[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8303-8310]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 8303]]


   URGING CONGRESS AND PRESIDENT TO INCREASE FUNDING FOR PELL GRANTS

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 88) urging the Congress and the 
President to increase funding for the Pell Grant Program and existing 
Campus-Based Aid Programs.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 88

       Whereas the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant Program, 
     now known as the Pell Grant Program in honor of Senator 
     Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island, was first authorized in the 
     1972 amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965;
       Whereas the Pell Grant Program has become the largest need-
     based Federal higher education scholarship program and is 
     considered the foundation for all Federal student aid;
       Whereas the purpose of the program is to assist students 
     from low income families who would not otherwise be 
     financially able to attend a postsecondary institution by 
     providing grants to students to be used to pay the costs of 
     attending the postsecondary institution of their choice;
       Whereas in the late 1970's, the Pell Grant covered seventy-
     five percent of the average cost of attending a public four-
     year college; by the late 1990's, it only covered thirty-six 
     percent of the cost of attending a public four-year college;
       Whereas families across the country are concerned about the 
     rising cost of a college education, and for children from low 
     income families, the cost of college continues to be an 
     overwhelming factor in their decision to forego a college 
     education;
       Whereas children from high income families are almost twice 
     as likely to enroll in college as children from low income 
     families;
       Whereas higher education promotes economic opportunity for 
     individuals and economic competitiveness for our Nation;
       Whereas the Pell Grant and Campus-Based Aid Programs target 
     aid to low income students as effectively as any programs 
     administered by the Federal government; and
       Whereas student borrowing to finance a postsecondary 
     education has increased to an average indebtedness of $9,700, 
     and therefore increased grant aid is more important than 
     ever: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That the Congress and the President, should, 
     working within the constraints of the balanced budget 
     agreement, make student scholarship aid the highest priority 
     for higher education funding by increasing the maximum Pell 
     Grant awarded to low income students by $400 and increasing 
     other existing campus-based aid programs that serve low-
     income students prior to authorizing or appropriating funds 
     for any new education initiative.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Martinez) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are considering H. Con. Res. 88, which sets 
forth specific priorities for higher education funding and proposes 
that we refrain from creating new education programs until we 
adequately fund these priorities.
  The top funding priority for higher education is the Pell Grant 
Program, and the goal is to increase the maximum award to students from 
low-income families to $3,525. This amount represents an increase of 
$400 to the maximum Pell grant award and would be the largest increase 
since the inception of the program in 1972.
  The resolution also recognizes the importance of providing increased 
funding for the existing campus-based student aid programs. These need-
based programs provide financial aid administrators at colleges across 
the country with considerable flexibility in the packaging of financial 
aid awards that best meet the needs of their students.
  The Pell Grant Program is one of the largest voucher programs in the 
country, and it is considered the foundation program for all Federal 
student aid. Students eligible for a Pell grant can use that money to 
attend one of almost 6,000 postsecondary institutions in the country.
  The Pell Grant Program was created in 1972, and the goal of the 
program was simple. Congress wanted to assist students from low-income 
families who would not otherwise be financially able to attend a 
postsecondary institution.
  In the first year of the program, 176,000 students received Pell 
grant awards. Funding Pell grants at the level set forth in the 
resolution would make more than 4 million students eligible for Pell 
grants next year, including an additional 21,000 students in my home 
State of California.
  Ninety percent of the students who will receive a Pell grant come 
from families with incomes under $30,000, and 54 percent of those 
students come from families with incomes under $10,000. This is a 
program that simply continues to serve the vital purpose for which it 
was originally created.
  This is not the first time that we have stated our support for making 
the Pell Grant Program the top funding priority for higher education. 
On June 26, 1997, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the ranking member, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and I sent a letter to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that 
began by saying, we greatly appreciate support for increased funding 
for the Pell Grant Program, and we believe it should be the top funding 
priority of all higher education programs.
  I continue to believe that the Pell Grant Program should be the top 
higher education funding priority. I also think a $400 increase to the 
maximum award is a very reasonable request.
  For more than 7 years, the Pell grant maximum fluctuated between 
$2,300 and $2,400. However, after years of stagnant funding levels, the 
Committee on Appropriations has shown overwhelming support for the 
program during the past 3 years by increasing funding for the Pell 
Grant Program by more than $2.7 billion. Had the administration not cut 
$250 million from last year's appropriation level for the Pell Grant 
Program in order to fund its other priorities, we would be well on our 
way to our goal of a maximum award of $3,525.
  In addition to the Pell Grant Program, this resolution supports 
increased funding for the campus- based student aid programs. While 
Pell grants open the door to postsecondary education for many students 
from low-income families, it is the campus-based programs that provide 
these same students some degree of choice in selecting a postsecondary 
institution.
  After years of double-digit increases in the cost of a college 
education, the maximum Pell grant no longer covers a large percentage 
of the cost of attendance at most public 4-year institutions in the 
country. However, a Pell grant, coupled with awards from the campus-
based program, goes a long way in reducing the amount a student needs 
to borrow in student loans in order to pay the bills for tuition and 
room and board.
  In closing, I want to address some of the objections I have heard 
with respect to this resolution. We all know the budget caps are tight, 
and the Committee on Appropriations will have a difficult time in 
making funding decisions, but that simply supports getting our 
priorities on record.
  I have copies of testimony submitted to the subcommittee of the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) from various higher education 
organizations, and each one identifies certain funding priorities 
important to the particular organization. However, there are two 
consistent messages. The first is strong support for a $400 increase to 
the maximum Pell grant. The second is strong support for funding proven 
education programs, rather than creating new ones that take money away 
from the existing programs.
  Finally, do not misread this resolution. It does not say only fund 
Pell in the campus-based programs. It does not say that we should cut 
the class size teacher program. Unlike the President's budget that cuts 
several existing programs, including the Pell appropriation, impact 
aid, the Title VI block grant and others, this resolution does not 
propose cuts to existing programs.

                              {time}  1515

  This resolution simply establishes funding priorities for higher 
education. We have many higher education programs that have been in 
existence a long time and serve students well, such as the TRIO 
programs, Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need, Institutional 
Aid programs under Title

[[Page 8304]]

III, and many others. We reauthorized these programs last year, and we 
support their continued funding.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the following associations and 
organizations that have given their support for this resolution, 
including the American Association of Community Colleges, the American 
Association of State Colleges and Universities, the United States 
Student Association, the Career College Association, the American 
Council on Education, the National Association of Independent Colleges 
and Universities, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the National 
Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, the Coalition of 
Higher Education Organizations, the Association of American 
Universities, the National Association of State Universities and Land-
Grant Colleges, and finally, the Association of Jesuit Colleges and 
Universities.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution and 
the higher education funding priorities it establishes for the Congress 
and the President.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly today in opposition to House 
Concurrent Resolution 88.
  I want to be very clear that I do support the priority for Pell Grant 
and campus-based student aid programs. However, specifically, I oppose 
the last 12 words of this resolution, which I believe are not only 
unnecessary to the intent of the resolution, but have the potential to 
tie the hands of Congress in our ability to help the children of this 
country.
  Were we not considering this resolution under a suspension of the 
rules, I would have offered an amendment to strike those 12 words, as I 
did during the committee markup, which would allow, if we did strike 
those 12 words, it would allow myself and I daresay all of my 
colleagues on this side of the aisle to lend wholehearted support to 
this resolution. Members may get support from some of the Members on 
our side because those Members would not want to be on record as 
seeming to vote against Pell Grants, but they would not get their 
unconditional support.
  I would stress that my colleagues and I are not opposed to 
establishing the Pell Grant and campus-based student aid programs as a 
funding priority. On the contrary, over the past years we have always 
supported Pell Grants and the increase in Pell Grants and campus-based 
student aid programs.
  As a matter of fact, on the other side of the aisle, until recently 
they did not. But we, as a matter of fact, are delighted to see that 
our colleagues on that side are taking so much of an interest in these 
programs that have provided millions of low-income students with an 
opportunity to pursue higher education.
  On this side of the aisle, we have always believed that providing an 
opportunity to less fortunate people of our country is a paramount 
responsibility of the government. The Pell Grant program has provided 
millions of low-income students with the opportunity to pursue their 
higher education dreams and goals.
  Moreover, I firmly believe that my good friend, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon), the sponsor of this resolution, is sincere in 
his desire to expand opportunity to millions of other struggling 
students. I sincerely regret that I cannot join him in supporting this 
resolution.
  As I stated, my concern surrounding the resolution are the last 12 
words, which call for the funding of Pell Grants and campus-based aid 
programs, and I quote, ``prior to authorizing or appropriating funds 
for any new education initiative.''
  Earlier, my colleague said that it does not cut other programs, but 
it does prevent other programs from being funded. Although I understand 
and agree with my colleague and his desire to fund existing programs 
that work before we create and fund new programs, I am concerned that 
the language in this resolution is ambiguous and may tie our hands and 
our ability to help the children of our country.
  The problem, as I see it, is that House Concurrent Resolution 88 
fails to define the term ``new education initiative,'' and leaves open 
the question of how it might affect the future work of this Congress.
  For instance, is the class size reduction initiative, which, although 
currently authorized for only 1 year, is in full swing in many of the 
States, is that a new program? Is the Reading Excellence Act which was 
just passed last year a new program?
  Also created last year was Gear Up, a program that, like Pell and the 
campus-based aid programs, would allow millions of low-income students 
to attend college. Will it be considered a new program?
  If in the course of reauthorizing ESEA we decide to consolidate 
several existing professional development programs into a larger, more 
effective professional development initiative, will it be considered a 
new program and therefore go unfunded?
  If we develop a program to address school violence like that which 
took place in Littleton, Colorado, will it be considered a new program 
and be denied funding?
  To avoid these pitfalls, during committee mark-up I mentioned that 
the Senate is currently considering a similar resolution which has 
bipartisan support, and I offered that as a substitute to this 
resolution.
  Like House Concurrent Resolution 88, the resolution currently being 
considered by the Senate acknowledges the importance of Pell and 
campus-based student aid programs, and urges the Congress and the 
President to make them a funding priority. However, the Senate 
resolution refrains from bolstering students' aid at the possible 
expense of other programs. Senate Concurrent Resolution 828 is 
identical to this resolution except that it does not contain those last 
12 words.
  The language in the Senate resolution would have allowed us to 
recognize Pell and campus-based aid as educational priorities without 
denying the importance of existing programs or the potential importance 
of programs that may come out of the reauthorization of ESEA.
  I regret that I did not have the opportunity to offer that amendment 
here today. I regret that, as a result of that, I will not be able to 
support this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Gilman).
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to express strong support for the 
House Concurrent Resolution 88 urging both the President and Congress 
to increase Pell Grants for low-income students, and I commend the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the sponsor of this measure, 
for bringing it to the floor at this time.
  Because the Pell Grant is basis for all Federal student aid, and the 
amount of aid needed to cover the ever-rising cost of higher education 
is increasing, it is imperative we make students' scholarship aid a 
high priority.
  In the ever-increasing global market, our Nation must make sure that 
it maintains its leading role. Therefore, now more than ever we must 
guarantee that our students are well-prepared to compete against their 
counterparts from all over the world. Education is the only way that we 
can ensure a strong future for America's children, and increasing Pell 
Grant awards is one way we can begin to achieve that goal.
  Accordingly, I urge our colleagues to fully support this measure.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of both of these resolutions. 
Unfortunately, I was detained and was not able to come over and speak 
on behalf of the full funding for IDEA.

[[Page 8305]]

  But first let me say, on the Pell Grants, I strongly support 
increasing the Pell Grant program. As outlined by a couple of the 
speakers already, clearly as the cost of college continues to 
accelerate, we find that we are covering a much smaller percentage of 
that with the existing Pell Grants than we had previously. Previously 
we covered about 72 percent of the average costs. Now we are in the 
position of covering about 34 percent of that.
  As a result of that, many young students from low-income families who 
have worked very hard in high school to get the grades in order to do 
the work required and to be accepted to college find out that economics 
now stand in the way of them achieving that education.
  We should not allow that to happen, because we obviously have an 
economy that needs the contributions of all of these young people to 
our economic system. For that reason, I join the bipartisan support for 
the increase in the Pell Grant.
  I am concerned, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) 
pointed out, exactly the meaning of those words at the end of the 
legislation, because we know that there is a great deal of concern that 
this would take precedence over the class size reduction money, since 
that in fact is not an authorized program and needs authorization. And 
if it were to take place after the passage of this resolution, would 
that knock it out of the box?
  We know that class size reduction, as we just found out last week 
with the Tennessee study, is starting to have some important positive 
impacts on young people, when coupled with qualified teachers. So I 
think the concern is quite proper that the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Martinez) has raised about that. But since I think we will get a 
second shot at that in our authorizations, I am prepared to support the 
full funding.
  On the question of the IDEA funding, I am deeply concerned about the 
suggestion that to be for full funding of education for individuals 
with disabilities, that therefore somehow we have to cut other worthy 
programs in the education field, because we know that it sets up a 
false choice between programs like Head Start or America Reads, all of 
which work to help kids become school-ready, to help them become ready 
to read and to participate in schools.
  While fully supporting the idea of full funding for IDEA, I wish that 
the Republicans had not tried to set it up so they could chase away 
Democratic sponsors of this legislation by suggesting that it has to be 
done by cutting these other programs.
  When we look at the Republican budget that cuts about $1.2 billion 
below a freeze compared to 1999 in the education field, if we were to 
fully fund this, we would be talking about a 40 percent cut below the 
President's education request to fully fund IDEA.
  It is interesting to note that the Committee on the Budget, when full 
funding of IDEA was offered, they voted in lockstep against it, and 
again in the Committee on Rules would not allow that amendment to be 
put into consideration, where we could have provided offsets or what 
have you within the budget resolution.
  So I am not sure that this resolution is exactly as it should be, but 
the fact is we should support the continued increase in appropriations 
of IDEA funds.
  Finally, let me say that time and again it is suggested that somehow 
the Federal Government is shirking its responsibility when it does not 
provide all of the funding for IDEA. When we passed that legislation, 
Republicans and Democrats said that the goal was to provide some 40 
percent of the excess costs of providing education for individuals with 
disabilities.
  It continues to remain a goal. It is a goal that we have made great 
advancements on in the last couple of years. We ought to continue to go 
after it. But it is not a question of an unfunded Federal mandate. The 
fact is that this is there because of the United States Constitution.
  If we were to repeal IDEA, every State and local education authority 
would still have the obligation under the Constitution of the United 
States to educate these children in a free and appropriate education. 
They could end up picking up 100 percent of the cost.
  The Federal Government is trying to do the best it can to help 
districts with the cost of these educations, but the belief somehow is 
that this is our duty alone, and in fact the legislation passed last 
year would allow, unfortunately, schools to withdraw support for IDEA 
if we hit a Federal threshold, so the same schools who are saying they 
do not have enough money find out they can in fact withdraw support for 
this effort.
  I think the intent of these resolutions is good and is proper, and 
both of these programs need increases in funding. The Pell Grant needs 
an increase in the maximum grant. But I am concerned about some of the 
nuances that are suggested in these resolutions.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for his support of 
the resolution. For the record, the President's budget for the year 
2000 for education is $65.28 billion. Our budget for the year is $66.35 
billion, $1.1 billion more than the President's.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), chairman of the full committee.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  There was a time when Pell Grants covered 75 percent of a college 
education. We are now down to about 36 percent. The good news is, 
however, we did get a $2.7 billion increase in the last 3 years, so we 
have billions of dollars available in student aid from the Federal 
Government to State governments and institutions of higher education, 
and children from high-income families continue to enroll in college at 
almost twice the rate of children from low-income families.
  For many of the students from low-income families, the cost of 
college is the overwhelming factor in their decision to forego a 
college education. In 1997 we supported the enactment of tax credits 
related to post-secondary education for middle- and upper-income 
families. At the same time, we voiced strong concern about the need to 
continue making substantial commitments to the Pell Grant program in 
order to assist those students from low-income families who would not 
receive any benefits from the new tax credit.
  I mention that because I want to mention now the most unbelievable 
thing that I think I have heard in my entire time in the Congress. 
Prior to our mark-up of this resolution in committee last week, a 
Department of Education official told the Subcommittee on Labor, Health 
and Human Services of the Committee on Appropriations that a $400 
increase to the Pell maximum would not help low-income students all 
that much, since they would lose their tuition tax breaks.
  I want to repeat that, because I know everybody listening will be 
smart enough, I will not even have to explain how ridiculous it is.

                              {time}  1530

  But what he said was that a $400 increase to the Pell maximum would 
not help low-income students all that much since they would lose their 
tuition tax breaks.
  I can only assume that the administration has forgotten the debate 
over tax credits and the testimony of college officials and students 
who all agree that up-front cash assistance such as the Pell Grant 
program is the most effective form of aid for increasing access to 
college.
  Now, I would also remind that gentleman, and he should not need to be 
reminded, retroactive tax credits are great for those who have enough 
money to enroll in college in the first place. But I am sure if he 
would just look at his statistics, he would discover that 54 percent of 
the families receiving Pell Grants have incomes under $10,000. What tax 
credits are they waiting for? What tax credits are they expected to 
get? Of course, they do not get any. How silly the man could ever make 
a statement of that nature.
  The resolution also expresses support for campus-based student aid 
programs.

[[Page 8306]]

  These need-based programs help students pay the bills that are not 
covered by a $3,000 Pell Grant.
  The campus-based student aid programs require institutions to provide 
matching funds in order to receive funds from the Federal government. 
The $1.5 billion devoted to the campus-based programs last year 
leveraged almost $400 million in additional aid to college students 
across the country.
  The Higher Education Amendments of 1998 enacted last fall, 
streamlined the operation of all these programs in order to make them 
more effective. More importantly, the formula under which funds are 
distributed was modified. Under the new formula, any new money provided 
for the campus-based programs goes to institutions of higher education 
that serve large populations of students from low-income families who 
are most in need of financial assistance.
  These are fundamentally sound programs that have served our nation's 
college students will for the past three decades and we should consider 
them a higher education funding priority.
  This resolution does not propose cutting any programs. It does not 
say that we should not fund other education programs that work. It does 
not pit one program against another. It simply says that our highest 
priorities for higher education funding should be the Pell Grant 
Program and the campus-based aid programs, which have a proven record 
of success.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer), a really strong advocate of education.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Martinez) for yield me this time. I rise to support the intent of the 
legislation, not particularly the accomplishment of the legislation.
  Certainly, the ``whereas'' clauses in this Pell Grant concurrent 
resolution are very, very strong and language that I agree with, 
particularly the fact that in the language we talk about being 
concerned that the impact and the help of the Pell Grant has been 
sliced in half from the 1970s.
  We have gone from providing through a Pell Grant about 76 percent of 
the cost of education; in the 1990s now, the impact of the Pell grant 
is about 36 percent of the cost of a 4-year public college. That is 
slashing in half the impact and the help of the Pell Grant, and we need 
to do something about that.
  I sat on an airline just this past week with a young gentleman from 
Indiana who was trying to select between Cornell in New York and DePaul 
in Indiana. The entire rationale for his decision was going to be 
resting on one part of the economics of a decision between Cornell and 
DePaul, and that was the financial aid: what Pell Grant, Stafford loan, 
work study programs could be put together.
  So families and students are very concerned about education. But what 
we need to do, Mr. Speaker, as we show our concern about the declining 
impact and help of the Pell Grant, is to come up with a piece of 
legislation, a bill that funds it.
  This is a concurrent resolution. It is not signed by the President. 
It is not an appropriation bill that takes a penny out of the Treasury. 
It simply conveys the intent of Congress that we would like to see some 
more money put toward Pell Grant. I think everybody on our side would 
like to do that. I am sure everybody on the Republican side would like 
to do that.
  But what we need are not unfunded mandates, not unfunded resolutions, 
but bipartisan solutions to this problem.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Roemer) for his support of our intent.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Barrett), a 
member of the committee.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
California for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 88. This resolution 
proposes our funding priority should first include programs that work, 
and Pell Grants do work. We are talking about a program of more than a 
25-year track record of success. Pell Grants have offered millions of 
students the opportunity to pursue a higher education. While opening 
that door, they help narrow the gap between the rich and the poor and 
help alleviate the debt burden from young people just starting out in 
their careers.
  Students awarded Pell Grants are among the neediest, and probably 
would not have attended college without this financial assistance. For 
example, in the 1995-1996 school year, 54 percent of Pell Grant 
recipients came from families with incomes of less than $10,000.
  We all know that students from middle and high-income families are 
more likely to attend college, and one reason is that those parents can 
at least help finance the costs. Students from low-income families do 
not have that safety net, and Pell Grants help fill that void. At the 
current level, a Pell Grant on average only covers 36 percent of the 
cost of college, compared to 77 percent in the 1970s.
  The Federal Government also helps students with loans, and thousands 
of both low and middle-income students finish college each year with 
loans to pay off. In fact, the average student graduates with more than 
$9,000 in debt. But low-income students, who have had to finance nearly 
everything, can face particularly steep debt.
  This problem is amplified when considering that often these students 
choose lower paying but very important jobs like teaching or social 
work. In these situations, students may be faced with years and years 
of debt payments. We can lower that hurdle to higher education by not 
only continuing our strong support for the Pell Grant program, but by 
also increasing the minimum Pell Grant level.
  The current maximum for Pell Grants is $3,125. This resolution 
suggests a modest $400 increase. The resolution also proposes 
increasing, within the context of our balanced budget agreement, other 
aid programs that serve low-income students. Those programs include 
work study, Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants, and Perkins 
Loans. Pell Grants, these programs work, and they could be put to much 
broader use if the funding is increased, and we should aim toward that 
goal before jumping into new untested education initiatives.
  This resolution does not say that we should not fund other higher 
education programs, and it does not pit one group of students against 
another. It simply says that the Pell Grant program has worked well, 
and that by making Pell Grants a priority, we are indeed making 
education a priority and strengthening our commitment to helping low-
income students achieve their potential.
  I urge my colleagues to supports H. Con. Res. 88.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the beautiful State of Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, we have heard previous to this 
debate a long dissertation about the Federal obligation to fund IDEA. 
While there is disagreement in terms of how that responsibility has 
fallen upon the Federal Government, most of us agree that funding for 
IDEA should be increased.
  Now we are discussing another concurrent resolution which has to do 
with Pell Grants. This I believe is a time when the majority must 
listen to what they were saying when they debated IDEA.
  The authorization language which comes from this august committee 
calls for a basic funding of Pell Grants. That ought to be interpreted 
as an obligation which this Congress and this Federal Government is 
according based upon very severe eligibility standards. Much as we do 
Medicare, we have eligibility standards and then we decide how much 
funding that individual should get for Medicare, for hospitalization, 
for doctor's care, and so forth.
  It seems to me that if we are really true to what we are saying on 
this floor with regard to the importance of funding low-income 
students, giving them the best opportunity to have a higher education, 
this Congress ought to fund the complete amount that we authorize for 
Pell Grants. That is the only way we are going to meet our fundamental 
responsibility. Let us not talk about just $400 beyond what was 
authorized

[[Page 8307]]

or appropriated last year. We ought to go for the entire amount.
  Mr. Speaker, I am introducing a bill today which I ask all of my 
colleges on both sides of the aisle to cosponsor with me, and that is 
to make the Pell Grant program an entitlement. Young people ought to 
know with great assurance that if they meet the criteria for a Pell 
Grant to go on to higher education, that this Congress is willing to 
fund it.
  So I have created a program which makes it a responsibility for this 
Congress, for this Federal Government, to treat this program as an 
entitlement. Every young person ought to have that right to continue on 
to higher education
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of increasing funding for Pell 
Grants.
  There is nothing better we can do for this nation than to improve 
education, and ensure that all children in all communities across this 
nation have access to higher education.
  Pell Grants were created to provided this access for low-income 
families. The Pell Grant Program was created in 1972 to assist students 
from low-income families in obtaining a postsecondary education by 
meeting at least 75% of a student's cost of attendance. Unfortunately, 
Congress is not living up to its promise.
  In real dollars, the appropriated maximum individual grant, adjusted 
for inflation, has decreased 4.7% between 1980 and 1998. Considering 
the exorbitant increases in college costs, the Pell Grant has covered 
less and less of a student's cost of attendance. In just the last 10 
years, total costs at public colleges have increased by 23% and at 
private colleges by 36%. According to the General Accounting Office, 
this means that over the last 15 years, tuition at a public 4-year 
college or university has nearly doubled as a percentage of median 
household income. All students suffer as a result of these increases; 
however students from low-income families suffer the most.
  The resolution before us calls for an increase of $400 in the maximum 
Pell Grant awarded to students from low-income families.
  Although it is important to raise the maximum Pell Grant awarded, it 
does not go far enough. We need to guarantee that eligible students are 
entitled to the maximum amount under the Pell Grant Program. Today, I 
have introduced legislation that does just that.
  My bill will create a contractual obligation on the United States to 
reimburse institutions that award Pell Grants to its eligible students 
in the full amount they are entitled to. Simply put, my bill guarantees 
that an eligible student will receive the maximum award amount she is 
entitled to. By guaranteeing that eligible students will receive the 
maximum amount, this bill will make it easier for students from low-
income families to get a higher education.
  I urge my colleagues to do more than support this resolution, which 
merely requests a $400 increase in the maximum award allowed. I urge my 
colleagues to support my legislation which guarantees that eligible 
students are entitled to the maximum amount authorized under the Pell 
Grant Program.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Boehner), subcommittee chair of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, American students I think are confused 
about the President's student aid priorities.
  On Election Day in 1996 they heard the President proclaim, and I will 
quote, ``I am proud that we have got the biggest increase in Pell 
Grants in 20 years, but we must do more. I want to open the doors of 
college to all Americans; and if you give me 4 more years, that is 
exactly what I intend to do.''
  That was in Lexington, Kentucky. He said the same thing in Cleveland, 
Santa Barbara, Green Bay, New Orleans, St. Louis, and the Democratic 
Convention in Chicago.
  Many students also heard this ad, run by the President's campaign, 
and I will quote, ``As a Latino and a student, I know the value of 
education.'' The ad read in Spanish. ``Under President Clinton, Pell 
Grants and scholarships were increased. President Clinton wants us to 
have more opportunities to improve our quality of life. That is why, on 
November 5, I am going to vote for President Clinton.''
  Well, Mr. Speaker, on November 5, that is exactly what a lot of 
students did. But now the President is singing a different tune. The 
President is proposing cutting Pell Grant funding by 3 percent; he 
proposes cutting Perkins Loans by eliminating an adjustment for 
inflation; and he proposes cutting student loans by $2 billion in favor 
of a program that makes the Department of Education the country's 
largest bank, a loan program that is 30 percent more expensive than the 
private sector program, and that is the program that most universities 
say that they do not want.
  Mr. Speaker, students are confused about the President's student aid 
priorities, so let us be crystal clear about ours. This resolution 
sends a clear message that we are serious about funding programs that 
have been proven to work.
  I went to college myself on a program that is now known as the 
Perkins Loan, and I can tell my colleagues firsthand that these 
programs do work. But if my colleagues no longer believe that these 
programs should be our highest priority, then vote ``no'' on this 
resolution. But do not blame students for being confused about where we 
stand on these student aid priorities.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I am shocked, but pleasantly shocked, 
pleasantly shocked to hear the other side of the aisle finally stepping 
up to the plate and saying that rather than shut down the Department of 
Education, they understand that there is a Federal commitment to do 
something to raise the level and to raise the bar.
  I was listening to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) speak 
about making Pell Grants an entitlement, and I thought maybe we would 
need some armed guards over here to stop all of our friends and 
colleagues from the other side rushing over and signing onto that 
legislation as cosponsors. But I trust that really will not be a 
problem.
  In fact, I asked some members of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce who have been there for quite some time to search back in 
their historical perspective to see if there ever was an occasion when 
the current majority proposed more money for Pell Grants, to raise the 
authorization for Pell Grants, that the Democrats were not first in 
line to be there and do that. They could remember none.
  In fact, I searched for the one bill that has been filed that would, 
in fact, raise the authorization for Pell Grants to make them worth 
what they used to be worth when this program was originally adopted, 
and that is H.R. 959. There were 62 sponsors and cosponsors on that 
bill, not one Member of the majority party.
  So here we are today talking about a resolution. It is Teacher 
Appreciation Week. All things education are apparently on schedule for 
all of us. But when the dollar has to stop and the buck has to stop 
here, Mr. Speaker, let us see how many people on the other side are 
willing to actually come forward with the money by raising the 
appropriation level and by raising the authorization level to make Pell 
Grants really what they should be worth.
  Again, I think we are faced here with a potential in this language 
for pitting program against program. The other side says that is not 
the case, and we hope it is so. And we are probably all going to vote 
for this because we want the strong message to continue as we have 
continuously put it forward, that we need to pay for Pell Grants 
because that is the best way to fund higher education. We need to raise 
funds for work study programs. We need to make the interest rates as 
low as possible for anybody that does have to take a loan.
  But, Mr. Speaker, we have to stop making resolutions and feel-good 
pieces of legislation, move on to bills and acts that actually put our 
money where our mouth is, and make things happen. We stand ready to do 
that.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), a member of the committee.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time.

[[Page 8308]]

  I have a personal interest in this. The previous speaker wondered why 
Republicans are supporting this bill, and I can certainly tell him why 
this Republican is.

                              {time}  1545

  When I wanted to go to college, my parents, who were low-income, 
regretfully told me that they simply did not have the money to support 
me. They would do what they could, but it was not much, and I would 
have to earn my own way.
  I was not sure I would go to college but, fortunately, I was able to 
get summer employment in high school and save up enough money for the 
first year, and so I went off to college. I worked my way through, 
every cent, every inch of the way. I worked over 25 hours a week during 
the school year. I worked over 60 hours a week during the summers in 
order to put myself through college.
  I am not saying this to brag, but I simply point out that students 
cannot do that today, even if they worked 40 hours a week. The costs 
have gone up too much. I paid $188 a semester for tuition. Today, it is 
many, many times that.
  I am very intimately aware of the concerns and the problems that 
students have, and I have a special acquaintance with these problems 
because after going to college I went to graduate school, got a 
doctorate, and I taught at the University of California for some time 
and at Calvin College. So I have had experience in both the public and 
the private sector.
  Higher education is expensive, and I am very thankful that the 
Federal Government has established student loan programs and Pell 
grants which allows every student today to achieve a college education. 
We have fallen behind in the amount of money available, particularly 
for lower income students.
  I strongly support this resolution, and I ask this House to support 
it so that our students, no matter what the income level of the family, 
are able to go to colleges and universities, achieve a higher education 
and thereby improve their earning potential throughout their lives, as 
well as their appreciation of life and all that comes with education.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Ford), a member of the committee.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time, and I rise in support of both resolutions we are 
considering today, both which urge this Congress and the President to 
fully fund IDEA and the Pell grant Programs before funding any new 
program.
  As a supporter of both these programs, I understand that IDEA 
provides an education for many American children who would otherwise be 
denied an education, and the Pell grant has enabled millions of 
Americans, including my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), to attend college. However, Mr. Speaker, these 
nonbinding resolutions will not make a dent, really, even with all the 
flowery and wonderful rhetoric we have heard from both sides today. For 
we are merely expressing our wishes, merely talking about the problem, 
but not acting.
  I can assure my colleagues that if Democrats were in control of this 
Chamber, not only would we be talking today, we would be preparing to 
act. In fact, if we were serious about education, we would probably 
think about funding the class size reduction program of the President 
and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).
  As the chairman of the full committee and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Martinez) both know, in Tennessee, where I am from, a 
study was just completed to show that small classes in grades K through 
3 continue to outperform students in larger classes right through high 
school graduation.
  I know my dear friend, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Barrett), 
knows and strongly believes, as I do, that we should support programs 
that work. This program works.
  In addition, our schools are in dire need of modernization. It has 
been shown that this Federal Government can contribute money to build 
new prisons and build new roads and build new highways. We have to find 
the capacity and the courage to build new schools.
  Let us stop being the suspension bill and resolution Congress. I say 
to the other side, let us go to work and do the job the American people 
pay us $136,500 a year to do. Resolutions, expressing our wishes will 
not do it. It is time to act. This Congress has failed that test, and 
we are failing American children in the process.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Gary Miller), one of our great Members.
  Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues 
who is most impacted by the shrinking power of Pell grants: community 
colleges, junior colleges and the students they serve.
  In California, our community college system has 106 campuses, 71 
districts and serves 1.5 million students. That is the largest system 
in the country, dedicated to serving students with incomes below those 
students who attend our large University of California and California 
State University systems. They are the ones on the margin who are most 
impacted by any fee increase or any loss in buying power from the Pell 
grant.
  The Pell grant was created to serve as the foundation of need-based 
student aid, and it is the single most important program for low-income 
students served by community colleges.
  More and more students are benefiting from Pell grants. In 1973, 
176,000 students received Pell grants. Under this resolution, almost 4 
million students will receive a Pell grant next year.
  Unfortunately, its purchase power has declined by 25 percent over the 
past 20 years. The President's last budget actually cut current 
appropriation levels by $250 million in order to fund his new education 
programs. The most disturbing part is that if the President did not 
propose cutting the actual appropriations, we would already be funding 
a $3,325 grant.
  Maybe it is the nature of politics to loudly speak in favor of a 
program when it is new but then take money from it when it is not so 
new anymore to get credit for creating a new program.
  All this resolution does is say that we will appropriately fund the 
programs that work, instead of taking money from them to create new 
programs. This resolution does not propose cutting any other program. 
Unlike the President's budget, we do not propose to cut the Pell grant 
Program appropriation, Impact Aid, Title VI block grants, or the other 
programs that are clearly not priorities of the President.
  It does not say we should not fund other education programs that do 
work. It does not aim to pit one group against another. It simply says 
our highest priority for higher education funding should be the Pell 
Grant and Campus-Based Aid Programs, which have a proven success 
record.
  If my colleagues do not believe that the Pell grant and Campus-Based 
Aid Programs work and should be our highest priority, then I urge them 
to vote ``no'' on this resolution. But I would urge my colleagues to 
support this program. It supports those low-income students who mostly 
need our help.
  I urge my colleagues to: support existing programs before rushing to 
fund a new fad; support those lower income students who benefit from 
the Pell Grant Program, and support community colleges and colleges in 
your communities.
  I urge my colleagues to support this common sense resolution.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire how much time we have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Martinez) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon) has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just want to say we are not worried about 
pitting

[[Page 8309]]

Pell grants and Campus-Based Student Aid against other programs that 
have long been in existence and have long proven themselves to be 
worthy of funding. That is not the question. The question is, are we 
going to tie our hands so that if there is an innovative new program, 
in order to deal with school violence, such as the school violence that 
happened in Littleton, Colorado, are we then going to tie our hands and 
say we cannot fund a program, no matter how great it may look or how 
much good we feel it can do because we have tied ourselves to this 
resolution?
  Now, I say that, but I am not really that concerned about it, because 
this is a resolution that carries no impact in law. In fact, I think I 
will vote for S.28, if it will ever get over here, but it will not get 
over here.
  I will support Pell grants. My decision to not vote for this bill 
does not mean I do not support Pell grants. What it does mean is that I 
do not believe in the idea of cutting ourselves from any program that 
might have a tremendous impact on some aspect of education just because 
we say that we are feeling that Pell grants should be of the highest 
priority. We can say that without doing this.
  So I will continue to not support this resolution. As I say, I will 
not vote against it, but I will not vote for it. I will reserve my 
right to be in strong support of Pell grants through other methods. And 
I will especially wait for the authorizing bill, in which I will vote, 
if that authorizing bill increases Pell grants.
  This is not an authorizing bill, and it does not carry any weight in 
law.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Metcalf).
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor our Nation's 
teachers. I would like to thank them for their dedication and 
inspiration.
  I was a public school teacher for 30 years, so I understand the 
importance of a good education and the foundation it builds for our 
youth. American students, parents and teachers must maintain the 
highest level of quality in education.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  A lot of the debate today, Mr. Speaker, has focused on Pell grants, 
but I also want to point out this does cover the Campus-Based Aid 
Programs which provide institutions with Federal support for grants, 
loans, and work-study programs. These require matching funds from the 
schools. It gives the schools greater flexibility to keep those in 
school that have the greatest need. And with requiring the matching 
funds, it is a multiplier and brings more money to the table to help 
those students that need it the most.
  There has also been some talk about the fact that this is a 
resolution and does not really carry the weight of law. It does state 
and it does show how we have performed the last 5 years. Since we have 
had the majority, we have increased Pell grants every year. It 
indicates our high priority for the Pell grants and campus-based 
programs and the fact that we continue to want them to be the highest 
priority of higher education.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of significant 
increased funding for Pell Grants and Campus-Based Aid programs.
  Coming from south Texas, I know the dire need for Pell Grants. By 
providing resources for our students, we create real opportunity for 
them to attain higher education.
  The Pell Grant program is the largest need-based Federal grant 
program for students pursuing higher education. I know that in San 
Antonio, this program is the foundation for student aid. Pell Grants 
help our students from families of modest income who could not 
otherwise afford a college education.
  I support the resolution but would like to express my strong 
reservations about the wording. This resolution is another example of 
how Republicans are purporting to be education friendly when they are 
not. Just like a wolf in sheep's clothing there is a face behind this 
resolution.
  The language in this resolution essentially says that any new 
programs we come up with would have to take a backseat to Pell Grant 
increases.
  To make demands on what programs should take precedence at this time, 
is unrealistic and removed from the approach we should be taking on the 
funding of our education programs. For example, what if a new program 
is introduced later on this year that will seriously address the needs 
of our youth and the issue of violence? Does this program automatically 
get a back seat simply because it is a ``new'' program under this 
resolution?
  Yes, we should fund Pell Grants but we should also look at the bigger 
picture and realize that there may be other ``new'' programs that have 
been introduced that will be equally as important and help with the 
early development of our students in the K-12 grades.
  Higher education is a priority and what better way than through 
increases in Pell Grants. However, we should also make sure that we are 
doing what we can to strength the foundation of our elementary and 
secondary education system.
  If our Republican colleagues are serious about the Pell Grant program 
I encourage them to support H.R. 959, the Affordable Education through 
Pell Grants Act. The legislation will raise the maximum Pell Grant 
award level to $6,500 for the academic year 2000 to 2001, bringing it 
to funding where the Pell Grant is meant to be.
  If Republicans want to put their money where their mouth is, I would 
ask that they also support H.R. 959.
  Education is our number one priority. The future of our economy, and 
our communities rests our ability to increase access to higher 
education but to also ensure our students can get from point A to point 
B.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, it's a great revelation to see that our 
colleagues on your side of the aisle have come to realize the 
importance of increased support for student aid programs which assist 
low income students. I am especially pleased that, after numerous 
efforts to slash funding for education programs, Republicans now see 
the light. My hope is that they will continue moving in that direction 
and realize that increased funding for education across the board is 
essential to increase educational opportunities.
  Mr. Speaker, I support a substantial increase for Pell funding. In 
fact, in the last Congress I introduced legislation to make Pell Grant 
funding mandatory spending, just like the loan programs.
  However, I am concerned that the way H. Con. Res. 88 is written, 
could be interpreted to pit one group of education programs against 
another. If adopted and adhered to by the appropriators, it would rob 
Peter to pay Paul.
  The record of House Democrats' support for increased aid to needy 
college students is clear. House Democrats have been in the forefront 
in advocating increased funding for student aid programs without short-
changing or reducing spending for other programs. Since 1996, 
Democrats, in conjunction with the President, have been responsible for 
adding nearly $8 billion more for education than was in bills supported 
by House Republicans. With respect to Pell Grants, since 1996 the 
President requested, and House Democrats supported, an increase of $3.4 
billion, while House Republicans advocated 62% less.
  Today, we are being asked to vote for a resolution that would aid 
freshmen at the expense of first graders. We believe that is an unwise, 
inappropriate choice.
  During the committee markup my colleagues and I offered amendments to 
H. Con. Res. 88 designed to increase Pell Grants without jeopardizing 
other worthy programs. The language we offered was the same language 
adopted in the Senate on a bipartisan basis. The Senate resolution 
calls for increased Pell Grants, without pitting one education program 
against another. Unfortunately, we are not successful in these efforts.
  We should go on record for increasing our overall investment in 
education, instead of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I 
oppose H. Con. Res. 88, which expresses the sense of the Congress that 
funding for the Pell Grant Program should be increased by $400 per 
grant and calls on Congress ton increase funding for other existing 
education programs prior to authorizing or appropriating funds for new 
programs. While I certainly do oppose creating any new federal 
education programs, I also oppose increasing funds for any programs, 
regardless of whether or not the spending is within the constraints of 
the so-called balanced budget agreement. Mr. Speaker, instead of 
increasing unconstitutional federal spending, Congress should empower 
the American people to devote more of their own resources to higher 
education by cutting their taxes. Cutting taxes, not increasing federal 
spending, should be Congress' highest priority.
  By taxing all Americans in order to provide limited aid to a few, 
federal higher education programs provide the federal government with

[[Page 8310]]

considerable power to allocate access to higher education. Government 
aid also destroys any incentives for recipients of the aid to consider 
price when choosing a college. The result is a destruction of the price 
control mechanism inherent in the market, leading to ever-rising 
tuition. This makes higher education less affordable for millions of 
middle-class Americans who are ineligible for Pell Grants!
  Federal funding of higher education also leads to federal control of 
many aspects of higher education. Federal control inevitably 
accompanies federal funding because politicians cannot resist imposing 
their preferred solutions for perceived ``problems'' on institutions 
beholden to taxpayer dollars. The prophetic soundness of those who 
spoke out against the creation of federal higher education programs in 
the 1960s because they would lead to federal control of higher 
education is demonstrated by examining today's higher educational 
system. College and universities are so fearful of losing federal aid 
they allow their policies on everything from composition of the student 
body to campus crime to be dictated by the Federal Government. Clearly, 
federal funding is being abused as an excuse to tighten the federal 
noose around both higher and elementary education.
  Instead of increasing federal expenditures, Mr. Speaker, this 
Congress should respond to the American people's demand for increased 
support of higher education by working to pass bills giving Americans 
tax relief. For example, Congress should pass H.R. 1188, a bill I am 
cosponsoring which provides a tax deduction of up to $20,000 for the 
payment of college tuition. I am also cosponsoring several pieces of 
legislation to enhance the tax benefit for education savings accounts 
and pre-paid tuition plans to make it easier for parents to save for 
their children's education. Although the various plans I have supported 
differ in detail, they all share one crucial element. Each allows 
individuals the freedom to spend their own money on higher education 
rather than forcing taxpayers to rely on Washington to return to them 
some percentage of their own tax dollars to spend as bureaucrats see 
fit.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I call upon my colleagues to reject H. 
Con. Res. 88 and any other attempt to increase spending on federal 
programs. Instead, my colleagues should join me in working to put the 
American people in control of higher education by cutting taxes and 
thus allowing them to use more of their resources for higher education.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, today, I come before the House to ask, 
``have the Republicans done a U-turn?''
  Their education record includes: opposing education funding 
increases; passing a year 2000 budget $2.9 billion short of the 
President's education proposal; and advocating for the abolishment of 
the Department of Education.
  Again, I ask, ``is this resolution a Republican U-turn?''
  I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there has been no U-turn. The Republican 
course is straight and does not lead to a true endorsement of 
education.
  I support Pell Grant increases. However, without language to state 
otherwise, I am left to surmise that this resolution may endanger 
initiatives to reduce class size, hire more teachers, and modernize 
schools.
  Let's set a better course and invest at every level of our children's 
education--preschool through postsecondary.
  Let's stand up for all worthwhile education inititives!
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) that the House suspend the rules 
and agree to the concurrent resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 88.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________