I believe. agreed to by the conferees. I think if we do not adopt this and give the Appropriations Committee the choice of the two funding approaches. we are going to be hit with a proposal that I do not see how we could possibly. first of all. justify and. second. how we could ever afford. With the Senate amendment and no other legislation. there could be as much as a $3.000 expenditure for each refugee child. So if we do not accept this legislation and give the Appropriations Committee the choice. then we are stuck with a bill that we. one. cannot afford and. two. certainly cannot justify. The Senate amendment would create a new section in the impact aid law. which is one battle we fight every time it comes up for renewal. and a growing number of people are opposed to the way we are handling impact aid. It would create a new section in that impact aid law that would authorize Federal aid to school districts impacted by refugee children. I am not even sure with the way it is written that the amendment on the Sanate side would even cover Cubans and Haitians because they have not been defined as refugee children. so I am not sure that they would even be covered. even though I am sure the Senate meant them to be covered. The Senate amendment encompasses all refugee children paroled into the United States after November 1. 1979. As I said. if the Appropriations Committee would fund the Senate proposal. it could mean as high as $3.000 per pupil in same areas. So I would encourage the House to accept our proposal and then hope that the Appropriations Committee. using their good judgmentand I am sure they will. because I do not think they will have an alternativewill certainly follow our side rather than the impact aid amendment on the Senate side.