[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 21]
[House]
[Pages 29802-29807]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 2660, DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH 
AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2004

  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Kildee moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the bill, H.R. 2660, be instructed to insist on no less 
     than $14,247,432,000 for student financial assistance and the 
     highest funding level possible for subpart 1 of part A of 
     title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (the Pell Grant 
     Program).

  Mr. KILDEE (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion to instruct be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the motion I am offering today asks conferees to provide 
the highest possible funding level for the Pell grant program. It is 
important to remember that the vast majority, 84 percent of the 5 
million Pell grant recipients have incomes less than $30,000. 
Unfortunately, since President Bush took office, this program and its 
recipients have suffered.
  During President Clinton's term the Pell grant maximum rose from 
$2,300 to $3,750. In contrast during President Bush's current term the 
Pell grant has only risen $350 in the past 2 years. All this comes at a 
time when the cost of college is rising significantly.
  In the House and Senate fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill, these 
troubling trends have continued. These bills freeze the maximum Pell 
grant at $4,050, the first such freeze in a decade. As a result, the 
maximum Pell grant would finance only 36 percent of the average 
individual's college cost in the 2004 academic year under the 
Republican bill. This is compared to 84 percent when the program was 
first established.
  To make matters worse, the House and Senate bill were actually under 
the administration's admittedly paltry request, under the 
administration's request. This chronic underfunding, coupled with the 
sour economy, has led to a growing deficit in the Pell grant program. 
If we continue to underfund this program, this deficit is likely to 
grow into the billions of dollars.
  Pell grant funding is crucial for those seeking to attend college. 
Almost two-thirds of all students must borrow to finance their college 
education. The average student loan debt has nearly doubled over the 
past decade to $17,000. Pell grant recipients are four times more 
likely to borrow student loans. Families of low-income, college-
qualified, high school graduates face an annual unmet need of $3,800. 
College expenses not covered by Pell grants, work study, or student 
loans, $3,800.
  A college education is critical to an individual's future success. 
Individuals holding a bachelor's degree earn an average of 80 percent 
more than someone with just a high school diploma. Over a lifetime, 
this earnings' gap for an individual with just a high school degree 
widens to well over $1 million. These statistics are startling and make 
access to college education even more important today. An investment in 
Pell grants is truly an investment when you see the size of that gap.
  The recipients of those Pell grants will return far more to the 
Treasury than what we received in the Pell grants. That is not just 
guessing; that is going back in history to the GI Bill of Rights. No 
one on my side of the city of Flint, Michigan, went to college until 
the GI Bill of Rights came along. They went to college and they 
returned far more to the Treasury than what they received from the 
government. This is truly an investment.
  Unfortunately, the Republican record on this issue is poor at best. 
In fiscal year 1996 House Republicans cut President Clinton's request 
for a $2,620 maximum Pell grant by $180. Over the past 2 years, the 
Pell grant has only increased $50. Both the House and Senate bills have 
frozen the maximum Pell grant. And now the Pell grant program is 
running a deficit. This deficit is very likely to increase given our 
current budget and economic conditions.
  Mr. Speaker, this House needs to take a stand today. We need to 
emphatically say that we are going to reverse the trend of recent years 
and actually invest in the Pell grant program. Without such an 
investment, our students, especially the most needy, are going to 
continue to have the doors of college education shut in their faces.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge members to support this motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we could just look at this chart and I would rest my 
case. The blue is the Pell grant under the Democrats. The red is the 
Pell grants under the Republicans.
  Now, I am pleased that in the motion to instruct that the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) is urging us to adopt the number passed that 
was in the House-passed bill. We did not get a vote on the Democrat 
side; but, nevertheless, tonight we are being asked to instruct 
conferees to adopt the number that was in the House bill. And that is 
great. It was a good number as evidenced by the chart. This chart shows 
the maximum award under the Pell grant program. It has grown under 
Republican leadership, as evidenced by the red line here. And in the 
labor bill it maintains the maximum award of $4,050 for fiscal year 
2004. When we took control of the Congress in 1995, the maximum Pell 
grant under the now-minority was only $2,340. And it was funded at $6.2 
billion. Today under the Republican leadership, the maximum is $4,050 
and the amount in the budget authority was $12.25 billion.
  I agree with the previous speaker, this is a great program. It gives 
middle-income students access to college. In 2004 there will be about 
4.9 million students, almost 5 million students that will have a chance 
to go to college because of Pell grants. In the last 2 years, the 
number of Pell grant recipients has surged by 25 percent. It is a good 
example of a need-based program meant to open doors and provide an 
equality of education opportunity. The poorer the student, the larger 
the award. It is a means-tested program, so it recognizes that those 
with the most need get the most help. It is an example of the Federal 
Government enabling school choice for millions of Americans. They can 
use their Pell grants for public or private schools; they can use them 
to attend religious schools. Real choice is one reason that this 
country's higher education system is the envy of the world.
  And let me emphasize that in 2004 not one student will see their Pell 
grant reduced based on their circumstances. I think it is a record we 
can be very proud of. We can be proud as a Nation that we are providing 
some help to students to ensure that they have access to higher 
education. I think more and more we come to realize how important it is 
for individuals to get access and opportunity to get the benefits that 
go with higher education.
  Personally, I would like to see the school system become seamless: 
from the day that student ends the first grade that they think in terms 
of going through 16 years and getting the college education, that we do 
not think there is a stopping place, that the student thinks in terms 
of their future ending up with some type of education beyond high 
school. The Pell grants ensure that every child will have an 
opportunity that might not otherwise get that chance.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 29803]]

  Mr. Speaker, the motion that was read, that is for overall student 
aid. We maintain the House level, which is higher than the level of the 
other body. But we also ask that for the Pell grants we reach the 
highest grant level possible.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking 
member of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for bringing this motion and giving us an 
opportunity not only to speak on this issue but also to hopefully 
persuade the conferees to do as we suggest in his motion, and that is 
to seek an overall funding level of at least 14.3 million for student 
aid and the highest possible level for the Pell grant program.
  Today we are faced with the critical need to expand opportunities for 
low- and middle-income students to access college education. Too many 
students are forced to take on high loan debt, work long hours, and 
forgo college all together. Typical middle-income students face a 
$3,000-a-year unmet need after all grants, loans, and work study, while 
the typical low-income student faces an unmet need of some $3,800. For 
millions of laid-off American workers, additional education training is 
the key to successfully reentering the workforce. Without additional 
student aid, these workers will remain jobless for a longer period of 
time than necessary, or they may remain jobless for a very, very long 
time because of failure to adapt their skills to the changing 
marketplace.
  In California, alone, more than half a million students workers who 
were retained rely on the Pell grants to attend college. Today the 
average Pell grant of $2,415 is worth approximately $50 less in real 
terms than it was almost 30 years ago. And that is the reason we are 
asking to hopefully honor these higher levels of the House-passed 
legislation.

                              {time}  2030

  Pell grants now represent just 11 percent of all student aid compared 
to Federal loans, which represent 45 percent of all student aid. Thirty 
years ago, the two major grant programs, Pell and the supplemental 
education opportunity grants, accounted for more than 40 percent of all 
student aid. Today, they account for less than 20 percent.
  Just as a higher education and student aid has become more important 
to our national security and economic prosperity, President Bush called 
on them to cut the maximum Pell grant, and the Republican 2004 Labor-
HHS freezes the maximum Pell grant at $4,050.
  In addition, the Republican 2004 Labor-HHS bill slashes the Bush 
administration's overall Pell budget request by $465 million.
  We should support, and not oppose, efforts to meet our critical 
national, economic, and security needs. Yet the Republican 2004 Labor-
HHS bill not only fails to meet those needs but also fails to meet the 
needs of current and future college students.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Kildee motion to support 
these higher levels of funding, and I would say to my friend and 
colleague from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the subcommittee, 
that we would like to share a little credit for those increases in 
Pells since we had a Democratic President a number of those years. We 
had a Democratic Senate, and we would like to think we participated in 
that effort.
  What troubles us is the right-hand edge of that chart where it is 
topping out. It is sort of hitting a plateau and kind of running along 
there without those increases. The gentleman has been a champion of 
education. I could not feel anymore comfortable than making the plea to 
him because I spent many hours with him on elementary and secondary 
education and higher education, and all of the issues that confront 
these institutions; and we have tried, I think, in our best wisdom to 
try and improve those institutions.
  Clearly, we are now seeing part of it is the turmoil in the economy, 
part of it is the turmoil in State budgets; but students are not able 
to put together the financial wherewithal, and especially low-income 
students are starting not to apply to colleges and universities, and we 
know that we need them to do this.
  The gentleman and I have sat through numerous conferences where they 
have now made clearly the determination in the employer community that 
what the student needs for entry level jobs, if that job is in any way 
going to lead to a career, they need the same set of skills, talent, 
and education one would receive in an AA degree, as they would just for 
entry level, but for many students, especially those from low-income 
communities, that means that they have got to have some financial 
assistance for those 2 years of college as they try to acquire those 
skills. Should they desire to go on, obviously the burden gets greater.
  So I guess we do not feel that this is falling on deaf ears with the 
chairman because he has been a champion. We are hoping, and I think he 
started in the omnibus appropriations bill this evening the negotiation 
and maybe the Labor-HHS bill ends up in that appropriations. We are 
hoping that as all of those figures are moved around and those 
decisions are made that this is sort of our last plea to try and meet 
these numbers so that we can attend to the problems of low-income 
students who have worked hard in high school, become eligible to go on 
to community college, to 4-year colleges, to universities and that the 
financial support system is what really stands in their way.
  We would hope that when we vote on the Kildee motion, I guess we will 
vote tomorrow, we would hope that it would be overwhelmingly in support 
of that motion and that message would be carried into the 
appropriations deliberations over the next couple of days and over the 
weekend, if necessary, in order to hammer out a budget that we could 
all support for Pell grants and for student aid.
  I want to thank the gentleman who has been involved so many years in 
higher education, on the authorizing committee, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee), for offering this motion; and we look forward to 
everyone's support for this motion.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), a very valued member of 
the subcommittee.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for 
yielding me the time, and I would like to commend the chairman for his 
leadership on this issue. I know the gentleman from Ohio is a strong 
supporter of education.
  I want to congratulate the Democrats for coming aboard. Where were 
they in July when the chairman was funding Pell grants at the level 
they now want to support? Where were their votes then? Or was partisan 
politics more important?
  I think the record speaks for itself. We talk about a plateau up 
here, which may be a plateau in the maximum grant, but it is not a 
plateau in money.
  Last year, it was $11.365 billion; this year, $12.250 billion, almost 
a $1 billion increase; but that has been absorbed by the increased 
number of students. In fact, from the beginning of this chart we were 
talking about 2.9 million students, and at the end of this chart we are 
talking about 5 million students. So the growth in the program has been 
immense.
  Those who criticize the plateau we have reached here in the maximum 
grant, let us go back to 1992, to 1993 where there was a huge decrease; 
1994, a continued decrease; 1995, a slight bump but still way below 
1991 and 1992. I do not know what was going on then, but my colleagues 
were in control, and it shows the blue part here where the real money 
for Pell grants was not put in the budget.
  The increase of the maximum grant was not flat. It actually was 
declining over a 3-year period. So there is no decline up here, and the 
reason there is not growth is a strong growth in the number of students 
at a time when budgets are tight, but we want to congratulate my 
colleagues today for joining support of the House numbers.

[[Page 29804]]

  As we review the education issues, I think we had a chart up here 
last week on special education or whether it is Pell grants or whether 
it is funding for other education programs, since 1996 the Republicans 
have put money on the table for the youth of this country. More money 
in an 8- or 9-year period than has even come close to in 8 or 9 years 
prior to that. That chart last week on IDEA was almost the same as 
this, almost flat funding for 9 or 10 years, and then a strong, steady 
escalation.
  We would like to have this chart going on up, but if we had not 
picked up the number of students we picked up last year, we could have, 
because we are putting in about $1 billion.
  Let us join hands, but let us be fair. Pell grants are the gas and 
oil of education for the young people of this country, especially for 
the poor. They are the grants that give people help, and I can think of 
lots of them in my family. My younger brother was the first one to 
receive a college education. It was not available, Pell grants and 
other grants were not available in Pennsylvania when I was in high 
school. I never had the opportunity to go to a college. Why? I looked 
at being in medical school. My family was too poor. There was no State 
help. I looked at going into forestry and found out we could not afford 
that.
  So the minute I graduated from high school I went to work and built a 
life with hard work; but my younger brother went to the military; and 
it was through that program, after he came back from Vietnam, that he 
got the first college education in our family, my brother Bruce, and I 
am very proud of him. It took him more than 4 years to do it, took him 
a while to get his act together, but he got a college education because 
the military system assisted him.
  Yes, this program is vital to our future, and we are glad my 
colleagues are here tonight to support the Republican position that was 
here in July but was not adequately supported from their party. Pell 
grants are not about Republicans and Democrats. They are about kids, 
and I will stand on this record of achievement anytime.
  We always wish it could have been better, and the grant may have 
flattened out in its maximum grant; but the number of students, if we 
had that chart would show us continuing to go up because we have a lot 
more students getting them. We have a record of success. We thank my 
colleagues for joining us. Just wish they had been here in July.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and leader from Michigan for 
yielding me this time, and I appreciate and commend to him bringing 
this motion tonight. This is a very important program in regards to 
higher education funding, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) 
is someone who probably has more institutional knowledge in regard to 
the education programs and the funding of education programs than 
anyone else in the House of Representatives.
  I think this is an important motion. It is a timely motion because of 
the trend that will be set here with the precedent being created in the 
next fiscal year as far as freezing the average Pell grant award given 
in this country. But just to be clear, the motion calls for not less 
than the House number that we should strive for in conference, and I 
appreciate the work the chairman has done in regard to the defense of 
education funding programs. He has been a champion in this issue. But 
what is being called for now is for the first time in over a decade 
freezing Pell grant awards at $4,050. If this goes through, this will 
affect adversely 86,000 more students who would normally qualify for 
Pell grants, but will be shut out of the system.
  In Wisconsin, the State that I represent, we have 58,000 students who 
rely on Pell grants in order to go on to post-secondary education 
opportunities. There are five State universities in my congressional 
district alone. Thousands of students in Western Wisconsin rely on Pell 
grants in order to open up the doors to higher education.
  Not only by underinvesting in this area will we have an adverse 
impact on future economic growth. I submit that it is going to have 
national security implications as well. I think this body would be well 
served to spend a little time studying the trends of places like China 
and India and the education infrastructure going on in those countries 
and the numbers of undergraduates that they are producing every year, 
which are going up year by year, including more engineering students 
being graduated in China and in India; and if we do not invest in the 
future of our country, our youth, we are going to leave them in a tough 
position to be able to compete in the global marketplace, not to 
mention perhaps slipping in regard to the technological edge and 
superiority that we now hold as a Nation compared to other nations that 
are investing in this area.
  Just as an example, China yesterday announced that they are going to 
increase the fuel efficiency standards for the cars sold in China at 
higher standards than what exists here in the United States of America. 
Part of that is going to involve advances in technology to enable them 
to do it. It is an embarrassment that China is taking this 
unprecedented step, and we know in our gut that we should be doing it 
here as well.
  When the original Pell grant program was passed many years back, it 
accounted for roughly 86 percent of the cost of a student with tuition 
and fees and room and board. Today, that slips below 50 percent. Now 
there is greater reliance on loans for students to finance their 
education.
  Again, in my congressional district, the average student, when they 
do graduate from a 4-year university, is facing on average about 
$17,000 of debt coming out of school because of the greater reliance on 
loans as opposed to these grant programs. We are forcing them to dig a 
fiscal hole at a crucial time in their life when they are trying to 
start a career, have a family, have children, and this trend has been 
going on for some time.
  My colleagues on the other side are finally pointing to the graph and 
that, but they often neglect it was President Clinton that was forcing 
this investment in college education programs, why we saw the 
consistent trend line in the 1990s; but let us also remind ourselves 
that he was doing that in the context of balanced budgets and budget 
surpluses, because there is nothing easier to do in this place than to 
pass a bill that is not paid for, and this has been a consistent trend 
for the last few years: a $30 billion energy bill yesterday, perhaps a 
$400 billion prescription medication bill later on this week, not paid 
for, all deficit financing. That is easy politics to support, but when 
the Clinton administration was increasing Pell grant awards during the 
1990s, we were doing it in an era of budget surpluses, with fiscal 
discipline and fiscal responsibility.
  Hopefully, they are not crowing too loudly in regard to what was 
occurring in the 1990s versus the freeze now that we are seeing under 
one-party control here in Washington.

                              {time}  2045

  This is an important program. It does affect so many students. Again, 
by freezing not only the Pell Grant program but by freezing all campus-
based student aid programs, college work study programs, SEOGs, 
Perkins' loans, the LEAP program, we are going to be forcing more and 
more students to have to build a debt route to finance their schooling, 
but more importantly closing the door of opportunity for many students 
who would otherwise qualify for higher education, but will not be able 
to afford it because of the lack of resources that are available.
  So I hope that my colleagues support this motion. I commend the 
gentleman from Michigan for raising this issue in a timely basis. 
Again, I commend the work that has been done even on the other side, of 
the chairman in his defense of a lot of education funding in this 
fiscal year and also in past years. But this is important and we should 
not lose sight in regard to the crucial investments that have to be 
made for the future of our country, the youth of our Nation.

[[Page 29805]]


  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin made a statement that I guess we were confused about. He 
talked about a number of students that would not get grants under this 
program. I wonder if he could give us that information again. We did 
not understand it.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to clarify my statement. By 
freezing the Pell Grant award in regard to the funding level that is 
established, there has been a score indicating that 86,000 more 
students who would otherwise qualify for Pell Grant funding will not 
qualify as a consequence. This is nationwide, not just in the State of 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, what 
does the gentleman mean? If a person qualifies for a Pell Grant, the 
program borrows money, if I understand it correctly, and then we have 
to replenish it. But anybody who meets the criteria of the Pell Grants 
will receive the Pell Grants, whether we budget enough money or not; am 
I correct?
  Mr. REGULA. That is right.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield so 
that I can clarify myself, it is in the context of all the regulatory 
changes as well that the administration is proposing in the formula and 
the effect that that would have on the 86,000 students in this country 
that this side is very concerned about and we are hoping to engage our 
colleagues' support on the issue as well.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Well, Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my 
time, I personally have no understanding of how a student who qualifies 
for a Pell Grant will not receive Pell Grants. The gentleman is talking 
about a number of issues here, but I think he is misleading the 
American public a bit with that statement. If someone qualifies for a 
Pell Grant, whether we adequately fund the program or not this year, it 
will be backfilled next year.
  And so I hate to leave young people in America with the perception 
that this budget could disqualify them from a Pell Grant, and if we did 
something different that they would get a Pell Grant. I think that is a 
little less than accurate.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the sponsor of this motion for 
all the work that he has done. And let me say, I do not believe there 
is anyone in this Chamber who would be more enthusiastic about fully 
funding and making available higher education opportunities than the 
gentleman from Ohio, who is the chairman of this subcommittee.
  I think that none of us come to this floor tonight, at least I do 
not, as part of some partisan attempt to win a few debating points. The 
future of the young people in our country is much too important for us 
to make this a partisan back and forth.
  I went to a number of institutions, but before I went to the 
University of Pennsylvania and to the Kennedy School at Harvard. I went 
to the Community College of Philadelphia. I went there able to enroll 
with the basic educational opportunity grant, a Pell Grant recipient, 
when I started out as a college student. I have at home tonight two 
young children, one 5 years old and another just 8 weeks old, and two 
older ones who have matriculated most of their way through higher 
education, one through law school and another who is finishing a 
business education at a university home in Pennsylvania.
  I served with the gentleman who just spoke from Pennsylvania for a 
long period of my years in the Pennsylvania Senate and House, and 
during that time served in a leadership role at the Pennsylvania Higher 
Education Assistance Agency, where over a million young people were 
provided, through State grant assistance, the opportunity to go to 
college. We just launched in Philadelphia an effort where we secured 
some $40 million through local funds to make sure that every graduate 
of our public schools knows with a certainty that they can go on to 
college.
  This question of the future of our Nation is not just one for my 
daughters at home, Cameron and Chandler, but it is really the shaping 
impulse of the future of our country that we not focus so much on the 
next election but that we focus on the next generation. We need these 
young people to be college educated in order to have an economy that 
works.
  I do not think anyone would suggest that since not one Republican 
voted for the Clinton economic plan that somehow they were not for 20 
million new jobs, or they were not for balanced budgets, or they were 
not for the surpluses that were generated during the Clinton years. 
Those Democrats that found some question about this appropriations bill 
earlier in this session were voting because they wanted more done, not 
less done. And we come here tonight to join with the chairman and to 
say that at a minimum the conference committee, which both of us serve 
on, should do at least as much as the House has suggested that we do.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and let me make a couple of points here.
  One, not one student will be denied a Pell Grant that meets the 
qualifications. Number two, the formula is written into the law, and we 
are not changing the formula. So the maximum amount will remain the 
same. And, number three, on July 10, 215 Republicans voted for the 
bill, and my colleagues tonight are saying in this motion that they 
agree with the number that was adopted then.
  We support the motion because the motion is saying do what the 
Republicans did on July 10 in terms of funding the Pell Grants. We are 
totally in agreement. We were in agreement then, and we are in 
agreement tonight. We like the program. We want to make sure that every 
student that meets the criteria of need will have an opportunity.
  So we do not have a disagreement tonight on what we are trying to 
accomplish, and we are pleased that the other side has this position 
tonight. We wish our colleagues had had it on July 10, but we welcome 
your support tonight and will join you in this motion.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, as we would have wished that there would 
have been at least one Republican that voted for the Clinton economic 
plan, there are times in which clarity on these issues is not as 
readily available.
  But I want to thank the chairman for all that he has done, and we 
hope that in this conference that we will do at least as much as the 
gentleman was able to get the House to do.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we would like to do 
that, and we will certainly make every effort because we have not 
changed our minds since July 10 that this is a good program and should 
receive the funding that was incorporated in the bill at that time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
will conclude by saying that I would hope there would come a day we 
could guarantee that every American youngster would be able to qualify 
for a Pell Grant or some vehicle for them to go on to college.
  The gentleman has done a lot of work with me on GEAR UP and other 
projects, and we are doing a lot, but there is more to be done because 
millions of our young people in this country do not yet know with a 
certainty that they can go to college, and we have not, in this time of 
high tuition increases, kept pace. That is all we are asking tonight; 
that we do as much as we can do at this moment in time.
  Mr. REGULA. Once again reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, we are in 
agreement on Trio and GEAR UP, and I think the gentleman would be in 
agreement that we make the system as

[[Page 29806]]

seamless as possible so that these students will enter kindergarten and 
the first grade with the idea that they are going to go all the way. 
And part of that would be the Pell Grants, to ensure that, regardless 
of their economic circumstances, and that is often beyond their 
control, but that they are still going to get that kind of an 
opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
before I recognize the gentlewoman from New York, to say that we, 
obviously, are concerned and worried that whenever a conference 
committee meets that the House may come back with something less than 
what was in the House version of the bill. That is why this motion 
calls upon the conferees to provide no less than the House level for 
overall student financial aid and the highest amount of funding for the 
Pell Grant program. Because strange things have happened in conference 
before.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleagues in saying that 
we appreciate all the good work that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula) has done, and we know of his great, great commitment. I have 
had the privilege of serving on the committee with him, and we know of 
his great commitment to education. And I feel confident that if the 
gentleman himself could put more money into the Pell Grants and into 
this bill for education that he would like to do so. I know that 
sometimes these decisions are not just left up to the chairman.
  But I do hope that we can get together, Democrats and Republicans, 
and support the motion of my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Kildee); that we can work together to hopefully get more money, 
but, clearly, no less than was in the House bill, because that is the 
important point we want to make together.
  We know the facts, Mr. Speaker. Over the next 10 years, more than 16 
million students will be enrolled in America's colleges and 
universities preparing for the challenges of a high-tech economy and a 
highly-educated and productive workplace. Yet, affording higher 
education does remain a serious challenge for so many Americans.
  I meet with college students often, and I recently met with several 
students to discuss the high cost of college tuition. The chairman and 
I know that most of these students are working two and three jobs. With 
the cost of college increasing faster than the rate of inflation, many 
of these students are really struggling just to pay the bills. In fact, 
one student at a local college told me that his parents were denied 
credit in purchasing a house because of all the outstanding student 
loans he is wearing around his neck, and it is so very difficult for 
him.
  We understand how important an education is, and an advanced degree 
should not be this difficult or this costly. One would hope that during 
these hard economic times students attending college could count on 
greater support from the Federal Government, and that is what this is 
all about. As hard as Chairman Regula worked, and many of us were 
prodding us all on, neither the House or the Senate bills increase the 
assistance. For example, we know that the maximum Pell Grant is frozen 
at $4,050.
  And let me remind my colleagues, I think it is important to note that 
when the Pell grant was started in 1975, the grants paid about 84 
percent of college costs and it now pays only 41 percent. So the 
average student loan debt has nearly doubled over the last 5 years. 
Last year, the average undergraduate borrower left school with nearly 
$17,000 in debt due to Federal student loans. With nearly 64 percent of 
students depending on student loans, how can we in good conscience, 
Democrats and Republicans, all of us, keep the Pell stagnant and flat 
fund the very programs that encourage States to implement needs-based 
aid, especially when colleges across the country are instituting 
record-high tuitions to make up for faltering State budgets and 
decreased philanthropy.
  So in conclusion, let us remember that over the course of a lifetime, 
a college graduate can expect to earn $1 million more than a high 
school graduate, and clearly making college accessible to all Americans 
is a sound investment. So what I am really hoping with this very 
important motion, and I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee), and I hope that Democrats and Republicans will 
support it, that we work very, very hard to help the 2.9 million 
graduating high school students, the 5 million Pell Grant recipients, 
and the millions of Americans who rely on student aid programs to make 
attending college a reality.
  Once again, I know of Chairman Regula's deep commitment to education, 
and I know that in the conference he will do everything he can, and I 
hope that at a very minimum the House number is kept and that we will 
not go below it. Because we all who are committed to education and 
working so hard on this very important committee, which we treasure, we 
all hope that we can increase these numbers in years to come because we 
both understand the importance of it. So let us make sure we do not go 
below the House number.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Kildee) for this motion, and I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio 
(Chairman Regula) who certainly has the best of intentions, but there 
are times when a motion to instruct can help a well-meaning chairman 
get the most out of a conference.
  As the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) pointed out, Pell 
grants have eroded in their purchasing power. They were intended to 
provide three-quarters of a typical college tuition. Now it is maybe a 
third.
  Furthermore, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) and 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) pointed out, the dollar amount is 
in statute and so no student is going to lose the Pell grants this 
year; but as long as we continue to underfund them and borrow money 
from subsequent years so we can pay the tuition for this year's 
students, the program is not healthy and that needs to be adjusted. I 
join with my colleagues and echo the comments of the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and others in this motion to instruct.
  I would like to take an opportunity to talk about another issue 
regarding Pell grants and their affordability. In May of this year, the 
Department of Education published updates to the allowance for State 
taxes and other taxes that are used by students and their families to 
calculate the expected family income, or what they know as the EFC. The 
EFC is the amount students and their families are expected to 
contribute toward college in a given year, and a family's EFC 
determines eligibility for Pell grants and other Federal aid, and many 
private institutions use EFC to determine eligibility for private 
financial aid.
  Unfortunately, the Department's change in how the State and local 
taxes are figured into a family's ability to pay will increase the 
contribution expected from the family for nearly all American families. 
While the impact of increases in EFC will vary from student to student 
and family to family, it will reduce aid for many students. In fact, 
the Department of Education recently determined that the changes in the 
State and local tax allowances would cause about 84,000 students to 
lose their Pell grants entirely and would reduce Pell grants overall by 
maybe $300 million. Students will lose many other types of Federal, 
State, and private assistance as well under this new calculation.
  At a time when tuition costs are rising and the economy is 
sputtering, it is troubling that the administration would make any 
changes, any changes that would reduce financial aid. Furthermore, 
these changes are grossly

[[Page 29807]]

unfair. They reduce the credit that families get for paying State and 
local taxes at the very time when they are paying more State and local 
taxes.
  According to the National Association of State Budget Officers, State 
taxes increased by more than $8 billion in fiscal year 2003 and will 
grow even more, maybe $17 billion, in 2004. When the Senate considered 
the Labor-HHS appropriations, Senator Corzine offered an amendment to 
block these new changes from the administration, and it passed on a 
large bipartisan vote.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) and I, along with 75 other 
Members, including the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), have 
written a letter to the appropriators urging Congress to retain the 
Corzine amendment so that in this conference or in any other bill that 
includes fiscal year 2004 funding for the Department of Education, the 
cuts would be restored.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to stand with America's college students 
in supporting the Corzine amendment in conference and in supporting the 
Kildee motion.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let us be clear, there are no students going to be cut 
off. Those that meet the qualifications are going to get the grants in 
accordance with their family's economic situation. The formula is 
written into the law. We are not changing that.
  Secondly, what this motion proposes is to do exactly what the House 
did on July 10. We welcome the support of the other side of the aisle 
and the fact that they are joining the 215 Members that voted for the 
bill that contain the Pell grant numbers exactly as are being proposed 
tonight, and we certainly support the motion to instruct because this 
motion is instructing House Members to do what we did on July 10. We 
are happy to join the other side in this effort and hope on a 
bipartisan basis prospectively in the future that we retain strong 
support for Pell.
  All of the arguments that have been made tonight are very compelling, 
and it is what I would like to see, and that is to get the system 
seamless so that young people think in terms of 16 years, because if 
America is to be competitive in the years ahead, we need a very well-
educated population. We have seen time and again how important that is 
to the future of our Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Parliamentary procedures did not enable us to ask for a higher 
amount, or we would have asked for a higher amount.
  The motion calls upon the conferees to provide no less than the House 
level for overall student financial assistance and the highest amount 
of funding for the Pell grant program.
  Without adequate resources in this program, low- and moderate-income 
students will not be able to gain a post-secondary education. College 
costs are soaring, we know that. So much so that Democratic Members 
introduced legislation today to help hold down college tuition 
increases. But without additional Pell grant funding, our neediest 
students are going to continue to be left behind.
  This Congress is able to pass massive tax cuts, which I voted 
against, for the wealthiest in our Nation; yet the maximum Pell grant 
has barely been increased since President Bush entered office. The Pell 
grant program is running a deficit. This deficit is likely to increase 
based on the likely outcome of this conference, and that is our 
concern.
  The President's record on Pell is clear. Pell grant funding has not 
been a priority since President Bush took office. Increases in this 
account have largely been due to Democratic efforts to raise funding. 
In order to ensure a well-educated workforce, we need to provide 
opportunities for all individuals to gain a college education. Low- and 
moderate-income individuals need Pell grants to attend college. It is 
that simple. Unless we make Pell grant funding a priority, we are not 
providing everyone, regardless of their economic means, with a college 
opportunity. I urge Members to support this motion.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Kildee Motion 
which recognizes what the House, and Chairman Regula, have done to 
increase funding for our student financial assistance programs. It is 
my hope that the conference report will sustain these increases and 
that this Congress will maintain our consistent support for higher 
education.
  The vital programs at hand increase access to higher education and 
help to make college more affordable for students and parents across 
the country. While student aid is key these increases are not the sole 
solution to the crisis we are facing in American institutions of higher 
learning. Statistics show college tuition has been increasing well 
beyond the cost of living, causing students to graduate with incredible 
debt. For example, over the past 10 years, after adjusting for 
inflation, average tuition and fees at both public and private 4-year 
colleges and universities rose 38 percent. This is an extraordinary 
problem, a problem that I am dedicated to understanding and addressing.
  I have always argued that increased funding must be accompanied by 
fundamental reforms. It is incumbent upon us, as legislators, to make 
every effort to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent carefully and 
effectively. Increasing federal spending will never eliminate all 
barriers to higher learning, as the pace of tuition is growing too 
fast. The Committee on Education and the Workforce is in the process of 
reauthorizing the Higher Education Act and I am confident we will do 
all that we can to tackle rising tuition and fees in a meaningful 
manner.
  In my opinion, one way we can begin combating rising costs is by 
empowering parents and students with information. Imposing more 
transparency into the process will require schools to answer to the 
consumer about the where their money is going, the choices that school 
is making, as well as their efforts to contain costs. In essence it 
becomes a team effort where the winners are the student.
  I believe in a balance of adequate education funding and fiscal 
constraint. Considering our current domestic and international 
responsibilities, I believe the House Labor, Health and Human Services 
and Education Appropriations Act represents a delicate balance between 
increased funding for all federal education programs and fiscal 
restraint. I supported these levels when they passed the House in July 
and I support them again today.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogers of Alabama). Without objection, 
the previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KILDEE. 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.

                          ____________________