[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 44 (Monday, March 22, 2010)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E444-E445]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2010

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. PETER J. ROSKAM

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                         Sunday, March 21, 2010

  Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the 
reconciliation procedure that will transform over one-sixth of our 
nation's economy and increasingly cause reliance on the federal 
government for healthcare and education. Beyond my procedural and 
political problems, I have major concerns with the elimination of the 
Federal Family Education Loan program because it will destroy an 
important tool for need-based graduate student aid--the School as 
Lender program. Overhauling the federal student loan program will have 
unintended consequences in the form of lost private sector jobs and 
lost opportunities for graduate students in Illinois' Sixth 
Congressional District. Millions of dollars in financial aid for 
thousands of students across the country will be lost. I also fear the 
program will add to our nation's already record deficit.
  Procedurally, the proposal has not received a hearing or markup in 
the United States Senate. At least nine Democrats in the Senate have 
written with concerns on the proposal's effect on job losses in the 
private sector.
  The elimination of the School as Lender program ignores the needs of 
graduate students. Schools obtain credit to make loans and use the 
proceeds from their origination to support financial aid. Proceeds from 
the sale of loans must be returned to graduate students in the form of 
need-based grants. A

[[Page E445]]

2005 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report stated, ``School 
lenders either used money to lower borrowing costs and/or provide need-
based grants to its students.'' Without School as Lender, many students 
will now be forced to take out more loans and student debt.
  Within my Congressional District, one of the pioneers of the School 
as Lender program, Midwestern University, uses its School as Lender 
program to provide need-based grants to students who would otherwise 
not be able to pursue the University's graduate programs in osteopathic 
medicine, pharmacy, dental medicine and other health sciences. 
Decreasing access to education for low-income students would further 
inflame the shortage of the healthcare workforce as Congress considers 
a massive healthcare takeover. Over the past three academic years, 
Midwestern University has paid out over four million dollars in School 
as Lender scholarship monies to more than 1,500 students. Midwestern 
lacks profit motives to continue the program--they simply desire to 
maintain an affordable option to attract graduate students.
  Additionally, the savings from the transition to fully federal funded 
student lending has been overpromised and any savings will be 
overspent. Updated Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scores show the 
initiative is projected to increase deficits rather than decrease our 
debt. According to CBO, after evaluating the fair value of providing 
credit assistance to students including the cost of market risk and the 
present value of future administrative costs, the lending overhaul 
increases the deficit even more significantly. The House-passed (H.R. 
3221) measure promises $77 billion in new spending compared to only $40 
billion in savings from the President's proposal. This accounting is 
necessary to factor all of the risks that loans and loan guarantees 
impose on taxpayers and the cost of market risk.
  Through the School as Lender program, Midwestern is able to break 
down cost barriers that keep many low-income students from seeking 
graduate degrees. I urge my colleagues to rise against this overreach 
that would prohibit graduate students from access to a valuable 
scholarship opportunity while further burdening our children with an 
increase to our record national debt.

                          ____________________