Budget Law Validity To Be Decided Today

As Congress begins consideration of President Reagan's proposed budget under the new Gramm-Rudman budget balancing law, a special three-judge panel will rule tomorrow on the constitutionality of Gramm-Rudman, which mandates a balanced budget by 1991.

The President's budget would cut, freeze or eliminate sources of federal domestic programs to meet the Gramm-Rudman requirement that the deficit, more than $200 billion, be reduced to $144 billion by October. The cuts land heavily on unprotected domestic programs such as education and research, key elements of any university's budget.

By March, Gramm-Rudman requires a 4 percent reduction in education funding and slightly less for government-sponsored research, of which Harvard receives about $100 million annually. But under Reagan's proposal for 1987, education-related programs would be slashed by more than 15 percent, or about $2.25 billion.

Some 1.5 million students would be effectively knocked off student aid rolls by October as reductions in guaranteed loans and related student aid programs, a portion of total education funding, reach 25 percent in 1987. The cuts are expected to increase in succeeding years until 1991.

The budget simultaneously calls for a 12 percent increase in military spending.

Despite what observers say is growing opposition in Congress to increasing cuts in education and research programs, perhaps the greatest hope of higher education officials and advocates of other domestic programs is that the three judges will declare Gramm-Rudman unconstitutional this afternoon.

Otherwise, a formula based on economic variables such as unemployment and inflation will be used to determine the next set of cuts, which may or may not echo Reagan's proposal but must average about 25 percent across the board to meet the law's objectives.

The court's decision will reach the public at noon, and an immediate appeal to the Supreme Court is expected.

Passed in December and quickly challenged in court by 12 members of Congress, the law has been criticized as unconstitutionally taking away the authority of Congress to control spending.

If it is found constitutional, the law will "devastate higher education," said Vice President for Government and Public Affairs John Shattuck.

"The law faces tremendous opposition. It's so skewed in favor of military spending and domestic cuts. Senators and Congressmen are outraged at its total slap at education," said Shattuck.