Mike Enzi: “I urge my colleagues to vote no. First, this amendment would increase deficits relative to the budget resolution. It…”

“I urge my colleagues to vote no. First, this amendment would increase deficits relative to the budget resolution. It increases spending in Function 500, with no offset. Second, the budget resolution doesn't cut Pell grants, the primary program helping these millions of people. The budget does encourage restoring the Pell Grant Program to its original status as a discretionary program, subject to annual review by colleagues. The tuition purchasing power of Pell grants is at an all- time low even though Pell grant spending has tripled in the past decade. Since 2008, there has been an effort to maintain and increase the maximum Pell grant, but college tuition increases faster than that. This is a program that needs to be reviewed by the applicable committee to see what needs to be done. We think there are parameters in the budget to take care of the issue. It provides sufficient funding on the discretionary side to maintain the maximum Pell grant level, which is set to rise to $5,775 for the upcoming academic year. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk called the roll. The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 54, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No.…”