its own credo.
they have been, are, and should continue to be important parts of
the varied American educational scene.
B.
We believe that men do not live by knowledge alone. They also
Basic
live by a set of human values-ethical, moral, and religious. The non-
Beliefs
public schools consciously seek to explore the utmost reaches of these
When a child is born, one cycle in the miracle of human love
values and to inculcate in the young a respect for them. The secular
and human need ends. Another begins. The new cycle involves ques-
underpinning for these values is found in the seedbeds of Greco-
tioning and answering. Because the infant is totally dependent, it
Roman civilization; the spiritual base rests chiefly on a Judeo-Chris-
becomes the task of others to answer by word and deed the two most
tian religious tradition. The resulting amalgam constitutes our demo-
cratic and American values. Some two centuries have not eroded the
profound questions any society faces:
importance of what a 1781 charter of a nonpublic school said so
What is a human being?
well:
What is being human?
Goodness without knowledge is weak and feeble; knowledge
The first query relates to fact: someone exists; the second relates
without goodness is dangerous. Both combined form the noblest
to fulfillment: existence is growth. Growth requires nurture and
character and lay the surest foundation of usefulness to mankind.¹
direction, which are, in turn, the basic ingredients of the learning
We believe a major purpose of education is to increase the indi-
process.
vidual's capacity for the generous enjoyment of life and the generous
From such elementary observation emerge profound implications
dealing with the sanctity of individual life, the inviolability of each
1 John Phillips, 1781.
3
2
sharing of his gifts; consequently, there must be realistic choice-
choice of job, choice of church, choice of neighborhood, choice of
school. Nonpublic school supporters, while understanding the tremen-
dous burdens placed on public schools, must continue to offer a
varied educational experience, use their freedom wisely, merit their
tax-free status, and earn a just measure of public support. They must
beware of frills, be willing to "make-do," and be eager to cooperate
CHAPTER II
at every possible opportunity with other schools.
THE
We believe that the true vision is not of schools, but rather of the
NONPUBLIC
individual child for whose growth the school shares responsibility
SCHOOLS:
with parents, church, and community. Nonpublic schools accept this
A NATIONAL
vision, and their record shows a continuing concern for the education
ASSET
of enterprising, creative, and compassionate human beings-a re-
source on which the future of the Nation depends. It matters little
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS as re-
that their numbers are small, but it matters ever so much that their
vealed in their variety, their current status, and their future will serve
quality is high, their contributions distinctive, their clients committed.
as a helpful background for this study.
They must not only survive; they must flourish.
A.
We believe that, as they flourish, they must ceaselessly remind
Varied
their patrons to do everything possible to assist the public schools
Enterprise
which themselves confront serious problems. The following quotation
from a nonpublic school principal's letter to parents of his students
While it is commonplace to divide nonpublic schools into two
illustrates a point the Panel wholeheartedly endorses:
basic types-independent and church-related-generalizations about
While you pay tuition at this school, you also pay taxes for the
them, even when so classified, can be dangerously misleading. Some
support of your public schools. But paying taxes is not enough.
are young institutions struggling for survival, and others are venera-
Parents of children in private schools owe concern and time to
ble institutions with origins dating to early colonial days; some offer
the tax-supported schools. We are independent of many of the
revolutionary new curricula, while others are content with traditional
pressures to which they are subjected, and we must use whatever
approaches; some are in great demand, while others face a threaten-
influence we have to support them in their monumental task.2
ing future.
The Panel's premise is clear: there is an interlocking set of rela-
The ten percent of total enrollment now included in nonpublic
tionships between all schools, and failure to recognize this elementary
schools does not suggest, at first blush, any considerable figure, but
fact can only resurrect or perpetuate narrow partisanships which ill
this percentage represents 5,282,567 students. This number exceeds
serve the Nation's children.
by nearly 650,000 pupils the total public school enrollment in the
It is from these philosophical perspectives that we judge. It is for
Nation's largest State (California) and surpasses by 1,800,000 pupils
others to determine whether such perspectives make sense, and if they
New York's total public school enrollment. It is indeed a very sub-
do make sense, to help translate them into reality.
stantial enterprise.
2 Phillips Exeter, 1952.
During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries nonpublic
schools were chiefly small academies, seminaries, or dame schools.
Beginning in the nineteenth century and continuing into the
twentieth, increasing numbers have been church-related. Some 3,200
independent schools now range in kind from kindergartens to mili-
tary schools, from boarding (boys, girls, and coeducational) to
country day schools, from traditional and highly structured schools
to freedom schools characterized by innovation. Some recent addi-
tions, like the Street Academies and the Harlem Preparatory
School, have sprung up to meet minority needs and aspirations.
4
5
Far more numerous than the independents are the church-related
institutions, Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish. There are over 18,600
such establishments, the largest of which is Roman Catholic, whose
12,000 schools enroll 4.37 million pupils, constituting eighty-three
percent of the total nonpublic school membership.
The long history and multiple types of nonpublic schools make
several things clear: variety is as stimulating for education as
for other spheres; freedom to form such schools is highly esteemed;
and alternatives to public education are encouraged. By and large,
the support base does not rest on people of wealth but on working
families who have paid taxes to sustain public schools and who have
paid tuitions to nonpublic schools because they have seen in them
the kind of institutions best suited to their children's needs.
B.
Current
the following terms:
Nonpublic School Enrollment Distribution
NON CHURCH RELATED 7%
BAPTIST .5%
CHRISTIAN (NAT'L. UNION) .9%
FRIENDS .2%
JEWISH 1.3%
LUTHERAN 3.9%
METHODIST .1%
PRESBYTERIAN .1%
PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL 1,0%
SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST 1.0%
OTHER CHURCH RELATED 1.0%
Status
From research, recorded testimony, and distillations of its own
experiences, the Panel defines the present status of these schools in
1. The enormous potential of parent power is effectively
harnessed.
9.2%
DIOCESAN &
2. Their teachers and students play a large part in decision-
INTERPAROCHIAL
8.0%
PRIVATE
making.
3. Many are committed to experimentation.
4. Independent study and individual attention to students hold
ROMAN CATHOLIC 83%
high priority.
5. Special opportunities for improved education of American
Indians, Black Americans, Spanish-speaking Americans, and
other ethnic groups are being furthered. They will continue
to offer the children of both new and old Americans an oppor-
tunity to be educated as patriotic citizens, while, at the same
time, they maintain a link with the rich heritage that is
uniquely theirs.
65.8%
6. Many free or community schools are working toward the
PAROCHIAL
kinds of life style and education that parents and their chil-
dren increasingly seek. Respect for the whole person and for
warm interpersonal relationships is a factor of increasing
importance.
7. Most people no longer see nonpublic schools as a divisive
force or as a threat to the public schools, but rather as an
integral part of American education, as partners with public
schools, and as a necessary witness to the values of volun-
tarism, pluralism, and diversity in American education. This
attitude becomes more evident in considering the following
items:
A Gallup survey put the following question to a repre-
sentative sample of the American public: "As you know,
there is talk about taking open land and building new
cities in this country. New cities, of course, would include
6
7
people of all religions and races. If such communities are
9. Nonpublic schools are rendering meritorious service in
built, should there be parochial and private schools in
inner-city areas where their continuance is crucially needed
addition to public schools?" Seventy-two percent re-
for the education of economically disadvantaged children.
sponded yes, twenty-three percent no, and five percent no
For this the following investigations offer buttressing data:
answer. Respondents in areas where there are both public
A research study in Michigan has revealed that there is
and parochial schools answered eighty-four percent yes,
"more evidence of equality of opportunity in the church-
twelve percent no, and four percent no answer.¹
related than in the public schools." In terms of "educa-
Recent research has confirmed the Greeley-Rossi find-
tional advantages," a child in a "low status" community
ings that Catholic schools, the largest segment of the
is "better off in church-related schools than in public
nonpublic school sector, are not a divisive force and
schools."
7
would be so regarded only by those few who still dream
A comparable study in Chicago produced evidence that
about a melting-pot kind of American society at a time
Catholic schools "were not, as had been charged, filtering
when sociologists are saying that cultural pluralism urges
off the most intelligent students in each area and leaving
the conscious encouragement of ethnic and religious
the dregs in the public schools. In fact, the Catholic
diversity. Moreover, our research indicates there is room
school IQs fell farther behind the public school IQs in
to argue that the freedom to maintain the distinctiveness
poor neighborhoods than in wealthy neighborhoods."
that major segments of the population desire defuses dis-
Catholic school pupils' achievement was equal or superior
ruptive impulses.
to that of comparable public school pupils where "per
Research shows that public and nonpublic schools' coop-
pupil cost was only 59.8 percent as high as the public
erative plans and programs have received solid support
school expenditure level.".
from parents of children in both kinds of schools.
In Chicago, "dollar outlays for instruction by the Cath-
8. Public policy generally favors continuance of nonpublic
olic schools were more evenly distributed across neighbor-
schools. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches have
hoods of varying wealth than was the case with the public
spoken:
schools." It was also reported that "public schools were
The President of the United States has declared non-
benefiting wealthy and white communities more than
public schools "provide a diversity which our educational
poor and Black communities, while the Catholic schools
system would otherwise lack.' 3
were benefiting poor and Black communities more than
Acknowledging that nonpublic schools serve a public
wealthy and white communities."
purpose, the Congress and several States have enacted
10. The national mood favors voluntarism in education. This
laws for the benefit of nonpublic school pupils.
assertion is made in light of these considerations:
The United States Supreme Court, in the Allen 4 textbook
A nonpublic school is a voluntary enterprise. It begins
decision, noted that legislative findings and court deci-
when a community of people decides to make a private
sions have recognized that "private education has played
investment in nonpublic education. It continues as long
and is playing a significant and valuable role in raising
as the community maintains its support. It goes out of
national levels of knowledge, competence, and experi-
business when its backers withdraw their support.
ence.
Considering this attitude, the continued will-
The American investment of private funds in nonpublic
ingness to rely on private school systems strongly suggests
schools is unparalleled in any other nation of the world.
that a wide segment of informed opinion, legislative and
For example, in the Chicago Archdiocesan school system,
otherwise, has found that these schools do an acceptable
parents of about 20,000 eighth graders enrolled for next
job of providing secular education to their students." In
September's Catholic high school freshman class pledged
the Lemon ⁵-DiCenso⁶ decisions, the Court did not re-
to spend in excess of $32 million for their children's sec-
verse its findings in Allen, but only outlawed the Penn-
ondary education over a four-year period. That kind of
sylvania and Rhode Island patterns of aid to church-
investment in private education is unheard of beyond the
borders of our Nation.
related schools (not necessarily to all nonpublic schools)
because they involved the Court's conception of illegal
There is a strong sentiment developing in favor of op-
"entanglement" of Church and State.
tions, for example, the choice of one of several public
schools within a system or the choice of a public or non-
1 "How the Public Views Nonpublic Schools," 1969.
public school by way of a voucher plan. It would be
2 Andrew W. Greeley and Peter F. Rossi. The Education of Catholic Ameri-
utterly cynical to presume that all this interest in options
cans (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1966.)
3 President Richard M. Nixon, "Message on Education Reform," March,
7 All quotations in item 9 are taken from Donald A. Erickson and George
1970.
F. Madaus, Issues of Aid to Nonpublic Schools, Summary Analysis: Center
4 Board of Education V. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 243 (1968).
for Field Research and School Services, Boston College, Boston, Mass., Sep-
5 Lemon V. Kurtzman, 398 U.S. 569, 570 (1971).
tember 17, 1971.
6 Early V. DiCenso, 398 U.S. 89 (1971).
9
8
is motivated only by racial considerations though, unfor-
tunately, racial prejudice of one kind or another is effec-
concern with the right of every child to equal opportunity and
tively holding up general plans for options based entirely
equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment
on educational considerations.
explains its interest in-and approval of-the equity principle
expounded in these decisions.
C.
2. The Washington Seminar for Nonpublic School Leaders
A Posture
Another positive note was the immediate and affirmative re-
for
sponse to a recommendation made by the Panel, in its first
Confidence
interim report (February 12, 1971), that there be held a high-
level meeting in Washington to review the nonpublic school
In addition to the positive aspects recorded above, there are other
crisis in all its dimensions. As a result, forty-four leaders, repre-
grounds for optimism. Because 1971 brought Supreme Court deci-
senting five million youngsters enrolled in nonpublic schools,
sions that created considerable disappointment among nonpublic
gathered in Washington on May 19-20, 1971.
The Panel shared in these historic discussions out of which
school adherents, there is a tendency to view the recent past as one
emerged a decision to form a new organization called the Coun-
of unrelieved gloom. A broader perspective leads to different assess-
cil for American Private Education. CAPE, as it is familiarly
ments. In point of fact, the year brought these five quite remarkable
known, is a fledgling organization whose potential is yet to be
developments which will be discussed individually:
realized. To its credit, it has already undertaken serious efforts
to eliminate the insulation which has existed heretofore among
1. The Serrano decision in California (August 30, 1971)
components of nonpublic school systems; and its charter incor-
2. The Washington Seminar for Nonpublic School Leaders
porates a philosophy of cooperative relationships with major
(May 19-20, 1971);
public school organizations, such as the National Education
3. Response by the U.S. Office of Education to a Panel rec-
Association. Its determination to tell the story of nonpublic
ommendation of February 12, 1971;
education is commendable.
4. The Airlie House Conference in Virginia (November
The Panel judges these to be important steps. It renders this
15-17, 1971)
judgment because any review of school history demonstrates
5. The statement of the President's Commission on School
that internecine rivalries-often petty and parochial in nature-
Finance (March 6, 1972).
have worked to the detriment of children. The widely held and
misguided philosophy that what was done for one system must
1. The Serrano Decision
invariably hurt the other will crumble only as common efforts
The Serrano decision is of more than casual interest. Handed
are made to enlist the support of all people at this critical time
down on August 30, 1971, by the Supreme Court of California,
in American education. CAPE's founding requires CAPE's
the ruling declared that the State's funding system, with its
funding, and the Panel urges its financial support to major
heavy reliance on local property taxes, generated excessive
foundations and sponsors of nonpublic schools.
variations of expenditures per pupil among districts. Californi-
ans were being classified according to wealth; and classification
3. The USOE Bridge
by wealth, said the Court, is intolerable when it interferes with
One of the Panel's first recommendations called for creation
the "fundamental" interests of individuals. Education is a
of a new structure within the U.S. Office of Education "to deal
fundamental interest.
directly with nonpublic schools and to make effective recom-
The Panel, impressed by the Court's high sensitivity to the
mendations to top officials in the Department of Health, Edu-
concept of equity, asserts its dedication to the same high ideal
cation, and Welfare." The Panel was led to this view by testi-
and feels that Serrano (plus subsequent decisions in Minnesota,
mony that the nonpublic sector was virtually ignored by public
Texas, Arizona, and New Jersey) signals important advances in
officials: data were inadequate, liaison almost nonexistent, dis-
asserting the rights of all children to a fair share of tax resources.
trust evident. It was the view of Commissioner Sidney Marland
Related to Serrano is a Texas ruling by a panel of three Fed-
that the proposed reorganization might prove dysfunctional and
eral judges. The Edgewood Texas School District (with a poor
that the proper response was rather a broadening of the Depart-
and predominantly Mexican-American population) had a per
ment's vision to embrace the entire educational system, includ-
pupil expenditure of less than $300, as contrasted with $5,334
ing the previously neglected nonpublic sector. To that end, a
for the richest Texas district. As the New York Times editorial-
ized on December 25, 1971, "When the difference in financial
coordinator for nonpublic educational services has been named
support is almost 2,000 percent, the result is a Tale of Two
to provide a direct link between the Office of Education and
Schools that makes a mockery of equal protection." The Panel's
nonpublic schools.
This response is reasonable, and time must be allowed to
8 Serrano V. Priest, (Cal. App.) 89 Cal. Rptr. 345 (1971).
demonstrate its value. Appraisal should be undertaken and
publicly reported no later than December, 1974.
10
11
462-107 o 72 3
4. The Airlie House Conference
and (5) equitable sharing in any new federally sup-
The U.S. Office of Education sponsored a historic meeting at
ported assistance programs.
Airlie House in Virginia on November 15-17, 1971, which
c. Evidence is inconclusive in regard to the amount of
brought together approximately seventy educational leaders:
program participation that nonpublic school children
over thirty superintendents from large urban public school
are receiving under Federal education programs for
systems and their nonpublic school counterparts. No such
which they are legally entitled. The Commission urges
meeting had been undertaken previously. It was encouraging to
that the Federal Government take action to guarantee
note that common concerns for quality education permeate the
to nonpublic school children equitable participation in
leadership of both the public and nonpublic schools. Even
all Federal programs for which they are eligible.
in a group discussion on financing public and nonpublic edu-
Though these programs would continue to be admin-
cation which produced the most spirited and most divergent
istered through public school systems, such action
views, the conference summary recorded these telling points: 9
would insure that all eligible children attending non-
a. Plural school systems are generally favored by
public schools participate in federally aided programs.
everyone.
Neither rhetorical flourish nor desire for self-fulfilling proph-
b. The problems of public and nonpublic city schools
ecy prompts the Panel to welcome the Commission recommen-
are much the same, that is, eroding tax base and flight
dations as historic ones. The fact speaks for itself. When the
to the suburbs.
Commission began its deliberations, it was difficult for the Panel
c. There is some evidence that funding and providing
to anticipate that such support would have been achieved on
services to nonpublic schools help support public edu-
these delicate points. The action has been taken. The recom-
cation. The more people involved, the broader will be
mendations are going forward to the President and to the Con-
the support of all education.
gress. The points for well-tempered optimism are solid. The
d. Nonpublic schools would be willing to submit to rea-
possibility of imaginative and constructive action now lies before
sonable regulations if they use public funds.
us.
e. To help solve urban problems, a new coalition of
superintendents, mayors, and union leaders needs to
be formed.
The U.S. Office of Education is to be commended for this
effort, and the Panel recommends the sponsoring of similar con-
ferences. Initially, meetings of this sort cannot be expected to
produce blueprints for action, but they can go a long way toward
providing an atmosphere for constructive cooperation.
5. The Report of the President's Commission on School Finance
In its final report the President's Commission on School
Finance adopted the following positions:
a. The Commission recommends that local, State, and
Federal funds be used to provide, where constitution-
ally permissible, public benefits for nonpublic school
children, e.g., nutritional services such as breakfast
and lunch, health services and examinations, transpor-
tation to and from schools, loans of publicly owned
textbooks and library resources, psychological testing,
therapeutic and remedial services, and other allowable
"child benefit" services.
b. Aware that the provision of child benefit services alone
will not make a substantial contribution toward the
solution of the nonpublic schools' financial crisis, the
Commission further recommends that governmental
agencies promptly and seriously consider additional
and more substantive forms of assistance, e.g., (1) tax
credits, (2) tax deductions for tuition, (3) tuition
reimbursement, (4) scholarship aid based on need,
9 USOE: Conference Summary, 1971.
12
13
1. Housing patterns are altered because people with
sufficient money flee from overcrowded schools and leave
the poor to endure deteriorating neighborhoods and
schools.
2. Unemployment ratios between rich and poor, black
and white become further distorted because overcrowded
schools have a higher proportion of dropouts.
CHAPTER III
3. Racial stability is most threatened where most
needed because neighborhood nonpublic schools are
frequently the major reason for holding whites in the
THE
area.
PUBLIC PRICE
Prudent policy-making requires analyses of major possible alter-
FOR
natives. If the accepted hypothesis is wholesale closing of nonpublic
PRIVATE FAILURE
schools, analysis of State and urban enrollment patterns, respectively,
LIKE OTHER SIGNIFICANT VOLUNTARY ENTERPRISES
reveals important conclusions. Modifications of estimates obviously
qualify the conclusion, and the following analysis draws heavily on
in America, nonpublic schools came into being to fill an important
research authorized by the President's Commission on School Finance.
need not met by a public agency. They operate under the constant
and pervasive challenge of the market: if they fail to measure up to
A.
client expectations or if a public agency better serves the purpose,
State
they cease to exist.
But education is not a genuinely free market because the public
Nonpublic
Enrollment
sector holds a preponderant position which is buttressed by over
Patterns
$45 billion of tax money. If a difference in the resource base makes
the existence of nonpublic schools precarious, the situation is ren-
Nonpublic enrollments are concentrated in New York (789,110),
dered more vulnerable because winds of change are sweeping every
Pennsylvania (518,435), Illinois (451,724), California (398,981),
major contemporary institution. Nonpublic schools feel the full con-
Ohio (339,435), New Jersey (298,548), Michigan (264,089), and
straint of, but do not enjoy the full benefit of, the market system.
Massachusetts (205,011). These eight industrialized and urbanized
A Rand Corporation report to the Commission noted that the
States are heavily encumbered by costly public services, with serious
public school establishments of large cities exhibit an incapacity to
financial crises a distinct possibility. Disquieting signs are already
adjust and that outside pressures are required for innovation. Despite
appearing, such as extended public school holidays in Ohio because
this alleged inability to respond effectively, public school enrollments
of negative school levy votes, Pennsylvania's fiscal brinkmanship
have increased twelve percent since 1965, while nonpublic enroll-
prior to recent tax legislation, and staggering budget demands on
ments have decreased by twenty-three percent. Possibly a paradox
California and New York.
is in the making. It is clear, however, that the public interest is
Michigan is a dramatic case in point. Aware that its nonpublic
related to the all-important question: if nonpublic schools do not
schools (which in 1970 enrolled 287,000 pupils, or some fourteen per-
survive, what consequences follow for public schools and for Ameri-
cent of the State's school-age children) were in financial trouble, the
can society? Three major conclusions must be considered in ren-
legislature passed a bill authorizing use of tax funds for partial pay-
dering a proper answer.
ment of the salaries of lay teachers in Michigan's nonpublic schools.
A. Public schools least able to accommodate additional pupils
The amount authorized for this purpose was limited to two percent
would be the ones generally hardest hit by the tide of transfers.
of the total State outlay for education. In effect, the law brought aid
B. Municipalities, already heavily burdened with rising taxes
to nonpublic school pupils at an annual rate of about $130 per pupil,
for projected public education needs, would confront militant
much less than the annual rate of $843 per public school pupil.
demands for even higher tax rates to sustain crowded public
schools.
In November, 1970, the Michigan plan was overturned by voter
C. Social costs may prove to be even higher than economic
approval of a constitutional amendment. Subsequent court action
ones. For larger cities, closing nonpublic schools would have
sustained the voters' veto. Repercussions from Michigan were felt
marked impact on housing patterns, unemployment ratios, and
across the Nation. Word reached the Panel that some nonpublic
racial stability.
15
14
school leaders in Michigan were considering a total shutdown of their
systems and that public school authorities were bracing for an ava-
lanche of transfer students from closed nonpublic schools. Further
reports indicated that parents of nonpublic school children were orga-
125,048
nizing a "vote no" crusade to defeat proposals for millage tax increase
to pay public school bills and that some parishioners were strongly
objecting to announcements of tentative plans to shut down parish
MA
schools.
HN
MASS
CONN
Because of the nature of this crisis and its possible meaning to other
*
n
States, the Panel met in Lansing on May 24, 1971, with a number of
N.Y.
279,835
business, education, and government leaders. After its investigation,
PA.
N
SC
FLA
Projected Concentration of Nonpublic Enrollment Losses
395,410
the Panel concluded: that the school controversy had left a large seg-
ment of Michigan citizenry frustrated and, indeed, bitter; that Mich-
3
GA
igan's leadership in quality nonpublic education had been seriously
OHIO
128,835
impaired; that the large and financially hobbled urban centers, nota-
MICH.
bly Detroit, would have to provide facilities for a substantial number
TENN
ALA
IND
of transfer students; that the white ethnics and Blacks in Detroit who
prized their nonpublic neighborhood schools faced the dismal
MISS
135,089
ILL.
prospect of losing such facilities in the near future; and that projec-
tions for the State's educational budget suggested an increase from
1970 to 1980
LA
ARK
$1.9 billion in 1970 to $3.7 billion by 1975-an increase that could
214,024
MO
outstrip revenue by some ninety percent.
NNI W
The inescapable conclusion is this: the prospect of massive dis-
locations exists in eight of the Nation's most populous States.¹
S DAK
KAN
B.
DAK 2
NEB
OKLA
TEX
Urban
Impact
The significance of nonpublic school enrollment for metropolitan
COLO
areas is suggested by a simple statistic: eighty-three percent of such
M N
WYO
nearly two out of five school children are enrolled in nonpublic
MONT
UTAH
IDAHO
ARIZ
These seven states will lose
1,416,122 nonpublic students.
enrollment is found in these regions. In the twenty largest cities,
schools. The top fifteen cities have the following enrollment figures,
which reveal, interestingly enough, that ninth-ranked Buffalo and
last-ranked St. Paul have percentages approximating that of Phil-
137,881
adelphia, where nonpublic schools enroll one of every three students.
NEV
1 Economic Problems in Nonpublic Schools, p. 326.
WASH
ORE
CAL.
16
17
2. Closing of nonpublic schools with resultant transfers to pub-
Nonpublic
Percentage of
City
enrollment
total
lic schools;
3. Parents' reluctance to send children to financially troubled
schools;
New York City
358, 594
24. 3
4. Parental decisions to avoid high tuition rates;
Chicago
208, 174
27. 3
5. Parents' failure or inability to perceive any special educa-
Philadelphia
146, 298
33. 6
tional and/or religious values in a particular school;
Detroit
58, 228
16. 5
6. Lack of uniqueness;
Los Angeles
43, 601
6. 3
7. Changing religious and cultural mores among parents in
suburban areas;
New Orleans
41, 938
27. 2
8. A lower birth rate in a particular locality.
Cleveland
36, 922
19. 4
It is simplistic to conclude from research on enrollment trends
Pittsburgh
36, 661
19. 4
Buffalo
36, 623
33. 8
that any single factor is so overriding that others can be discounted.
Boston
35, 237
27. 1
Indeed, for city families with marginal disposable incomes, the cost
may loom largest; whereas for suburban parents it may be distance
Baltimore
33, 833
15. 0
to the nearest nonpublic school, new mortgage responsibilities, or
Cincinnati
32, 653
27. 4
secular attitudes.
Milwaukee
32, 256
19. 8
While attention has been focused on Roman Catholic schools be-
San Francisco
29, 582
23. 9
St. Paul
22, 267
30. 3
cause they represent the largest and hardest-hit nonpublic segment,
the problem is not exclusively theirs. During the past two years, en-
rollments in independent schools have declined about eleven percent;
In changing neighborhoods of such cities exist balances so delicate
at military schools, ten percent; at boarding schools, four percent.
that access to a school of choice affects a decision to move or to stay;
Despite present rates for boarding students in excess of $4,000 a
in the cities, too, are found other changing balances because unem-
year, costs continue to outrun income. Ten years ago, only a quarter
ployment, poor housing, infant mortality, and crime hit the poor
of the Nation's independent schools were operating with deficits; by
with vengeance. For example, a statistical sampling of county unem-
1971 the figure had doubled, and about twenty-five private schools
ployment rates, welfare case loads, and housing vacancies as these
have closed doors since 1968. As Newsweek (January 31, 1972)
affect Chicago, Detroit, and Milwaukee reveals a consistently higher
noted, "Most have been caught in a vicious circle: rising costs dic-
city rate than found in adjoining communities. The obvious con-
tate increased tuition which, in turn, serves to deflate enrollments." 2
clusion is that if the Nation needs vigorous cities, vigorous cities
need their nonpublic schools.
C.
It is from these perspectives that a realistic assessment of the non-
Transfer
public school condition must be undertaken. The strength of the
Costs
social fabric is at stake, and schools-all schools-are an essential
Estimating cost of transferring all nonpublic school pupils to public
strand in that fabric. If the strand is weakened or severed, the un-
schools is exceedingly difficult. A research team from the University
ravelling process will accelerate with potentially disastrous conse-
of Notre Dame developed three categories, described as: (1) low
quences for the Nation. A weakening is at hand.
excess capacity formula, which assumes a decrease in public schools'
For the past five years, nonpublic school enrollment has been mov-
pupil/teacher ratios; (2) crude excess capacity formula, which as-
ing downward at an alarming six percent annual rate. If this trend
sumes no change in pupil/teacher ratios; and (3) high excess capacity
continues, enrollment will be about twenty-five percent less in 1975
formula which assumes that the pupil/teacher ratios will rise to the
than in 1970. The presently distressed area is Roman Catholic, where
highest level experienced during the past six years. Using these
exists a distinct possibility that within a fifteen-year period, 1965-
formulas, the researchers estimated the total cost in a range from
1980, enrollment may drop by almost sixty-five percent. Multiple
approximately $7.7 billion (low excess capacity formula) to approxi-
factors are at work, among which are:
mately $4 billion (high excess capacity formula). The Panel believes
1. Movement of children from neighborhoods where there are
nonpublic schools to neighborhoods where there are none;
2 More complete data may be available in a report prepared by USOE.
Staff efforts to secure this so-called Kossoy Study were unsuccessful.
18
19
the higher estimate is more realistic in view of the trend to reduce
public schools might have greater financial implications for fringe
rather than to increase pupil/teacher ratios in public schools.
suburban areas than for the Detroit public school system." 4
The problem would vary from State to State. In the rural and less
Closing of Roman Catholic schools in Milwaukee would add
densely populated States of the South and West, nonpublic school
$47,800,800 in construction costs to the $76,000,000 program which
closings would have little effect. On the other hand, seven populous
has been authorized.⁵
industrial States (New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, New Jersey, Cali-
The summary of the University of Michigan for the three cities
fornia, Ohio, and Michigan) would be called upon to absorb seventy
was stated this way:
percent of the costs associated with the transfer of nonpublic school
It has been projected that if all the nonpublic schools which
pupils to public schools.
are experiencing financial difficulties, including many Roman
These seven States would face a severe economic impact because:
Catholic schools, were to be closed immediately, the additional
(1) public school costs are already high in these areas; (2) public
cost of housing pupils now in attendance would be as follows:
school enrollments have not fallen as much as in other parts of the
Chicago, $464,000,000; Detroit, $174,500,000; and Milwaukee
$47,800,000. These funds ($686,300,000) would be in addition
Nation so that the capacity to absorb more students is restricted.
to resources required to fund the long-range construction pro-
Even more than the State burden would be the city crisis. To
grams for each of these cities.
give this greater specificity the Panel considered results from research
If nonpublic schools in these three cities closed over a longer
by the School of Education of the University of Michigan. These
period of time, the result would be that projected decreasing public
researchers sought to draw an "urban financial profile" and used
school enrollment might be correspondingly replaced by transfer
Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia for their laboratories.
students from nonpublic schools. Slowly declining nonpublic school
The question was this: Can the public school systems of these
enrollments might make it possible for the central city public school
cities, without securing additional facilities, absorb the pupils now
systems, together with the public school systems of the surrounding
attending nonpublic schools if all the nonpublic schools were closed?
suburbs, to absorb substantial numbers of the nonpublic school pupils.
The researchers took into special account the Catholic schools, which
While the additional cost for capital outlay and operation would be
enroll the largest number in each of these cities. Important variations
much the same whether students transferred to the city schools or
exist.
to their suburban counterparts, the financial impact would be dis-
In Chicago, A. Epstein and Sons, Inc., estimated rehabilitation
tributed over a much greater area and a larger number of tax-
and replacement costs for the public schools and concluded that
payers. But the eventual impact is real and very substantial.
$1,103,113,846 would be required, at current prices, to bring Chicago
Philadelphia would be in more serious straits. The University of
school facilities into good condition. But the University of Michigan
Michigan report indicated that between 1965 and 1971 the Phila-
researchers added:
delphia school district spent $381,163,000 for capital improve-
ments, but despite these herculean efforts the remaining capital
If, in addition, it were necessary to provide facilities for
program proposed for 1972-77 still carried an estimated price tag
approximately 85,000 elementary pupils from the parochial
of $339,244,000. An additional $60,000,000 would be required in
schools and 45,000 secondary pupils, it would be necessary to
increase this budget by at least $464,000,000. This would in-
1978, and annual expenditures of $40,000,000 for 1979-80 would be
crease the total to approximately 1.6 billion dollars.³
needed to complete the currently envisioned capital program. Total
cost of all phases of the school building effort would reach $880,-
For Detroit, a building program to house adequately all public
400,000. With inflationary pressures, the total cost could be over
school pupils would require a minimum expenditure of $234,000,000.
$1,000,000,000.
If all the Roman Catholic schools of Detroit were closed at once
and their students were to be housed by the Detroit schools, an
The University of Michigan researchers further reported that:
additional $174,500,000 would be required. The research report also
Accommodating the 136,500 pupils now in the Roman Cath-
noted that if a massive shutdown of Detroit's nonpublic schools were
olic schools of Philadelphia in accordance with the goals and
priorities set forth would require a necessary additional expend-
to precipitate a large exodus of families from the city, "Closing non-
iture of almost $600,000,000. Housing the 58,900 secondary
pupils will require about $290,000,000 and the 77,300 elemen-
8 The Financial Implications of Changing Patterns of Nonpublic School
4 Ibid.
Operations in Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia, p. 97.
5 Ibid.
20
21
tary pupils approximately $310,000,000 with no allowances for
If these new construction needs are accurate, positive action
inflation.
must be taken to provide the needed funds or a moratorium on
To consider adding a capital program of $600,000,000, even
construction will result with millions of school children being ill-
if spread over the next decade, in the existing long-range capi-
housed and ill-educated.⁶
tal program for the Philadelphia area seems outside the range
The Panel is persuaded that just to meet normal projections of
of credibility, because 1971 has been a year of crisis for the
public school enrollment, the public burden will become heavy and
capital program of Philadelphia public schools. In July 1971,
the capital program was halted with the Board of Education
can become crushing if large numbers of nonpublic school pupils are
announcement of the suspension of 28 projects which were to
transferred into public schools. Apropos is the following statement of
have been completed during the next five years.
the Commission on School Finance:
Even with the gradual phasing out to permit incremental absorp-
Cost projections are startling. Outlays for education will rise
tion of nonpublic school pupils into the Philadelphia public schools,
substantially during the next decade if present trends continue.
"it would still be impossible for the public schools to provide for
Total expenditures of public school systems during the 1970-71
them adequately in the existing facilities or with facilities now
school year came to approximately $45 billion. During 1975-76,
according to projections provided to the Commission, expendi-
projected. Even though fifty percent of the nonpublic school pupils
tures are estimated to reach $60 billion, and will continue climb-
were to transfer to suburban schools outside Philadelphia, it would
ing to the end of the decade, so that in 1980-81, they will come to
be impossible for the public schools of Philadelphia to absorb the
some $64 billion. This is in 1970 dollars. If we assume that price
remainder without incurring a crushing financial burden. The pres-
increases at an annual rate of three percent, these figures will be
ent financial crisis has been brought on in part by the necessity of
approximately $69 billion for 1975-76 and $86 billion for 1980-
the public school systems to rebuild the entire school plant, after
81. Paying for education is going to place enormous strains on the
Nation's taxpayers. What is more, the cost of other public services
years and years of neglect."
are going to climb at least as much if not more.⁷
A blue ribbon task force, consisting of thirty-one prominent Phil-
In the Nation there are now 17,498 school districts, which vary
adelphia businessmen (Jews, Protestants, and Catholics), has just
enormously in size and in resources; there are over 46,000,000 chil-
completed its analysis of the Archdiocesan schools and declared that
dren in the public schools alone, and the cost of education in these
by 1975 the cumulative deficit will reach $55.4 million-even though
projected per student cost for 1975 is $478, as contrasted with
schools will be slightly over $1,000 per child this year, compared with
1971-72 per student costs in Philadelphia public schools of $1,027.
half that sum just ten years ago. The Panel concurs with a Washing-
Transfers may help the financial status of public schools if State
ton Post editorial of January 23, 1972: "Any new Federal fundings
sufficient to make any real differences to the local school districts will
aid increases, but even this prospect is inadequate. Commenting on
have to run, in national total, to many billions of dollars. It is hard
the task force report, School Superintendent Matthew Costanzo ob-
served that "if we had to take on the number of youngsters they
to think of any other public responsibility that is simultaneously so
massive and so intricate." Any serious thought about this massive
say they will drop, we'll be in dire straits."
The overall dimensions of construction costs are summarized in a
and intricate responsibility must include attention to the fiscal con-
report by the National Educational Finance Project, which declared:
sequences of widespread closing of nonpublic schools.
It is clear to the Panel that most public school budgets, already
The school building shortage is a reality which cannot be
heavily burdened by soaring costs for present and projected programs,
overlooked in school finance programs. Even with the unprece-
dented increase in school construction since World War II, a
would have to be drastically revised if thousands of nonpublic school
deficit of 500,000 classrooms remained in 1968. This backlog
pupils were added to public school rosters. Budget adjustments might
of needed construction accumulated during the Depression years
require double-shift classes, shortened calendars, cuts in enrichment
and World War II. Especially in urban districts antiquated and
programs, and other reductions in quality. Yet, some public school
educationally obsolete classrooms which normally would have
systems already are confronted with the prospect of having to re-
been replaced have remained in use.
Between 1948 and 1968 the number of classrooms constructed
trench on important programs for their present student body. Addi-
each year increased from 30,900 to 75,400 and the average
tional students at this time would not lessen the difficulty of giving
expenditure per classroom increased from $32,815 to an esti-
adequate education to presently enrolled pupils.
mated $67,432.
In the decade of the 1970's the Nation
will need approximately 120,000 classrooms per year at an
6 Future Directions for School Financing, National Education Finance
estimated annual aggregate cost of $7.8 billion in 1968-69
Project, pp. 29-30.
dollars.
The President's Commission on School Finance, pp. 11-12.
23
22
With recommendations from various groups for early childhood
education, programs for exceptional children, vocational and adult
education at all levels, and for the special needs of the inner-city
schools, it is apparent that the magnitude of the challenge-when
put in the context of the rising cost of other social services-is
tremendous.
CHAPTER IV
Not unrelated to the total problem is a disinclination of the Ameri-
CONSTITUTIONAL
can people to ratify and support additional revenues for the schools.
FOUNDATIONS
In 1965 approximately three of every four bond issues received
FOR A
public support; in 1971 less than half were ratified.
PUBLIC
The following table reveals a melancholy story:
RESPONSE
BECAUSE NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS MUST MEET both Federal
BOND ISSUES
and State legal requirements and because at times sharply different
Public elementary and secondary school bond elections held, with
emphases separate the two, the question of aid to pupils enrolled in
number and percent approved, 1965 to 1971
these institutions involves complex issues of constitutional law.
Number of elections
A.
Percent
Fiscal year ending
Total
Approved
Approved
The
1965
2, 041
1,525
74. 7
Federal
1967
1, 625
1,082
66. 6
Framework
1969
1, 341
762
56. 8
1971
1, 086
507
46. 7
Although the American Constitution is silent regarding educa-
tion, court interpretations of the First and Fourteenth Amend-
ments have developed a legal matrix wherein certain rights and
In summary the Panel concludes:
limitations are reasonably defined. Most basic is the parental right
1. Projected costs to maintain the present level of public educa-
of choice of a school for their children-a right safeguarded by
tion and to meet urban school construction needs are
the Supreme Court's Pierce 1 decision, handed down forty-seven years
prohibitive.
ago in the Oregon school controversy occasioned by that State's
2. The history of rejected school bond issues is not encouraging.
3. The burden for transferring nonpublic school students to the
effort to compel parents to send their children to public schools.
public sector will fall most heavily on States and center cities
Although the decision in the 1925 Pierce case was keyed mainly to the
which already carry heavy financial loads.
confiscation of private property without due process (the Oregon
4. Collapse of the nonpublic schools in these areas may well
statutes would have put all nonpublic schools out of business), the
prove disastrous.
Pierce decision did give legal sanction to a parent's choice of non-
5. The social costs could prove more onerous and dangerous
public school for State-mandated schooling.
than the economic burden.
In subsequent decisions, the Court removed any lingering legal
The American people thus face two basic choices:
doubts regarding the parents' right to send their children to a
1. Stand by passively while nonpublic schools decline and accept
nonpublic school. The Court's latest thinking will be revealed in a
the inevitable consequences of further increased taxes occa-
forthcoming decision involving Amish parents in Wisconsin who
sioned by the transfer problem, or
have pleaded that they should not be required to send their children
2. Act on the premise that wise public policy requires interven-
to high school because formal education beyond the eighth grade
tion at critical points to sustain a system which educates over
five million youngsters, evokes a multi-billion dollar private
is inconsistent with Amish religious tradition. The case involves
investment effort, and provides for parental choices.
profound questions about the public good, the State's role as parens
The Panel concludes that public action is required, but this raises
patriae, parental rights, and religious freedom.
very complex legal issues.
1 Pierce V. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).
24
25
It is one thing to assert parental rights over the education of
In 1971, the Court ruled on three separate cases which were, how-
children and quite another to protect such rights when the exercise
ever, consolidated for oral argument and were closely associated in
thereof-partly in response to State requirements-is crippled for
the Court's verdict. The first (Tilton V. Richardson) involved the
social, religious, or economic reasons. Consequently, the Supreme
constitutionality of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963,
Court has been asked over the past 25 years to create a body of law
which provided Federal construction grants for colleges and univer-
through interpretations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments,
sities as long as the facility was not used for religious worship or in
with practically all cases hinging on the constitutionality of using
connection with a divinity program. By a five to four vote the Court
public funds for the benefit of pupils enrolled in church-related
upheld this Act and added the proviso that buildings constructed
schools. From these cases have come ground rules which affect every
with public funds could never be converted to religious purposes.
recommendation for government action.
The other two cases (Lemon-DiCenso) related to religiously affili-
In the 1947 Everson 2 decision, the Court upheld the constitution-
ated elementary and secondary schools. Involved in the Lemon case
ality of a New Jersey law which provided tax-supported transporta-
was the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's 1968 Act which authorized
tion for nonpublic school children on substantially the same basis as
the Secretary of Education to purchase certain secular educational
for public school pupils. The key to this decision was that the law
services from nonpublic schools, directly reimbursing those schools
could not deprive a citizen of a public service either because of his
solely for teachers' salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials.
faith or his lack of it. The Court, however, also ruled that the First
Reimbursement was restricted to courses in specific secular subjects;
and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit tax aid for the direct benefit
textbooks and materials had to be approved by the Secretary, and no
to a church-related school. In effect, the Everson decision closed the
payment would be made for a course containing any subject matter
door to proposals for tax support of nonpublic schools but opened it
expressing religious teaching, or the morals or forms of sectarian
to a variety of tax-financed child-benefit services. In somewhat over-
worship.
simplified terms the judicial maxim was that aid to the nonpublic
The DiCenso decision hinged on the validity of Rhode Island's
school child is legal, but aid to the nonpublic school is illegal.
1969 Act which provided a fifteen percent salary supplement to
In 1968, the Court was asked in the Allen case to rule on a New
teachers in those nonpublic schools where the average per pupil
York law which authorized the loan of publicly owned textbooks to
expenditure on secular education was below that of public schools.
nonpublic school children. Evidence during the case was presented to
Eligible teachers were required to offer courses taught only in pub-
show that loaned textbooks, at least indirectly, helped nonpublic
lic schools, with materials used in public schools; further, teachers
schools by relieving them of expenses which would have been passed
had to agree not to teach religion courses.
along to parents. In a decision with far-reaching implications, the
What did the Court decide? The following is apposite:
Court ruled that the constitutionality of the statute did not revolve
Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the
primarily around the question of whether a church-related school was
cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years.
aided in some way, but of whether the statute had (a) a secular pur-
Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute
must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or
pose, (b) a secular effect, and (c) neither aided nor inhibited reli-
primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits
gion. The Court ruled that the New York textbook law complied
religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive govern-
with these criteria.
mental entanglement with religion." 4
In 1970, the Court took jurisdiction in the Walz 3 case in which
On the basis of failure to avoid excessive government entangle-
the constitutionality of tax exemptions for church-owned real estate
ment with religion, the Court struck down the aid programs in
was challenged. The Court conceded that tax exemption is surely a
Rhode Island and in Pennsylvania. The opinion, written by Chief
form of substantial indirect aid to church institutions but that it was
Justice Burger, recognized that the Court's "prior holdings do not
preferable to taxing their properties because taxation would entangle
call for total separation between Church and State" and that "some
the State in church matters in ways not permissible under the First
relationship between Government and religious organizations is in-
Amendment. Thus was added the criterion of "excessive entangle-
evitable." The Court nevertheless declared that, unlike such neutral
ment."
services as bus transportation, lunches, or textbooks, it could not
"ignore the dangers that a teacher under religious control and dis-
2 Everson V. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).
cipline poses to the separation of the religious from the purely secular
3 Walz V. Tax Commission, 397 U.S. 664, 674 (1970).
4 Lemon v. Kurtzman, 398 U.S. 569, 570 (1971).
26
27
aspects of the pre-college education. The conflict of functions ad-
supplements, which have now been thwarted; plans for purchase of
heres in this situation."
secular educational services in Illinois and New York have similarly
In a concurring opinion, Justices Douglas and Black sounded a
fallen. Still to be decided are Maryland's scholarship plan, tax credit
sharply different note. Because sectarian schools allegedly afford "the
plans in Minnesota and Hawaii, and Illinois' multiple approach,
church the opportunity to indoctrinate its creed delicately or in-
which includes tuition vouchers for inner-city nonpublic school pupils.
directly, or massively through doctrinal courses," 5 such institutions
In summary, the law is still being molded and shaped by both
come under pervasive religious control. Justice Brennan's separate
judicial philosophies and political events so that the final phase in the
opinion ran along parallel lines. The practical effect was to have four
Federal drama over nonpublic school education is still to be enacted.
Justices (Brennan, Black, Douglas, and Marshall) take the position
that all direct aid to church-related schools, at whatever level and
B.
in whatever form, is unconstitutional. The majority was unwilling
State
to accept this position.
Requirements
In the Panel's view the full Court had an inadequate perception
Meanwhile, States labor with their special judicial problems. Under
of realities in parochial schools because it failed to pierce the institu-
the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, "powers not delegated to
tional veil. The entire focus was on the powers of the hierachy, the
the Federal Government and not prohibited to the States are reserved
role of the pastors, and the teaching commitment of religious; ig-
to the States or to the people." Under these residual powers, New
nored were parents, teachers, and pupils who are now cut off from
York in 1894 adopted the Blaine Amendment, which effectively out-
certain forms of public assistance.
lawed any form of public aid to nonpublic schools-a prohibition
Others have launched sharper critiques. One such criticism holds
subsequently emulated in one form or another by over forty States.
that, by judicial fiat, there is now a virtual disenfranchisement of
Having taken such action, the States' logical step was to provide
religiously committed people with respect to public policy questions
free public school systems open to all-even though fiscal respon-
about which their churches have a strong position. They ask whether
sibility for meeting these prerequisites fell on local communities. De-
the civil rights of Lutherans or Jews or Quakers are to be suppressed
spite constitutional restrictions and uncertainties, States have con-
under the guise of "no religious division" in the same way that the
tinued to enact laws to provide tax-financed auxiliary services for
civil rights of Negroes were curtailed by a Supreme Court ruling
nonpublic school children.
(Plessy V. Ferguson,⁶ 1896) that "separate but equal" treatment was
What emerges in States with a Blaine philosophy, however, is an
necessary for peace and order. Finally, it might be noted that some
approach toward nonpublic education that is more restricted than
constitutional lawyers feel the time has come to challenge the denial
possible Federal initiatives; in other States the response is diluted by
of benefits to nonpublic school students on grounds that educational
uncertainty over how far public authorities may legally go to foster
appropriations are public welfare benefits which should not be re-
the common good when church-related schools are involved. These
stricted by religious conditions. The challenge should be mounted.
Whatever legal opinions are involved, the Panel shares Mr. Justice
facets have serious implications for the general-welfare clause of the
White's minority statement that not only has the majority decision
Federal Constitution and for the level of possible public initiatives
ignored the evidence in the Rhode Island case ("on this record
the Panel deems most appropriate. In the wind are significant straws
there is no indication that entanglement difficulties will accompany
which suggest enlargements in judicial constructions, and these will
the salary supplement program") but that-
be noted by policy-makers. Some of these indications are worth
The Court thus creates an insoluble paradox for the State and
noting.
the parochial schools. The State cannot finance secular instruc-
tion if it permits religion to be taught in the same classroom;
C.
but if it exacts a promise that religion not be so taught
Latest
and enforces it, it is then entangled in the "no entanglement"
Judicial
aspect of the Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence.
Benchmarks
Repercussions from this decision have been many. Michigan, Con-
necticut, and Ohio had plans to use State funds for teacher salary
Developments in State courts and in lower Federal courts indicate
that the "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
5 Ibid.
6
will increasingly be called into play. While the full significance of the
Plessy V. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).
29
28
Serrano decision is yet to be determined, it strongly suggests that the
4. Systems of accountability for public benefits to nonpublic
judiciary has not relinquished the task of social reconstruction begun
students must be balanced in ways which permit legitimate ac-
in 1954 by the Warren Court. Citizens may soon have constitutional
countability while simultaneously avoiding excessive govern-
rights to demand adequate and fair expenditures for essential public
ment entanglement.
services; hitherto these have been defined by references to such serv-
5. Cash subsidies for direct aid to nonpublic schools should be
avoided.
ices as fire and police protection. Now the courts hint that welfare,
6. The academic integrity of nonpublic schools must be
clean air, and clean water may be conceived as "rights."
preserved.
In the American context, the previous task of social reconstruction
7. While programs requiring day-by-day or week-by-week sur-
has been involved heavily with indirect redistribution of wealth; if
veillance of nonpublic schools should be avoided, minimum
equality of treatment is supplemented by a due-process concept of
public educational standards are reasonable.
8. Legislators must continue to wrestle with the paradox that
adequacy of treatment, then a formidable new stage in social engi-
aid for secular subjects must not be distinguished from aid for
neering awaits us. The Court has often shown itself responsive to
religious subjects; yet they must be constantly aware of the
public opinion and to the needs of the times. Since public opinion
prohibition against the use of public funds for sectarian
today is more aware of the importance of nonpublic schools, more
purposes.
aware of parental rights, and more concerned with mounting educa-
9. Participation by nonpublic schools in a public aid program
should be accompanied by signed compliance with Title VI
tional costs, there is a distinct possibility for a more commodious judi-
of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlaws discrimination
cial interpretation of parent's rights over the education of their
on the basis of race, color, and national origin.
children.
Other peoples with democratic traditions have met the challenge,
and it is difficult to believe that Americans will be less imaginative
or less concerned with justice. Canadian law has long allowed reli-
gious minorities to maintain their own schools; its federal system
leaves the bulk of educational questions to decisions by the several
provinces. The effect is a variety of methods which result in substan-
tial amounts of public funds for religious schools. Not unrelated is
the Dutch experience in the public funding of educational alterna-
tives. The Dutch have provided financial parity for public and pri-
vate education for over a half century. The resulting system of "seg-
mented integration" has served as a mitigating factor to restrain the
social and cultural impact of modernization. The end result is a
guarantee of the right to, and the possibility of, education for every
part of the population according to its own belief and choice.
D.
The
Constitutional
Guidelines
Though for the present the Panel must operate within a frame-
work of existing judicial realities, it feels that forms of public sup-
port for nonpublic school students must reckon with the following:
1. All laws must be designed to further a public purpose, that
is, to promote education.
2. All school pupils should be eligible beneficiaries of aid pro-
grams-preferably under a single statutory rubric.
3. Financial assistance rendered for the benefit of a nonpublic
school pupil should be subject to review by public authority.
30
31
ous question: Will nonpublic school pupils be placed in a seriously
disadvantaged position?
In light of current constitutional and fiscal matters, it is the Panel's
considered judgment that public interest requires the Federal Gov-
ernment to take major initiatives toward a solution of the financial
crisis in nonpublic education. Staying well within the restrictions of
CHAPTER V
the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Federal Government can
enact legislation for the general welfare by providing legal forms of
THE
aid to nonpublic school pupils and to their parents. Further, because
PUBLIC
it is in a position to see the full picture, the Federal Government can
RESPONSE
perceive interrelationships between all facets of schooling, including
THROUGH
the special financial problem in the nonpublic sector. Seeing problems
LEGISLATIVE
as they really are is the first step toward solution.
ACTION
The Federal Government not only has the resources to take this
SINCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST is deeply affected by the fate
step but already has a record of achievement in the Elementary and
of nonpublic schools, it follows that the Government may not remain
Secondary Education Act adopted in 1965. ESEA, as it is commonly
indifferent. The real question is whether the States, which have his-
called, heads the list of Federal programs which have benefited non-
torically been held responsible for education under the Constitution,
public school pupils to a significant degree. This law was developed
are equipped to meet the new challenge. Sufficient political, constitu-
from a valid presumption that inclusion of nonpublic school pupils is
tional, and fiscal reasons exist to suggest that States alone are unpre-
required both in the interest of equity and in the interest of securing
pared for this necessary task. In the following analysis attention will
the political support needed for enactment of Federal aid legislation
for public schools. ESEA still stands as the Federal Government's
be given to specific legislative and administrative actions required for
nonpublic school pupils in the public interest.
first major legislative achievement which constitutionally and effec-
tively benefits all children.
A.
Appreciation of ESEA's solid accomplishment does not preclude
Are
new legislation adequate to cope with the present crisis. More is
Present
required than existing special child-benefit services under public
Responses
school auspices. What is needed is a constitutional and efficacious
Adequate?
plan which permits parents to exercise choice without forcing them
to assume impossible or unreasonable financial burdens.
We have recorded the fact that State responses to the needs of
Research has revealed that outside help from churches, philan-
nonpublic school youngsters depend on: (1) the percentage of non-
thropies, foundations, and individual donors is not keeping pace with
public school enrollment; (2) the constitutional flexibilities or in-
nonpublic schools' escalating expenses; for the foreseeable future,
flexibilities; (3) the wealth of the citizenry and their willingness to
therefore, most additional costs will be passed along to consumers.
be taxed for social purposes; and (4) the backlog of unmet needs.
Many parents, already hard pressed by pleas for more donations to
Even where fresh plans have been launched to reflect a State's spe-
nonpublic schools (notably church-related ones), by higher tuition
cial circumstances, uncertainties persist. Some have been ruled un-
and fees, by rising taxes (property, income, sales, and other) for
constitutional; others are pending in court; several have been enacted
public education, feel the limit has been reached. Clearly, any exor-
into law but not implemented.
bitant increase in tuition and fees leaves parents with little choice but
In its final report, the President's Commission on School Finance
to transfer their children to a public school. In that sense, financial
made full State funding of education a pivotal recommendation when
difficulties may be said to be at the heart of the crisis. But in a real
it urged States to shift major financial responsibility from local
communities to State governments. Federal incentive grants have
sense the burden varies according to spatial distribution. For the
been proposed as a means to stimulate development of comprehensive
inner-city poor the weight is crushing; for middle Americans in the
plans toward this objective. This advocacy of full State funding,
$7,500-$15,000 levels (and especially for those at the low end), the
projected almost totally in terms of public schools, raises a very seri-
load is significant; for young suburbanites with new homes, new
32
33
mortgages, and possibly new value orientations, the encumbrance is
more marginal. There are nonpublic schools in the central city which
ing, insufficient diets, and inadequate schools. Retarded in basic skills
go unused by many who want and need them, but cannot afford
by the end of the third grade, unable to undertake creative work in
them; there are nonpublic schools in metropolitan regions which are
intermediate grades, and frustrated by their growing inability in the
under utilized because parents are unsure of their ability to meet
upper grades, thousands start high school with a self-fulfilling proph-
expected tuition increases or uncertain of the school's ability to sur-
ecy that they will be on the drop-out list at age sixteen-idle, un-
vive financially; there are, relatively speaking, negligible numbers of
wanted, and unemployable.
nonpublic schools in new suburbs because private construction has
Better schools alone will not solve inner-city problems; nor will
come to a virtual halt.
huge sums of additional money break the awful cycle of poverty.
Because parents within various socioeconomic groups experience
Nevertheless, a comprehensive Federal urban assistance program
different handicaps in exercising their right of educational choice,
can be used to restructure urban education so it will meet more
public policy is challenged to provide relief from excessive burdens in
effectively the needs of the urban poor. Frustration has been gen-
different ways. Furthermore, simply trying to envision how these
erated by the needless complexity and seeming aimlessness of a multi-
needs will be satisfied during the critical five-year span ahead sug-
plicity of well-intentioned but poorly designed Federal programs.
gests that the Federal Government will become more deeply involved
The urgency of Federal assistance to the poor in urban public
in long-range educational programs.
schools is evident, but equally in need are these same children in
nonpublic schools. These pupils, too, need experienced and devoted
B.
teachers as well as a curriculum designed for inner-city conditions,
Major
psychological testing and remedial services, a full range of audio-
Recommendations
visual equipment and supplies, health and nutritional programs,
The Panel, therefore, proposes four major recommendations:
counseling for their parents, safe and clean school buildings, and a
rich extracurricular program. Many are not receiving all these
1. Federal assistance to the urban poor through: (a) supple-
mental income allowances for nonpublic school tuitions for
special services because their schools are generally on an austerity
welfare recipients and the working poor; (b) experiments
budget, with some on the verge of closing this June.
with vouchers; (c) full enforcement of ESEA provisions en-
Inner-city church-related schools face difficult financial problems
titling nonpublic school pupils to certain benefits; and (d) an
because: (a) their revenues are derived from low-income clientele;
urban assistance program for public and nonpublic schools.
(b) parishes, the chief contributors to the schools, now in the chang-
2. Federal income tax credits for part of nonpublic school
tuition.
ing neighborhoods count few adherents; (c) the increasing member-
3. Federal construction loan program analogous to the F.H.A.
ship in Spanish-speaking parishes are usually very poor; (d) present
instrumentality for home buyers.
school buildings are old and expensive to maintain; and (e) instruc-
4. Tuition reimbursements to insure equity for nonpublic school
tional costs have increased because more lay teachers are required.
children in anticipated long-range programs of Federal aid
These schools manage to survive because their teachers usually live
to education.
where they teach and practice what they preach; having voluntarily
Each of these recommendations calls for detailed analysis.
accepted poverty as a way of life, they are natural neighbors to the
1. Federal assistance to the urban poor
poor and create a climate of trust. They deeply feel that their pupils
Is is grossly misleading to presume that the inner-city poor are a
deserve a full program, with all the advantages afforded children
nondescript mass of culturally, socially, intellectually, and economi-
who live outside the poverty belt. More help to these children is
cally disadvantaged people. These people are individuals, each with
an imperative.
talents and aptitudes, hopes and dreams, determinations and drives
To achieve this objective the Panel recommends a four-point Fed-
to make life worthwhile despite job discrimination and other
eral program which includes: (a) supplemental income allowances
prejudices.
for nonpublic school tuition to public welfare recipients and to the
Studies on urban education offer incontrovertible evidence that
working poor; (b) voucher plan experiments; (c) full enforcement
thousands of children in the heart of large cities are locked into a
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act entitling nonpublic
cycle of unending deprivation which starts with substandard hous-
school pupils to benefits; and (d) an urban education assistance
34
35
program for both public and nonpublic schools. A brief analysis of
lic officials as they perceive the needs of the poor, not a few of whom,
each point will elucidate this recommendation:
however, would like less service and more freedom. The voucher plan
is a step in that direction.
a. The Panel recommends that welfare reform legislation
should include provisions for a supplemental budget allowance
c. The Panel recommends full enforcement of the Elemen-
for reimbursement of nonpublic school tuition to (1) parents
of a child eligible for aid to dependent children, and (2) to
tary and Secondary Education Act which entitles nonpublic
parents in the category of the "working poor."
school pupils to certain benefits.
At present, Title I of ESEA is the Federal Government's largest
This recommendation is consistent with the objectives of welfare
assistance program for urban poor school children. It requires State
reform, is moderately expensive, and is a practical way to allow the
poor to exercise real choice of schools. Indeed, welfare reform rests
and local public school authorities to arrange for nonpublic school
on the premise that in an affluent nation, citizens should be able to
pupils to receive a wide variety of auxiliary school services under
support themselves without relying on monetary aid from the Gov-
public school control. While fairly effective, these arrangements have
ernment. This is why most welfare reform plans include a provision
been so involved in some places that for all practical purposes non-
for incentive allowances to welfare recipients pursuing an education,
public school pupils have been denied their rightful benefits. The
training, or rehabilitation to render themselves economically self-
Federal Government should therefore insure full compliance.
sufficient.
d. The Panel endorses the recommendation of the Com-
The Panel is convinced that many welfare parents want self-
mission on School Finance for the "initiation by the Federal
dependence for themselves and for their children; they see in the
Government of an Urban Education Assistance Program to pro-
nonpublic schools a high quality, firmly disciplined, and richly pro-
vide emergency Federal aid on a matching basis, over a period
ductive education. Welfare mothers have been known to cut back
of at least five years, to help large central city public and non-
public schools finance such programs as (1) development of
on their food to pay nonpublic school tuition. These parents say to
experimental and demonstration projects on urban educa-
their children that although they depend upon public welfare for
tional problems; (2) replacement or renovation of unsafe, un-
food, on public housing for home, on public clinics for health care,
sanitary, or antiquated school buildings and equipment; (3)
their chosen nonpublic school is their oasis in the midst of imper-
addition of remedial, bilingual, and special teachers and pro-
sonalism. Indeed, welfare allowances as reimbursement for nonpublic
fessional personnel; (4) addition of teacher aides and other
supporting personnel, and provision of instructional materials
school tuition would also be an incentive to other welfare recipients
and services."
to sacrifice for nonpublic school expenses beyond tuition.
The proposal's cost is modest. An unpublished staff study of the
This proposal recognizes the urgency of the inner-city problem
Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation (February 10, 1972)
and the necessity to maintain an effective partnership between public
is the basis for the Panel's estimate that supplementary payments
and nonpublic schools. Some formidable obstacles exist, however, for
toward tuition costs for welfare recipients and for the working poor
the nonpublic schools. For one thing big-city public-school officials do
would not exceed a total maximum of $30 million a year. This total
not favor funding nonpublic schools. According to one Commission-
presumes that about 370,000 children from approximately 175,000
sponsored study, "these administrators do not accept the argument
families with annual adjusted gross incomes less than $5,000 would
that the taxpayers would get a better break by supporting the non-
be eligible and that the average tuition allowance would be some-
public schools before they close rather than paying for the absorption
what less than $100 per child. This means that extra funds would
of these students into the public schools if or when they close." 1 A
have to be raised from church donations and other sources.
like reaction to this problem is seen among State legislators. In another
Commission report, "a majority (58%) disagreed that a school-aged
b. The Panel recommends experimentation with the voucher
child is entitled to State support of his education regardless of the
plans which afford parents of inner-city children genuinely
school attended." 2 The Commission itself obviously viewed the sit-
free choice between public and nonpublic schools.
uation differently, as does the Panel, which recognizes the subtle dif-
There is a pressing need to determine whether inner-city parents
ference between the public and the vested interest.
with vouchers in hand could bring about improvements in both pub-
lic and non-public schools. In a laudable effort to help the poor, re-
1 What State Legislators Think About School Finance, p. 25.
forms are often conceived by public officials and implemented by pub-
2 Big City Schools in America, Ch. VII, p. 27.
36
37
In addition to the political and psychological obstacles there is
under the plan: (1) the taxpayer, not the school, is subject to audit,
another rooted in constitutional complications. Due note has been
and (2) the prime beneficiary is the parent who exercises a constitu-
taken of court interpretations which bar direct aid to church-related
tionally guaranteed option of enrolling his children in a nonpublic
schools, but the Court must now be asked to face the real-world
school. Also, the charge that tax credits are of indirect aid to a non-
situation where nonpublic schools provide sound education, generally
public school can be countered with the argument that they parallel
across sectarian lines, in areas where public schools are often over-
the kind of indirect assistance which comes from any form of tax
crowded and understaffed. Presently the poor have little or no choice,
exemption-a tax provision held constitutional in the Waltz decision.
and this poverty factor could make a difference in judicial reasoning
Equally relevant are these facts. Tax credit legislation imposes no
regarding aid to a church-related school. In the Panel's judgment it
administrative burden on public school agencies, requires no public
should make a difference.
school system to share its resources with nonpublic schools, and en-
Constitutional considerations may ultimately require inner-city,
genders no competition between public and nonpublic interests for
church-related schools to alter their corporate structure in order to
funds appropriated for the benefit of all school children. The public
receive government funds essential to their survival. For example,
schools would continue to receive their subsidies and run their pro-
they may have to be legally separated from the parish; while such a
grams as they see fit.
requirement could be regarded as an intolerable form of governmen-
Two important issues remain: whether constitutional criteria re-
tal intrusion, virtually any adjustment to legal conditions is prefer-
quire tax credits to apply (1) to school expenses other than tuition,
able to closing any inner-city church-related schools. In short, the
such as fees or textbooks, and (2) to both public and nonpublic school
Panel beseeches the Federal Government and the churches to spare
expenditures. The first issue presents little difficulty. No constitutional
no effort to preserve these schools, schools which the poor support
reason obliges Congress to authorize tax credits for school expenses
out of their meager resources.
other than tuition. The second provokes divergent opinion among
To the poor, this Nation should declare: No more closings of
experts. The Panel perceives nothing inherently unconstitutional in
inner-city nonpublic schools!
a tax credit plan covering only nonpublic school tuition payments;
at the same time, it acknowledges the advantages of integrating tax
2. Tax Credits
credit legislation with other laws for the general welfare of American
The Panel recommends prompt enactment by Congress of
education. Actually, this integration may present no great problem
legislation to authorize Federal income tax credit to parents
for part of tuition payments to nonpublic elementary and
because it now appears that the Federal Government may move in
secondary schools.
the direction of a general aid formula which allocates funds to the
States on the basis of their total school-age population.
Colloquies with leaders representing a broad spectrum of non-
Recognizing that legislation should be governed by principles of
public education and dialogues with distinguished experts on con-
simplicity, clarity, and enforceability, and should leave no loopholes
stitutional law have encouraged the Panel to make tax credits an-
for abuses, the Panel sees merit in limiting the tax credits to tuition
other specific and urgent recommendation. Under a Federal income
only-an expense which is readily verifiable for auditing purposes and
tax credit plan, parents of a non-public school child could deduct
therefore meets the requirements for good law.
from their final tax liability (not from their gross income) an amount
equal to part of their tuition to a nonpublic school.
(b) Tax credits serve the public good by promoting justice and by
The Panel is confident that tax credit legislation will: (a) meet
encouraging private investment in nonpublic education.
constitutional criteria, (b) promote the public good by sustaining
Under the Internal Revenue Code, deductions and credits are
the current private investment in nonpublic education, (c) elicit
intended to establish greater horizontal equity by affording allow-
public support, and (d) bolster the morale of parents of nonpublic
ances for special burdens and to encourage private investment in
school children. A comment on each is in order.
activities which serve the public good.³
Examples of allowable deductions for special burdens are medical
(a) Constitutional criteria and tax credits
expenses, casualty losses, State and local taxes, and interest payments.
Federal income tax credits have a strong probability of meeting
Examples of tax incentives are deductions for donations to religious,
constitutional criteria. Because the Supreme Court has only recently
charitable, and educational institutions, as well as investment and
ruled that legislation "excessively entangling" church and State is
unconstitutional, tax credits avoid forbidden entanglement because
³The Panel's study is drawn from Roger Freeman, Income Tax Credits
for Tuitions and Gifts in Nonpublic Education, which was prepared for the
Commission.
38
39
retirement credit respectively. These adjustments are allowed for any
(d) Tax credits will have a healthy psychological effect on non-
number of voluntary decisions. The State and local taxes a person
public school patrons.
pays depends, in part, on a personal decision regarding his place of
Many parents, depressed about the future of nonpublic educa-
residence, standard of living, investments, choice between taxable and
tion, are understandably fearful that financial difficulties may tempt
nontaxable securities, and the like. If a justifiable reason exists for a
school authorities to cut corners in the academic programs, with
taxpayer to assume a particular obligation, such as the adoption of a
resultant harm to their children's scholastic progress. Toleration
child, he is entitled to a tax adjustment. The same holds true for a
of mediocrity has sharp limits among those able to make a choice.
voluntary donation to a college, a hospital, or a church.
Now is the time for government responses which can have multiple
It is logical to conclude that tax credits for nonpublic school tuition
psychological effects in restoring parents' confidence in the viability
will, as have comparable adjustments, (1) sustain private invest-
of nonpublic schools. Suggestion of such governmental action pro-
ment, (2) relieve the burden of millions of Americans who exercise
vokes consideration of the nature of the required legislation and the
choice in the education of their offspring, and (3) lessen the likeli-
cost of its implementation.
hood of further burdening the taxpayers if nonpublic schools close.
While the Panel has not endorsed a particular bill, it concludes
Private investment in nonpublic schools can only be approximated.
that a satisfactory statute should include these salient features:
One U.S. Office of Education study estimated the nonpublic schools'
total annual operating costs at $4.7 billion,4 while a conservative staff
1. Restriction of tax credit to tuition paid to nonprofit non-
public schools which are in full compliance with Federal civil
figure was less than half that amount. What makes precise recording
rights requirements;
difficult is that many nonpublic schools, particularly those whose ex-
2. Limitation of tax credits to a fixed percentage of the tuition
penses are included in a general church budget, have not kept strict
paid for nonpublic elementary and secondary school educa-
accounting records which isolate school expenses. The actual re-
tion (some pending bills set the percentage at fifty percent)
placement value or market value of nonpublic school buildings is
3. A maximum tax credit per child, set at a figure which
provides substantial aid for parents without subjecting the
also difficult to appraise because there is no wide demand for school
Federal Government to an excessive loss of tax revenue
property.
(some pending bills have set the maximum at $400 per
It is logical, however, to conclude that if taxpayers could be as-
child) ;
sured that part of their tuition payments could be used as offset
4. A reduction in credit for high-income families.
to their Federal income tax, they would be willing to maintain and
The Cost
eventually increase their investment in quality nonpublic educa-
tion. Every dollar of tax credit allowed for nonpublic school tuition
Estimating the costs for the total amount of tax credit which
will be matched by a dollar or more of private money invested in
parents of nonpublic school pupils could claim under proposed legis-
American education. The alternative to no credit could be a diminu-
lation is difficult. An unpublished staff study of the Joint Committee
tion of private investment to the point where virtually all American
on Internal Revenue Taxation, dated February 10, 1972, has
education would have to be publicly financed.
the latest and probably the most reliable estimate. By considering
both low-income families whose tuition payments exceed their tax
(c) Tax credits will elicit public support
liability and high-income families whose credit would be reduced
Tax credit legislation need not arouse the highly emotional dis-
under the proposed legislation, this study estimates the cost to the
putes which have beleaguered various proposals for direct Federal aid
Federal Government at approximately $500 million.
to nonpublic schools, notably to church-related schools. Testimony
Clearly, if tuitions rise and enrollments remain constant, the cost
from many sectors encourages the Panel to believe that enlightened
would increase, but relatively few schools levy tuitions at the $800
public discussion of tax credits will lead to these conclusions: (1)
level which would be required to reach the suggested $400 maximum
they can relieve the complex financial crisis in nonpublic education;
credit. Further, parents would still be required to pay at least half
(2) they will cause no difficulty for public education; and (3) they
the tuition so that demand will afford some restraints on pricing in
will maintain a healthy pluralism. Major opposition will come from
the educational market; finally, even with increases, the tax money
those anxious to see nonpublic schools disappear altogether or so re-
denied the Treasury would be substantially less than the total
duced in numbers that they count for nothing in American education.
amount of tax funds required to accommodate nonpublic school
pupils in public school.
4 Projections of Educational Statistics to 1979-1980, USOE, 1971.
40
41
above the previous year's percentage. Between $4 and $5 billion
3. Federal construction loan program
would be required over a five-year period to provide incentives
The Panel recommends legislation leading to the establish-
for full State funding.
ment of a Federal construction loan program analogous to the
In an understandable desire to avoid needless control over the
F.H.A. instrumentality for home-buyers.
States, the Federal Government may simply allocate Federal funds
The Federal Government has a successful history of substantial
on the basis of a State's total school population. This question then
loans for construction of educational facilities and further prec-
arises: will nonpublic school pupils who are counted in by the
edents in the National Defense Education Act, where NDEA loan
Federal Government for the purpose of allocating funds to the
programs have helped millions of American students. Certain non-
States be counted out by States when actual benefits are distrib-
public school enrollment losses have been attributed to a combina-
uted? If this should occur, nonpublic school children would be vic-
tion of mobility and resulting opportunity loss; when families with
tims of an intolerable injustice. Yet such a possibility exists be-
children enrolled in nonpublic schools move from one place (usually
cause of State constitutional restrictions or because of indifference
urban) to another (usually suburban), they find nonpublic educa-
in State capitals to nonpublic school pupils' needs. The Panel there-
tion is not available. In the new area the first hurdle to alternative
fore recommends that every plan for general Federal aid to the
education is the construction cost, which, incidentally, tends to run
States include a provision which guarantees nonpublic school pupils'
higher in the very areas where many church-related schools have
equal participation. This guarantee can readily be accomplished
placed greatest emphasis.
by a tuition reimbursement process or a withholding provision.
Completely modern and permanent new plants can be prohib-
Under a tuition reimbursement process, every State receiving
itively expensive to sponsors. In a following chapter the Panel rec-
Federal funds allocated for all school children in that State would
ommends experiments with mobile, low-cost units.⁵ Initial programs,
be required to establish a special account which, under State con-
supported through joint ventures with the U.S. Office of Education
trol, would be so administered that parents could claim reimburse-
and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, may have
great utility for school construction in new towns (a growing phe-
ment for nonpublic school tuition up to the full cost of tuition or
nomenon) and for replacement of obsolete inner-city buildings.
the full Federal per capita allotment-whichever is lower. Pennsyl-
Predictions for any widespread use of such loans cannot be made,
vania and Ohio have already embarked on the reimbursement route,
but here again innovative government penetrations can test the
and therefore on-going programs exist to provide guidance for the
Federal effort.
market, analyze the results, and make proper assessments of such a
program's long-range practicality. This recommendation is consistent
The Panel, aware of possible constitutional difficulties with the
with the Panel's philosophy to encourage private investment efforts
tuition reimbursement process, nevertheless recommends its inclu-
and to build on successful government precedents.
sion in Federal legislation so that eventually it can be tested in the
courts. The alternative is to exclude nonpublic school pupils from the
4. Tuition reimbursements
Federal program. Such exclusion the Panel firmly rejects.
Convinced that the Federal Government will be more deeply
The withholding provision could be employed when a State is
involved with long-range programs of Federal aid to educa-
forbidden by its own constitution to administer Federal funds in aid
tion, the Panel recommends a tuition reimbursement process for
of nonpublic school pupils. The Federal Government would then
nonpublic school children to assure full equity in all such
withhold a pro rata share of the State's allocation and administer
undertakings.
such funds through the process of tuition reimbursement for the par-
While the Commission on School Finance expressed the view that
ents of nonpublic school pupils in that State. The withholding pro-
the Federal Government should only play a role supplementary to
vision is a process which has guaranteed nonpublic school pupils'
the States in financing school costs, it also recommended Federal
participation in the national school lunch program and in several
incentive grants to reimburse States for part of their costs of rais-
ESEA programs.
ing the State's share of total State and local educational outlays
5 Chapter VI, A, 7.
43
42
C.
cultivated human beings-requires greater Federal concern for edu-
Funding
cation. We believe the Federal Government has the resources to work
New
with the States in providing equitably for every child's educational
Programs
need, has the capacity to create mechanisms to stimulate both private
Newspaper accounts have reported that a Federal value-added
and public efforts to offer quality schooling, and has the ability to
tax might replace the local property tax. Since there are 17,000
engineer techniques for disbursements that insure efficiency, account-
ability, equity, and non-entanglement.
school districts which levy property taxes for their schools, it is
clear that considerable time will be required to allow substantial
adjustments.
The value-added tax is presently employed in most of the Com-
mon Market countries of Europe and can generate, according to
published estimates, amounts in the neighborhood of $15 to $20
billion annually. It is a form of national sales tax imposed on manu-
facturing and distribution. Cost of the tax to the manufacturers is
passed on to the ultimate consumer in the form of a price increase.
Various reports indicate that government officials feel that a value-
added tax would encourage American exports to Europe. The Ad-
visory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations has been asked by
the President to study the value-added tax proposal in detail, and the
Panel feels it inappropriate to duplicate efforts.
It only notes that the proposed value-added tax embodies an ele-
ment of regressivity. No tax should be imposed which places a dispro-
portionate burden on the poor or low middle class. It may be possible,
however, to provide for certain exemptions (food and medi-
cine) and to incorporate certain devices (negative credits for those
who pay no taxes or are in low-tax categories) to mitigate the more
obvious disadvantages of the value-added tax.
The Brookings Institution (through the studies of Joseph Pechman
and Benjamin Okner) has presented evidence to two Congressional
Committees which rejects the value-added tax in favor of compre-
hensive income tax reform. The Brookings' proposals would reduce
the average tax payments for families with incomes below $25,000
and would sharply increase taxes for the higher-income families. All
options will be explored, and the Panel welcomes these undertakings.
D.
Conclusion
The Panel believes that contemporary America-with its high mo-
bility, its State and regional economic interdependencies and dis-
parities, its need for trained manpower, enlightened citizenry, and
44
45
Because traditional values and conventional wisdom are under
assault, more urgently needed than ever are schools which teach
certain objective, moral and spiritual standards. As bioengineers
learn more about human conception and human growth, the
greater will be the pressures for social decisions relating to the
individual's right to life, his relation to death, his sexual rights
and duties, and the like. Today's debate on public attitudes to-
CHAPTER VI
ward abortion is simply a prelude to the whole issue of social
control over individual life. Other questions impinge on the
THE
morality of war as an instrument of national policy, the priority
of conscription, the traditional work ethic, the dimension of in-
PRIVATE
ternational justice, and the very concept of an all-sovereign
CAPABILITY
Nation-State. Church-related schools also wrestle with situa-
THROUGHOUT THIS REPORT have run reinforcing themes. If
tionist ethics, the nature of a faith commitment, the God-man
relationships, authority, and the like. If the old challenge to
the poor are to get educational choices and if the middle class are not
sponsors of church-related schools was the preservation of the
to lose theirs, the Federal Government must help. At no time, how-
faith, the new challenge embraces the whole panorama of basic
ever, was entertained the notion that the nonpublic school community
tenets on which a free society rests.
would be, or should be, rescued totally by a public effort. The maxim
A.
that "God helps those who help themselves" has this secular variant:
Recommendations
"When the going gets tough, the tough get going."
That times are tough is made clear in Commission-financed re-
If the need for nonpublic schools is apparent and if combined pub-
search on the economic and social dimensions of the nonpublic
lic and private resources can be accumulated, the remaining ingre-
school crisis. These studies blend quantitative data, facts, digests
dient is the will to put the nonpublic house in order. As a step in this
of secondary research, generalizations, projections, opinions, and sug-
direction, the Panel recommends that each nonpublic school under-
gestions, and could leave the impression that nonpublic schools are
take the following:
so hopelessly situated an immediate call to abandon ship is the only
sensible course. Produced by competent scholars under contract with
1. Clarify its unique identity as a voluntary enterprise by
the Commission, these findings must be critiqued by other experts
setting forth its particular goals and objectives within the
context of its resources and commitments.
before being accepted as the only policy-relevant body of informa-
2. Increase its association with all private and public schools
tion. No matter how the research is analyzed, it is clear that herculean
in the locality.
measures and heroic self-sacrifice are called for.
3. Practice a policy of broad-based accountability-fiscal, pro-
This message, addressed to the nonpublic school community, is
fessional, academic, and civic. Nonpublic schools should lean
premised on both a fact and a value judgment. The stark fact is
over backwards to let the world know what they are doing.
this: given the enormous demands on the public purse, no govern-
4. Accept a component of greater risk. The risk will vary from
ment instrumentality is able to provide full funding for private
school to school. One may face bankruptcy as an alternative
to closing because of immediate financial pressure; another
educational ventures over the next critical five-year period. The
may endure public misunderstandings of its highly innovative
value judgment holds that a substantive voluntary commitment of
academic programs; another may alienate clientele or
both financial and human resources is essential to the vitality and
financial backers because of a commitment to racial inte-
quality of the nonpublic school enterprise.
gration; and still another may opt to stay in a troubled
Before delineating specific recommendations, however, the Panel
neighborhood when opportunities beckon elsewhere. The
future belongs to these nonpublic schools which dare to be
wishes to reemphasize some very positive developments:
exceptionally right.
Significant self-assessments leading to corrective action are tak-
5. Break the problem-psychosis web which has created an
ing place in many systems. Highly competent groups of externs
unfortunate image of the Nation's nonpublic schools. That
have just completed two exhaustive studies for parochial schools
nonpublic schools face a crisis is obvious, but a world of
in Washington and Philadelphia.
difference exists in perceiving the crisis as a challenge to do
A growing conviction exists that what was done fairly well by
better or as a prelude to inescapable disaster.
poor immigrant groups can be better done by today's affluent
6. Embark on vigorous recruiting programs. The seller's mar-
society.
ket has ended. Parents who, a few years ago, were willing
46
47
to pay a premium to enroll their children in a nonpublic
d. Take steps to give full-time employment by means of
school are "shopping" for the best school. It now is a buyer's
the year-round school, and/or assignment to summer
market where children will be in short supply to a degree
school. Supplemental employment may be one way to
contradicting predictions made only three or four years ago.
guarantee teachers an annual wage commensurate with
Most institutions will have to move competitively to maintain
their professional status and performance.
their membership.
e. Use the services of non-salaried volunteers whenever
If nonpublic schools are to operate at the full capacity
possible. A voluntary enterprise should welcome volun-
necessary for financial health, their staffs, alumni, and spon-
teered assistance.
sors must undertake aggressive recruitment effort. Certain
10. Intensify efforts to expand and improve all private income
prestigious academies and private universities with their
sources. Potential for increased revenue from higher tuition
systematic searches for qualified applicants have for years
and fees and from larger contributions is unclear. While there
shown the way. In these efforts, it is common practice to
is evidence that raised tuitions cause no mass exodus, one
involve not only professional recruiters, but alumni and
study showed that objection to higher rates was the alleged
faculty as well. If alumni and teachers stand by while enroll-
reason for about twenty percent of the transfers from non-
ment drops, then who but themselves must carry a major
public schools.
burden for their institutions' crisis?
A hard question for financially harassed nonpublic school
7. Experiment with mobile units to minimize construction
administrators is whether the support level can be raised.
costs-especially in growing suburbs where needs for new
When economists were asked how much more supporters of
public services are acute and public financial resources
nonpublic schools can pay, they answered that the gross
stretched. Nonpublic school construction, a booming industry
amount of money in the hands of the nonpublic school people
during the late fifties and early sixties, has come to a virtual
is more than sufficient; but the real potential is inseparably
halt, with the result that students who have moved from city
linked with judgments on the worth of nonpublic education.
to suburban neighborhoods are without choice. High con-
Federal tax arrangements encourage voluntary support, and
struction costs deter churches and other traditional sponsors
full use of such incentives should be made.
from going deeper into debt for new suburban schools. What
An average annual tuition of only seventy dollars for
occurs in the school is more important than what is put on
Roman Catholic elementary schools is so remarkably low that
the school. Mobile units can be easily dismantled when other
it can probably be raised without undue hardship. The figure,
facilities are required, when elements in the new community
however, is misleading because the average includes a large
have resources for more permanent facilities, or, finally, when
number which for years have never charged tuition; con-
the same units are more needed to meet other changing
sequently, the median figure for schools charging tuition is
mobility patterns.
higher. Whether a school derives its chief support from tuition
8. Pool resources with other nonpublic schools in a unified
or from church contributions is immaterial in terms of the
public relations project. The advantages of such a joint
total need, but the pattern of finance does, of course, have
enterprise are many. No public-relations program can be
implications for government programs described elsewhere
successful without the institution defining its image, and no
in this report.
package can be long sold unless realities match the claims.
Without prejudice to its firm recommendations for gov-
Schools must measure up to their stated ideals. Another
ernment aid programs, the Panel proposes these avenues to
by-product will be greater exchanges of information on cur-
increase private investment:
ricula, teacher recruitment, staff salaries, budgetary opera-
a. For the support of church-related schools, encourage in-
tions, and the like. A knowledge of common problems may
creased donations to the church, at least in proportion to
induce common solutions. And, of course, the ultimate goal
inflationary trends. The income tax advantages should
of a more enlightened citizenry will be more fully realized.
be made clear to all prospective contributors.
9. Exercise firm control over operating costs. In this regard the
b. Regular raises are recommended so that tuition income
Panel urges consideration of the following specific possibilities:
will not lag behind the higher prices being charged for
a. Operate at full capacity. Each school should determine
the school's normal purchase of goods and services.
the number of pupils it can recruit and service within
c. To avoid "hand-to-mouth" financing and an atmosphere
the limits of its physical, financial, and personnel
of constant crisis, nonpublic schools should have profes-
resources.
sionally prepared budgets developed after the widest
b. Achieve payroll savings which result from differential
possible consultation with the schools' patrons and bene-
staffing, including employment of part-time teachers in
factors. A major factor in the budget should be a long-
special fields and paraprofessionals.
term commitment to steady support.
c. Purchase equipment and supplies through cooperative
d. Full public accounting should be made of the revenues
agencies which give the advantages of wholesale prices.
and expenses, with a view to publicizing both the gen-
48
49
erosity and the needs of those supporting and operating
nonpublic schools.
e. Within its own tradition, each school should take full
advantage of all government benefits.
11. Form partnerships wherever possible with institutions of
higher learning and especially with those having the same
sponsors. Qualified interns and apprentices should be hired,
and public regulations restricting their employment should be
CHAPTER VII
modified. Innovative arrangements with college and univer-
sity faculty should be undertaken to the end that new and
exciting teaching materials may be provided at low cost,
TOWARD
consultant services offered on a sustaining basis, and other
A MEANINGFUL
special skills acquired.
PUBLIC
12. Intensify the personal relationships between teacher and
DISCUSSION
pupil. One consistent result of attitudinal surveys offers evi-
dence to show that supporters of nonpublic schools believe
such institutions give more individual attention, maintain
FOUR YEARS FROM NOW, when the Nation celebrates its two-
better discipline, and encourage an atmosphere of serious
hundredth anniversary of independence, the fate of nonpublic
study. If this personal dimension is as crucial as research in-
dicates, then the nonpublic schools must extend and reinforce
schools, as they are known today, will have been largely determined.
that quality. Experiments which involve parents in the child's
Wide discussion must precede public policy decisions regarding the
learning experiences could prove enormously advantageous.
future of pluralism in American education. The discussions will be
13. Embrace a full share of the moral and legal responsibility
lively and the conclusions fateful. The Panel suggests these key
for integrated education. Mere compliance with the mini-
mum requirements of civil rights laws is not enough. The
criteria for enlightened public debate:
Nation expects its nonpublic schools to lead in discovering
reasonable ways to advance the cause of racial integration.
A.
They should set a good example. Under no circumstances
The
should a nonpublic school allow itself to become a haven for
pupils in flight from public schools undergoing racial inte-
Criterion on
gration. It is useful to recall President John F. Kennedy's
Constitutionality
words at the time of the Birmingham crisis:
Laws alone cannot make men right-we Americans
Even as schools struggle to further the ideal of a desegregated so-
are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old
ciety, they concurrently face the task of reconciling religious freedom
as the Scriptures and is as clear as the American Con-
stitution. The heart of the question is whether all Ameri-
with the Non-Establishment Clause of the Constitution. New ap-
cans are to be afforded equal rights and opportunities,
proaches should be undertaken in the light of recent decisions.
whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as
we want to be treated.
It is not enough to pin the
B.
blame on others or to deplore the facts we face. It is time
The
to act in our daily lives.
Criterion of
B.
Opportunity
Summary
The basic premise for opportunity asserts that all children have
The foregoing suggestions can only be made meaningful by the
a moral right to an education appropriate to their needs and potential.
non-public school community itself. To that end the Panel urges
Obvious needs include education for competence in skills of read-
CAPE to seek funding to support programs of self-help. The rescue
ing, mathematics, and writing, and in such other civic-vocational
operation must begin at home. The agenda for the rest of the
skills that may constitute the individual child's specific interest. Be-
decade is formidable. It is also exciting and attainable.
yond these informational areas are the formational needs, that is,
grounding in moral and spiritual values, without which a free peo-
ple cannot long exist.
50
51
C.
F.
The
The
Criterion of
Criterion of
Choice
Incentive
Primary responsibility for education rests with the parent, not
This criterion refers to mechanisms which encourage Americans
with the State. The fundamental expression of such obligation is the
to invest in education, to take an active role in its development, and
capacity of parents to select the school which they deem best accords
to give freely and voluntarily to its support. Willingness to shoulder a
with their child's needs. Rejected is the notion that a State, because
fair tax burden is essential, but if willingness stops at this point, the
country not only loses voluntary contributions to, and voluntary
it depends on an enlightened citizenry for its survival, should insure
investments in, the education of its children but also departs sub-
it by legislation which eliminates the parental role. In exercising this
stantially from those laudable voluntaristic efforts noted by de
right, quite obviously parents may not indulge in racial or other
Tocqueville in his classic study, Democracy in America. Everything
forms of social injustice.
should be done to maintain and increase the multi-billion dollar
investment in nonpublic school students. This investment is mean-
D.
ingful to the vitality of an American society and to over five million
The
students enrolled in the privately-supported sector.
Criterion of
Not unrelated to private investment is private giving. Anything
Quality
which encourages a donative policy, with the concomitant note of
sacrifice, should be encouraged. Personal sacrifice contributes toward
A school must be responsive to the varying needs of different chil-
cementing a free society. Something important has been learned
dren. While research on educational effectiveness is very extensive,
from civil rights legislation in terms of what the Government can do
the findings are neither consistent nor policy-relevant. This holds true
to foster and sustain a free society, namely, that without good will
whether the research deals with: (a) input/output paradigms, in
and voluntarism the most noble legislation will prove inadequate.
which achievement is determined by the largess of resources offered
the student; (b) the process approach, in which achievement is re-
G.
lated to student/teacher interaction; or (c) the organizational ap-
The
proach, in which schools with multiple goals have their success meas-
Criterion of
ured by bureaucracy. The Panel feels that one truism underlies all
Diversity
others: competent men and women teaching what they enjoy, where
Part of America's genius has been to welcome people of richly
they wish, to students seeking to learn have a positive quality denied
variegated origins. Too often the ideal has been breached under the
to educational enterprises lacking these basic conditions.
misguided view that "one nation indivisible" meant one homogenized
citizenry. In truth, the United States is really a Nation-State com-
E.
posed of many national and cultural groups, with private institutions
The
the practical means to reflect this diversity. But private institutions
Criterion of
are in grave jeopardy. As Alan Pifer stated in his 1970 report to the
Equity
Carnegie Foundation:
No plan for educational reform should be encouraged if the net
Unless this decline (in private institutions) is arrested and
result is to diminish or obstruct the goal of a free, responsible, and
reversed, we and our children after us, will almost certainly
be living in a society where the idea of private initiative for the
integrated society, to place the heaviest financial burden on those least
common good has become little but a quaint anachronism
able to sustain it, or to deny access to schools favored by parents
largely associated with the mores of an earlier age. Perhaps at
for their children. Equity, therefore, embraces not simply economic
that time there will be Americans who are reasonably satisfied
with the kinds of lives offered them by a society which functions
standards but psychosocial and moral qualities. While equity defies
solely through public institutions. But there may well be others
precise quantification, it will yield to rough-hewn norms for justice.
with a great yearning for more variety, more choice, more
53
52
animation, and more freedom in their lives than such a system
would be likely to provide.
Not all Americans will accept these criteria, and many who do
accept them will give different interpretations on what they really
mean and how they can best be implemented. The important thing
is to place the criteria under critical judgment and to trust democ-
CHAPTER VIII
racy's ultimate logic.
SUMMARY
THE FINAL BALANCE SHEET must, of course, include major
findings of fact and the implications of these findings for the public
good. A brief restatement of both provides appropriate prelude to
the Panel's summation of recommendations for both public and
private action.
A.
Findings of
Fact
These are the finding of fact:
Wide diversity of types exists within the nonpublic school
segment.
Enrollments are declining. Roman Catholic elementary
schools lost 20.7 percent of their registrants between 1963
and 1969; the Missouri Synod of Lutheran Schools has also
dipped in enrollment. But researchers reported, "It seems
likely that the storm now buffeting Catholic schools will soon
affect most other nonpublic schools in the United States." 1
Factors explaining declines are so mixed that it is un-
wise to rely on a single-cause approach in developing policy
recommendations.
Costs are rising. This is especially true of teachers' salaries,
which constitute about seventy percent of operation costs. The
growth of nonpublic school salaries can be expected to keep
pace with that of the public sector.
Constitutional criteria are still fluid, even though direct aid to
to church-related schools is impermissible.
Nonschool influences on learning are so powerful that solu-
tions directed only toward school problems will prove
inadequate.
Widespread ignorance of the nonpublic school enterprise
exists.
Acceptance of nonpublic schools as necessary and non-
divisive components of American education is growing.
1 Issues of Aid to Nonpublic Schools, I, Ch. VII:2.
55
54
B.
indicate that their parents consider these schools preferable
Implications
in quality to public education available to them.
1. For the nonpublic community:
These are surely elements of consequence to the public purpose.
The days of an assured student demand and automatic
D.
support have ended.
Recommendations
Overemphasis on problems, to the neglect of problem-solving,
has created a poor public image.
For the nonpublic school community:
Insularity has impeded comprehensive reform because prob-
lems of one school were not perceived as potential problems
Sharpen identity by defining specific goals and objectives for
for all schools.
each school.
The public school crisis itself is so severe that demands for
Associate with public and other nonpublic educational
total public funding are presently unrealistic; therefore public
agencies.
support plans will still require enormous self-help.
Practice broad-based accountability.
2. For the public:
Break the problem-psychosis syndrome.
Recruit vigorously.
Some $3 billion of added operating costs could annually fall
on the already heavily burdened public sector if nonpublic
Experiment with economical mobile school construction.
schools collapse.
Mount joint public relations projects.
The heaviest burden will fall on seven industrial States and
Keep tight rein on operating costs.
on major urban centers which desperately need stabilizing
Strive to reach all private income sources-tuitions, gifts,
support from every source.
contributed services.
The sociocultural costs may prove more prohibitive than
Build partnerships with colleges and universities, especially
dollar costs, especially for racially changing neighborhoods.
with those maintained by the same sponsors.
Effective choices for alternative education are declining.
Intensify the personal dimension in teacher/pupil relation-
ships.
C.
Involve parents.
The
Be a dedicated partner in integrated education.
Public
For the public:
Interest
Support Federal assistance programs for the urban poor.
There is no doubt that educational pluralism is a force for good
Grant Federal tax credits for nonpublic tuition costs.
in American life. This view is fully shared by the Commission on
Extend Federal construction loan programs to nonpublic
School Finance, which concluded that nonpublic schools serve the
school sponsors.
public interest because:
Provide participation to nonpublic school pupils on the same
They provide diversity, choice, and healthy competition to
basis as for public school students in all future federal aid
traditional public education.
programs.
(They. provide) the means for substantial groups of Ameri-
cans to express themselves socially, ethnically, culturally, and
E.
religiously through educational institutions.³
Valedictory
Inner-city religious schools may preserve a degree of ethnic
and racial separation, but, at the same time, they also
The time has come for a bold new look at education. To look
preserve at least a semblance of racial balance in these old
boldly requires avoidance of two evils: (1) of ignoring the past and
neighborhoods.
inviting previous errors, or (2) of worshipping the past and clinging
Urban nonpublic schools often enroll a significant number
to molds now obsolete.
of children who are not adherents to their faith. This would
For future education, the greater threat comes from the second
2 Schools, People, and Money, pp. 54-6.
course. All too vivid are the successes rather than the shortcomings
8 The Ohio State University Research Foundation Report to the Commis-
sion concluded that "the current forms of urban educational governance
of the melting-pot theory; all too ingrained is the memory of early
makes little allowance for diversity." Problems of Financing Inner-City
religious divisiveness rather than religion's unifying contribution; all
Schools, p. 52.
56
57
too stressed is the threat of the nonpublic schools to the establish-
ment, and forgotten are the attacks on religious and ethnic schools,
especially violent after World War I. Problems which divide us to-
day are no longer rooted in religious prejudice. Race and ethnic
identity, poverty and crime, drugs and pollution are now the Nation's
domestic concern.
The country's needs have changed. The churches' needs have
changed. The schools' needs have changed. And new needs raise
new questions. Can evidence support the myth that a seventeen-
year-old high school senior is being indoctrinated in a church-related
school, but a seventeen-year-old freshman is being educated in a
church-related college? Is a publicly funded church-related school
which fulfills all State requirements an intrinsic danger to the sep-
aration of church and State? What religious sect espouses an estab-
lished State church? This world of fantasy must end sometime.
When it does, genuine freedom of choice in education will
be the possession of all Americans. A Bill of Educational Rights
can make this Nation's 1976 anniversary truly meaningful. In
a word, the challenge to the American conscience is simply how
best to deal with consequences flowing from the moment-
A CHILD IS BORN!
58
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1972 O-462- 107
NEWS RELEASE
(School
For Immediate Release
FROM: Rep. John W. Byrnes (R., Wis.)
2206 Rayburn House Office B1dg.
February 8, 1972
Washington, D. C. 20515
Congressman John W. Byrnes (R., Wis.) today introduced
legislation providing a Federal tax credit to individuals for
tuition paid for dependents to attend a private nonprofit
elementary or secondary school. The Minority Leader, Congressman
Gerald R. Ford (R., Mich.) joined Mr. Byrnes in introducing the
bill. Congressman Byrnes released the following statement in
connection with his introduction of the bill:
"Parents of private and parochial school
children pay the cost of the public schools
as taxpayers, while educating their children
at their own expense outside the public school
system. This dual burden is creating a crisis
in private and parochial education clearly
reflected in declining enrollments at the same
time public school enrollments have been increasing.
In 1970, there were 1.4 million fewer students
in parochial and private elementary and secondary
schools than in 1963. During the same period,
public school enrollment increased by nearly six
million students. Our financially overburdened
public schools would have spent approximately
$1.2 billion less in fiscal 1971 if private and
parochial school enrollments had simply remained
constant at their 1963 level instead of declining.
The savings in public school expenditures would have
been substantially greater if private and parochial
schools absorbed a proportionate share of the growth
during this period.
Corrective action is demanded. While the public
schools provide the backbone of our educational
system, private and parochial schools have traditionally
played an important role consistent with the genius
of American pluralism. The financial crisis private
and parochial schools face threatens these values
while imposing greater financial strains on the public
schools and the general taxpayer.
My bill attacks this problem through a simple tax
credit for tuition paid to a private nonprofit
elementary or secondary school. Books, fees, supplies
and similar items are excluded. The credit would be
equal to one-half of the tuition paid up to an overall
limit of $400 per dependent. Additionally, the credit
would be phased out gradually for taxpayers with incomes
above specified levels.
This straightforward approach improves equity and
provides needed financial relief within a framework
of administrative simplicity. My bill will strengthen
our entire system of elementary and secondary
education in the United States, both public and private.
It will provide direct and indirect tax relief to
virtually all taxpayers."
92D CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. R. 13020
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FEBRUARY 8, 1972
Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin (for himself and Mr. GERALD R. FORD) introduced the
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
A
BILL
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to allow a credit
against the individual income tax for tuition paid for the
elementary or secondary education of dependents.
1
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 That (a) subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1
4 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (relating to credits
5 allowable) is amended by redesignating section 42 as sec-
6 tion 43, and by inserting after section 41 the following new
7 section:
8 "SEC. 42. TUITION PAID FOR ELEMENTARY OR SECOND-
9
ARY EDUCATION.
10
(a) GENERAL RULE.-There shall be allowed to an
11 individual, as a credit against the tax imposed by this
I
2
3
1 chapter for the taxable year, an amount determined under
1
" (1) Turrion.-The term 'tuition' means any
2 subsection (b) for tuition paid by him to any private
2
amount required for the enrollment or attendance of a
3
nonprofit elementary or secondary school during the taxable
3
student at a private nonprofit elementary or secondary
4
year for the elementary or secondary education of any de-
4
school. Such term does not include any amount paid di-
5
pendent with respect to whom the taxpayer is allowed an
5
rectly or indirectly for meals, lodging, transportation,
6
exemption for the taxable year under section 151 (e).
6
extracurricular activities, supplies, equipment, clothing,
7
" (b) Limitations.-
7
or personal or family expenses. If the amount paid for
8
" (1) AMOUNT PER DEPENDENT.-The amount al-
8
tuition includes any amount (not separately stated) for
9
lowable under subsection (a) for the taxable year with
9
an item described in the preceding sentence, the portion
10
respect to any dependent shall not exceed the lesser of-
10
of the amount paid for tuition which is attributable to
11
" (A) 50 percent of the tuition paid by the tax-
11
such item shall be determined under regulations pre-
12
payer during the taxable year for the elementary or
12
scribed by the Secretary or his delegate.
13
secondary education of such dependent, or
13
" (2) PRIVATE NONPROFIT ELEMENTARY OR SEC-
14
" (B) $400.
14
ONDARY SCHOOL-The term 'private nonprofit elemen-
15
" (2) REDUCTION OF CREDIT.-The aggregate
15
tary or secondary school' means an educational
16
amount which would (but for this paragraph) be allow-
16
institution-
17
able under subsection (a) shall be reduced by an amount
17
" (A) which is described in sections 501 (c)
18
equal to $1 for each full $20 contained in the amount by
18
(3) and 503 (b) (2) and which is exempt from tax
19
which the adjusted gross income of the taxpayer (or, if
19
under section 501 (a),
20
the taxpayer is married, the adjusted gross income of
20
" (B) which regularly offers education at the
21
the taxpayer and his spouse) , for the taxable year ex-
21
elementary or secondary level, and
22
ceeds $25,000. For purposes of this paragraph, marital
22
" (C) attendance at which by students who
23
status shall be determined under section 143.
23
are subject to the compulsory education laws of
24
" (c) DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.-For pur-
24
the State satisfies the requirements of such laws.
25
poses of this section-
4
1
" (3) ELEMENTARY OR SECONDARY EDUCATION.-
2
The term "elementary or secondary education" does not
3
include education at a level beyond the 12th grade.
4
" (d) APPLICATION WITH OTHER CREDITS.-The
5 credit allowed by subsection (a) to the taxpayer shall not
6 exceed the amount of tax imposed on the taxpayer for the
7 taxable year by this chapter, reduced by the sum of credits
8 allowable under this subchapter (other than under this
9
section and sections 31 and 39) .
10
" (e) REGULATIONS.-The Secretary or his delegate
11 shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry
12
out the provisions of this section."
13
(b) The table of sections for such subpart A is amended
15
by striking out the item relating to section 42 and insert-
16 ing in lieu thereof the following:
"Sec. 42. Tuition paid for clementary or secondary educa-
tion.
"Sec. 43. Overpayments of tax."
17
SEC. 2. The amendments made by this Act shall apply
18 to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1971.
92D CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. R. 13020
A BILL
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to
allow a credit against the individual income
tax for tuition paid for the elementary or
secondary education of dependents.
By Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin and Mr. GERALD
R. FORD
FEBRUARY 8, 1972
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
92D CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. R. 16141
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
AUGUST 2, 1972
Mr. CAREY of New York (for himself and Mr. MILLS of Arkansas) introduced
the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
A
BILL
To provide payments to States for public elementary and sec-
ondary education and to allow a credit against the individual
income tax for tuition paid for the elementary or secondary
education of dependents.
1
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4
This Act may be cited as the "Public and Private
5 Education Assistance Act of 1972".
I
2
3
1 TITLE I-PAYMENTS TO STATES FOR PUBLIC
1 ments by a State under a program for the purpose equaliz-
2
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
2 ing educational opportunities of public school students in
3 SEC. 101. PAYMENTS TO STATES.
3 the State.
4
Except as otherwise provided in this title, the Secretary
4
(b) QUALIFIED PROGRAMS.-
5 (as defined in section 107 (a) ) shall, for each entitlement
5
(1) WHERE STATE SUPPLIES AT LEAST 90 PER-
6 period (as defined in section 107 (b) pay out of the Public
6
CENT OF COST OF PUBLIC EDUCATION.-If a State for
7 Education Trust Fund created by section 104 to each State
7
any entitlement period supplies 90 percent or more of
8 for use by such State for public education equalization expend-
8
the non-Federal funding of public elementary and sec-
9 itures (as defined in section 102) a total amount equal to
9
ondary education, then its expenditures for such period
10 the entitlement of such State for such period (determined
10
will be considered to be public education equalization
11 under section 103) Such payments shall be made in in-
11
expenditures if the State funds are allocated among pub-
12 stallments during any period but not less often than once
12
lic elementary and secondary schools under-
13 each quarter. Such payments for any period may be initially
13
(A) a program based on providing an equal
14 made on the basis of estimates. Proper adjustment shall be
14
amount of funds for the education of each public
15 made in the amount of any payment to a State, to the extent
15
school student in the State, or
16 that the payments previously made to such State under this
16
(B) a program based on providing deferential
17 title were in excess of or less than the amounts required to
17
amounts of funds for public school students in the
18 be paid. A State may not treat funds it receives under this title
18
State if the Secretary determines that the program
19 as a contribution made from non-Federal funds for purposes
19
is designed to achieve the equalization of educa-
20 of any formula provided by a law of the United States under
20
tional opportunities of public school students within
21 which non-Federal funds must be made available in order
21
the State.
22 to receive Federal funds.
22
(2) WHERE STATE SUPPLIES LESS THAN 90 PER-
23 SEC. 102. PUBLIC EDUCATION EQUALIZATION EXPENDI-
23
CENT OF COST OF PUBLIC EDUCATION.-If a State for
24
TURES.
24
any entitlement period supplies less than 90 percent
25
(a) IN GENERAL.-For purposes of this title, the term
25
of the non-Federal funding of public elementary and
26 "public education equalization expenditures" means pay-
4
5
1
secondary education, then its expenditures for such
1
over the total assessed value of all assessable real
2
period will be considered to be public education
2
property within the State.
3
equalization expenditures if the State funds are dis-
3
(c) REGULATIONS.-The Secretary may prescribe regu-
4
tributed among school districts under a program which
4 lations describing other programs for equalizing educational
5
will allocate State funds among school districts for an
5 opportunities of public school students expenditures under
6
entitlement period in proportion to the amount by which
6 which will qualify as public education equalization
7
each district's hypothetical educational expenditures ex-
7
expenditures.
8
ceeds the sum of its hypothetical property tax revenue
8 SEC. 103. AMOUNT OF ENTITLEMENT OF STATE.
9
plus State allocations to the district for public education
9
(a) IN GENERAL.-Except as provided in subsection
10
other than allocations under a program providing public
10
(b), there shall be paid to a State from the Trust Fund
11
education equalization expenditures.
11
created by section 104 for any entitlement period an amount
12
(A) For purposes of this subsection, the term
12
equal to the sum disbursed by such State out of State funds
13
"hypothetical educational expenditures" means for
13 for such period as public education equalization expenditures.
14
any school district the product derived by multiply-
14 For purposes of this section, the sum disbursed out of State
15
ing (i) the number of public school students within
15 funds shall not include amounts provided to the State out of
16
the district times (ii) the total non-Federal expendi-
16
Federal funds.
17
tures for public education within the State over the
17
(b) EXCEPTIONS.-
18
total number of public school students within the
18
(1) If for any entitlement period, the total pay-
19
State.
19
ments provided under subsection (a) exceed the amount
20
(B) For purposes of this subsection, the term
20
appropriated for the Trust Fund for such period, the
21
"hypothetical property tax revenues" means for any
21
amount of payments to each State under subsection
22
school district the product derived by multiplying
22
(a) shall be reduced proportionately.
23
(i) the assessed value of all assessable real property
23
(2) The total payment to a State for any entitle-
24
within the district times (ii) the total non-Federal
24
ment period under subsection (a) may not exceed 10
25
expenditures for public education within the State
25
percent of the total non-Federal funds spent within
6
7
1
the State for such period on public elementary and
1
(2) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel-
2
secondary education.
2
fare shall be the trustee of the Trust Fund and shall
3
SEC. 104. PUBLIC EDUCATION TRUST FUND.
3
report to the Congress not later than March 1 of each
4
(a) APPROPRIATIONS.-
4
year on the operation and status of the Trust Fund
5
(1) IN GENERAL.-There is hereby appropriated
5
during the preceding fiscal year.
6
out of any amounts in the general fund of the Treasury
6
SEC. 105. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
7
attributable to the collections of the Federal individual
7
(a) ASSURANCE OF STATE PUBLIC EDUCATION
8
income tax not otherwise appropriated $2,250,000,000
8 EQUALIZATION PLANS.-In order to qualify for any pay-
9
for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1972, and $2,250,-
9 ment under this title for any entitlement period beginning on
10
000,000 for each fiscal year thereafter.
10 or after July 1, 1972, a State must establish (in accordance
11
(2) DEPOSIT IN TRUST FUND.-The amount ap-
11 with regulations prescribed by the Secretary) to the satis-
12
propriated by paragraph (1) for any period shall be
12 faction of the Secretary-
13
deposited in the trust fund created by subsection (b)
13
(1) that the State will establish a trust fund in
14
on the first day of such period (or, if later, on the day
14
which it will deposit all payments it receives under this
15
on which this Act is enacted).
15
title;
16
(b) CREATION OF TRUST FUND.-
16
(2) that it will use amounts in such trust fund (in-
17
(1) There is created in the books of the Treasury
17
cluding any interest earned thereon while in such trust
18
of the United States a trust fund to be known as the
18
fund) only for high-priority public education equaliza-
19
"Public Education Trust Fund" (referred to in this
19
tion expenditures, and that it will SO use such amounts
20
subtitle as the "Trust Fund") The Trust Fund shall
20
during such reasonable period or periods as may be pro-
21
remain available without fiscal year limitation and shall
21
vided in such regulations;
22
remain available without fiscal year limitation and shall
22
(3) that the State will pay over to the Secretary
23
consist of such amounts as may be appropriated to it and
23
(for deposit in the general fund of the Treasury) an
24
deposited in it as provided in subsection (a) Amounts
24
amount equal to 110 percent of any amount expended
25
in the Trust Fund may be used only for the payments to
25
out of its trust fund established pursuant to paragraph
26
States provided by this title.
8
9
1
(1) in violation of paragraph (2) which is not promptly
1
on construction financed in whole or in part out of its
2
repaid to the trust fund (or the violation otherwise cor-
2
trust fund established under paragraph (1) will be paid
3
rected) after notice and an opportunity to take cor-
3
wages at rates not less than those prevailing on similar
4
rective action;
4
construction in the locality as determined by the Secre-
5
(4) that the State will-
5
tary of Labor in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act,
6
(A) use such fiscal, accounting, and audit pro-
6
as amended (40 U.S.C. 276a-276a-5), and that with
7
cedures as will conform to guidelines established
7
respect to the labor standards specified in this paragraph
8
therefor by the Secretary (after consultation with
8
the Secretary of Labor shall act in accordance with Re-
9
the Comptroller General of the United States) and
9
organization Plan Numbered 14 of 1950 (15 F.R.
10
as will assure compliance with paragraphs (2) and
10
3176; 64 Stat. 1267) and section 2 of the Act of June
11
(3),
11
13, 1934, as amended (40 U.S.C. 276c) ; and
12
(B) provide to the Secretary (and to the
12
(6) that persons employed in jobs financed in
13
Comptroller General of the United States), on rea-
13
whole or in part out of its trust fund established under
14
sonable notice, access to, and the right to examine,
14
paragraph (1) will be paid wages which shall not be
15
such books, documents, papers, or records as the
15
lower than the prevailing rates of pay for persons em-
16
Secretary may reasonably require for purposes of
16
ployed in similar jobs by such State.
17
reviewing compliance with this subsection (or, in
17
(b) WITHHOLDING OF PAYMENTS.-If the Secretary
18
the case of the Comptroller General, as the Comp-
18
determines that a State has failed to comply substantially
19
troller General may reasonably require for purposes
19 with any provision of this title (other than section 106) or
20
of reviewing compliance and operations under sub-
20 any regulations prescribed thereunder, after giving reason-
21
section (c) (2) and
21 able notice and opportunity for a hearing to the Governor of
22
(C) make such annual and interim reports to
22
such State, the Secretary shall notify the State that if such
23
the Secretary as he may reasonably require;
23 State fails to take corrective action within 60 days from the
24
(5) that all laborers and mechanics employed by
24 date of receipt of such notification further payments to such
25
contractors or subcontractors in the performance of work
25 State shall be withheld for the remainder of the entitlement
H.R. 16141-2
10
11
1 period and for any subsequent entitlement period until such
1 regulation, he shall notify the Governor of such State of the
2 time as the Secretary is satisfied that appropriate corrective
2 noncompliance and shall request the Governor to secure com-
3 action has been taken and that there will no longer be any
3 pliance. If within a reasonable period of time the State fails
4 failure to comply. Until he is satisfied, the Secretary shall
4 or refuses to secure compliance, the Secretary shall have
5 make no further payments of such amounts.
5 the authority (1) to refer the matter to the Attorney Gen-
6
(c) ACCOUNTING, AUDITING, AND EVALUATION.-
6 eral with a recommendation that an appropriate civil action
7
(1) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary shall provide for
7 be instituted; (2) to exercise the powers and functions pro-
8
such accounting and auditing procedures, evaluations,
8 vided by title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.
9
and reviews as may be necessary to insure that the ex-
9 2000d) ; or (3) to take such other action as may be provided
10
penditures of funds by the States comply fully with the
10 by law.
11
requirements of this title.
11
(c) When a matter is referred to the Attorney General
12
(2) COMPTROLLER GENERAL SHALL REVIEW COM-
12 pursuant to subsection (b), or whenever he has reason to
13
PLIANCE.-The Comptroller General of the United
13 believe that a State is engaged in a pattern or practice in
14
States shall make such reviews of the work as done by
14 violation of the provisions of this section, the Attorney Gen-
15
the Secretary, and the States, as may be necessary for
15 eral may bring a civil action in any appropriate United States
16
the Congress to evaluate compliance and operations
16 district court for such relief as may be appropriate, including
17
under this subtitle.
17 injunctive relief.
18
SEC. 106. NONDISCRIMINATION PROVISION.
18 SEC. 107. DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.
19
(a) No person in the United States shall on the ground
19
(a) SECRETARY.-For purposes of this title, the term
20
of race, color, national origin, or sex be excluded from par-
20 "Secretary" means the Secretary of Health, Education, and
21
ticipation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to dis-
21 Welfare or his delegate. The term "Secretary of Health, Ed-
22
crimination under any program or activity funded in whole
22 ucation, and Welfare" means the Secretary of Health, Edu-
23
or in part with funds made available under this title.
23 cation, and Welfare personally, not including any delegate.
24
(b) Whenever the Secretary determines that a State
24
(b) ENTITLEMENT PERIOD.-For purposes of this title,
25 has failed to comply with subsection (a) or an applicable
12
13
1 the term "entitlement period" means the one-year periods
1 to the Secretary; a copy shall also forthwith be transmitted
2 beginning on July 1 of 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, and 1976.
2 to the Attorney General.
3
(c) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.-
3
(b) RECORD.-The Secretary shall file in the court the
4
(1) TREATED AS STATE.-For purposes of this title,
4 record of the proceeding on which he based his action, as
5
the District of Columbia shall be treated as a State, and
5 provided in section 2112 of title 28, United States Code. No
6
any reference to the Governor of a State shall, in the
6 objection to the action of the Secretary shall be considered
7
case of the District of Columbia, be treated as a reference
7 by the court unless such objection has been urged before
8
to the Commissioner of the District of Columbia.
8 the Secretary.
9
SEC. 108. REGULATIONS.
9
(c) JURISDICTION OF COURT.-The court shall have
10
(a) GENERAL RULE.-The Secretary shall prescribe
10 jurisdiction to affirm or modify the action of the Secretary
11 such regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry
11 or to set it aside in whole or in part. The findings of fact
12 out the provisions of this title.
12 by the Secretary, if supported by substantial evidence con-
13
(b) ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT To APPLY.-
13 tained in the record, shall be conclusive. However, if any
14 The rulemaking provisions of subchapter II of chapter 5 of
14 finding is not supported by substantial evidence contained
15 title 5 of the United States Code shall apply to the regula-
15 in the record, the court may remand the case to the Sec-
16 tions prescribed under this title for entitlement periods be-
16 retary to take further evidence, and the Secretary may
17 ginning on or after July 1, 1972.
17 thereupon make new or modified findings of fact and may
18 SEC. 109. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
18 modify his previous actions. He shall certify to the court the
19
(a) PETITIONS FOR REVIEW.-Any State which re-
19 record of any further proceedings. Such new or modified
20 ceives a 60-day notice under section 105 (b) may, within
20 findings of fact shall likewise be conclusive if supported by
21 60 days after receiving such notice, file with the United
21 substantial evidence contained in the record.
22 States court of appeals for the circuit in which such State
22
(d) REVIEW BY SUPREME COURT.-The judgment of
23 is located a petition for review of the action of the Secre-
23 the court shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court
24 tary. A copy of the petition shall forthwith be transmitted
24 of the United States upon certiorari or certification, as pro-
25 vided in section 1254 of title 28, United States Code.
14
15
1 TITLE II-CREDIT AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL
1
payer during the taxable year for the elementary or
2
INCOME TAX FOR TUITION PAID FOR THE
2
secondary education of such dependent, or
3
ELEMENTARY OR SECONDARY EDUCATION
3
" (2) $200.
4
OF DEPENDENTS
4
" (c) DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.-For pur-
5 SEC. 201. TUITION PAID FOR ELEMENTARY OR SEC-
5 poses of this section-
6
ONDARY EDUCATION.
6
" (1) TUITION.-The term 'tuition' means any
7
Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the
7
amount required for the enrollment or attendance of a
8 Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (relating to credits allow-
8
student at a private nonprofit elementary or secondary
9 able) is amended by redesignating section 42 as section 43,
9
school. Such term does not include any amount paid
10 and by inserting after section 41 the following new section:
10
directly or indirectly for meals, lodging, or similar per-
11
"SEC. 42. TUITION AND FEES PAID FOR ELEMENTARY OR
11
sonal or family expenses. If the amount paid for tuition
12
SECONDARY EDUCATION.
12
includes any amount (not separately stated) for an
13
" (a) GENERAL RULE.-There shall be allowed to an
13
item described in the preceding sentence, the portion of
14 individual, as a credit against the tax imposed by this chap-
14
the amount paid for tuition which is attributable to such
15 ter for the taxable year, an amount determined under sub-
15
item shall be determined under regulations prescribed by
16 section (b), for tuition paid by him to any private non-
16
the Secretary or his delegate.
17
17
profit elementary or secondary school during the taxable year
" (2) PRIVATE NONPROFIT ELEMENTARY OR SEC-
18 for the elementary or secondary education of any dependent
18
ONDARY SCHOOL.-The term 'private nonprofit ele-
19 with respect to whom the taxpayer is allowed an exemption
19
mentary or secondary school' means an educational
20 for the taxable year under section 151 (e)
20
institution-
21
21
" (b) LIMITATIONS.-The amount allowable under sub-
" (A) which is described in sections 501 (c)
22
22
section (a) for the taxable year with respect to any de-
(3) and 170 (b) (1) (A) (ii) and which is exempt
23
23
pendent shall not exceed the lesser of-
from tax under section 501 (a)
24
" (1) 100 percent of the tuition paid by the tax-
16
1
" (B) which regularly offers education at the
2
elementary or secondary level, and
3
" (C) attendance at which by students who are
4
subject to the compulsory education laws of the
5
State satisfies the requirements of such laws.
6
" (3) ELEMENTARY OR SECONDARY EDUCATION.-
7
The term 'elementary or secondary education' does not
8
include education at a level beyond the 12th grade.
9
" (d) REGULATIONS.-The Secretary or his delegate
10 shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry
11 out the provisions of this section."
12
(b) The table of sections for such subpart A is amended
13 by striking out the item relating to section 42 and inserting
14 in lieu thereof the following:
"Sec. 42. Tuition and fees paid for elementary or secondary
education.
"Sec. 43. Overpayments of tax.".
15 SEC. 202. EFFECTIVE DATE.
16
The amendments made by this Act shall apply to tax-
17 able years beginning after December 31, 1971.
92D CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H.R. 16141
A BILL
To provide payments to States for public ele-
mentary and secondary education and to
allow a credit against the individual income
tax for tuition paid for the elementary or
secondary education of dependents.
By Mr. CAREY of New York, and Mr. MILLS of
Arkansas
AUGUST 2, 1972
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
NINETY-SECOND CONGRESS
WILBUR D. MILLS, ARK., CHAIRMAN
AL ULLMAN, OREG.
JOHN W. BYRNES, WIS.
JAMES A. BURKE, MASS.
JACKSON E. BETTS, OHIO
MARTHA W. GRIFFITHS, MICH.
HERMAN T. SCHNEEBELI, PA.
DAN ROSTENKOWSKI, ILL.
HAROLD R. COLLIER, ILL.
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
PHIL M. LANDRUM, GA.
JOEL T. BROYHILL, VA.
CHARLES A. VANIK, OHIO
BARBER B. CONABLE, JR., N.Y.
RICHARD H. FULTON, TENN.
CHARLES E. CHAMBERLAIN, MICH.
OMAR BURLESON, TEX.
JERRY L. PETTIS, CALIF.
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JAMES c. CORMAN, CALIF.
JOHN J. DUNCAN, TENN.
WILLIAM J. GREEN, PA.
DONALD G. BROTZMAN, COLO.
SAM M. GIBBONS, FLA.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
HUGH L. CAREY, N.Y.
JOE D. WAGGONNER, JR., LA.
JOSEPH E. KARTH, MINN.
August 23, 1972
JOHN M. MARTIN, JR., CHIEF COUNSEL
J. P. BAKER, ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL
RICHARD c. WILBUR, MINORITY COUNSEL
MEMORANDUM
To:
The Honorable Gerald R. Ford
Attention of Paul Miltich
From:
Office of Minority Counsel
Re:
Committee action on legislation which would allow
tax credits for tuition paid for elementary and
secondary education of dependents
The Committee on Ways and Means began, on August 14, 1972,
a series of public hearings on H.R. 16141 and related proposals.
Title I of H.R. 16141 would provide for federal payments
of up to $2 25 billion to the states for public elementary and
secondary education. Title II would provide for tax credits
for tuition paid for elementary or secondary education for de-
pendents.
A copy of a Committee Print containing the text, summary
and explanation of H.R. 16141, along with the texts of related
bills (including H.R. 13020, by Mr. Byrnes and Mr. Ford) is
enclosed for your use. The Committee hearings were recessed
August 18 and are scheduled to resume September 5. Copies of
the witness lists for each day of the hearings so far, and a
tentative list for the post recess period, also are enclosed
for your information.
The hearings are expected to continue at least through the
first full week of September. The Chairman has not indicated
whether the Committee will begin executive consideration of
the legislation immediately following the close of the hearings.
But in light of a heavy schedule of other Committee business
including a new debt ceiling bill (the present statutory limit
of $450 billion expires October 31) and possibly a conference
on revenue sharing -- it would appear doubtful that further
progress will be made in this area in the very near future.
In the hearings thus far, the Administration has indicated
its strong support for the idea of tax credits for tuition paid
for nonpublic education of dependents in elementary and second-
ary schools. Enclosed additionally are statements to that
Honorable Gerald R. Ford
-2-
August 23, 1972
effect from Treasury Secretary Shultz and Caspar Weinberger,
Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
Public proponents of the tax credit proposals have made
these arguments, among others:
1. Parents should be able to choose between public and
nonpublic education for their children, and this freedom of
choice is in jeopardy because of the decline of nonpublic
schools.
2. The closing of private schools has forced a number
of students into public schools, thus increasing the burden
on the public school system as well as the general taxpayer.
3. Parents who now pay to send their children to non-
public schools yet continue to support the public schools as
taxpayers are bearing a dual educational cost load.
Opponents of the tax credit proposals maintain, among
other things, that they:
1. are of doubtful constitutionality in that they go
against the separation of church and state.
2. would foster racial segregation and religious divisive-
ness.
3. would mark the first step in the ultimate destruction
of the public school system.
Also enclosed for your possible use are selected copies
of printed testimony received during the hearings thus far,
including some statements from Michigan residents.
We hope that the above material will meet your needs. If
not, or we may be of additional assistance in any way, please
let us know.
ALS/ms
Enclosures
Contact:
FOR RELEASE: upon
delivery to the
American Association
Ways & Means Committee
of Christian Schools
Expected 10 AM Thursday
1629 K Street, N.W.
August 17, 1972
Washington, D.C. 20006
Jack Buttram - -- 872-8211
SUMMARY OF AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CHRISTIAN
SCHOOL'S TESTIMONY BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE
Washington, D.C., August 17 -- Dr. A.C. Janney, President of the
American Association of Christian Schools, told the House Ways &
Means Committee today his national organization supports the idea
of income tax credits for patrons of private schools. He stopped
short, however, of supporting income tax refunds in excess of the
credit saying he thinks a significant Constitutional question is
involved.
The spokesman for the newly formed organization representing
some 100,000 pupils in 400 schools in 22 states, said he thought the
avenue of tax credits to be the most equitable, to relieve some of
the double burden born by private school patrons, while at the same
time keeping the Federal government out of the affairs of private
schools.
Dr. Janney questioned the adequacy of the amount of the tax
credit, however, saying that he thought some amount approaching per-
pupil expenditures in the public schools would be more equitable. He
also questioned the wisdom of pouring more money into the public school
system until some basic changes are made citing the Coleman report as
an indication that we have much to learn about spending money in
public education.
In concluding his testimony, Dr. Janney noted his organization
has already begun to implement many recommendations of the President's
Panel on Non-public Education.
(END)
TESTIMONY
OF
MARK VANDER ARK, Superintendent
HOLLAND CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS
956 Ottawa Ave.
Holland, Michigan 49423
Made Before
THE HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE
Relating to
HR 16141 - The Public and Private Education
Assistance Act.
Given on:
Thursday, August 17th, 1972 - 10:00 A.M.
I am Mark Vander Ark, 969 Pine Ave,, Holland, Michigan 49423 - Superin-
tendent of Holland Christian Schools. I am starting my twelfth year in this
position.
Holland Christian Schools have an enrollment of 2702 in grades Kinder-
garten through 12. On June 14th 296 seniors graduated from our high school.
As it now appears, this will be our largest group of graduates
We employ a staff of one hundred fifteen fully certified teachers, who
are paid according to a fixed salary schedule. Pay levels are relative to
public teacher salaries, though generally somewhat lower. Our high school
is fully accredited by the University of Michigan The average per pupil cost
for 72-73 is estimated to be $578, exclusive of capital investment in buildings
and transportation
Our aim is to provide thorough, quality education in academic studies,
athletics, the arts, and in pre-vocational areas. Success is evidenced by the
achievement of our graduates in colleges and universities, easy placement of
business education students, real athletic prowess, and selection of our band
for the last presidential inaugural parade and as a demonstration group for
the recent American School Band Directors Association National Convention held
in Lansing, Michigan. Our teaching staff is competent and stable. Many have
advanced degrees, The Masters and beyond.
Holland Christian Schools were established in 1902. Our school system
is based on an article of religious faith which holds that the primary respon-
sibility for education of children rests on the parents to whom the children
are entrusted by God. Parents, in our modern times, should seek to discharge
this obligation through their own school associations and boards, which engage
Christian teachers in schools that are based on the Bible, the infallible word
of God.
Parents and others who believe in this principle assume financial respon-
sibilities for maintaining Christian Schools according to their earning power.
At present, parent tuition and contributions average 10% of their gross earnings.
No children of any parents who are spiritually interested in such education are
turned away for financial reasons, nor for race, color, or church affiliation.
Holland Christian Schools enrollment equals about 30% of the total K-12
school population of this district. We enjoy great respect in our community,
and our people are greatly admired for exercising their rights for running a
voluntary school system, as a supplement to the public schools and other non-
public schools of our area. Without question the pluralistic nature of American
Society is proving itself here. By exercise of our constitutional rights,
Holland Christian Schools provide a vital option to parents in choosing a school
for their children.
We reached the peak of our enrollment in 1966, at 2866. Since then, we are
experiencing a steady decline in numbers. Two factors contribute: 1) the declin-
ing birth rate, 2) drastic increase in educational costs. The members of this
committee are fully aware of how schools in America are absorbing larger and
larger percentages of our economic resources.
We are pioneering in advanced educational designs to keep a quality program
of Christian Education within reach of our people. Currently the following
changes are being effected by a massive board, staff, and patron effort:
1. Returning, after 5 years of temporary 3 - 3 organization at the secondary
level, to a four year high school, with a three grade middle school, and
concentration of primary children in one building with intermediates in
another. Two elementary schools have been phased out. This change pro-
duced $60,000 in savings.
2. Differentiated staffing, with teams for teaching developing in each unit.
3. The extended school year, and flexible school calendar.
4. Innovative curriculum development committees, with teacher self-evaluation
inherent.
Nonetheless, our system like many others, is on a collision course for
maintaining its historic goals. Our operating budget for 1972-73 will be
$1,507,633. This figure represents a 95% increase from 1964-65, merely eight
years before. This doubling of costs in eight years took place without any
significant change in our program. A comparable increase in taxes for support
of public education took place in our community. These combined increases are
in no way matched with increased earnings of our people. This is our problem.
Our people look to tax credit legislation as a vital answer to the dilemma
of our schools. The tax credit is only fair. The human right for alternatives
in education is no longer a right when it can be priced out of reach. Our
schools provide good, acceptable basic education in all the skills and attitudes
deemed necessary for American citizenship. It is unfair and without honor for
the government to accept and expect this public service free of charge.
Tax credit legislation is economical. On the basis of educational cost in
our community alone, it is estimated that if all per pupil costs were held to
our level, education in Michigan would cost $1 billion less per year. The ref-
erence to "loss of revenue" resulting from Title II in the short summary of
H.R.16141 is misleading. The loss of revenue by inclusion of non public school
children in public schools would be much greater.
Tax Credit legislation seems like the American way of facing up to the
crisis in non-public schools. Tax exemptions are being granted for other worthy
causes. Encouragement of voluntary, non-public education is most important to
our American, pluralistic culture.
Thank you very much for this open opportunity to present our needs and our
interests in the proposed legislation under consideration by this very worthy
committee.
Mark Vander Ark
Superintendent
School and
REMARKS OF THE HONORABLE JOHN W. BYRNES ON
ON INTRODUCING H. R
Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing legislation
to provide a federal tax credit to individuals for tuition
paid for dependents to attend a private nonprofit
elementary or secondary school. My bill would provide
a credit for 50 percent of the tuition paid for a dependent
up to a maximum of $400 per dependent. Books, fees,
supplies, and other miscellaneous items would be
excluded from the credit. The credit would be phased out
gradually to the extent a taxpayer's income exceeds
$25,000.
Mr. Speaker, the costs of both public and private
education have grown dramatically in recent years and the
dual burden of parents supporting the public schools as
taxpayers and the private schools as parents of students
paying tuition has become intolerable and inequitable. The
difficulty of carrying this dual financial burden has
created a crisis in private and parochial ducation
-2-
at the elementary and secondary level which is reflected
in the declining number of students in these schools
and the increasing number who are being educated in the
public schools.
Between 1963 and 1970 the number of private
and parochial elementary and secondary school pupils
declined from 6.5 million pupils to 5.1 million pupils--
a reduction of 1.4 million students. During the same
period, public school elementary and secondary enrollments
increased from 40.2 million to 45.9 million. - an increase
of nearly six million pupils.
The decline of private and parochial education
is imposing heavy financial burdens on the public schools.
The Office of Education estimates that the average per
pupil expenditures for public elementary and secondary
schools in fiscal 1971 were $858. If the number of private
and parochial school students had simply remained constant
between 1963 and 1970, instead of declining by 1.4 million
pupils, the public schools would have spent approximately
$1.2 billion legs in fiscal 1971. The savings would have
-3-
been substantially greater if private and parochial schools
absorbed their proportionate share of the growth in student
enrollments during this period.
The present situation requires corrective
action. While the public schools provide the backbone
of our educational system, private and parochial schools
have traditionally played an important role consistent
with the genius of American pluralism. The financial
crisis private and parochial schools face threaten these
values and impose greater financial strains on the public
schools themselves and the general taxpayers. My bill
provides needed financial relief in a framework of
administrative simplicity. It will strengthen our entire
system of elementary and secondary education in the United
States, both public and private, and provide direct and
indirect tax relief to virtually all taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, I am appending to my remarks a
section-by-section analysis of my bill.
92d Congress
2d Session
}
JOINT COMMITTEE PRINT
1973 BUDGET SCOREKEEPING REPORT
(STAFF REPORT No. 6)
TO THE
JOINT COMMITTEE ON REDUCTION OF
FEDERAL EXPENDITURES
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
PURSUANT TO
SECTION 601 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1941
SHOWING
THE STATUS OF THE 1973 FISCAL YEAR FEDERAL BUDGET
Cumulative to August 18, 1972
With
Summary Presentation-Page 5
Printed for the use of the Joint Committee on Reduction of
Federal Expenditures
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-300
WASHINGTON : 1972
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
JOINT COMMITTEE ON REDUCTION OF FEDERAL EXPENDITURES
Page
Highlights
1
(Created pursuant to sec. 601 of the Revenue Act of 1941)
Explanatory notes
3
GEORGE H. MAHON, Representative from Texas, Chairman
Budget summary with box score
5
Scorekeeping tables:
SENATE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Table No. 1.-Estimated effect of congressional actions on individual bills affecting
RUSSELL B. LONG,
budget authority and outlays (expenditures)
6
WILBUR D. MILLS,
Senator from Louisiana
Table No. 2.-Revenue proposals affecting the fiscal year 1973 budget
8
Representative from Arkansas
CLINTON P. ANDERSON
Supporting tables:
JAMIE L. WHITTEN,
Senator from New Mexico
Table No. 3.-Appropriation bills, 2d session of the 92d Congress.
9
Representative from Mississippi
JOHN L. McCLELLAN,
Table No. 4.-Legislative proposals in the fiscal year 1973 budget to reduce
AL ULLMAN,
Senator from Arkansas
budget authority and outlays
12
Representative from Oregon
JOHN C. STENNIS,
Table No. 5.-Legislative proposals in the fiscal year 1973 budget for new and
JOHN W. BYRNES,
Senator from Mississippi
expanded programs
13
Representative from Wisconsin
ROMAN L. HRUSKA.
Table No. 6.-Legislative proposals not in the fiscal year 1973 budget
17
FRANK T. BOW,
Senator from Nebraska
Table No. 7.-Items in the fiscal year 1973 budget requiring authorizing legis-
Representative from Ohio
WALLACE F. BENNETT,
lation
27
Senator from Utah
(III)
GEORGE P. SHULTZ, Secretary of the Treasury
CASPAR W. WEINBERGER, Director, Office of Management and Budget
CATHERINE F. KOLNACKI, Clerk
EUGENE A. THOMPSON Staff Assistant
PRISCILLA M. AYCOCK, Staff Assistant
CAROL A. YOUNG, Clerical Assistant
(II)
Staff Report on the Status of the 1973 Fiscal Year Budget
HIGHLIGHTS
Fiscal 1973 scorekeeping to date
The impact of congressional action to date, August 18, 1972, on the President's fiscal year
1973 requests for budget authority, budget outlays and budget receipts, and the projected
unified budget deficit, as shown in this report, may be summarized as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
House
Senate
Enacted
Budget authority increase:
Appropriation bills
779
+1, 129
+322
Legislative bills
+16, 146
+9,107
-535
Total, budget authority in-
crease
+15,366
+10, 235
212
Outlay increase:
Appropriation bills
254
+956
+328
Legislative bills
+5,906
+6,942
+3,278
Total, outlay increase
+5,652
+7,898
+3,606
Revenue decrease (increases deficit)
59
-1,585
-1,602
Deficit increase
+5,711
+9,483
+5,208
In terms of completed congressional action to date, major scorekeeping actions affect-
ing the President's budget requests include:
Black lung benefits-increase of $969 million in budget authority and outlays;
Social security benefits-increase of $2.1 billion in outlays due to enactment of
a 20% benefit increase instead of a 5% increase as requested;
Social security taxes-decrease of $1.6 billion in revenue due to delay in effective
date of proposed wage base increase.
Ten regular 1973 appropriation bills have been considered to date. Action is shown in this
report for eight appropriation bills at the completed stage reflecting a net outlay increase
of $232 million. Totals for the Labor-HEW appropriation bill (H.R. 15417), vetoed by the
President and sustained by the House on August 16, 1972, are reflected in this report for
information purposes only and are not included in the scorekeeping figures.
Also pending are several legislative bills containing "backdoor" or mandatory spending
authorizations. One major bill, the multi-billion dollar Water Pollution Control Act, is in con-
ference. House and Senate action on revenue sharing legislation reflects the shift of retro-
active fiscal 1972 costs into fiscal 1973 due to delay. Other significant pending legislative
measures relate to federal employee benefits, veterans benefits, railroad retirement and school
food programs. These and other actions are shown in scorekeeping table No. 1, p. 6.
(1)
EXPLANATORY NOTES
2
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
Fiscal budget deficit
the estimated budget receipts for fiscal year 1973. The table
1973 is an analysis of the budget deficit for fiscal year 1973, 1972: reflecting budget
also includes any revenue legislation initiated by the Congress
revisions, The following amendments and congressional action to date, August 18,
This scorekeeping report is designed to show the impact of
during the session. The scorekeeping effect, if any, of revenue
Deficit estimate
(millions)
congressional actions (or inactions) in the current session on
action is computed for each measure as action is recorded.
$25, 472
the President's budget estimates for new authority, outlays
and receipts. These impact estimates may then be related to
Original deficit estimate, January 1972
SUPPORTING TABLES
+895
Budget revisions, as of June 5, 1972:
the President's surplus or deficit estimates, as a part of the
Net Shift outlay of fiscal increase 1972 revenue due to certain sharing congressional request into actions, fiscal 1973, mainly assuming black lung enactment benefits of retro-
scorekeeping process. While the primary purpose of the report
The report contains four additional tabulations relating to
+2,250
active provisions of pending legislation
+583
is to estimate the impact of congressional action, it also is
the various types of legislative actions which have a bearing
Net outlay changes, including interest
-2,200
designed to reflect any subsequent revisions made by the Pres-
on the scorekeeping process. The tables show each item as
ident in the form of budget amendments or official reestimates.
acted upon by the House and Senate and as enacted.
Revenue revisions
27,000
The report identifies the portion of the President's budget
Appropriation bills
Revised deficit estimate, as of June 5
which requires current action by Congress in this session-in
Amendments to the 1973 budget estimates, as transmitted to date:
+1,200
appropriation and certain basic legislation, or in new legislative
Table No. 3 (p. 9) lists the individual appropriation bills to
+900
proposals. It is in this area that the Congress exercises direct
be considered in the current session, showing by bill the budget
Additional outlays for Vietnam war
Disaster-relief outlays incident to Hurricane Agnes, etc
+100
control over the President's fiscal proposals, and may increase
authority requested and transmitted to date, and estimates of
Additional outlays for drug abuse programs
or decrease them accordingly or not act at all.
outlays covered by the respective bills-setting forth the out-
29,200
In addition, the Congress may initiate new or expanded
lays resulting from the new authority requested.
Congressional Deficit estimate, action to as date revised (in addition and amended to amounts included in the June 5 budget revisions):
activities or take revenue actions not contemplated in the
Proposed legislation (in budget)
100
Social security:
President's budget proposals and, to the extent that such
+1,600
The President's budget estimates include certain new legisla-
Payments, 20% increase
Revenue loss (due to delay in effective date)
+613
action may be mandatory, have further impact on the budget.
tive proposals which the Congress must act on before they can
Scorekeeping in terms of budget authority can be calculated
be implemented by the executive branch. Since they are
All other outlay changes, net
33,513
in fairly precise terms for the portions of the budget requiring
included in the budget estimates, action or inaction by the
Deficit estimate, as revised sharing and legislation amended, included and adjusted above in by June Congressional 5 revisions, action but still
pend-
-2,250
congressional action. However, conversion of congressional
Congress on the proposals has a direct impact for scorekeeping
Deduct: ing final Congressional action
revenue
actions into terms of budget outlays or receipts is less precise
purposes. These proposals are shown in this report in two
Deficit estimate, as revised and amended, and adjusted by Congressional action to date,
and the scorekeeping must be done in approximate amounts.
separate tabulations according to their character.
*31, 263
Table No. 4 (p. 12) shows the legislative proposals which
THE SUMMARY-BOX SCORE
August 18, 1972 fiscal 1973 outlays would be $252.7 billion, as compared estimate with of $31.3 esti-
have the effect of reducing budget authority and outlays.
The summary-box score (page 5) shows in one page sum-
These include certain reform legislation, change in financing,
*On this basis, estimated billion. The resulting unified budget deficit fund surplus
mary form the budget estimates for fiscal 1973 and 1972 in
sale of Government property, etc. Congressional failure to
mated billion for revenues fiscal 1973 of $221.4 reflects a federal funds deficit of $38.4 billion and a trust
totals as originally transmitted and subsequently revised,
enact any of these proposals has the effect of increasing the
breaking out the portions on which the Congress is expected
budget estimates by the negative amounts shown for each.
of $7.1 billion.
to act in the current session. It then applies-in box score
Table No. 5 (p. 13) shows the major legislative proposals for
Fiscal
year 1972 for fiscal year 1972 recently announced indicate that deficit actual for outlays fiscal were year
form-the impact of congressional actions to date on the
new or expanded programs and their associated cost. Con-
Final figures receipts $208.6 billion, and the unified budget fund surplus
President's estimates for budget authority, outlays, receipts
gressional failure to enact any of these proposals has the effect
and the deficit.
$231.6 1972 was billion $23 billion and (reflecting were a federal funds deficit of $28.9 billion and a trust
of reducing the budget estimates by the amount shown for the
This summary table combines congressional actions on
proposal. However, increases on the part of Congress in any
of $5.9 billion).
budget authority and outlays and budget receipts, shown in
of these proposals does not necessarily increase the budget
more detail on the two scorekeeping tables which follow. The
estimates, unless a mandatory spending program is involved,
combined impact of revenue and outlay actions are also related
because subsequent appropriation action is usually necessary.
to the estimated budget deficits.
Other legislation (not in budget)
THE SCOREKEEPING TABLES
Table No. 6 (p. 17) shows legislative initiatives which are in
The report contains two tabulations showing in detail the
addition to those in the President's budget estimates. Such
individual actions of Congress to date which have an impact on
legislation can be proposed by the executive or judicial
the President's budget estimates. These are the scorekeeping
branches and, of course, by the Congress. The table is con-
tables, and they relate separately to budget authority and
fined to measures which have been reported or are on the
outlays, and to budget receipts. They show each entry in terms
calendar of either House, and which exceed $500,000 in their
of action on the respective bills by the House and the Senate
5-year cost.
and as enacted.
For purposes of this report the impact of such legislative
In the scorekeeping process failure on the part of Congress
actions is scorekept only if it contains "backdoor" contract
to act upon recommendations or legislative proposals in the
or debt authority, or if mandatory spending is involved, such
President's budget estimates is generally scorekept at or near
as in the case of Federal pay raises or veterans benefits. Items
the end of the session, unless there is a specific action involved.
of a "backdoor" or mandatory nature are identified in the
table by an asterisk or footnote.
Budget authority and outlays
Table No. 1 (p. 6) shows the impact on budget authority and
Authorizing legislation
outlays, in terms of increases or decreases from the official
Under the rules of the House and Senate, programs and
estimates submitted by the President. In addition to action on
activities of the Government must be authorized by specific
individual appropriation bills, this tabulation includes action
legislation before appropriations can be enacted. Table No. 7
involving so-called "backdoor" contract and debt authority in
(p. 27) shows the programs included in the President's budget
substantive legislation, and it includes any other legislative
estimates for fiscal 1973 which require such periodic or annual
actions by Congress of a mandatory nature (such as Federal
renewal prior to further appropriation action.
pay raises and veterans benefits) where spending begins upon
Legislative action on these authorizations usually has no
enactment.
impact for scorekeeping purposes, since the effect of any
congressional change is subject to further appropriation action
Revenue legislation
or budget amendment. However, should any change involve
Table No. 2 (p. 8) shows congressional actions on the
"backdoor" contract or debt authority such action by Con
revenue legislation proposed by the President, as included in
gress would be noted and recorded for scorekeeping purposes
(3)
BUDGET SUMMARY
A summary of fiscal year 1973 and fiscal year 1972 Federal budgets-Reflecting congressional actions affecting those budgets during the 2d session
of the 92d Congress
[In millions of dollars]
Budget authority
Budget outlays
(obligational and
(expenditures and
Budget receipts
Budget deficit
Summary totals
lending authority)
net lending)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Fiscal year 1973:
Net total budget estimates as submitted Jan. 24, 1972
270,898
246,257
220,785
-25,472
Net total budget estimates revised as of June 5, 1972
276,000
250,000
223,000
-27,000
Net total budget estimates as amended subsequent to June 5 revisions to
date
280,157
252,200
223,000
-29,200
Adjustments for scorekeeping purposes: Deduct estimated congressional
actions included in the June 5 revisions
2-3,395
-3,145
2 +3, 145
Net total budget estimates as revised and amended, exclusive of congres-
sional action
276,762
249,055
223,000
-26,055
Adjustments for interfund and intragovernmental transactions and applica-
ble receipts
+24, 025
+24, 025
+24, 025
Total gross budget estimates
300,787
273,080
247,025
-26,055
Budget estimates not requiring further action by Congress (pre-
viously enacted or permanent)
110,282
140,460
246,221
Prior year's budget authority
(94,756)
Current (1973) budget authority
(110,282)
(45,704)
Budget estimates requiring action by Congress
190,505
132,620
804
F.Y. 1973 BOX SCORE-NET CHANGES
[(-) increases
deficit,
(+) decreases
Effect of congressional action on budget estimates to Au-
deficit]
gust 18, 1972 (See tables 1 and 2 for details):
House
+15,366
+5,652
-59
-5,711
Senate
+10, 235
+7,898
-1,585
-9,483
Enacted
8 -212
3 +3,606
-1,602
$ -5,208
Fiscal year 1972:
Net total budget estimates as submitted Jan. 24, 1972
250,027
236,610
197,827
-38, 783
Net total budget estimates revised June 5, 1972 and subsequently amended-
247,100
233,000
207,000
-26,000
Congressional action and inaction in the current session (included in June 5
revisions above)
(-3, 830)
(-2,855)
(-193)
(-2,662)
Actual net total, as enacted by Congress and reported by the Treasury
(preliminary)
'247,500
231,619
208,596
-23, 023
Includes increased Vietnam war costs (H. Doc. 92-321), disaster relief (H. Doc. 92-316 and
3 Does not reflect possible action on general revenue sharing. The June 5 Review presumed
325), and drug abuse treatment (H. Doc. 92-330).
delayed enactment would shift $2.5 billion in authority and $2.2 billion in outlays requested
Congressional action identified as included in June 5 Mid-Session Budget Review as follows:
for fiscal 1972 into fiscal 1973.
Congressional addition of $969 million in budget authority and outlays for black lung benefits;
Partially estimated.
late enactment of 1972 revenue sharing proposal to result in shift of $2.5 billion in authority and
$2.2 billion in outlays into fiscal 1973; and congressional reduction of $74 million in budget
estimates for foreign assistance, for a net increase of $3,395,000 in budget authority and
3,145, ,000 in outlays.
(5)
82-300-72-2
SCOREKEEPING TABLES
Table No. 1.-Estimated effect of congressional actions during the 2d session of the 92d Congress on individual bills
affecting budget authority and outlays (expenditures) (as of August 18, 1972)
[In thousands of dollars]
Congressional actions on budget authority
Congressional actions on budget outlays
(changes from the budget)
(changes from the budget)
Items acted upon
House
Senate
Enacted
House
Senate
Enacted
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Fiscal year 1973:
Appropriation bills (changes from the 1973 budget):
1972 Foreign assistance and related agencies
1-105,000
¹-105,000
-105,000
(P.L. 92-242).
Legislative Branch (P.L. 92-342)
-6,022
-4,625
-5,560
-5,500
-4,300
-5,200
Second Supplemental, 1972 (P.L. 92-306)
-100,000
+550,000
+95,000
State, Justice, Commerce, the Judiciary and related
agencies (H.R. 14989)
-100,884
+116,391
()
-74,000
+42,000
(1)
Housing and Urban Development, Space, Science
and related agencies (P.L. 92-383)
-454,695
+325,187
-132,
-3,500
+94,000
+61,000
Transportation and related agencies (H.R. 15097)
-117,567
-2,187
tt-41,244
-75,000
-39,000
tt-48,000
District of Columbia (P.L. 92-344)
-11,000
-29,600
-26,913
-11,000
-29,600
-26,913
Labor, Health, Education, and Welfare and related
agencies (H.R. 15417)
(+1,275,856)
(+2,578,297)
(+1,762,286)
(+530,000)
(+1,150,000)
(+725,000)
Interior and related agencies (P.L. 92-369)
+9,218
+23,769
+21,781
-7,100
+14,800
+10,000
Treasury, Postal Service and General Government
(P.L. 92-351)
-9,458
-9,417
-8,776
-37,000
-37,000
-36,500
Public Works and Atomic Energy (H.R. 15586)
-51,331
+82,638
ft+15,856
-20,000
+49,000
tt + 27, 700
Agriculture and Environmental and Consumer Pro-
tection (H.R. 15690)
-55,179
+608,866
tt+481,842
³ +78,000
³ +315,000
tt³ + 250, 000
Supplemental, 1972, disaster relief (P.L. 92-337)
+100,000
+100,000
+100,000
Supplemental, 1973, disaster relief (H.R. 16254)
+17,500
+17,500
+1 + 17, 500
+6,000
+6,000
tt + 6, 000
Subtotal, appropriation bills
-779,418
+1,128,522
+322,254
-254,100
+955,900
+328,087
Legislative bills with "backdoor" spending authoriza-
tions (changes from the 1973 budget):
Higher education-student loans (borrowing au-
thority) (P.L. 92-318)
Indefinite
Indefinite
Indefinite
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Housing Act of 1972 (contract authority) (S. 3248)
+300,000
N.A.
Highway emergency relief (P.L. 92-361)
-50,000
-50,000
-50,000
Airport and airways development (contract author-
ity) (S. 3755)
+840,000
()
($)
General revenue sharing (H.R. 14370)
' +2,800,000
+1+2,800,000
+ +2,550,000
+1+2,550,000
State bond subsidy (permanent) (S. 3215)
+29,000
+29,000
Water pollution control (contract authority) (S.
2770, H.R. 11896)
⁵ +11,000,000
+3,000,000
()
+550,000
+150,000
(1)
Freight car loan guarantee (borrowing authority)
(S. 1729)
+2,000,000
N.A.
Subtotal, "backdoor"
+13,750,000
+8,919,000
-50,000
+3,100,000
+2,729,000
Legislative bills with mandatory spending authorizations
(changes from the 1973 budget):
Wage board pay (H.R. 9092)
1 +30,000
1 +30,000
tt + 30, 000
1 +30,000
+30,000
+1 +30, 000
Full District of Columbia Congressional representa-
tion (H.J. Res. 253)
+960
+960
Federal employee health insurance (H.R. 12202)
+267,900
+39,600
()
+267,900
+39,600
($)
Council on International Economic Policy (S.
3726)
-1,341
(tt)
-1,316
(tt)
School lunch (H.R. 14896)
($)
+90,000
+116,000
()
Equalization of military retired pay (H.R. 15495)
+6,000
()
+6,000
()
National Guard retirement (S. 855)
+7,900
+7,900
Additional military travel allowance (H.R. (3542)
+2,414
+2,414
POW and MIA leave (H.R. 14911)
+13,400
+13,400
National Foundation for Higher Education (P.L.
92-318)
1 - 90, 000
-90,000
1 -27, 000
-27,000
Black lung benefits (P.L. 92-303)
+968,712
+968,712
+968,712
¹ +968,712
+968,712
+968,712
See footnotes at end of table, page 7.
(6)
7
SCOREKEEPING TABLES-Continued
Table No. 1.-Estimated effect of congressional actions during the 2d session of the 92d Congress on individual bills
affecting budget authority and outlays (expenditures) (as of August 18, 1972)-Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Congressional actions on budget authority
Congressional actions on budget outlays
(changes from the budget)
(changes from the budget)
Items acted upon
House
Senate
Enacted
House
Senate
Enacted
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Fiscal year 1973-Continued
Legislative bills with mandatory spending authorizations
(changes from the 1973 budget)-Continued
Social security tax and benefit amendments (P.L.
92-336)
¹-1,600,000
⁸-1,600,000
+2,100,000
+2,100,000
Revenue sharing, HUD (S. 3248)
-490,000
-490,000
Air traffic controller retirement (P.L. 92-297)
1 +31,500
+31,500
+31,500
¹+31,500
+31,500
+31,500
Early retirement-customs inspectors (H.R. 440)
+3,200
+3,200
Handgun control (S. 2507)
+10,000
+10,000
Veterans advance educational allowance (H.R.
12828, S. 2161)
+128,700
+692,000
($)
+124,700
+900,900
()
Veterans medical care (H.R. 10880)
(+29,658)
+150,850
($)
(+29,658)
+150,850
($)
Veterans nursing home care (H.R. 460)
(+6,900)
(+6,900)
Veterans paraplegic housing, (P.L. 92-341)
+3,500
+5,000
+3,500
+3,500
+5,000
+3,500
Veterans national cemeteries (H.R. 12674)
+39,600
+39,600
Veterans compensation increase (P.L. 92-328)
+114,900
+169,000
+114,900
+114,900
+169,000
+114,900
Civil Service retirement-firemen (P.L. 92-382)
+6,700
+6,330
+6,700
+6,700
+6,330
+6,700
Civil Service-early retirement (H.R. 11255)
+ + 780, 600
+ + 780, 600
Disaster relief, SBA (P.L. 92-385)
+94,772
+159,952
+50,000
+94,772
+159,952
+50,000
Minority enterprises (S. 3337)
+883
+883
Railroad Retirement-20% increase (H.R. 15927)
+261,600
Subtotal, "mandatory"
+2,395,517
+187,727
-484,688
+2,806,142
+4,212,627
+3,278,312
Subtotal, legislative bills 7
+16,145,517
+9,106,727
-534,688
+5,906,142
+6,941,627
+3,278,312
Total, fiscal year 1973
+15,366,099
+10,235,249
-212,434
+5,652,042
+7,897,527
+3,606,399
Fiscal year 1972:
Appropriation bills (changes from the revised 1972
budget):
Foreign assistance and related agencies, 1972 (P.L.
92-242)
1-353,230
1-353,230
-353,230
1-50,000
1-50,000
-50,000
Second Supplemental, 1972 (P.L. 92-306)
-820,808
+197,574
-518,245
-365,000
-230,000
-265,000
Supplemental, 1972, disaster relief (P.L. 92-337)
+100,000
+100,000
+100,000
Legislative bills (changes from the revised 1972 budget):
Black lung benefits (P.L. 92-303)
+5,000
1 +5,000
+5,000
1 +5,000
1 +5,000
+5,000
Emergency school assistance (P.L. 92-318)
-500,000
-80,665
National Foundation for Higher Education (P.L.
92-318)
-3,000
-3,000
-1,000
-1,000
National Institute of Education (P.L. 92-318)
-3,000
-2,500
Housing Act of 1972 (contract authority) (S. 3248)
+15,000
N.A.
AMTRAK (borrowing authority) (P.L. 92-316)
+100,000
+250,000
+150,000
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Legislative inaction on proposals included in the 1972
budget (see tables 4 and 5 for details):
General revenue sharing
-2,500,000
-2,500,000
-2,500,000
-2,250,000
-2,250,000
-2,250,000
Other
-117,011
-371,111
-208,017
-52,483
-210,583
-210,583
Total, fiscal year 1972 8
-3,589,049
-2,656,767
-3,830,492
-2,713,483
-2,735,583
-2,854,748
1 Enacted figure used for comparability.
6 Decrease in budget authority for social security reflects less than anticipated tax reve-
2 Vetoed by President and sustained by House on Aug. 16, 1972. Figures shown for infor-
nues for trust fund.
mation purposes and not included in scorekeeping totals below.
7 Excludes actions taken in 1st Session of 92d Congress, shown in parentheses above.
3 Excludes estimated outlay increase of $695 million for certain water pollution reimburse-
8 For detail on fiscal 1972 action in current session see Scorekeeping Report No. 5, dated
ments contingent upon enactment of pending water pollution control legislation (S. 2770 and
Aug. 4, 1972.
H.R. 11896) now in conference.
:Subject to or in conference.
4 Due to delayed action, includes effect of shift into fiscal 1973 of $2.5 billion in authority and
N.A.-Not available.
$2.2 billion in outlays, together with increases of $150 million in authority and outlays for both
Committee action.
fiscal years 1972 and 1973.
ffPending signature.
5 Consists of $5 billion provided for fiscal 1973 and advance availability of $6 billion provided
for fiscal 1974.
SCOREKEEPING TABLES-Continued
Table No. 2.-Revenue proposals affecting the fiscal year 1973 budget
[In millions of dollars]
Congressional action on fiscal year 1973 revenue proposals
Fiscal year 1973
to date
revenue estimate
House
Senate
Enacted
Revenue estimates in the fiscal year 1973 budget
220, 785
Revenue estimates as revised by June 5, 1972, Mid-Session Budget Review
1 223, 000
Adjustments for interfund and intragovernmental and applicable receipts
24, 025
Total gross receipts
247, 025
To be derived from existing revenue legislation (gross)
246, 221
Estimated revenues to be derived from proposals in the fiscal year 1973 budget: 2
Social security (H.R. 15390, P.L. 92-336):
Wage base increase
2, 327
2, 327
Rate decrease
-1,219
- 1, 219
49
49
}
3 -400
3 400
Medicare rates
Subtotal, social security
1, 157
1, 157
-400
-400
Individual income taxes-Retirement programs (H.R.
)
-900
Diesel fuel and truck taxes (H.R.
)
295
Currency write-off (S. 670)
225
225
Railroad retirement (H.R. 1)
-27
-27
Estimated revenue to be derived from other proposals:
Olives-duty suspension (H.R. 3233)
t-3
Wagering tax (H.R. 1010, S. 431)
25
+17
Tax on bonds (H.R. 6547)
t-70
POW income tax exclusion (H.R. 9900, PL 92-279)
-2
-2
-2
Cigar tax (H.R. 3544)
t-9
Emergency unemployment tax-extension (H.R. 15587, P.L. 92-329)
54
54
54
54
Total, revenue proposals
804
1, 125
- 106
-348
1 The Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation estimates fiscal year 1973 revenue
3 Preliminary estimates; rounded amount used for scorekeeping purposes.
at $222 1 billion.
[Committee action.
2 Without congressional action on each item estimated receipts will be changed by these
amounts.
(8)
SUPPORTING TABLES
Table No. 3.-Fiscal year 1973 appropriation bills, and supplemental appropriation bills for fiscal year 1972-showing budget
authority and estimated outlays by bill, as requested by the President, as passed by the House and Senate, and as
enacted in the 2d session of the 92d Congress
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request 1
House action
Senate action
Enacted
to date
to date
FISCAL YEAR 1973
Legislative Branch (H.R. 13955, P.L. 92-342)
Budget authority in bill
519, 348
427,605
514, 723
513,788
Requests not considered
85,721
Outlays
523, 054
436,390
518, 754
517, 854
Requests not considered
81, 164
Outlays from current (1973) budget authority
[469, 198]
[382,534]
[464,898]
463, 998 ]
Requests not considered
[81, 164]
State, Justice, Commerce, the Judiciary and Related Agencies (H.R. 14989)
Budget authority in bill
4,704,327
4, 587, 104
4,820,718
(1)
Requests not considered
16,338
Adjustment to budget basis 2
+ 138, 690
+138,690
+138,690
Appropriations to liquidate contract authority
(233, 312)
(233, 312)
(233, 312)
Outlays 3
4,288,068
4,199,495
4,330,068
Requests not considered
14,573
Outlays from current (1973) budget authority
[2,906,919]
[2, 818, 346]
[2,948,919]
Requests not considered
[14,573]
Housing and Urban Development, Space, Science and Related Agencies (H.R.
15093, P.L. 92-383)
Budget authority in bill
20, 258, 183
19,718,490
20,583,370
20, 125, 951
Requests not considered
84,998
Outlays
19,055,965
19,050,035
19,149,965
19,116,965
Requests not considered
2, 430
Outlays from current (1973) budget authority
[14,726,766]
[14,720,836]
[14,820,766]
[14, 787, 766]
Requests not considered
[2, 430]
Transportation and Related Agencies (H.R. 15097)
Budget authority in bill
2,946,542
2,791,614
2,906,994
th2,867,937
Requests not considered
37,361
37,361
37,361
Adjustments to budget basis 5
- 118,834
80, 400
-71,956
-82, 453
Appropriations to liquidate contract authority
(5, 418, 000)
(5, 393, 990)
(5, 395, 125)
(5, 393, 990)
Advance (1974) appropriation
(131, 181)
(131, 181)
(131,181)
(131,181)
Outlays
8
8,511,957
8, 429, 457
8,465,457
8, 456, 457
Requests not considered
7, 500
7,500
7, 500
Outlays from current (1973) budget authority
[2,076,888]
[2, 012, 388]
[2. 048, 388]
{2, 039, 388 I
Requests not considered
[7, 500]
[7, 500]
500]
District of Columbia (H.R. 15259, P.L. 92-344):
Budget authority in bill
343,306
332,306
313,706
316,393
Outlays
371,048
360,048
341,448
344,135
Outlays from current (1973) budget authority
[343,306]
[332,306]
[313,706]
[316, 395
Labor, Health, Education and Welfare, and Related Agencies (H.R. 15417) 6
Budget authority in bill
33,426,210
(28,603,180)
(31,354,931)
(30, 538, 920)
Requests not considered
(6, 098, 886)
(4,649,576)
(4, 649, 576)
Outlays
31,516,052
(28, 561, 744)
(30,536,300)
(30, 111, 300)
Requests not considered
(3,484,308)
(2,129,752)
(2, 129, 752)
Outlays from current (1973) budget authority
[22, 869, 391]
19, 915, 083] )
21, 889, 639])
([21, 464, 639])
Requests not considered
([3, 484, 308] )
129, 752])
([2, 129, 752])
Interior and Related Agencies (H.R. 15418, P.L. 92-369)
Budget authority in bill
2, 527, 154
2,529,558
2,550,923
2,548,935
Requests not considered
6,814
Appropriations to liquidate contract authority
(228, 540)
(214,910)
(222,560)
(214,560)
Outlays
2,533,657
2,522,947
2,548,457
2,543,657
Requests not considered
3,610
Outlays from current (1973) budget authority
[1, 785, 873]
[1, 789, 660]
[1,793,867]
[1, 810, 673]
Requests not considered
[3,610]
See footnotes at end of table, page 11.
(9)
10
SUPPORTING TABLES-Continued
Table No. 3.-Fiscal year 1973 appropriation bills, and supplemental appropriation bills for fiscal year 1972-showing budget
authority and estimated outlays by bill, as requested by the President, as passed by the House and Senate, and as enacted
in the 2d session of the 92d Congress-Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request
House action
Senate action
Enacted
to date
to date
FISCAL YEAR 1973-Continued
Treasury, Postal Service and General Government (H.R. 15585, P.L. 92-351)
Budget authority in bill
5,066,603
5,057,145
5,057,186
5,057,827
Outlays
5,184,244
5,147,244
5,147,244
5,147,744
Outlays from current (1973) budget authority
[3,764,930]
[3,727,930]
[3,727,930]
[3,728,430]
Public Works and Atomic Energy (H. R. 15586):
Budget authority in bill
5,489,058
5,437,727
5,571,696
$15,504,914
Appropriations to liquidate contract authority
(53,000)
(53,000)
(53,000)
(53, 000)
Outlays 3
5,709,840
5,689,840
5,758,840
5,737,540
Outlays from current (1973) budget authority
[3,092,677]
[3,072,677]
[3,141,677]
[3,120,377]
Agriculture and Environmental and Consumer Protection, (H. R. 15690:)
Budget authority in bill
12,952,190
12,897,011
13,561,056
tt13, 434, 033
Appropriations to liquidate contract authority
(195,500)
(195,500)
(195,500)
(195,500)
Outlays 8
12,270,420
12,348,420
12,585,420
12,520,420
Outlays from current (1973) budget authority
[10,226,616]
[10, 304, 616]
[10,541,616]
[10,476,616]
Department of Defense:
Budget authority in bill
79,594,184
Outlays
73,804,284
Outlays from current (1973) budget authority
[56, 144, 357]
Foreign Assistance and Related Agencies:
Budget authority in bill
5,163,024
Outlays
3,483,594
Outlays, from current (1973) budget authority
[1,314,797]
Military Construction:
Budget authority in bill
2,661,384
Outlays
1,980,300
Outlays from current (1973) budget authority
[622,641]
1972 Foreign Assistance and Related Agencies (H.R. 12067, P.L. 92-242) (score-
keeping effect of congressional action in current session):
Outlays
8-105,000
8-105,000
-105,000
Urgent Supplemental, 1972 (H.J. Res. 1097, P.L. 92-256):
Outlays
5,765
5,765
5,765
5,765
Second Supplemental, 1972 (H.R. 14582, P.L. 92-306)
Outlays
415,389
250,139
956,889
501,889
Requests not considered
65,250
8,500
8,500
Supplemental, 1972, disaster relief (H.J. Res. 1238, P.L. 92-337)
Outlays
100,000
200,000
200,000
200,000
Disaster relief supplemental, 1973 (H.R. 16254)
Budget authority
1,569,800
1,587,300
1,587,300
1,587,300
Outlays
800,000
806,000
806,000
806,000
Outlays from current (1973) budget authority
[800,000]
[806,000]
[806,000]
[806,000]
Supplementals, 1973:
Budget authority
135,200
Outlays
99,700
Outlays from current (1973) budget authority
[99, 700]
Total, F.Y. 1973:
Budget authority in bills
177,356,513
55,365,860
57,467,672
51,957,078
Requests not considered
231,232
37,361
37,361
Adjustments to budget basis 25
+19,856
Total, budget authority
177,376,369
Appropriations to liquidate contract authority
(6, 128, 352)
(6,090,712)
(6,099,497)
(5, 857, 050)
Advance (1974) appropriation
(131,181)
(131,181)
(131,181)
(131, 181)
Outlays 2
170,653,337
59,340,780
60,709,307
55,793,426
Requests not considered
174,527
16,000
16,000
Outlays from current (1973) budget authority
[121, 244, 059]
[39,967,293]
[40,607,767]
[37,549,643]
Requests not considered
[109,277]
[7, 500]
[7, 500]
See footnotes at end of table, page 11.
11
SUPPORTING TABLES-Continued
Table No. 3.-Fiscal year 1973 appropriation bills, and supplemental appropriation bills for fiscal year 1972-showing budget
authority and estimated outlays by bill, as requested by the President, as passed by the House and Senate, and as enacted
in the 2d session of the 92d Congress-Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request
House action
Senate action
Enacted
to date
to date
FISCAL YEAR 1972
Foreign Assistance and Related Agencies, 1972 (H.R. 12067, P.L. 92-242)
(scorekeeping effect of Congressional action in current session):
Budget authority
8-353,230
8-353,230
353, 230
Outlays
8-50,000
8-50,000
-50,000
Urgent Supplemental, 1972 (H.J. Res. 1097, P.L. 92-256)
Budget authority
957, 476
957, 476
957,476
957, 476
Outlays
951, 711
951, 711
951, 711
951, 711
Second Supplemental, 1972 (H.R. 14582, P.L. 92-306)
Budget authority
4, 881, 943
3, 954, 453
5, 063, 517
4, 347, 698
Budget authority treated in bill as offsetting receipts
66, 138
66, 138
66, 138
66, 138
Appropriations to liquidate contract authority
(33, 000)
(33, 000)
(33, 000)
(33, 000)
Requests not considered
106, 682
16,000
16,000
Outlays
4, 229, 010
3, 848, 400
3, 991, 510
3, 956, 510
Requests not considered
15,610
7, 500
7,500
Supplemental, special payments to international financial institutions, 1972
(H.J. Res. 1174, P.L. 92-301) :
Budget authority
1, 600, 000
1,600,000
1, 600, 000
1,600,000
Supplemental, 1972, disaster relief (H.J. Res. 1238, P.L. 92-337) :
Budget authority
100,000
200, 000
200, 000
200, 000
Total, F.Y. 1972:
Budget authority
7, 605, 557
6, 424, 837
7,533,901
6, 818, 082
Outlays
5, 180, 721
4, 750, 111
4, 893, 221
4, 858, 221
1 Amended by H. Doc. 267, 269, 271, 272, 275, 277, 278. 286, 289, 291, 292, 300. 301, 321, 325, and
$6,585,000 appropriation. to Airway Trust Fund treated in budget as offsetting receipt and as
330, and S. Doc. 78 and 79.
non-add item in the Transportation Bill.
2 To adjust to budget basis, add $138,690,000 for maritime subsidies treated in budget as
6 Vetoed by President and sustained by House on August 16, 1972. Figures in Congressional
budget authority, and in the bill as appropriation to liquidate contract authority.
action columns shown for information purposes and not included in totals below.
3 Includes outlays from appropriations to liquidate contract authority.
7 Includes $180,000,000 for Appalachian development, carried in the budget as permanent
4
Excludes $490 million proposal for pending urban community development revenue
contract authority with $175,000,000 in appropriations to liquidate contract authority, and
sharing legislation.
treated in the bill as direct appropriation.
5 To adjust to budget basis, (1) deduct $125,419,000 for Urban Mass Transportation appro-
8 Enacted figure used for comparability.
riation which under law automatically is offset against prior year contract authority, (2) add
:Subject to or in conference.
#Pending signature.
SUPPORTING TABLES-Continued
Table No. 4.-Legislative proposals in fiscal year 1973 budget to reduce budget authority and outlays 1
Reduction
House action
Senate action
Request (title or purpose)
estimate, 1973
to date
to date
Enacted to date
budget
Fiscal year 1973:
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE:
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation:
Administrative and operation expenses (H.R. S. -):
Budget authority
-1,000
Outlays
-1,053
Farmers Home Administration:
Reduce direct loans (H.R. 12931):
Budget authority
- 136, 503
- 136, 503
136, 503
t-136,503
Outlays
-593, 816
-593, 816
-593, 816
-593, 816
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE:
Office of Education:
Student loans (H.R. -, S.-):
Budget authority
-288, 000
Outlays
288, 000
Social and Rehabilitation Service:
Grants to States:
Maintenance (social security offset) (H.R. 1):
Budget authority
159, 000
159, 000
Outlays
- 159, 000
- 159, 000
Medicaid reform (H.R. 1):
Budget authority
-700, 220
-700, 220
Outlays
700, 220
700, 220
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION:
Stockpile sales-proprietary receipts:
Zinc sales (S. 766, P.L. 92-283) :
Budget authority
-10,000
-10,000
- -10,000
Outlays
-10,000
-10,000
-10,000
Chromite sales (S. 773)
Budget authority
-311, 000
N.A.
Outlays
-311,000
N.A.
Other legislation:
Budget authority
Outlays
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION:
General operating expenses-war orphan counseling (H.R.
,
S.-):
Budget authority
- 1,000
Outlays
- 1,000
Total:
Budget authority
1, 596, 723
1,005,723
146, 503
146, 503
Outlays
2, 054, 089
- -1,463,036
603, 816
603, 816
1 If positive legislative action is not taken on each item, estimates carried in the budget
[Committee action.
will be increased by the amount indicated.
ttPending signature.
$Subject to or in conference.
(12)
SUPPORTING TABLES-Continued
Table No. 5.-Legislative proposals in fiscal year 1973 budget for new or expanded programs
[In thousands of dollars]
Proposal (title or purpose)
Cost estimate,
House action
Senate action
Enacted
1973 budget
to date
to date
to date
Fiscal year 1973:
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT:
Council on International Economic Policy (S. 3726)
Budget authority
1, 341
1,400
TT1, 400
Outlays
1, 316
1,400
1, 400
FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT:
International Financial Institutions (S. 2010, 748, 749, P.L. 92-245, 246, and 247) :
Budget authority
910,000
910,000
910,000
910,000
Outlays
103,000
103,000
103,000
103,000
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE:
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation:
Administrative expenses (H.R.
, S.
:
Budget authority
Outlays
1, 452
Farmers Home Administration:
Reduce direct loans (H.R. 12931):
Budget authority
(t)
Outlays
3, 977
3, 977
3, 977
3, 977
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE:
All volunteer Army:
Special Pay Act (H.R. 14545, S. 3410) :
Budget authority
199,000
Outlays
199,000
Uniformed health professionals (H.R. 2) :
Budget authority
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
Outlays
34,000
34,000
34,000
34,000
Other (H.R.
, S.
)
:
Budget authority
161,000
Outlays
157,000
Retirement system reform:
Equalization of retired pay (H.R. 15495) : *
Budget authority
269,000
275,000
($)
Outlays
269,000
275,000
Survivor annuity (H.R. 10670)
Budget authority
- 118, 285
118, 285
Outlays
- 118, 285
118, 285
Retirement modernization (H.R.
, S.
)
:
Budget authority
145,285
Outlays
139,285
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE:
Food and Drug Administration:
Product safety (H.R. 15003, S. 3419)
Budget authority
38,845
+55,000
250,000
Outlays
29,743
$5,000
250,000
Health Services and Mental Health Administration:
Health maintenance organizations (H.R. 11728, S. 3327)
Budget authority
60, 000
+1,076,800
Outlays
36,000
tN.A.
Office of Education:
Revenue sharing (H.R. 7796, S. 1669)
Budget authority
223,911
Outlays
110,000
Higher education work study and grants (S. 659, P.L. 92-318):
Budget authority
Outlays
259,000
330,000
330,000
330, 000
See footnotes at end of table, page 16,
(13)
82-300-72-3
14
SUPPORTING TABLES-Continued
Table No. 5.-Legislative proposals in fiscal year 1973 budget for new or expanded programs-Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Proposal (title or purpose)
Cost estimate,
House action
Senate action
Enacted
1973 budget
to date
to date
to date
Fiscal year 1973-Continued
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE-Continued
Emergency school assistance (S. 659, P.L. 92-318):
Budget authority
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
Outlays
381,000
381,000
381,000
381,000
National Foundation for Higher Education (S. 659, P.L. 92-318)
Budget authority
100,000
10,000
100,000
20,000
Outlays
30,000
3,000
30,000
23,000
National Institute for Education (S. 659, P.L. 92-318) :
Budget authority
125,000
125,000
125,000
125,000
Outlays
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
Social and Rehabilitation Service:
Juvenile Justice (H.R. 15635, P.L. 92-381)
Budget authority
10,000
75,000
75,000
75,000
Outlays
2, 348
18,750
18,750
18,750
Social Security Administration:
Federal payment-SMI (H.R. 1):
Budget authority
175,000
175,000
Outlays
175,000
175,000
Benefit improvements (H.R. 15390, P.L. 92-336)
Budget authority
1,303,000
1,303,000
³ -400,000
3 400, 000
Outlays
4,020,000
4,020,000
3 6, 200, 000
3 6, 200, 000
Welfare Reform (H.R. 1):
Budget authority
450,000
450,000
Outlays
350,000
350,000
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT:
Revenue sharing (H.R. 8853, S. 3248)
Budget authority
490,000
Outlays
490,000
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR:
Bureau of Land Management:
National land bank (H.R. 7211, S. 632)
Budget authority
20,000
+4,000
+110, 000
Outlays
10,000
+4,000
t110, 000
Bureau of Indian Affairs:
Resources management-economic development (H.R. 8063, S. 2036)
Budget authority
4,000
Outlays
4,000
Revolving fund-economic development (H.R. 8063, S. 2036):
Budget authority
5, 000
Outlays
1,000
Office of Territories:
Economic development (S. 860, P.L. 92-257)
Budget authority
1, 000
1, 000
1, 000
1,000
Outlays
1,000
1,000
1,000
1, 000
Geological Survey:
Environmental programs (H.R.
, S.
:
Budget authority
5,000
Outlays
4,000
Bureau of Mines:
Mined land protection (H.R. 5689, S. 993)
Budget authority
7,000
Outlays
7,000
DEPARTMENT OF STATE:
International Boundary and Water Commission (H.R. 15461, S.
:
Budget authority
t13, 868
Outlays
4, 345
4, 345
See footnotes at end of table, page 16.
15
SUPPORTING TABLES-Continued
Table No. 5.-Legislative proposals in fiscal year 1973 budget for new or expanded programs-Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Proposal (title or purpose)
Cost estimate,
House action
Senate action
Enacted
1973 budget
to date
to date
to date
Fiscal year 1973-Continued
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION:
Federal Railroad Administration:
AMTRAK (H.R. 11417, P.L. 92-316):
Budget authority
(4)
Outlays
65,000
65,000
65,000
65, 000
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY:
General revenue sharing: (H.R. 14370):
Budget authority
⁵ 5,300,000
8,100,000
δ,100,100,000
Outlays
5,000,000
$7,550,000
$7,550,000
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:
Ocean protection (H.R. 9727)
Budget authority
17,500
5, 600
()
Outlays
17,500
5,600
Pesticide control (H.R. 10729)
Budget authority
35,000
15,700
15,000
Outlays
22,000
15,700
15,000
Toxic substance control (H.R. 5276, S. 1478)
Budget authority
6,300
Outlays
6,300
Noise control (H.R. 11021, S. 1016)
Budget authority
14,000
Outlays
14,000
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION:
Compensation and pensions (S. 3338, P.L. 92-328)
Budget authority
151,700
266,600
320,700
266,600
Outlays
151,700
266,600
320,700
266,600
Readjustment benefits-advance educational allowance (H.R. 12828, S. 2161)
Budget authority
163,300
292,000
855,300
(1)
Outlays
167,300
292,000
1,068,200
Medical care (H.R. 10880, S. 2354)
Budget authority
15,945
Outlays
15,945
Medical administration (H.R. 10880):
45,758
166,950
($)
Budget authority
155
45,758
166,950
Outlays
155
State grants-nursing home construction (H.R. 13673, S.
:
Budget authority
2,700
Outlays
OTHER INDEPENDENT AGENCIES:
District of Columbia:
Capital grants-higher education (H.R.
S.
)
:
Budget authority
20,000
Outlays
10,000
Local bond expenses (H.R.
, S.
)
:
Budget authority
1, 000
Outlays
1,000
RFK Stadium (H.R.
, S.
)
:
Budget authority
1, 000
Outlays
1,000
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority:
Federal bond guarantees (H.R. 15507, P.L. 92-349)
Budget authority
8,481
8, 481
8, 481
8, 481
Outlays
8, 481
8, 481
8, 481
8, 481
Smithsonian Institution:
JFK Center-tours (S. 1736, P.L. 92-313):
Budget authority
1, 500
7 Open-end
7 Open-end
Outlays
1,500
Open-end
Open-end
See footnotes at end of table, page 16.
16
SUPPORTING TABLES-Continued
Table No. 5.-Legislative proposals in fiscal year 1973 budget for new or expanded programs-Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Proposal (title or purpose)
Cost estimate,
House action
Senate action
Enacted
1973 budget
to date
to date
to date
Fiscal year 1973-Continued
OTHER INDEPENDENT AGENCIES-Continued
Water Resources Council-2d assessment (H.R. 14106) :
Budget authority
1, 000
1, , 000
1,000
tt1, 000
Outlays
800
800
800
800
Total:
Budget authority
11, 326, 878
12, 804, 622
13, 043, 531
2, 038, 481
Outlays
12, 199, 062
13, 690, 626
16, 995, 158
7, 467, 008
1 Enacted figure used for comparability.
5 "Backdoor" appropriations.
2 Foundation not established, but Secretary of HEW authorized to perform proposed function;
6 Reflects $2.65 billion in budget authority and $2.4 billion in outlays shifted from FY 1972 to
$10 million authorized for 1973.
FY 1973 due to delayed consideration. Does not include budgetary effect, if any, of the $1
3 Preliminary, net of interfund transactions; rounded amounts used for scorekeeping
billion Senate limitation on social service matching grants.
purposes.
7 Responsibility transferred to Interior Department.
4 Includes "backdoor" borrowing authority; enacted, $150 million for FY 1972 and $50 million
Committee action.
*Subject to or in conference.
*Outlays mandatory.
for FY 1974.
*Pending signature.
SUPPORTING TABLES-Continued
Table No. 6.-Legislative proposals not reflected in budget estimates for fiscal year 1973
[In thousands of dollars]
Cost estimate
House action
Senate action
Enacted
5-year
transmitted
to date
to date
to date
cost
SUBMITTED BY THE JUDICIARY:
Bankruptcy referee salaries (S. 1394) :
Budget authority
16,000
80,000
Outlays
16,000
80,000
Salaries of U.S. magistrates (H.R. 7375)
Budget authority
1, 280
975
(#)
5, 400
Outlays
1, 280
975
5, 400
SUBMITTED BY THE EXECUTIVE:
Guam and Virgin Islands Delegate (H.R. 8787, P.L. 92-271)
Budget authority
N.A.
455
455
455
2, 275
Outlays
N.A.
455
455
455
2,275
Surety bond elimination (H.R. 13150, P.L. 92-310)
Budget authority
- 100, 000
- 100, 000
- 100, 000
- 100, 000
- 600, 000
Outlays
- 100, 000
- 100, 000
- 100, 000
- 100, 000
600, 000
Wage board pay (H.R. 9092) :*
Budget authority
130,000
130,000
tt30, 000
750,000
Outlays
1 30, 000
1 30, 000
30,000
750, 000
Wage board pay adjustment (H.R. 13753, P.L. 92-298) **
Budget authority
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
Outlays
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
Employee insurance coverage for U.S. nationals (H.R. 15659)
Budget authority
584
t584
+2,920
Outlays
584
+584
t2, 920
FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT:
Gold revaluation-international banks (S. 3160, P.L. 92-268)
Budget authority
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
343,000
Outlays
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
343,000
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE:
Fishermen's Protective Act-extend (S. 3545)
Budget authority
105
105
525
Outlays
105
105
525
International voluntary standards (S. 1798)
Budget authority
1,200
1,200
3 2, 400
Outlays
1,200
1, 200
2, 400
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE:
Military lawyers retention (H.R. 4606)
Budget authority
7, 000
7,000
35,000
Outlays
7, 000
7, 000
35, 000
Loan of Navy vessels (H.R. 9526, P.L. 92-270) :
Budget authority
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Outlays
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Drug treatment (H.R. 12846) :
Budget authority
90,500
90,500
452,500
Outlays
90,500
90,500
452,500
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE:
National Heart, Blood Vessel, Lung and Blood Act (S. 3323, H.R. 15081) :
Budget authority
Open-end
370,000
430,000
+400, 000
1,275,000
Outlays
N.A.
370,000
430,000
400,000
1, 275, 000
(17)
See footnotes at end of table, page 26.
18
SUPPORTING TABLES-Continued
Table No. 6.-Legislative proposals not reflected in budget estimates for fiscal year 1973-Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Cost estimate
House action
Senate action
Enacted
5-year
transmitted
to date
to date
to date
cost
SUBMITTED BY THE EXECUTIVE-Continued
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR:
Salmon Falls-irrigation (S. 432)
Budget authority
51,698
51, 698
54,250
Outlays
51,698
51,698
54,250
Gateway National Recreation Area (S. 1852)
Budget authority
45,033
45,033
128, 554
Outlays
45,033
45,033
128, 554
Rockefeller Parkway (S. 3159)
Budget authority
3, 092
3, 092
3,092
+13,092
3, 092
Outlays
3,092
3,092
3,092
3,092
3, 092
National parks authorizations, miscellaneous increases (S. 2601,
P.L. 92-272) :
Budget authority
3,398
16,165
13,451
13,451
13,451
Outlays
3,398
16,165
13,451
13,451
13,451
Recreation-conservation areas (H.R. 10384):
Budget authority
N.A.
N.A.
17,000
Outlays
N.A.
N.A.
17,000
Predatory animal control (H.R. 13152)
Budget authority
9, , 500
9,500
44,500
Outlays
9,500
9, , 500
44,500
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE:
Paroled drug addict care (S. 2713, P.L. 92-293):
Budget authority
600
600
600
600
10,672
Outlays
600
600
600
600
10,672
Diplomat protection (H.R. 15883) :
Budget authority
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Outlays
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR:
Emergency unemployment benefits-6-month extension (H.R.
15587, P.L. 92-329) :*
Budget authority
54,500
54,500
54,500
54,500
220,000
Outlays
220,000
220,000
220,000
220,000
220,000
DEPARTMENT OF STATE:
South Pacific Commission (H.J. Res. 1211) :
Budget authority
150
150
750
Outlays
150
150
750
International Agency for Cancer Research (H.J. Res. 1257) :
Budget authority
337
337
1, 865
Outlays
337
337
1,865
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION:
Ports and waterway safety (H.R. 8140, P.L. 92-340)
Budget authority
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Outlays
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Air traffic controller retirement (H.R. 8083, P.L. 92-297)
Budget authority
17,600
149,100
49,100
49,100
253,700
Outlays
17,600
49,100
49,100
49,100
253,700
TRANSPO-72 (S. 3244, P.L. 92-252)
Budget authority
2,000
2, 000
2, 000
2,000
2, 000
Outlays
2, 000
2,000
2, 000
2,000
2, 000
Highway emergency relief (Hurricane Agnes) (H.R. 15950, P.L.
92-361):
*
Budget authority
4 200, 000
150,000
€ 150,000
150,000
4 350, 000
Outlays
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
350,000
Lighthouse service benefits (H.R. 10486) *
Budget authority
111
f111
1550
Outlays
111
1111
+550
See footnotes at end of table, page 26.
19
SUPPORTING TABLES-Continued
Table No. 6.-Legislative proposals not reflected in budget estimates for fiscal year 1973-Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Cost estimate
House action
Senate action
Enacted
5-year
transmitted
to date
to date
to date
cost
SUBMITTED BY THE EXECUTIVE-Continued
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY:
Enviromental Financing Authority (S. 1015):
Budget authority
N.A.
4 N.A.
t 4 N.A.
Outlays
N.A.
¡N.A.
TN.A.
Federal Financing Bank (S. 3001)
Budget authority
100,000
$ 100,000
$ 100,000
Outlays
100,000
100,000
100,000
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION:
Public buildings financing (S. 1736, P.L. 92-313)
Budget authority
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Outlays
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Subtotal, submitted by the Executive:
Budget authority
499, 408
696,094
843,234
615,198
3,476,004
Outlays
504, 908
751, 594
898, 734
670,698
3,476,004
INITIATED BY THE CONGRESS:
Establish Congressional Office of Goals and Priorities Analysis (S. 5)
Budget authority
4, 500
$ 13,500
Outlays
4,500
13,500
Joint Committee on the Environment (S.J. Res. 17, H.J. Res. 3):
Budget authority
300
N.A.
()
1,500
Outlays
300
N.A.
1,500
Capitol security (H. Con. Res. 550):
Budget authority
3,000
3, 000
()
3,000
Outlays
3,000
3, 000
3,000
Senate Office Building construction (S. 3917)
Budget authority
153, 500
$53,500
Outlays
$53,500
$53,500
Full D.C. Congressional representation (H.J. Res. 253)
Budget authority
t960
+4,800
Outlays
t960
14,800
Federal employee health insurance-increased Government contribu-
tion (H.R. 12202)
Budget authority
267,900
39, 600
($)
3,243,100
Outlays
267,900
39,600
3,243,100
Establish Office of Technology Assessment (H.R. 10243):
Budget authority
5,000
N.A.
Outlays
5,000
N.A.
Additional judges (H.R. 11394, S. 733)
Budget authority
1,099
N.A.
($)
4, 967
Outlays
1, 099
N.A.
4, 967
Fair credit billing (S. 652) :
Budget authority
N.A.
N.A.
Outlays
N.A.
N.A.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT:
Consumer protection (H.R. 10835):
Budget authority
6, 475
30,000
Outlays
6, 475
30,000
FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT:
Office of Emergency Preparedness-economic disaster relief
(S. 2393)
Budget authority
N.A.
N.A.
Outlays
N.A.
N.A.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE:
Rural development (H.R. 12931):
Budget authority
320,000
620, 160
1170, 000
1,700,000
Outlays
320,000
620, 160
400, 000
1,700,000
See footnotes at end of table, page 26.
20
SUPPORTING TABLES-Continued
Table No. 6.-Legislative proposals not reflected in budget estimates for fiscal year 1973-Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Cost estimate
House action
Senate action
Enacted
5-year
transmitted
to date
to date
to date
cost
INITIATED BY THE CONGRESS-Continued
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-Continued
Predator indemnities (H.R. 14163):
Budget authority
+50,000
t250, 000
Outlays
+50,000
t250, 000
Rabbit meat inspection (S. 1943) :
Budget authority
154
154
850
Outlays
t154
154
850
Grain reserves and 25% grain loan increase (H.R. 1163) :*
Budget authority
Outlays
2,276,000
3,136,000
Cooperative forest programs (H.R. 8817, P.L. 92-288) :
Budget authority
5,000
5, 000
5,000
92,000
Outlays
5,000
5,000
5, 000
92,000
Accelerated reforestation (H.R. 13089)
Budget authority
75,000
65,000
+65,000
375,000
Outlays
75,000
65,000
$65,000
375,000
Expand Santa Fe, Gila, Cibola and Carson National Forests (S. 447):
Budget authority
N.A.
N.A.
Outlays
N.A.
N.A.
Expand Carson National Forest (S. 2699)
Budget authority
26,500
28, 940
Outlays
26,500
28,940
Sawtooth Recreation Area (H.R. 6957)
Budget authority
46,043
45,050
++46, 093
46,093
Outlays
46,043
45,050
46,093
46,093
Forest incentives (S. 3105)
Budget authority
10,000
95,000
Outlays
10,000
95,000
Federal contribution, meat and poultry inspection costs (S. 1316)
Budget authority
17,300
N.A.
Outlays
17,300
N.A.
School lunch (H.R. 14896)
Budget authority
169,000
248,900
6 509, 000
Outlays
194,000
7248,900
7 509, 000
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE:
Sales of U.S. passenger vessels (H.R. 11589, P.L. 92-296)
Budget authority
12,600
12,600
12,600
12,800
Outlays
12,600
12,600
12,600
12,800
Liberty ships for artificial reefs (revenue loss) (H.R. 5741):
Budget authority
14,400
14,400
Outlays
14,400
14,400
Marine mammal protection (H.R. 10420)
Budget authority
3,200
8, 200
()
31,300
Outlays
3,200
8, 200
31,300
Tuna development (H.R. 12207):
Budget authority
-1,000
1, 000
()
6 3, 000
Outlays
1,000
1,000
3, 000
Federal Elections Campaign Act (S. 382, P.L. 92-225)
Budget authority
2,000
2,000
2,000
10,000
Outlays
2,000
2, 000
2, 000
10,000
Coastal zone management (H.R. 14146, S. 3507) :
Budget authority
15,000
19,500
($)
345,000
Outlays
15,000
19,500
345,000
Travel agent registration (S. 2577)
Budget authority
600
3,000
Outlays
600
3, 000
Economic development (H.R. 16071)
Budget authority
1,027,500
3,177,500
Outlays
1,027,500
3,177,500
See footnotes at end of table, page 26.
21
SUPPORTING TABLES-Continued
Table No. 6.-Legislative proposals not reflected in budget estimates for fiscal year 1973-Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Cost estimate
House action
Senate action
Enacted
5-year
transmitted
to date
to date
to date
cost
INITIATED BY THE CONGRESS-Continued
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE-Continued
Mid-decade census (H.R. 14153):
Budget authority
tN.A.
170, 000
Outlays
N.A.
170, 000
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE:
Virgin Islands National Guard (H.R. 3817):
Budget authority
N.A.
N.A.
Outlays
N.A.
N.A.
Mailing privileges (H.R. 3808)
Budget authority
5,000
N.A.
(1)
25,000
Outlays
5,000
N.A.
25,000
National Guard retirement (S. 855) :*
Budget authority
7,900
39,500
Outlays
7,900
39,500
Additional travel allowance (H.R. 3542)
Budget authority
2, 414
12,070
Outlays
2, 414
12,070
POW and MIA leave accumulation (H.R. 14911) *
Budget authority
13,400
13,400
Outlays
13,400
13, 400
Dam inspection (H.R. 15951, P.L. 92-367)
Budget authority
5,000
5,000
5,000
45,000
Outlays
5,000
5,000
5,000
45,000
U.S.S. Arizona-visitor facilities (H.R. 16201)
Budget authority
2,500
2,500
Outlays
2,500
2, 500
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE:
Black lung benefits (H.R. 9212, P.L. 92-303)
Budget authority
1 968, 712
968, 712
968,712
4,000,000
Outlays
968,712
968, 712
968, 712
4,000,000
Higher education (S. 659, P.L. 92-318):
Budget authority
5 1, 614, 500
5 557, 400
5 N.A.
¹⁶,000,000
Outlays
1,614,500
557,400
N.A.
16,000,000
Impacted area school aid-Postal Service (S. 3054, P.L. 92-277)
Budget authority
8,500
8,500
8,500
17,000
Outlays
8,500
8,500
8,500
17,000
Wholesome fish-inspection (S. 2824)
Budget authority
20,445
63,000
Outlays
20,445
63,000
Food for the elderly (S. 1163, P.L. 92-258)
Budget authority
100,000
100,000
100,000
250,000
Outlays
100,000
100,000
100,000
250,000
National Institute of Aging (H.R. 14424)
Budget authority
20,000
Open-end
Outlays
20,000
Open-end
Sickle Cell Act (S. 2676, P.L. 92-294):
Budget authority
25,000
33,000
25,000
6 115, 000
Outlays
25,000
33,000
25,000
115,000
Children's dental health (S. 1874):
Budget authority
25,000
142,000
Outlays
25,000
142, 000
Children's day care (S. 3617) :
Budget authority
150,000
6 2, 950, 000
Outlays
150,000
2,950,000
Cooley's anemia control (H.R. 15474)
Budget authority
2,725
3,700
113,700
8,175
Outlays
2,725
3, 700
3,700
8, 175
Drug listing (H.R. 9936, P.L. 92-387) :
Budget authority
2,000
2,000
2,000
10,000
Outlays
2, 000
2,000
2,000
10,000
See footnotes at end of table, page 26.
22
SUPPORTING TABLES-Continued
Table No. 6.-Legislative proposals not reflected in budget estimates for fiscal year 1973-Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Cost estimate
House action
Senate action
Enacted
5-year cost
transmitted
to date
to date
to date
INITIATED BY THE CONGRESS-Continued
DEPT. OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE-Con.
Runaway youth (S. 2829) :
Budget authority
10,000
6 30, 000
Outlays
10,000
30, 000
Public health training (S. 3441)
Budget authority
8, 000
341, 000
Outlays
8, 000
341, 000
Migrant workers' health (S. 3762) :
Budget authority
50,000
6 160, 000
Outlays
50,000
160, 000
Emergency health personnel (S. 3858) :
Budget authority
(2)
8 92, 300
Outlays
(2)
8 92, 300
Medical library assistance (S. 3752) :
Budget authority
(2)
181, 000
Outlays
(2)
181, 000
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT:
Housing Act of 1972 (S. 3248)
Budget authority
9 1, 552, 500
N.A.
Outlays
1, 252, 500
N.A.
Relocation payments (S. 1819)
Budget authority
N.A.
150,000
()
750, 000
Outlays
N.A.
150,000
750, 000
Water and sewer grants (H.R. 13853)
Budget authority
Rejected
Rejected
Outlays
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR:
Buffalo National River (S. 7, P.L. 92-237)
Budget authority
8, 367
8, 367
8, 367
27, 877
Outlays
8, 367
8, 367
8, 367
27, 877
Oregon Dunes Recreation Area (S. 1977, P.L. 92-260)
Budget authority
15,200
15, 200
15,200
15, 200
Outlays
15, 200
15,200
15, 200
15, 200
Gunboat "Cairo" (S. 1475, H.R. 6618)
Budget authority
2, 261
2, 481
()
4, 500
Outlays
2, 261
2, 481
4, 500
Connecticut Riverway (S. 36)
Budget authority
22,019
23,000
Outlays
22,019
23, 000
Archeological preservation (S. 1245) :
Budget authority
N.A.
N.A.
Outlays
N.A.
N.A.
International Peace Garden (S. 588):
Budget authority
1, 054
1, 054
Outlays
1, 054
1, 054
Golden Eagle Passport (S. 1893, P.L. 92-347)
Budget authority
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Outlays
N.A.
N.A.
N:A.
N.A.
Land management-working capital fund (S. 2743) :
Budget authority
3, 000
3, 000
Outlays
3, 000
3, 000
Metallurgy research center (S. 978, P.L. 92-287) :
Budget authority
6, 000
6, 000
6, 000
6, 000
Outlays
6, 000
6, 000
6, 000
6, 000
Mining and minerals research (S. 635) :
Budget authority
40, 500
12,100
(1)
222, 000
Outlays
40,500
12,100
222, 000
Youth Conservation Corps-expansion (S. 2454) :
Budget authority
150,000
750, 000
Outlays
150, 000
750, 000
See footnotes at end of table, page 26,
23
SUPPORTING TABLES-Continued
Table No. 6.-Legislative proposals not reflected in budget estimates for fiscal year 1973-Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Cost estimate
House action
Senate action
Enacted
5-year
transmitted
to date
to date
to date
cost
INITIATED BY THE CONGRESS-Continued
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR-Continued
San Francisco Wildlife Reservation (H.R. 12143, P.L. 92-330) :
Budget authority
20,300
20, 300
20, 300
20,300
Outlays
20,300
20,300
20,300
20, 300
Tinicum Marsh preservation (H.R. 7088, P.L. 92-326) :
Budget authority
2, 250
2, 250
2, 250
2, 250
Outlays
2, 250
2, 250
2, 250
2, 250
Gulf Island Seashore extension (S. 3153, P.L. 92-275) :
Budget authority
3, 337
3, 337
3, 337
3, 565
Outlays
3, 337
3, 337
3, 337
3, 565
Longfellow Historic Site (S. 3129) :
Budget authority
658
1, 375
Outlays
658
1, 375
Van Buren Historic Site (S. 1426) :
Budget authority
596
3, 310
Outlays
596
3, 310
Fossil Butte National Monument (S. 141) :
Budget authority
4, 847
4, 515
(1)
5, 005
Outlays
4, 847
4, 515
5, 005
Thaddeus Kosciuszko Home (S. 1973) :
Budget authority
592
592
Outlays
592
592
Sitka National Monument (S.1497) :
Budget authority
831
1, 184
Outlays
831
1, 184
Puukohola Heiau Historic Site (H.R. 1462) :
Budget authority
1, 041
1, 041
tt1, 041
1, 041
Outlays
1, 041
1, 041
1, 041
1, 041
Brantley project (S. 50) :
Budget authority
34,785
34, 785
Outlays
34,785
34, 785
San Luis Valley Project (S. 520)
Budget authority
18,246
20,021
Outlays
18, 246
20, 021.
Seal Beach Wildlife Refuge (H.R. 10310)
Budget authority
40
40
t +40
525
Outlays
40
40
40
525
Amistad Recreation Area (S. 1295)
Budget authority
20, 020
20, 020
Outlays
20, 020
20,020
Cumberland Island National Seashore (S. 2411) :
Budget authority
19, 010
19, 010
Outlays
19, 010
19, 010
Hopi-Navajo Reservation partition (H.R. 1128)
Budget authority
16,000
16,000
Outlays
16,000
16,000
Grant-Kohrs Ranch Historic Site (S. 2166) :
Budget authority
2, 150
1, 350
Tt2, 150
2, 585
Outlays
2, 150
1, 350
2, 150
2, 585
Indiana Dunes Lakeshore (S. 3811) :
Budget authority
4, 700
4, 700
Outlays
4, 700
4, 700
1976 Denver Winter Olympics (S. 3531) :
Budget authority
t15, 500
f15, 500
Outlays
15,500
+15, 500
Commercial fisheries development (S. 3524) :
Budget authority
(2)
23,000
Outlays
(2)
23, 000
See footnotes at end of table, page 26.
24
SUPPORTING TABLES-Continued
Table No. 6.-Legislative proposals not reflected in budget estimates for fiscal year 1973-Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Cost estimate
House action
Senate action
Enacted
5-year
transmitted
to date
to date
to date
cost
INITIATED BY THE CONGRESS-Continued
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE:
Public safety officers death benefits (S. 2087)
Budget authority
40,000
72,000
Outlays
40,000
72,000
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR:
Fair labor standards amendments (H.R. 7130, S. 1861)
Budget authority
1,500
N.A.
()
13,500
Outlays
1,500
N.A.
13,500
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION:
Motor vehicle information (S. 976)
Budget authority
18,200
56,050
($)
197,400
Outlays
18,200
56,050
197,400
Towing vessel operator licensing (H.R. 6479, P.L. 92-339) :
Budget authority
375
375
375
1,575
Outlays
375
375
375
1,575
Airport and airways development (S. 3755)
Budget authority
100
4840,000
(1)
'840,000
Outlays
100
N.A.
840,000
Aircraft loan guarantee (S. 2741) :
Budget authority
N.A.
N.A.
Outlays
N.A.
N.A.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY:
Early retirement-customs inspectors (H.R. 440) :*
Budget authority
3,200
16,000
Outlays
3, 200
16,000
Cyclamates ban losses (H.R. 13366)
Budget authority
120,000
120,000
Outlays
120,000
120,000
Grants to Eisenhower College (S. 2987)
Budget authority
20,000
20,000
Outlays
20,000
20,000
State bond subsidies (S. 3215) :*
Budget authority
t 10 29, 000
t 10 145, 000
Outlays
t 10 29, 000
t 10 145, 000
Handgun control (S. 2507)
Budget authority
10,000
10,000
Outlays
10,000
10,000
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION:
Nursing home care (H.R. 460)
Budget authority
6, 900
38,000
Outlays
6, 900
38,000
Assistance to medical schools (H.J. Res. 748, S. 2219)
Budget authority
33,000
126,600
($)
170,000
Outlays
33,000
126,600
170,000
Drug addiction treatment (H.R. 9265)
Budget authority
5,000
89,300
Outlays
5, 000
89,300
Paraplegic housing grants (S. 3343, P.L. 92-341)
Budget authority
3,500
5, 000
3,500
26,000
Outlays
3, 500
5,000
3, 500
26,000
National cemeteries (H.R. 12674)
Budget authority
39,600
217,500
Outlays
39,600
217,500
OTHER INDEPENDENT AGENCIES:
Administrative Conference of U.S. (S. 3671);
Budget authority
N.A.
N.A.
Outlays
N.A.
N.A
See footnotes at end of table, page 26.
25
SUPPORTING TABLES-Continued
Table No. 6.-Legislative proposals not reflected in budget estimates for fiscal year 1973-Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Cost estimate
House action
Senate action
Enacted
5-year
transmitted
to date
to date
to date
cost
INITIATED BY THE CONGRESS-Continued
OTHER INDEPENDENT AGENCIES-Continued
Civil Service retirement (S. 1681)
Budget authority
N.A.
N.A.
()
-6,900
Outlays
N.A.
N.A.
-6,900
Civil Service-firemen's retirement (S. 916, P.L. 92-382)
Budget authority
6,700
6, 330
6, 700
33, 500
Outlays
6,700
6,330
6, 700
33,500
Civil Service retirement-reduction in force (S. 3380)
Budget authority
N.A.
N.A.
Outlays
N.A.
N.A.
Civil Service-early retirement (H.R. 11255)
Budget authority
1780, 600
$3,903,000
Outlays
1780, 600
$3,903,000
District of Columbia-sickle cell prevention (S. 2677):
Budget authority
N.A.
N.A.
Outlays
N.A.
N.A.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission-enforcement
(H.R. 1746, P.L. 92-261):
Budget authority
17,359
12,031
17,568
106,762
Outlays
17,359
12,031
15,900
106,762
Institute for Continuing Studies of Juvenile Justice (H.R. 45):
Budget authority
2,000
8,000
Outlays
2,000
8,000
Interstate Commerce Commission-freight car shortage (S. 1729) *
Budget authority
11 2, 035, 000
11 2, 070, 600
Outlays
35, 150
70, 600
National Environmental Center (S. 1113)
Budget authority
90, 000
320,000
Outlays
90,000
320,000
National Metric Conversion Board (S. 2483)
Budget authority
3,000
14,500
Outlays
3, 000
14,500
National Science Foundation-civil science administration (S. 32)
Budget authority
150
6 1, 025
Outlays
150
1, 025
Railroad retirement-20% increase (H.R. 15927) :*
Budget authority
N.A.
Outlays
261, 600
N.A.
Small Business Administration-interestsubsidy program (S. 1905)
Budget authority
8, 350
41,750
Outlays
8, 350
41,750
Small Business Administration-disaster loan interest rate
reduction (H.R. 15692, P.L. 92-385)
Budget authority
12 94, 772
12 359, 932
12 50, 000
N.A.
Outlays
12 94, 772
12 359, 932
12 50, 000
N.A.
Small Business Administration-minority business (S. 3337)
Budget authority
t13 14, 915
Outlays
t¹³ 8, 933
13 14, 915
Commission on Security and Safety of Cargo (S. 942, H.R. 10295)
Budget authority
+1,000
2,000
6 3, 000
Outlays
1,000
2,000
3, 000
National Advisory Committee on Health, Science, and Society
(S.J. Res. 75)
Budget authority
250
2,000
Outlays
250
2, 000
National Commission on Consumer Finance-extension (S.J. Res.
211, P.L. 92-321)
Budget authority
500
500
500
500
Outlays
500
500
500
500
See footnotes at end of table, page 26.
26
SUPPORTING TABLES-Continued
Table No. 6.-Legislative proposals not reflected in budget estimates for fiscal year 1973-Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Cost estimate
House action
Senate action
Enacted
5-year
transmitted
to date
to date
to date
cost
INITIATED BY THE CONGRESS-Continued
OTHER INDEPENDENT AGENCIES-Continued
National Environmental Data System (H.R. 56)
Budget authority
1,000
29,020
($)
212,754
Outlays
1,000
29,020
212,754
Subtotal, initiated by the Congress:
Budget authority
6,052,981
8, 885, 234
1,850,933
45, 414, 275
Outlays
8, 615, 581
5, 745, 384
1,779,265
46, 550, 275
Total, Table No. 6:
Budget authority
499, 408
6, 750, 355
9, 745, 443
2, 466, 131
48, 975, 679
Outlays
504, 908
9, 368, 459
6, 661, 093
2,449,963
50, 111, 679
1 Enacted figure used for comparability.
9 Includes $1,615 million of "backdoor" authority as follows: $15 million in contract au-
2 No budgetary effect in FY 1973.
thority for F.Y. 1972, $300 million in contract authority for F.Y. 1973, and $1.5 billion in
3 Two-year authorization F.Y. 1973-74.
borrowing authority for F.Y. 1974.
4 "Backdoor" contract authority.
10 "Backdoor" permanent indefinite appropriation.
5 In addition provides indefinite amount of "backdoor" borrowing authority.
11 Includes $2 billion backdoor borrowing authority.
6 Three-year authorization F.Y. 1973-75.
12 Reflects cost of retroactive features only.
? Includes additional requirement to spend permanently appropriated funds, estimated
13 Interest subsidy mandatory; FY 1973 estimate $883,000.
for scorekeeping purposes at $90 million for House action and $116 million for Senate action.
N.A.-Not available.
8 Two-year authorization FY 1974-75.
Committee action.
:Subject to or in conference.
ttPending signature.
*Outlays mandatory.
SUPPORTING TABLES-Continued
Table No. 7.-Items in the fiscal year 1973 budget requiring authorizing legislation prior to enactment of appropriations
[In thousands of dollars]
Authorization request (title or purpose)
Cost estimate,
House action
Senate action
Enacted to date
1973 budget
to date
to date
JUDICIARY:
Commission on Bankruptcy Laws (S.J. Res. 190, P.L. 92-251)
426
426
426
426
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT:
Special Action Office for Drug Abuse (S. 2097, P.L. 92-255)
6, 856
171,000
250,000
253,000
FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT:
Foreign Assistance (H.R. 16029, S. 3390)
12,293,500
2,131,000
Rejected
Office of Economic Opportunity (H.R. 12350)
758,200
1,822,153
2,455,000
$1,756,300
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE:
Export control (S. 3726)
5, 507
5, 507
5,507
tt5, 507
National Bureau of Standards-Research and technical services:
Fire research and safety (H.R. 13034, P.L. 92-317)
4, 928
4, 928
5,000
5,000
Standard reference data (H.R. 13034, P.L. 92-317)
2, 795
2,795
3,000
3,000
F.ammable fabrics (H.R. 5066)
1, 063
4,000
4,000
()
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
Research (H.R. S. -)
900
Fishermen's Protective Fund (H.R. 7117)
61
61
61
()
Maritime Administration (H.R. 13324)
525,860
555,860
555,860
tt555, 860
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE:
Procurement (H.R. 15495, S. 3108)
1 23, 666, 367
21, 318, 788
20,821,700
(1)
Military construction (H.R. 15641)
1 2, 295, 451
2,575,781
2,539,305
()
Civil defense (S. 3772, P.L. 92-360)
29, 100
29,100
29,100
29, 100
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE:
Health Services and Mental Health Administration:
Maternal and child health (H.R. 9410, P.L. 92-345)
101,330
101,330
101,330
101,330
Family planning-Title V (H.R. 9410, P.L. 92-345)
19,000
19,000
19,000
19,000
Family planning-Title x (S. 3442)
21,500
21,500
($)
Lead based paint (S. 3080)
8, 500
100,000
Disease control (S. 3442)
13,500
90,000
229,300
(+)
Office of Education:
Higher education (S. 659, P.L. 92-318)
1,449,956
4, 925, 522
4,915,220
4,920,000
Library resources (S. 659, P.L. 92-318)
14,000
Open-end
130,000
75,000
Educational renewal (Follow Through) (H.R. 12350)
177,847
177, 847
100,000
70,000
Higher education facilities loan and insurance fund (S. 659, P.L. 92-318)
3,352
Open-end
200,000
100,000
Social and Rehabilitation Service:
Vocational Rehabilitation (H.R. 8395)
744,681
1,008,100
Programs for the aging (H.R. 15657, S. 3391)
109,000
200,450
Training and research (H.R. 15657, S. 3391)
11,000
35,000
Office of Child Development (Head Start) (H.R. 12350)
393,642
1,000,000
500,000
1485, 000
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (S. 3248,
H.R. 9688)
755,000
1,231,900
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR:
Bureau of Reclamation:
Colorado River Basin (H.R. 13435, P.L. 92-370)
38,185
38,185
38, 185
38,185
Missouri River Basin (S. 3284, P.L. 92-371)
8,840
8, 840
8,840
8, 840
Office of Saline Water (H.R. 12749, P.L. 92-273)
26,871
26,871
26,871
26, 871
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR:
Manpower Administration (S. 3054, P.L. 92-277)
1,686,330
1,686,330
1,686,330
1,686,330
DEPARTMENT OF STATE (H.R. 14734, P.L. 92-352)
588,852
648,354
648,354
648,354
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION:
Gas Pipeline Safety (H.R. 5065)
1, 000
3, 800
3, 800
+13,800
Coast Guard:
Operating expenses (H.R. 13188, P.L. 93-343)
322,570
322,570
322,570
322,570
Acquisition (H.R. 13188, P.L. 93-343)
135,660
141,820
145,880
145,880
Traffic and highway safety (H.R. 15375, S. 3474)
37, 461
37,461
$52,714
High Speed Ground Transportation (S. 979, P.L. 92-348)
60,800
97,000
60,800
97, 000
See footnotes at end of table, page 28.
(27)
28
SUPPORTING TABLES-Continued
Table No. 7.-Items in the fiscal year 1973 budget requiring authorizing legislation prior to
enactment of appropriations-Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Authorization request (title or purpose)
Cost estimate,
House action
Senate action
Enacted to date
1973 budget
to date
to date
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (S. 3607, P.L. 92-314)
12,724,850
2,603,475
2, 603, 475
2, 603, 475
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (H.R. 11896, S. 2720)
2,097,000
15,872,000
2 6, 928, 000
(t)
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (H.R.
14070, P.L. 92-304)
3,379,000
3, 428, 950
3, 420, 150
3, 420, 150
OTHER INDEPENDENT AGENCIES:
Action:
Economic and financial assistance-Peace Corps (H.R. 14734, P.L.
92-352)
1 88, 027
88,027
82,000
88,027
Community planning and development--Vista:
Extension (S. 3010, H.R. 12350)
1 53, 000
58,000
$58,000
Expansion (S. 3450)
145,425
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (H.R. 14734, P.L. 92-352)
10,000
10,000
19,995
10,000
Commission on Civil Rights (H.R. 12652)
4, 646
6, 250
5,500
($)
Commission on International Radio Broadcasting (S. 3645)
138,520
38,520
38,520
tt38, 520
Corporation for Public Broadcasting (S. 3824)
45,000
55,000
55,000
($)
Indian Claims Commission (H.R. 10390, P.L. 92-265)
1, 050
1,500
1,500
1,500
National Science Foundation (H.R. 14108, P.L. 92-372)
1654,418
680,800
727,000
703,900
American Revolution Bicentennial Commission (H.R. 13694, S. 3307)
6,712
+6,712
6, 712
Smithsonian Institution Bicentennial Museum (H.R. 10311, S. 2153)
275
United States Information Agency (H.R. 14734, P.L. 92-352)
'200,249
200,249
200,249
200,249
Water Resources Council (H.R. 14106)
531
2,500
2,500
112,500
Total, budget authority
45, 668, 594
62,183,862
51, 360, 154
18, 482, 674
Memorandum
Above tabulation excludes the following authorizing legislation because enact-
ment provides budget authority without requirement for further appropriation
action:
Federal-aid highways (contract authority):
Biennial authorization bill (S. 3939)
Interstate highways (recision)
1 750, 000
(t)
Other
1 2, 514, 000
(t)
Total
1,764,000
1 Amended.
2 Includes "backdoor" contract authority in H.R. 11896 of $11 billion for FY 1973 (Including
Committee action.
$6 billion for FY 1974 which is available for obligation in FY 1973), and $7 billion for FY 1975,
:Subject to or in conference.
which is available for obligation in FY 1974; and in S. 2770 $3 billion for FY 1973, $4 billion for
ttPending signature.
FY 1974, $5 billion for FY 1975.
3 Bill reported August 18. Sufficient information not available for posting and scorekeep-
ing purposes.
answerdesk'72
BULLETIN NO. 11
AUGUST 18, 1972
(202) 484-6767
GEORGE
MCGOVERN
Promises, Promises
Even Democrat politicians occasionally happen to hit on the truth
in their public utterances. Larry O'Brien, until recently the Chairman
of the Democratic National Committee and presently national campaign
chairman for George McGovern, managed this feat in his address to the
Democratic National Convention in Miami. O'Brien spoke of "excessive
political rhetoric" and overpromising. Unfortunately, O'Brien's can-
didate has yet to get the message.
In Miami, O'Brien said:
"We do not promise what we know cannot be delivered
by man, God or the Democratic Party."
Yet while campaigning in California, McGovern said:
"If I were President, it would take me 24 hours and
the stroke of a pen to terminate all military operations
in Southeast Asia."
McGovern Campaign Literature
in California Primary
In Miami, O'Brien told his party:
"There is not a politician or a churchman or a
businessman or a magician in this country who can
fulfill all those dazzling promises but we have
lacked the courage to say this."
Yet McGovern claims:
"We can raise every citizen above the poverty level without
raising the taxes of any family earning under $22,000 a
year."
Speech
Democratic National Committee
Convention for the Selection of a
Vice Presidential Nominee
Washington, D.C.
August 8, 1972
Dwight D. Eisenhower Republican Center: 310 First Street Southeast, Washington, D.C. 20003.
56
Answer Desk #11 (2)
August 18, 1972
McGovern also says that he would:
"...end that sad war the day I took the oath of office --
and I would make sure every American prisoner and soldier
came home. "
Manchester Union Leader
June 2, 1972
In Miami, O'Brien said that the Democrat Party has:
" promised something to everyone and then hoped
that nobody would keep score. It didn't work, the
people can count. They can keep score and they aren't
easily fooled.
"We have short-changed them in terms of specific
accomplishments, jobs, houses, schools, safe streets
and have lost most of their trust along the way. Now
we must stop kidding the American people. We must tell
them the truth."
Yet McGovern has unabashedly proclaimed:
" we will assure every worker that there will be
work to do -- and that prices will not soar while
wages fall. Whatever it takes, this country will
return to full employment."
Speech, Democratic
National Committee Convention
for the Selection of a Vice
Presidential Nominee
Washington, D.C.
August 8, 1972
And in January, McGovern said:
"In a McGovern Administration, there will be no trade
deficit."
Press Release
January 27, 1972
Larry O'Brien, for once, has hit a responsive chord with most
Americans. The average taxpayer is tired of overpromising and
underproducing. Now if someone would just tell George McGovern
57
Answer Desk #11 (3)
August 18, 1972
WOMEN
McGovern
"Prejudice against women is the last socially accepted
bigotry."
McGovern Campaign Literature
San Francisco, California
While McGovern enjoys speaking of women's rights, a close examina-
tion of his campaign and Senate staffs, as well as of remarks by
his campaign leadership reveals the superficiality of McGovern's
rhetoric.
In a recent interview with the Washington Post (August 7, 1972), Gary
Hart, McGovern's campaign manager, said:
"
they (women) don't have
the political experience or
the ability to organize. We
are looking for people, but do
you lower your standards in the
midst of brain surgery to try
and equalize social ills?"
Jeff Gralnick, who was until recently McGovern's press secretary, says of
the campaign staff:
"I was bone-tired of fighting with staff members and
the candidate, alleged spear carriers of the women's libera-
tion banner, about whether or not it was 'professional'
to travel with my wife, a journalist herself, a political
reporter and expert, and a person who was volunteering
herself to the bone-crushing regimen of McGovern's travel
schedule. She went, but always with heat, because somehow
it just wasn't 'proper' to have a woman along."
Village Voice
April 25, 1972
58
Answer Desk #11 (4)
August 18, 1972
McGovern has said:
"Women are going to be treated like men at all levels
of the campaign from the top of the campaign to the
lowliest position."
United Press International
August 9, 1972
Yet even the quickest glance at McGovern's allocation of staff positions
(and the salaries that go with them) among his Senate and campaign
staffs reveals that McGovern is talking a lot while delivering a little.
in 1970, only three of eleven McGovern Senate staff members earning
over $10,000 yearly were women, even though women comprised 50%
of the staff
during the first half of 1971, women held 55% of the McGovern
Senate staff positions, while receiving only 40% of the staff
payroll, and of the five top staff positions, only one was
held by a woman
during the second half of 1971, the Report of the Secretary of
the Senate reveals that women comprised 50% of the McGovern
staff, while earning only 44% of the total salary; examination
of job classifications shows that in nearly every case where
men and women held the same type of job, men were paid at a
higher rate (in one case nearly twice as much) than the women;
once again, only one of the five top staff positions was held
by a woman
according to a June 10, 1972, report filed with the General
Accounting Office by the McGovern for President Committee,
only 37% of the staff are women and they receive only 26%
of the payroll; only one woman (Anne Wexler) is in a strategy-
making position and her salary is well below that of the top
echelon of male staffers (Mankiewicz, Hart and Stearns); this
report also revealed that there are no women in the finance
operation or brain trust
a look at the McGovern Commission on Party Reform shows only
three women among its 28 members (this is reform?)
And surely the women's caucus at the Democratic National Convention must
have been disappointed when McGovern, after pledging his "full and unequiv-
ocal support" of the South Carolina challenge (calling for a greater pro-
portion of women among the delegation), backed down on his pledge. McGovern
later said that the challenge "was not a risk worth taking." ("A Con-
versation with the McGoverns," PBS-TV, July 26, 1972)
59
Answer Desk #11 (5)
August 18, 1972
The Nixon Administration's Accomplishments
A comparison of the empty McGovern rhetoric with the solid accomplishments
of the Nixon Administration only highlights McGovern's record of broken
promises.
The degree of progress made by the Nixon Administration is perhaps best
measured by the following comparison of Presidential appointments at
grade level GS-16 and above:
President Nixon
105 women in 3 years and 3 months
President Johnson
27 women in 6 years and 2 months
President Kennedy
18 women in 2 years and 10 months
Add to this record the following list of firsts achieved by the President,
and the McGovern record is revealed for what it is a meaningless
exercise in rhetoric steeped in unfulfilled commitments. Under the Nixon
Administration:
at the policy-making level, more than half of the women
appointees hold positions previously held only by men
for the first time in history, two women are chairing
regulatory agencies at the same time
the first five women have been nominated to the rank of
General in the Armed Forces
the first woman has been nominated to the rank of Rear
Admiral in the Navy
and there are a number of firsts at the mid-level, including
the first women sky marshals, secret service agents, air
traffic controllers and narcotics agents
60
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 17, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
ADMINISTRATION SPOKESMEN
FROM:
PATRICK E. O'DONNELL
Kidder, Peabody & Co. recently published an article, excerpts
of which are attached, reflecting their thoughts on the McGovern
candidacy. They made some very interesting points which you
might find helpful in upcoming speeches and public appearances.
Additionally, you will probably want to utilize the other two
selections we are attaching entitled "McGovern--Spokesman
for the Enemy" and "Senator Eagleton's Vice Presidential
Demise -- - - as told by Senator McGovern.
Attachments
MCGOVERN AND THE STOCK MARKET
In th
1972 economic letter, Kidder, Peabody & Company
sets forth the following "Economic Perspectives" on the relation-
ship between George McGovern and trends in the Stock Market.
The following are excerpts from the Kidder, Peabody letter:
"The stock market has been in a funk ever since
George McGovern emerged as the leading candidate
for the Democratic presidential nomination in late
May. Its mood was not improved by this week's
events at Miami Beach, which saw the Democratic
Party convention taken over by a new crowd of poli-
tical operatives.
The market's reaction is partly attributable to the
'soak-the-rich' tax ideas espoused by Senator Mc-
Govern during the primary campaign. His radical
welfare-reform program
has been no less dis-
turbing. His proposals for a $32 billion cut in de- -
fense outlays and a unilateral withdrawal from Viet-
nam have also been upsetting to many people
the takeover by a candidate and his followers who
espouse the most radical program in recent history
is naturally a matter of deep concern to the nation's
investors. And the single-minded determination shown
by Mr. McGovern's youthful cohorts at Miami has re-
minded some Wall Streeters of the activities of the Red
Guards during Chairman Mao's Cultural Revolution.
Despite their claim to represent 'the people' in a 'pop-
ulist' cause, the McGovern forces primarily represent
a relatively privileged class -- the highly educated work-
ers. A survey by the Washington Post showed that about
45% of the McGovern convention delegates had at least
some postgraduate university education, whereas less
than 4% of all Americans have comparable training.
If, as we expect, the opinion polls continue to show
Senator McGovern lagging well behind President Nixon,
we believe that the fears raised by his candidacy will
fade away while increased attention will be paid to the
prospects for a prolonged economic upswing. "
MCGOVERN -- SPOKESMAN FOR THE ENEMY
"Senator McGovern seems to be more willing to place his trust with
the statements of the Communist cut-throats and brigands than with
the American and allied officials who have exhibited their integrity
and their dedication to peace. " (San Diego Union, 9/16/71)
McGovern
"The South Dakota Senator
said six hours of private talks with
chief Hanoi negotiator Xuan Thuy convinced him the Nixon ad-
ministration had misinterpreted this key element of the Communist
proposals. 11 ( AP, 9/14/71)
Comment
"In other words, McGovern and our enemies see eye to eye and are
united in pushing the same propaganda positions. The U.S. must
pull out on Hanoi's terms, and President Nixon, of all people, is res-
ponsible for the continuing plight of our men taken as prisoners. "
(Seattle Post Intelligencer, 9/15/71)
McGovern
"I don't accept the American interpretation
My position is that
we have to disengage and leave the future to the Vietnamese. " (The
Evening Star, 9/13/71)
Comment
"McGovern is seeking to capitalize on the U.S. involvement in Viet-
nam
As long as one American is held captive, we in the Veter-
and of Foreign Wars shall insist that there are other Americans
there fighting for his freedom. " (Joseph L. Vicites, Command-
er-in-Chief, Veterans of Foreign Wars, 9/20/71)
-2-
McGovern
"My meeting with the veteran Hanoi official was informative
and gave me a very detailed and candid appraisal of why the con-
ference is stalemated. 11 (UPI, 9/11/71)
"It is not my view that Vietnamization is proceeding success-
fully. 11 ( The Evening Star, 9/13/71)
Comment
"Traveling politicians -- especially if they are potential presiden-
tial candidates -- are inclined to be highly selective in their fact-
finding. South Dakota's Senator McGovern is no exception. Mc-
Govern was strongly impressed by what he was told by members
of the North Vietnamese delegation at the Vietnam peace talks in
Paris. He was predictably unimpressed by what he heard from
American Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker in Saigon. " ( The Even-
ing Star, 9/14/71)
McGovern
11
he wound up doing another big favor for Hanoi. The favor
consisted of calling a press conference -- widely covered by the
press and television, as usual -- to urge acceptance of the enemy's
terms for ending the war and releasing our prisoners. " (Seattle
Post Intelligencer, 9/15/71)
Comment
"The Senator's behavior is irresponsible and self-serving. It
could well serve to prolong the quest for peace rather than shorten
it. " ( San Diego Union, 9/16/71)
McGovern
"
in a very real way President Nixon holds the key to the jail
cells of Hanoi.
I have no doubts about the Communists' sin-
cerity. " (Washington Post, 9/13/71)
-3-
Comment
11
We simply deplore the blindness and irresponsibility which
can turn a U.S. senator into a willing tool of the communist foe,
performing services which in a declared war would be nothing less
than treason. " (Seattle Post Intelligencer, 9/15/71)
McGovern
"
after having talked with Vietnamese Communist officials, the
Senator told a news conference that the United States should test
the offer of the Vietnamese Communists to free American prison-
ers of war if Mr. Nixon sets a date for total withdrawal of United
States forces from Vietnam. " (New York Times, 9/13/71)
Comment
"McGovern met with enemy representatives in an attempt to grab
headlines
... McGovern and others in Washington should do what
they can to end the war in Southeast Asia but they also have a mo-
ral obligation to the American people not to use the agony of our
nation as a means of getting themselves elected president."
(Joseph L. Vicites, Commander-in-Chief, Veterans of Foreign
Wars, 9/20/71)
****
"President Nixon's plan for Vietnamization and withdrawal of
American forces, when President Thieu assumes responsibility
for the defense of South Vietnam, still appears to be America's
best hope. 11 (Salt Lake Tribune, 9/27/71)
SENATOR EAGLETON'S VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEMISE --
AS TOLD BY SENATOR MCGOVERN
"I assume that everyone here is impressed with my control of
this convention in that my choice for Vice President was challeng-
ed by only 39 other nominees. But I think we learned from watching
the Republicans four years ago as they selected their vice-presi-
dential nominee that it pays to take a little more time. 11
Acceptance Speech
July 14, 1972
"I wouldn't have hesitated one minute if I had known everything
that Senator Eagleton said here today. I know enough about
American history to know that some of our most honored Pres-
idents have survived illnesses far more serious than anything
Senator Eagleton has touched on here today. 11
Washington Post
July 26, 1972
"I think that Tom Eagleton is fully qualified in mind, body and
spirit to be the Vice President of the United States and if neces-
sary, to take over the presidency on a moment's notice. "
Washington Post
July 26, 1972
"I know fully the whole case history of his illness. I know what
his performance has been in the United States Senate over the
past four years. I don't have the slightest doubt about the wis-
dom of my judgment in selecting him as my running mate, nor
would I have any hesitance at all in entrusting the United States
government to his hands. "
New York Times
July 26, 1972
-2-
"If I had known every detail that he discussed this morning, he
would still have been my choice for Vice President."
New York Times
July 26, 1972
In response to questions about whether he has made "an irrevoc-
able decision" to keep Mr. Eagleton on the ticket, Mr. McGovern
replied, "Absolutely. "
Interview/Harry Reasoner
New York Times, July 26, 1972
I will do "everything I can do to discourage any move" on Eagle-
ton's part to leave the ticket.
Evening Star & Daily News
July 26, 1972
"I don't want him to leave the ticket. I think we're going to win
the election. I think he's going to be a great Vice President."
New York Times
July 26, 1972
"I am 1000 percent for Tom Eagleton and have no intention of drop-
ping him from the ticket. (July 25 statement)
Newsweek
August 7, 1972
McGovern said he didn't know yet whether Eagleton would be a
"plus or a minus" to the Democratic campaign.
Washington Post
July 30, 1972
-3-
Speaking to an AP reporter: "Let's wait and see what the re-
action is, other people have to make their judgments."
Chicago Tribune
July 27, 1972
I "wouldn't even consider him (Eagleton) leaving the ticket. 11
Evening Star & Daily News
July 27, 1972
"I have made my support for Senator Eagleton clear and I want
no further comment on the matter by anyone connected with the
campaign other than Senator Eagleton or myself."
Washington Post
July 28, 1972
"We have had some heart-rending days. I do not know how it
will all come out, but I do know that it gets darkest just before
the stars come out. I ask for your prayers and patience for Sen-
ator Eagleton and me while we deliberate on the proper course
ahead. (July 28 statement)
Time
August 7, 1972
"On Friday afternoon he (McGovern) telephoned Jules Witcover
of the Los Angeles Times at the Hi-Ho Motel in Custer. Mc-
Govern invited Witcover to his cabin for an hour-and-a-half in-
terview. Witcover's lengthy piece conveyed McGovern's message:
public reaction to the disclosure of Eagleton's past health prob-
lems has been so negative that Eagleton must withdraw -- volun-
tarily. " (July 28)
Time
August 7, 1972
-4-
"McGovern appeared unexpectedly last night at the Sylvan Lake
Lodge public dining room and told several newsmen there that,
'to a great extent, 1 whether Eagleton remains as the Democratic
vice presidential nominee is up to Eagleton
McGovern's com-
ments as he table-hopped around the Sylvan Lake Lodge dining
room last night seemed to leave little doubt that he would accept
Eagleton's resignation from the ticket if offered. 11
Evening Star & Daily News
July 29, 1972
"A poll might show that 99 percent supported Eagleton, but that
1 percent who oppose him could still lose the election for the
Democrats in a close race. I'm not going to do anything until I
talk to Eagleton. "
Washington Post
July 29, 1972
"Senator Eagleton and I had a lengthy conversation this morning.
I assured him I am still backing him as vice presidential nominee
of the party. I have advised Senator Eagleton that I have been un-
der intense pressure all week that he withdraw from the ticket,
but I have insisted, and still insist, on a proper period of evalua-
tion by both of us of this difficult question."
Washington Post
July 30, 1972
"The question is to evaluate at a time when the country's uptight
and anxious, uncertain, how much more strain you can put in the
system. I don't know. "
New York Times
July 31, 1972
"I am fully satisfied that his health is excellent. We have jointly
agreed that the best course is for Senator Eagleton to step aside. "
UPI
July 31, 1972
No. 17-72
AUGUST 14, 1972
MEM
COPE and the COPE Political Contributions Committee are independent
COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION, AFL-CIO
political committees, created by the AFL-CIO. These Committees do not
ask for or accept authorization from any candidate and no candidate is
815 16TH STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
responsible for their activities. A copy of the report of the AFL-CIO COPE
Political Contributions Committee filed with the appropriate supervisory
officer is (or will be) available for purchase from the Superintendent of
Documents, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.
GEORGE MEANY, Chairman
LANE KIRKLAND, Secretary-Treasurer
ALEXANDER E. BARKAN, National Director
The hand on the lever
it's influenced by many different factors.
'Typical' Voter? No Such Animal
The "typical" or "average" American voter is
27 percent would be 25-39 years old
already getting a lot of attention from politicians and
40 percent would be 40-65 years old
press this year. Commentators are telling us who he
14 percent would be over 65
or she is, what he or she does, how much he or she
By religious affiliation, about 40 percent would
earns etc. But what they don't tell us about the
be Protestant, 25 percent Catholic, three per-
"typical" or "average" voter is this: He/she doesn't
cent Jewish, two percent Eastern Orthodox-
exist.
-the rest of other faiths or unaffiliated.
Every voter is a bundle of different things in one,
shaped by different experience, influenced by dif-
In other categories-financial, educational, ethnic,
ferent factors. An attempt to construct a "typical"
geographical-the voter again is so spread around
voter would result in a mutant creature something
that a "typical" one would be impossible to define.
like the following, based on U.S. Census Bureau
Figures do, however, lead to certain generalities
figures:
about the American voting population. This issue of
52 percent female, 48 percent male
the Memo pulls together those generalities to provide
89 percent white, 11 percent non-white
a picture, if not of the "typical" voter, then of the
Nearly 75 percent urban, 25 percent rural
general electorate. Most statistics are from the Census
19 percent of him/her would be 18-24 years old
Bureau.
Women, Blacks, Youth Back Labor's Friends
Registration Rises With Education, Income
GENTLEMEN, THE LADIES ARE COMING
NIXON
HUMPHREY WALLACE
Under
(Continued from Page 2)
WE'RE GETTING SMARTER
AND THEY'VE GOT YOU SURROUNDED
30 years
38%
47%
15%
is $10,670, for blacks $6,440, about 35½ percent less.
In 1950, the average number of years schooling
About four presidential elections back, almost un-
30-49 years
41%
44%
15%
Ten percent of all families, 5.4 million of them repre-
for voting-age citizens was nine. Today, it is 12. We
noticed at the time, the potential number of female
50 and up
47%
41%
12%
senting about 26 million persons, are below the poverty
are a better educated electorate. The median number
voters for the first time surpassed the potential number
WE ARE AN URBAN ELECTORATE
level of $4,137. Blacks, who are 11 percent of the
of school years for all persons over 25 is 10.3 years
of male voters. Today's figures:
total population, comprise 29 percent of the population
for males, 10.9 for females, 10.9 for all whites, 8.2
Total electorate-135 million (approx.)
73.5 percent of the electorate lives in cities, sub-
below the poverty line. Percentage of families at differ-
for all non-whites. Following are the percentages of
Female-70 million
urbs or other urban clusters, up four percent since
ent annual income levels:
the potential electorate by years of school completed:
Male-65 million
1960. And increasingly, blacks occupy major urban
areas. While 77 percent of all blacks lived in the
Below $3,000
8.3%
0-4 years elementary
5%
Percentage-52% female, 48% male
south 30 years ago, only 53 percent now do, with the
$3-$5,000
10.2%
5-7 years
9%
In general, women voters support labor's endorsed
major flow being in the midwest where 20 percent of
$5-$7,000
11.2%
8 years
13%
candidates by higher percentages than male voters. In
American blacks live, and the northeast, 19 percent.
$7-$10,000
18.5%
1-3 years high school
17%
1968:
$10-$12,000
12.5%
4 years high school
34%
NIXON
HUMPHREY WALLACE
WE HAVE A FEW RICH, A LOT OF
$12-$15,000
14.4%
1-3 years college
11%
Women
43%
45%
12%
POOR, AND MOST IN BETWEEN
$15-$25,000
19.7%
4 years college
7%
Men
43%
41%
16%
The median income is now $10,285. For whites, it
$25-$50,000
4.7%
More than 4 years college
4%
(Continued on Page 3)
$50,000 and up
0.6%
(320,000 families out
of 54 million total)
WHO'S REGISTERED-WHO ISN'T
WE ARE AN OVERWHELMINGLY
AND WHAT THEY REGISTER AS
WHITE ELECTORATE
The huge mass of the potential electorate, 65 per-
cent of it, comes from families earning less than
Total electorate-135 million (approx.)
Accurate figures on registration by income, educa-
$10,000, and in terms of support of labor's endorsed
White voters-120 million, 89%
tion and age groupings are hard to come by, and
candidates, this is where the votes are. Roughly 45
All non-whites-15 million, 11%
what figures are available may be open to question.
percent of those in the $3-$10,000 annual income
Black voters-13 million-plus
However, figures from different Gallup Polls of the
range classified themselves as Democrats, while about
past two years show:
In general, black voters go strong for labor-endorsed
26-29 percent considered themselves Republican in
%
%
candidates. In 1968:
a Gallup poll of a year ago. There may have been
Reg-
Unreg-
NIXON
HUMPHREY WALLACE
changes, though perhaps not substantial ones.
Annual Income
istered
istered
GOP
Dem.
Ind.
White voters 47%
38%
15%
Under $3,000
73
27
28
55
17
UNION MEMBERS COMPRISE A
Black voters 12%
85%
3%
MINORITY OF THE ELECTORATE
$3-$5,000
73
27
26
44
30
In other elections, too, blacks overwhelmingly back
$5-$7,000
68
32
26
45
29
labor positions. In two labor campaigns against so-
Union members make up approximately 14 percent
$7-$10,000
74
26
29
45
26
called "right to work" proposals in Oklahoma, black
of the potential electorate. If you double that figure to
ELEC
$10-$15,000
78
22
31
42
27
precincts came in 90 percent and higher for labor's
allow for one voting-age family member of each union
member, it remains a minority at 28 percent. Follow-
$15,000 and up
81
19
38
40
22
stand against the open shop.
ing is a breakdown of the electorate by occupation
Except for the slippage in the $5-$7,000 range, the
(union membership not accounted for):
THERE'S A LOT OF NEW YOUNG VOTERS,
figures show registration increases as income increases.
BUT MOST OF US ARE STILL FAT AND 40
4
White collar (business,
Registration also goes up according to years of edu-
professional, etc.)
48%
cation, and party preference differs at different edu-
We are an increasingly young electorate. With the
Blue collar
36%
cational levels.
new law permitting 18-year-olds to vote, the age break-
Service workers
111/2%
%
%
down of the potential vote is:
Farm
41/2%
Reg- Unreg-
18-20 years
8%
Education Level
istered
istered
GOP
Dem.
Ind.
21-24 years
11%
A Gallup Poll of a year ago showed party prefer-
Grade school grad.
72
28
26
50
24
25-39 years
27%
ence of different occupational groups at the time. The
categories, please note, are slightly different from Cen-
High school grad.
75
25
27
46
27
40-65 years
40%
14%
sus Bureau categories used above.
College grad.
76
24
38
38
24
Over 65 years
Thus, 46 percent of the electorate is under 40, 54
Occupation
GOP
Dem.
Ind.
By age groups, a July 1972 Gallup Poll showed 70
percent 40 and over, and only 19 percent in the 18-24
Blue collar
23
49
28
percent of voters over 30 years old registered, with
age range. The figures show young voters-like women
White collar
30
43
27
54 percent of all those under 30 registered, and so far.
and blacks-also back labor's candidates in better
There are 11 million potential voters in the 18-
Business, professional
37
38
25
only 50 percent of the 18-24 age group registered. In
percentages than older voters. In 1968:
20 age range, but 54 percent are still over 40.
Farmers
45
39
16
(Continued on Page 4)
2
3
There Are the Statistics-You Figure 'em Out
(Continued from Page 3)
from, college are registered, to 41 percent of the non-
the total under-30 group, 67 percent of those in, or
college group.
graduated from, college are registered, while only 47
The "Memo" has presented here a batch of statistics
percent of the non-college group are registered. In
showing how impossible it would be to imagine an
the 18-24 group, 66 percent of those in, or graduated
"average" voter. Give it a try. You figure 'em out.
Oklahoma, Montana, South Dakota-
Bad Scenes for 'Right-to-Workers'
It was fitting that it happened in Oklahoma.
where, as an interesting contrast in the neighbor-
Twice in recent years, the National Right to Work
states of Montana and North Dakota suggests.
Committee has pushed its Oklahoma state chapter
In North Dakota, drafters of a new constitution
into a drive for a statewide open shop law. Twice,
included an open shop section among other sections
Oklahomans have rejected it.
that favored corporate, over worker, interests. The
Now, a U.S. District Court in Tulsa has ruled
constitution was opposed by the State AFL-CIO which
against a NRTWC-inspired suit to throw out union
waged a vigorous campaign against it. Voters defeated
security provisions in an Auto Workers-McDonnell
it by nearly 2-1 in April.
Douglas aircraft contract.
Six weeks later, in Montana, with the enthusiastic
Specifically, the decision upholds a system of re-
support and all-out effort of the State AFL-CIO,
bating agency shop fees of workers who object to
voters narrowly approved a new constitution which
economic, social and political programs of the union.
did not include an open shop provision.
Under the system spelled out in the contract and in
The state federation had endorsed 56 of the con-
UAW internal procedures, any employe who does not
stitutional convention's 100 delegates. They and other
pay union dues must pay agency shop fees as a con-
delegates declined to include RTW in drafting a new
dition of retaining employment. If the employe objects
constitution. The one they did draft won an over-
to use of a portion of his fees for social, economic
whelming vote of endorsement at a special convention
or political programs with which he disagrees, he can
of the Montana State AFL-CIO and a subsequent
inform the union of his objection and receive a re-
bate. The court found this a "reasonable" system.
all-out education and get-out-the-vote campaign in its
behalf among union members.
The decision, added to two consecutive strike-outs
for the Right to Work Committee at the polls means
The efforts of the State AFL-CIO helped produce
the open-shoppers are batting 0-for-3 in Oklahoma.
a 3,000-vote margin out of 230,000 votes cast for a
Add several recent failures to get RTW through the
constitution-without an open shop provision-de-
state legislature, and the batting average is even more
scribed by State AFL-CIO Executive Secretary James
embarrassing for the right-to-workers.
Murry as one which provides "the tools to develop
Meanwhile, "right-to-work" isn't doing so well else-
truly effective government in Montana."
COPE Memo is published every two weeks
by the Committee on Political Education,
815 - 16th St., N.W., Washington, D. C. 20006.
Subscription price $1.00 per year.
INTERNATIONAL
LABOR PRESS
AFL-CIO CLC
ASSOCIATION
ORDER BLANK FOR "POLITICAL MEMO FROM COPE"
Enclosed is $
.
Please send
subscriptions at $1 a
year (25 cents each a year for 10 or more subscriptions mailed to one
address) of the "POLITICAL MEMO FROM COPE" to:
Name
Address
City
State
Zip
Signed
Union
New ?
Renewal?
Mail to: COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION
815 16th St., N.W., Washington, D. C. 20006
2132 Rayburn Building
FOR RELEASE PM's
AC 202 225 3876
August 21, 1972
Monday
YOUR CONGRESSMAN REPORTS FROM WASHINGTON
By Frank T. Bow, M. C.
Washington This year may go down in history as the year in which
more misinformation and outright foolishness was uttered about the tax
structure of the United States than ever before.
If one were to take all of the remarks of all of the politicians
who have been preaching tax reform and put them together, no revenue agent
or economist could recognize the tax structure that would result. It
would bear no resemblance to the system that is actually in force.
Among the most outrageously misleading statements is the frequently
repeated charge that American corporations pay little or no taxes. The
fact is they pay taxes heavily and the rates are rising rapidly.
In fiscal 1971 the corporations paid $26.8 billion in federal income
taxes. The following year, just ended, they paid $30.1 billion. In the
current year, when the full effect of the 1969 increases in corporation
taxes is being felt, the amount will rise to an estimated $35.7 billion.
The increase can be attributed in part to increased business activity,
but the major increase, about $5 billion, is a result of the 1969 Tax
Reform Act.
It is amazing to me that Senators and Congress who voted for that
act, cutting individual income taxes as much as 70 percent in lower brackets
and increasing corporation taxes by over $5 billion, can now assail the
system. Those who have never served in Congress may be excused for ignorance
but they may not be excused for failure to check out easily uncovered facts.
In addition to the federal income tax burden, the corporations count
for a large share of the $16 billion in excise taxes the federal govern-
ment will collect, and more than half of $55 billion in employment taxes.
And beyond this, of course, there are other billions paid by
corporations to state and local governments. In hundreds of counties in
this country a corporation, perhaps the railroad or electric company, is
the largest single property tax payer. If ever there were a goose that
lays golden eggs, the American corporation is it. Voters will do well
to be wary of those who want to skin and eat the goose.
-- 30
From the office of Earl F. Landgrebe
1238 Longworth Building
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
For more information, call:
(202) 225-5777
For release:
Immediate
WASHINGTON,D. C. - Congressman Earl F. Landgrebe has
announced that Secretary of the Interior Rogers Morton will
be the keynote speaker at the dedication of the Indiana
Dunes National Lakeshore Park. The dedication is scheduled
for Friday, September 8 at the northern Indiana Park,
Landgrebe said.
Morton was appointed Secretary of the Interior by
President Nixon in November, 1970. Prior to that, the
Secretary served as a member of Congress in the 88th through
92nd Congresses, as a Representative from Maryland. During
his Congressional tenure, Secretary Morton has served on the
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, the Committee
on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, the Committee on Ways and
Means and the Select Committee on Small Business. The 57
year old former executive of Pillsbury Company is also
a member of the Public Land Law Review Commission.
Congressman Landgrebe will introduce Secretary
Morton at the dedication.
8/21/72
FROM THE OFFICE OF
WEEKLY COLUMN NO. 466
CONGRESSMAN FRANK HORTON
Week of August 20, 1972
FEDERAL ACTION ON FLOOD RELIEF
by
Congressman Frank Horton
The water is gone but the mildew and destruction remain. It is
difficult to visualize the individual human tragedies which lie behind
the 118 dead, the 115,000 homes damaged, and the 6,000 businesses hurt
by the flood waters of Tropical Storm Agnes. But that does not make
the flood toll any less real for those involved. Years of self-denial
and saving exchanged for future security will again become the pattern
of thousands of lives. In the meantime, the victims will need help
and much of that assistance must come from the Federal government.
Already the Office of Emergency Preparedness, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, National Guard,Corps of Engineers,
Farmers Home Administration, and Small Business Administration have
done a tremendous job in the initial clean-up effort. More than
200,000 people in emergency shelters have been moved to less temporary
quarters, five million cubic yards of debris collected, and, in New
York along, the SBA has approved 7,329 loans totalling $35.6 million -
for damaged homes and businesses. But there are still battered roads,
acres of ruined farm lands, devastated public facilities, impoverished
families, and economically-broken businesses which must be dealt with
immediately.
Both the House and Senate pushed through legislation in July to
provide disaster assistance to flood victims. A House-Senate Confer-
ence Committee submitted a compromise measure to Congress which was
quickly approved by both branches and signed into law by President
Nixon. The "Tropical Storm Agnes Bill" liberalizes loan terms for
those who have suffered devastation from natural catastrophes since
January 1, 1971.
Under previous laws, small businesses within disaster areas were
eligible for long-term, low interest loans including a "forgiveness
feature" not to exceed $2,500 with the remaining balance carrying an
interest rate of five and one-eigth percent. This formula applies to
calendar year 1971. But for the period January 1, 1972 through July 1
1973, the forgiveness feature is raised to $5,000 with the remaining
balance charged at an interest rate of one percent.
Prior to passage of this bill, farmers who suffered devastating
MORE
CONGRESSMAN FRANK HORTON
-2-
WEEKLY COLUMN NO. 466
crop losses could get a loan on next year's crop but it would be pay-
able after one year in most cases, and deferred for two or three
years in only the most extreme cases of hardship. This was hardly
fair. The law now treats ruined crops as it does stock lost off the
shelves of small businesses, providing long-term, low interest loans
for present crop damage, emergency re-financing of existing indebted-
ness, and other assistance.
Homeowners burdened with a mortgage on a destroyed house will
now be able to finance a new house by obtaining a loan at one-percent.
Their original mortgage can also be paid off at the lower rate as
long as the total monthly payment is not below its former level. In
special hardship cases of retired or disabled persons, the SBA admin-
istrator could suspend both interest and principle payments on homes
during the lifetime of the owner.
Educational institutions damaged by the flood waters will bene-
fit from the bill as well. A special provision was written into the
law that allows private, non-profit schools to receive Federal disas-
ter relief grants comparable to those being given the public schools
hit by Agnes. Parochial and other private, non-profit schools faced
weeks of uncertainty and delay in the aftermath of Agnes because they
are normally not eligible for Federal disaster relief grants. The
new law will help these schools damaged by Agnes, but it will not
guarantee them immediate Federal aid should another natural disaster
occur. Thus, I am preparing legislation that will give the President
permanent statutory authority to grant Federal assistance to all pub-
lic and private, non-profit schools in any future Presidentially-
declared disaster area.
Much of the flood damage occurred in areas like the Appalachian
region, already burdened by unemployment and economic problems. That
is why the extra measure of assistance which Congress has extended
to victims of Agnes is absolutely essential if these areas are to be
able to participate in the economic recovery that the rest of the
nation is beginning to enjoy.
######
Congressman
ELWOOD H. "BUD" HILLIS
MEMBER OF CONGRESS
Reports
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
from Washington
(NOT PRINTED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE)
NEWSLETTER
For the week of August 25, 1972
RURAL DEVELOPMENT BILL PASSES HOUSE
Washington, D. C. -- The United States House of Representatives has
approved a compromise version of legislation which holds great promise for
rural America the Rural Development Act of 1972.
The legislation is designed to improve the economy and living conditions
of rural America.
Under the bill, cities with a population of 10,000 or less will be
eligible for loans and grants for water supply projects, sewer and sewer
treatment plant construction, fire-fighting and rescue equipment, and
development of industrial parks. The thrust is to make rural communities
more attractive for industry and for living.
The legislation provides low-cost loans to new or expanding businesses in
non-metropolitan areas. These loans will be guaranteed through a Rural
Development Insurance Fund.
The Act also provides direct benefits for farmers. The Department of
Agriculture may enter into 10-year agreements with individual farmers to share
the cost of soil and water conservation projects and projects intended to
prevent agricultural pollution.
The Rural Development Act of 1972 will not give rise to a new bureaucracy.
The loans and grants will be administered by the existing Farmers Home
Administration. The Agricultural Extension Service, land grant colleges and
county agents will provide the guidance needed by rural communities to attract
new industry.
QUOTE OF THE WEEK
"Unemployment has been a stubborn beast, and we still haven't got it
down to where we want it. But some things are evident. One is that the
economy is on a strong upsurge -- a really surging second quarter. And
another is that it is 60 strong that in the last year alone the job market has
(more)
NEWSLETTER
For the Week of August 25, 1972
absorbed a staggering 2.7 million people--many of them returning veterans,
many of them young people and women. While we can't be complacent about it,
we do expect a further reduction in unemployment, even though there will be
some month-to-month variation. There's no doubt we're now on the down side
of the curve." Secretary of Labor, James Hodgson
******
AND THE BENEFITS ARE BETTER--
U. S. workers are richer than they think. The wages they are paid for
time spent working now represent only three-fourths of what they actually get.
The "fringe" benefits have grown to a healthy 25 percent of income. These
benefits average $50 per week per employee, double the 1961 total. While
wages and salaries went up 64 percent over the past decade, these benefits
jumped 103 percent. Employers will pay $180 billion this year for such items
as old age, survivors, disability and health insurance. Private pension
fund payments are up 90 percent. The list of fringes includes life, sickness,
accident, hospitalization insurance, holidays, profit sharing plans, workmen's
compensation, employee meals, and discounts on goods and services.
*****
WHY THE DIKES WERE NOT BOMBED
Newsweek magazine reports that an Air Force report to the Joint Chiefs
of Staff stressed that North Vietnam's dike system should not be bombed.
According to Newsweek, the reasons given were:
The bombing would require enormous effort and produce limited military
results. To achieve flooding, thousands of sorties would have to be flown
at the height of the monsoon rains to cut the six major dams and thousands
of dikes in the Red River system. The military result, apart from flood
damage, would be simply to divert Hanoi's work force from other tasks to
dike repair.
*****
WRITE CONGRESSMAN HILLIS
1510 LONGWORTH BUILDING
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20515
News from Stewart B.
McKinney.
Serving Connecticut's 4th District.
Vol. 2, No. 6
August, 1972
Dear Friend,
In a recent editorial commentary on the political machinations of the 92nd Congress, The
New York Times bemoaned the fact that the House of Representatives had failed to pass the
Emergency Community Facilities and Public Investment Act of 1972, a piece of legislation The
Times Editorial Board characterized as "sensible."
This bill, hereinafter referred to as "the sewer bill", has what might be considered a
remarkable history and depending on who you talked to, unbelievable potential.
For the past 19 months, I've been a member of the House Banking and Currency Committee. In
all that time, I've never seen a bill move so fast. First, it appeared, somewhat miraculously,
with little advance warning, and in one day, the Committee completed hearings (only four
witnesses were heard but the majority members of the Committee felt that was all that was
necessary) and before the sun set, it had been "marked up" (put in final legislative form,
ready for full House action).
It promised, by way of a $5 billion appropriation, to stop water pollution, through the
construction of sewers, and halt unemployment, in the same manner.
It came to the House floor with a skimpy majority report but what it lacked in substance
was made up for with a voluminous addendum: pages upon pages of data "confirming" the need for
such an expenditure. In essence, the data indicated there was a nationwide backlog in sewer
construction amounting to $12.9 billion.
It seemed too good to be true; so good, in fact, that I felt it worthy of more than just a
normal review. I found that a few of my colleagues shared my skepticism, so we set to work.
We revealed the results of our investigation the day the bill came up for debate on the floor.
The $12.9 backlog, we found, was not that at all but simply a tabulation of ALL sewer
construction applications made to the Department of Housing and Urban Development since 1968.
Of that $12.9 billion, $1.8 billion was referred to other agencies; $1.6 billion was withdraw
voluntarily by the applicants; $4.7 billion in applications had been rejected by HUD since
they did not meet water quality eligibility standards; and $2.7 billion had already been funded
Simple subtraction brings the alleged $12.9 "backlog" down to $1.1 billion, a far cry, inde
from the $5 billion "desperately" needed funds in the bill.
Following along, we reminded the members of the House that earlier this year, we had appr
a four-year, $24.6 billion anti-water pollution program and a $5 billion Revenue Sharing
measure which had as one of its main tenets, sewer construction. Duplication of effort b
described what the sewer bill proposed to do.
As for the unemployment question, we pointed out that the normal time lag in sewer cons
tion is 8 to 18 months and therefore, this would have little effect on the current problem
Further, an unemployed aircraft assembly line worker could hardly be expected to become an
experienced, journeyman sewer builder overnight.
It would certainly be nice and I'd like to tell you that as a Member of the House of
Representatives, I cured water pollution and solved the unemployment problem in one fell SW
From the debate on the floor, I can tell you there were those who were ready to do just
But I think you can see, as I did, that the "sewer bill" was not the answer.
Fortunately, common sense prevailed and the sewer bill failed by a recorded teller vote,
189-206.
In 1968, then State Representative, now Senator Lowell P. Weicker (R-Conn.) verbalized what
was to become the cornerstone of my term as Minority Leader of the State House of Representa-
tives when he said that the "taxpayers' money is a trust, not a campaign fund." May it
be thus.
"Sensible"? I think not.
(over)
A RAID
And speaking of raids on the Federal Treasury, the recently passed Health, Education,
Welfare and Labor Appropriation is more than worthy of mention. Perhaps, by the time you read
this, the President will have vetoed the bill and if he has, it will have been an act of
mercy on behalf of the American taxpayer.
For my part, I have already voted "no" and I will vote "yes" to sustain a veto. Does this
mean I'm opposed to the services provided under the auspices of Health, Education, Welfare and
Labor? Absolutely not. I do believe, however - and this should be fairly obvious to anyone -
that there has to be a limit to what one can spend.
This appropriation measure, in my mind, can best be labeled the "magic money" bill. There's
dollars for almost everything but little thought is being given to where the money is coming
from. The answer is a simple one: your pocket. I happen to think you, as a taxpayer, have a
generous record of giving, but I'm inclined to believe there's a limit to everything.
The graph at right puts the problem in a nutshell; the bill
FACTS ABOUT LABOR-HEW APPROPRIATION
Congress has sent to the President exceeds the budgeted amount by
BILL-H.R. 15417
$1,762,286,000. Now, before anyone concludes that the Executive
1. THE FIGURES
1972 appropriation
$27, 403, 058, 000
Budget was miserly, a review might be in order. The President's
1973 appropriation:
request for fiscal 1973 for Health Services and Mental Health
President's budget
28, 776, 633, 000
Conference action
30, 538, 919, 000
Administration was 52% over a comparable 1969 appropriation, his
Excess over budget
+1, 762, 286, 000
first year in office. Preventive health services, doubled since
1973 President's request compared to House,
Senate, and conference action
'69, National Cancer Institute budget, a 100% increase since '69;
President's original request_ $27, 344, 351, 000
Heart and Lung Institute, up 40%; Education items (excluding higher
Presidential amendments
resulting from new legis-
education and emergency elementary and secondary assistance),
lation
432, 282, 000
increased 25%; vocational and adult education funds, doubled; and
there's more.
President's request, as
amended
28, 776, 633, 000
The point is there has to be a limit, especially at a time when
Congressional increases:
we're struggling out of an inflationary period. If not, the tax-
House increase
+1, 269, 856, 000
Senate increase over
payer loses on both ends not only does his or her government
House
308, 441, 000
require more, but by doing so, the dollar is worth less.
Senate bill
31, 354, 930, 000
In the overview, according to the chairman of the House Appro-
Less: Conference Action
-816, 011, 000
priations Committee, Congress has already exceeded budget esti-
mates by some $17 billion but even that now is a moot point due to
Conference bill
30, 538, 919, 000
Net increase of con-
a clause Congress failed to close in the "magic money" bill.
ference over Presi-
Enacted in 1967 and little used until last year, the section states
dent's amended re-
that the federal government is required to provide states with $3
quest
1,762,286, 000
to $1 matching funds for any number of so-called "social service"
[Dollars in millions]
programs. In other words, if tomorrow, a state decides to earmark
$1 million for this type of program, the federal government, through HEW, must come up with $3
million, whether it has it or not. As I was saying, "magic money."
Since I reacted negatively to a Times editorial comment at the beginning of this newsletter,
I should close this section with one with which I agree. Commenting on an unsuccessful Senate
Finance Committee attempt to put a $2.5 billion ceiling on this open-ended feature, The Times
said that with such action, the "runaway demands from the statehouses on the federal Treasury
can be taken out of the grab bag class."
Again, state taxes and federal taxes come from one place: your pocket.
WHAT TO DO?
In light of the preceding, I have introduced two pieces of legislation which I believe
speak to the problem. The first would establish a mandatory spending limit of $250 billion;
the second would require the House of Representatives to present an annual budget package,
including an estimate of tax revenues, before it acted on any appropriation bill.
A spending limit is absolutely essential for under current Congressional procedures, each
Committee acts independently and a total package is brought forth in an unrelated haphazard
manner. No one knows who is spending what until the last minute.
With a spending limit, the necessary next step is a programmed budget. It's mystifying that
the House of Representatives, which Constitutionally has the sole power to spend, requires a
budget - and tax package - from the Executive Branch, but does not impose the same responsi-
bility on itself.
In all, what I'm asking is that the Congress begin to practice what might best be called,
fiscal sanity; the taxpayer deserves as much.
Regards
McKinney,
(This is recycled paper)
(Not printed at government expense)
From the Office of:
CONGRESSMAN TOM RAILSBACK
149-72
19th District, Illinois
218 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C.
Contact: Karel Dutton
(202) 225-7839
August 18, 1972
FOR RELEASE, MONDAY, AUGUST 21, 1972
The President has vetoed the Labor-HEW appropriations bill that was passed
by both the House and Senate last week. The bill as approved by both Houses
contained $958 million or 23% more than the President's budget for health pro-
grams and $791 million or $23.6% more than his budget request for educational
programs.
Originally, the Senate had requested funds for nearly $31.5 billion for
the 1973 budgets of the Departments of Labor and HEW, and the House version
of the same bill called for $28.5 billion to be authorized. To iron out
these differences, the bill was sent to a House-Senate Conference. I think
the House Conferees did a commendable job in eliminating $816 million from
the Senate bill. However, the President felt this cutback was still insufficient
and out of line with the Administration's proposal.
The Administration 1a seeking to hold spending within its budgetary
limits. The President has been most concerned about creating an even
greater budget deficit and the adverse effects that this would have on his
efforts to control inflation. Hence, the President felt he had to veto any
bill that calls for excessive spending which in this case was $1.7 billion
more than the Adminiatration's request. In addition, the Administration has
rightfully pointed out that their 1973 budget request for Labor and HEW
is $8 billion more than was spent in this area just two years ago.
I am hopeful that Congress will immediately re-write this bill to
contain adequate provisions for such important activities as mental health,
alcoholism and drug abuse programs; disease prevention;assistance to our hard-
pressed medical and nursing schools; elementary, secondary and vocational educ-
ation; libraries and instructional equipment. These programs affect the lives
of millions of people in a vital and immediate way.
While I have had reservations, I voted in favor of this legislation
because there are far too many programs which require immediate financing.
The schools, colleges and hospitals in my District urgently need the funds that
had been in this bill. To delay these needs much longer will prove an even
greater crisis. I definitely believe, however, that Congress and the President
must work much more closely on future appropriations bills if we are to gain
full economic stability and a balanced budget.
-30-
Congressman
Clarence J. Brown-Ohio
NEWS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
PH: WASH.. D.C. 202-225-4324
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20515
SPRINGFIELD 513-325-0474
"REPORT FROM WASHINGTON"
For Release Tuesday, August 22, 1972
President Nixon's veto last week of the Labor-HEW appropriations
bill was a gutsy choice on the side of sound economic priorities in
this hotly partisan political season.
The bill, on its face, contained $1.8 billion more than the
President's own out-of-balance budget request. And his request was
$2.1 billion higher than the past fiscal year's spending on health,
education, welfare and manpower measures. But the worst thing about
the bill as it passed Congress was that it left wide open the back-
door spending of federal funds for state social-service programs.
Scandalous, wasteful growth of this welfare boondoggle has been brought
to light during the past several weeks. It has been one of the most
explosively expensive pieces of federal legislation ever enacted,
and unless brought under control, will finally destroy any semblance
of fiscal responsibility in the field of government welfare. And
welfare is probably the biggest scandal in government today -- and
one of the most politically difficult with which to deal. More about
it later.
The President has repeatedly warned the Democratic-controlled
Congress that he intends to keep a "full employment" balanced budget to
insure the success of the continuing battle against inflation. And
there have been some hopeful signs recently that this battle is being
won.
Of course, the Democratic House Majority Leader, Hale Boggs,
attacked the President's veto without ever referring to the budgetary
imbalance or the social-welfare provisions. Instead he claimed "the
President does not recognize (health and education) in his priorities."
The fact is, in the past four years (1969-73) of the Nixon Adminis-
tration, budgets have been increased for health expenditures by 103
percent and for education by 68 percent, compared to total budget
increases of 33 percent.
Congresswoman Edith Green of Oregon, one of the leaders in
(MORE)
10
(NOT PRINTED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE)
Page 2
developing federal aid to education, put her fingers on a fact of
political life when she noted that whenever there is waste in spending
in social programs, it is usually excused because of its purpose.
Only when the spending over-run is in some less human field do many
express concern about wasting the taxpayer's money. But she concluded
that the taxpayer may feel that when it is his money, waste is waste,
no matter what it is wasted on.
The social-services program, administered by the Department of HEW,
was designed to help states and local units of government provide
assistance to people on relief and to "potential" welfare recipients.
The original provision was passed in 1962 and then liberalized in 1967.
Somehow, however, the advantages of the legislation to state and
local government escaped widespread notice until 3 couple of years
ago when everyone started jumping on the bandwagon, and since then
the costs have soared.
Basically, the law provides that for every dollar spent by the
states for qualified sociabservice programs, the federal government
will add three dollars. There are no ceilings on spending by the
federal government and the guidelines for obtaining the federal funds
are so loosely drawn up that virtually any program can qualify which
a state can ostensibly design to help current welfare recipients
improve their chances of getting off the rolls or any program intended
to keep potential welfare recipients off the rolls.
Thus, the federal expenditure of $235 million during fiscal year
1967 had almost tripled to $692 million in FY 1971, and skyrocketed
by almost tripling again during the single fiscal year of 1972
to an estimated $2 billion. The projection for the current fiscal
year, unless the legislation gets an overhauling (and that has been
voted down once) is for the cost to double again to $4 billion and
then to reach $6 billion during the next year.
The Senate, at the urging of the Nixon Administration, did vote
for a $2.5 billion ceiling to the program in the Labor-HEW appropriation
bill in view of the continuing federal deficit. Although the $2.5
billion ceiling would require no cutbacks in current programs, the
House refused to go along with the spending limit. The limitation
was deleted in the House-Senate conference and replaced with pro-
visions which merely "urge" that the program be tightened up. The
Senate approved the conference report by a vote of 62-to-22 and the
House by 240-to-167, despite the threatened Presidential veto.
I voted against the conference report because I believe this
legislation contains some of the clearest evidence available against
open-ended federal funding programs which give incentive to the
states and local units of government to raid the federal treasury
while decreasing their own responsibility. There are no incentives
in the program for the states and local units of government to
increase or improve the effectiveness of their own programs.
In Illinois, for example, the state expects to spend some
$205 million in federal funds for social-service programs, which
equals the funds obtained over the past two years. But none of the
money is going for new services. All of it.is going for existing
programs, with the state burden increasing only one fourth as fast
as the federal burden.
Ir. Georgia, which expects to be spending at the rate of $222
million annually by the cad of this fiscal For social-survice
programs, the funds are going for such a
project" in Atlanta for are persons
$58,416, which
equals more than $500 per person; raining" to: USO
persons at a cost of $109,333, which equals $139 per person; and
"family life education" with a total bill of $475,152. And in Ohio,
a state which apparently got on the bandwagon late in the game,
(MORE)
Best Possible Scan from Poor Quality Original
page 3
$45 million was used to expand social-services last year, with
$36 million paid for by Washington.
The most trenchant comment on the program came from a state
official who said in a recent interview, "We are so busy just
writing up contracts to get the federal money that we haven't had
the opportunity to evaluate results of those services."
In any program which has mushroomed so fast as welfare at the
expense of the federal government while state and local costs
and accountability remains low, one must seriously question
government responsibility to the taxpayers. The President has
assured by his veto of the Labor-HEW appropriation bill that the
question will at least get a second look. Taxpayers have a clear
choice on this issue between Congressional profligacy and the
President's toughness.
-30-
EXPLANATORY NOTES
2
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
the estimated budget receipts for fiscal year 1973. The table
Fiscal 1973 budget
following deficit is an analysis of the budget deficit for fiscal year 1973, 1972: reflecting budget
also includes any revenue legislation initiated by the Congress
revisions, The amendments and congressional action to date, August 18,
This scorekeeping report is designed to show the impact of
during the session. The scorekeeping effect, if any, of revenue
Deficit estimate
congressional actions (or inactions) in the current session on
(millions)
action is computed for each measure as action is recorded.
$25, 472
the President's budget estimates for new authority, outlays
and receipts. These impact estimates may then be related to
Original deficit estimate, January 1972
SUPPORTING TABLES
+895
the President's surplus or deficit estimates, as a part of the
Budget Net Shift revisions, outlay of fiscal increase as 1972 of June revenue due 5, to 1972: certain sharing congressional request into actions, fiscal 1973, mainly assuming black lung enactment benefits of retro-
scorekeeping process. While the primary purpose of the report
The report contains four additional tabulations relating to
+2,250
active provisions of pending legislation
+583
is to estimate the impact of congressional action, it also is
the various types of legislative actions which have a bearing
Net outlay changes, including interest
-2,200
designed to reflect any subsequent revisions made by the Pres-
on the scorekeeping process. The tables show each item as
ident in the form of budget amendments or official reestimates.
acted upon by the House and Senate and as enacted.
Revenue revisions
27,000
The report identifies the portion of the President's budget
Appropriation bills
Revised deficit estimate, as of June 5
which requires current action by Congress in this session-in
Amendments to the 1973 budget estimates, as transmitted to date:
+1,200
appropriation and certain basic legislation, or in new legislative
Table No. 3 (p. 9) lists the individual appropriation bills to
+900
proposals. It is in this area that the Congress exercises direct
be considered in the current session, showing by bill the budget
Additional outlays for Vietnam war
+100
authority requested and transmitted to date, and estimates of
Disaster-relief outlays incident to Hurricane Agnes, etc.
control over the President's fiscal proposals, and may increase
Additional outlays for drug abuse programs.
or decrease them accordingly or not act at all.
outlays covered by the respective bills-setting forth the out-
29,200
In addition, the Congress may initiate new or expanded
lays resulting from the new authority requested.
Congressional Deficit estimate, action to as date revised (in addition and amended to amounts included in the June 5 budget revisions):
activities or take revenue actions not contemplated in the
Proposed legislation (in budget)
100
Social security:
President's budget proposals and, to the extent that such
+1,600
The President's budget estimates include certain new legisla-
Payments, 20% increase
Revenue loss (due to delay in effective date)
+613
action may be mandatory, have further impact on the budget.
tive proposals which the Congress must act on before they can
Scorekeeping in terms of budget authority can be calculated
be implemented by the executive branch. Since they are
All other outlay changes, net
33, 513
in fairly precise terms for the portions of the budget requiring
included in the budget estimates, action or inaction by the
Deficit Deduct: estimate, revenue as revised sharing and legislation amended, included and adjusted above in by June Congressional 5 revisions, action but still pend-
250
congressional action. However, conversion of congressional
Congress on the proposals has a direct impact for scorekeeping
actions into terms of budget outlays or receipts is less precise
purposes. These proposals are shown in this report in two
ing final Congressional action
Deficit estimate, as revised and amended, and adjusted by Congressional action to date,
and the scorekeeping must be done in approximate amounts.
separate tabulations according to their character.
263
Table No. 4 (p. 12) shows the legislative proposals which
THE SUMMARY-BOX SCORE
August 18, 1972 fiscal 1973 outlays would be $252.7 billion, as compared with of $31.3 esti-
have the effect of reducing budget authority and outlays.
The summary-box score (page 5) shows in one page sum-
These include certain reform legislation, change in financing,
*On this basis, estimated billion. The resulting unified budget deficit estimate fund surplus
mary form the budget estimates for fiscal 1973 and 1972 in
sale of Government property, etc. Congressional failure to
mated billion for revenues fiscal 1973 of $221.4 reflects a federal funds deficit of $38.4 billion and a trust
totals as originally transmitted and subsequently revised,
enact any of these proposals has the effect of increasing the
breaking out the portions on which the Congress is expected
budget estimates by the negative amounts shown for each.
of $7.1 billion.
to act in the current session. It then applies-in box score
Table No. 5 (p. 13) shows the major legislative proposals for
Fiscal
Final figures $208.6 billion, and the unified budget fund surplus
year 1972 for fiscal year 1972 recently announced indicate that deficit actual for outlays fiscal were year
form-the impact of congressional actions to date on the
new or expanded programs and their associated cost. Con-
President's estimates for budget authority, outlays, receipts
gressional failure to enact any of these proposals has the effect
and the deficit.
$231 1972 was billion $23 billion and receipts (reflecting were a federal funds deficit of $28.9 billion and a trust
of reducing the budget estimates by the amount shown for the
This summary table combines congressional actions on
proposal. However, increases on the part of Congress in any
of $5.9 billion).
budget authority and outlays and budget receipts, shown in
of these proposals does not necessarily increase the budget
more detail on the two scorekeeping tables which follow. The
estimates, unless a mandatory spending program is involved,
combined impact of revenue and outlay actions are also related
because subsequent appropriation action is usually necessary.
to the estimated budget deficits.
Other legislation (not in budget)
THE SCOREKEEPING TABLES
Table No. 6 (p. 17) shows legislative initiatives which are in
The report contains two tabulations showing in detail the
addition to those in the President's budget estimates. Such
individual actions of Congress to date which have an impact on
legislation can be proposed by the executive or judicial
the President's budget estimates. These are the scorekeeping
branches and, of course, by the Congress. The table is con-
tables, and they relate separately to budget authority and
fined to measures which have been reported or are on the
outlays, and to budget receipts. They show each entry in terms
calendar of either House, and which exceed $500,000 in their
of action on the respective bills by the House and the Senate
5-year cost.
and as enacted.
For purposes of this report the impact of such legislative
In the scorekeeping process failure on the part of Congress
actions is scorekept only if it contains "backdoor" contract
to act upon recommendations or legislative proposals in the
or debt authority, or if mandatory spending is involved, such
President's budget estimates is generally scorekept at or near
as in the case of Federal pay raises or veterans benefits. Items
the end of the session, unless there is a specific action involved.
of a "backdoor" or mandatory nature are identified in the
table by an asterisk or footnote.
Budget authority and outlays
Table No. 1 (p. 6) shows the impact on budget authority and
Authorizing legislation
outlays, in terms of increases or decreases from the official
Under the rules of the House and Senate, programs and
estimates submitted by the President. In addition to action on
activities of the Government must be authorized by specific
individual appropriation bills, this tabulation includes action
legislation before appropriations can be enacted. Table No. 7
involving so-called "backdoor" contract and debt authority in
(p. 27) shows the programs included in the President's budget
substantive legislation, and it includes any other legislative
estimates for fiscal 1973 which require such periodic or annual
actions by Congress of a mandatory nature (such as Federal
renewal prior to further appropriation action.
pay raises and veterans benefits) where spending begins upon
Legislative action on these authorizations usually has no
enactment.
impact for scorekeeping purposes, since the effect of any
congressional change is subject to further appropriation action
Revenue legislation
or budget amendment. However, should any change involve
Table No. 2 (p. 8) shows congressional actions on the
"backdoor" contract or debt authority such action by Con
revenue legislation proposed by the President, as included in
gress would be noted and recorded for scorekeeping purposes
(3)