I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee which--while certainly not intended that way by my colleague--seems to me to be penny-wise and pound-foolish. Instead, I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment which will be offered next by the gentleman from Maryland. Let us recall that, in 1992, Congress reformed the use of Pell education grants by inmates when it reauthorized the Higher Education Act. At that time, Congress stipulated that such grants could only be used by inmates for tuition and books. Inmates serving life sentences or facing the death penalty were made ineligible. Limits were placed on the percentage of a school's student body that would be composed of incarcerated persons. I think those were good and appropriate changes. However, the amendment before us completely eliminates the eligibility of any inmate for a Pell grant and I believe that would be counter-productive. Certainly, there is a social utility in educating prisoners. Studies consistently have shown lower recidivism rates for those inmates who participate in educational activities while incarcerated.
On the recordApril 20, 1994
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Opposing an amendment that would eliminate Pell grant eligibility for inmates during a House debate.
Share
More from Jim Clyburn
Nov 6, 2024
Well, thank you very much for having me. I do think it's a narrow path, but it's also a very thorny path. So I -- if I were mentioning the guess, I would say it would be 1 or 2 votes, maybe 1 to 3 votes, either way, either we could go one…
Jan 21, 2025
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I thank you so much for allowing me to join you in honoring our mutual friend and confidant, Tracie Pough. Robert Frost, the great writer, once wrote: Two roads diverged in a…
Apr 28, 2025
I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. It is my pleasure now to yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Figures).





