[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 113 (Tuesday, September 2, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8646-S8648]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I at this point ask if the pending business 
would permit me to offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendments are in order.


                           Amendment No. 1056

 (Purpose: To increase funding for Federal Pell Grants, with an offset 
  from fiscal year 1998 funding for low-income home energy assistance)

  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I have sent an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1056.

  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 41, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 104-208, to be available for obligation in the period 
     October 1, 1997 through September 30, 1998, $527,666,000 are 
     rescinded.
       On page 56, line 21, strike ``$8,557,741,000'' and insert 
     ``$9,085,407,000''.
       On page 56, line 22, before the period insert ``: Provided, 
     That $7,438,000,000 shall be available to carry out subpart 1 
     of part A of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1070a)''.

  Mr. KYL. Madam President, let me simply indicate generally what this 
amendment does.
  This amendment will provide an additional $528 million for the Pell 
Grant Program, boosting that level to the amount recommended by the 
Appropriations Committee. And that money will come from the LIHEAP 
program. It would be a direct offset. So that the $528 million would 
come from LIHEAP and would go to fund Pell grants.
  Madam President, this amendment is very simple. It will provide an 
additional $528 million for the Pell Grant Program, boosting the amount 
in the bill to the level recommended by the House of Representatives. 
Pell grant funding would go from $6.910 billion to $7.438 billion. The 
offset is from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP].
  The additional Pell grant funding is intended to finance changes in 
eligibility--that is, to correct problems that have arisen as a result 
of the current law phaseout of certain independent students at income 
levels that are

[[Page S8647]]

lower than those for dependent students. Like the House bill, the 
funding is contingent upon the authorizing committees acting on the 
proposal. I am not attempting an end run around the normal committee 
process, just attempting to ensure that the funds will be available 
should the Education Committee concur in the change.
  The Clinton administration originally estimated the cost of the 
proposal at $725 million in fiscal year 1998, but it is my 
understanding that administration officials are now satisfied with the 
House numbers. In any event, I believe we ought to put as high a 
priority on Pell grants as the House did in its version of the Labor-
HHS bill.
  Madam President, it was the Higher Education Amendments of 1992 that 
established a separate allowance for independent students without 
dependents. The income protection allowance, which is a fixed amount of 
a family's income that is excluded from need determination, is based on 
the family's household size and the number in the household attending 
college. The problem is that the separate allowance established by the 
1992 act creates a substantial disparity among groups of students.
  For example, when compared with other students with the same number 
of family members in the household and one member in college, the 
allowance for 1997-1998 is $5,750 less in the case of married students 
without dependents. It is $5,940 less in the case of single students 
without dependents, according to the Department of Education. And 
because the income protection allowance for independent students 
without dependents is not indexed for inflation, the gap can only be 
expected to widen each year.
  The proposed change in eligibility, which the funding in my amendment 
is intended to finance, would bring the proportion of students in this 
group who would be eligible for Pell grants closer to the proportion 
that existed prior to the establishment of the separate allowance in 
the 1992 act. Students in this group are typically older students with 
annual family incomes of between $10,000 and $20,000.
  Madam President, here is a State-by-State breakdown of the number of 
students who lost eligibility under the separate allowance. The 
numbers, which were supplied by the Education Department, compare the 
period 1992-1993 before the 1992 reauthorization with the period 1993-
1994 after reauthorization:

Alabama...........................................................4,399
Alaska..............................................................548
Arizona...........................................................6,417
Arkansas..........................................................2,525
California.......................................................24,314
Colorado..........................................................5,204
Connecticut.......................................................2,645
Delaware............................................................472
District of Columbia................................................426
Florida..........................................................17,792
Georgia...........................................................5,196
Hawaii..............................................................561
Idaho.............................................................1,402
Illinois.........................................................10,848
Indiana...........................................................5,467
Iowa..............................................................4,247
Kansas............................................................4,434
Kentucky..........................................................3,754
Louisiana.........................................................5,765
Maine.............................................................1,364
Maryland..........................................................4,047
Massachusetts.....................................................5,778
Michigan.........................................................15,254
Minnesota.........................................................7,432
Mississippi.......................................................2,751
Missouri..........................................................7,963
Montana...........................................................1,561
Nebraska..........................................................2,792
Nevada............................................................1,891
New Hampshire.....................................................1,098
New Jersey........................................................5,920
New Mexico........................................................2,002
New York.........................................................19,477
North Carolina....................................................4,231
North Dakota......................................................1,335
Ohio.............................................................12,864
Oklahoma..........................................................4,621
Oregon............................................................4,031
Pennsylvania......................................................9,535
Rhode Island......................................................1,314
South Carolina....................................................2,087
South Dakota......................................................1,324
Tennessee.........................................................4,972
Texas............................................................15,126
Utah..............................................................4,074
Vermont.............................................................353
Virginia..........................................................5,168
Washington........................................................5,636
West Virginia.....................................................1,011
Wisconsin.........................................................6,258
Wyoming.............................................................730
Puerto Rico, other................................................3,347

  The figures I just cited will give Senators a rough idea of the 
number of additional students that would benefit from the added funding 
in my amendment.
  Madam President, Professor David Breneman, the dean of the Curry 
School of Education at the University of Virginia, testified before the 
Senate Finance Committee back in April about the effectiveness of 
various forms of Federal aid. He concluded that ``the Pell Grant 
program has the merit of targeting aid to students who would be unable 
to attend college without the grant.'' In other words, Pell grants are 
probably the most efficient and effective way of targeting Federal aid 
to those students who need it most. And unlike other forms of 
assistance, which might reach those who have the means and 
determination to attend college with or without the Government's help, 
it does less to fuel tuition inflation.
  Now I know the offset for the additional Pell grant funding will be 
controversial for some. It would come from the Low Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program [LIHEAP], a program that was set up nearly 16 years 
ago to temporarily--temporarily--supplement existing cash assistance 
programs and help low-income individuals pay for home fuel costs that 
were escalating at the time.
  But the world is a very different place than it was in 1981. Gone are 
the long lines at the gas pumps and skyrocketing energy prices. As we 
prepare to cross a bridge to the 21st century, we should look beyond 
programs designed to cope with an energy crisis of 20 years ago--a 
crisis that has come and gone--and focus instead on how to prepare 
young people for the high technology, more competitive economy of the 
future.
  Madam President, fuel costs have not only stabilized since 1981, they 
have declined significantly in real terms. Figures provided to me by 
one of Arizona's majority utilities, Arizona Public Service, indicate 
that average residential rates for electricity have declined 15 percent 
in real terms since 1980. And that does not take into account a 1.2-
percent rate decrease that just became effective on July 1.
  It is no secret that I have been skeptical of the continued need for 
LIHEAP. I have offered amendments on the subject several times in 
recent years. But I would point out that in its fiscal year 1995 budget 
submission, the Clinton administration, too, recommended substantial 
reductions in the program.
  As noted in the President's fiscal year 95 budget,

        * * * fuel prices have decreased by 40 percent in real 
     terms; the cost of electricity has dropped by about 13 
     percent in real terms; and the percent of income spent for 
     home heating for households at or below 150 percent of 
     poverty guidelines has dropped by about one-third.

He went on to propose a 50-percent reduction in funding for the program 
that year.
  Last year, President Clinton proposed outyear cuts in LIHEAP--a $90 
million reduction in 1999, and a $181 million reduction in 2000. The 
Office of Management and Budget advised my office that the declining 
figures were due to standard percentage reductions applied to programs 
that were not considered a top priority.
  Last December, it was widely reported that the Clinton administration 
would recommend a 25-percent reduction in the program this year. So 
there has been skepticism about the continuing need for the program, 
even at the White House.
  Madam President, the States themselves have already shown remarkable 
ability to meet the energy needs of those requiring assistance, 
refusing to allow public utilities to shut off power to delinquent 
customers and setting up payment plans and other options. It seems to 
me that, given the States' track records and the stable or declining 
price of energy, this is a good time to begin cutting back on LIHEAP 
spending so that we can target the resources to other pressing needs.
  In closing, the bipartisan budget agreement that we passed in July 
was intended to extend new opportunities in education to middle- and 
upper middle-income families, and it will through a variety of new tax 
credits. But we have the chance today to target additional Pell grant 
assistance to more lower- and middle-income people, so that all 
American families have the same opportunity to secure a brighter 
future. I hope my colleagues will join

[[Page S8648]]

me in supporting this amendment to put more money into the Pell Grant 
Program.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, when the time comes to discuss the 
matter, there will be very vigorous objection from the managers, both 
Senator Harkin and myself, on this amendment. We think that low-income 
energy assistance is very, very important. But we will await the event 
after our distinguished colleague from Arizona has had a chance to make 
his presentation.
  In the absence of any other Senator seeking recognition, Madam 
President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to 
speak in morning business for 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________