I just wanted to comment on two of the points he made. It is, indeed, true that the total amount of money to be expended on Pell grants has been increased by about $1 billion. That goes to increase the maximum Pell grant to $3,000. It does not, as the Senator, of course, is well aware, fund this category of people who I contend have been disadvantaged as a result of the 1992 act, the independent students without dependents. So the increase in the funding in the bill has made it better for those who receive the grants, but it has not enabled us to cover the people that I am proposing to cover. Second, with respect to the LIHEAP Program, just to make it very clear, this offset does not eliminate the LIHEAP Program. It reduces by about one-half the funding for the LIHEAP Program, which, incidentally, is almost the same amount of reduction that was recommended by President Clinton in his 1995 budget submission.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing funding for Pell grants and the LIHEAP Program during Senate floor debate.
Share
More from Jon Kyl
I certainly appreciate this comment by the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee because the Secretaries of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have all said our strategic deterrent has to be our No. 1 priority. Why is…
Mr. Chairman, Representative Jacobs, we took into account the fact that our military leaders have said routinely that this strategic deterrent is the number one priority for them.
the chairman of the Armed Services Committee is exactly correct. You could illustrate the same things with charts relating to our Air Force, to our Army, to our Marine Corps--all elements of our services. It is not just in the number of…
we would not be recommending that the United States start a new arms race, that is not something this commission would do





