Subject: Congressman Heck & Sharron Angle Get an ‘F’ for Failing Nevada Students Suffering From College Affordability Crisis
From: Sarah Zukowski <[email-masked]>
To: Sarah Zukowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 13:06:28 -0700

For Immediate Release
April 26, 2016

Contact: Sarah Zukowski, [email-masked]

Congressman Heck & Sharron Angle Get an ‘F’ for Failing Nevada Students
Suffering From College Affordability Crisis

Las Vegas, NV – Today, Nevadans were reminded that when it comes to solving
problems for Nevada’s college students and graduates, Congressman Heck and
Sharron Angle don’t even come close to getting a passing grade. Instead of
addressing issues facing students like college affordability and student
debt, Congressman Heck and Angle are only concerned with advancing their
Party’s extreme agenda, even when it comes at the expense of Nevada
students’ futures.

Congressman Heck and Sharron Angle’s commitment to blindly pushing the
agenda of Republican special interests stands in clear contrast with
Catherine Cortez Masto, who held a roundtable today with students and
graduates from universities in Southern Nevada to develop proposals and
solutions for the issues they face.

“*Congressman Heck and Sharron Angle have repeatedly failed Nevada’s
college students and will only continue to do so in the U.S. Senate*,” said
Sarah Zukowski, spokesperson for the Nevada State Democratic Party. “*In
his half decade in Washington, Congressman Heck has voted to increase
student loan interest rates and voted for reckless Republican budgets that
would slash Pell Grants for 35,000 Nevada students. The choice for U.S.
Senate is clear: while Catherine Cortez Masto will focus on solving
problems like making college more affordable, Sharron Angle or Congressman
Heck would make college even more expensive for Nevada students.*”

Background:

Heck Voted For House Republican Budget That Would Cut Spending By $5.5
Trillion Over 10 Years. In March 2015, Heck voted for: “Adoption of the
concurrent resolution that would provide for $2.937 trillion in new budget
authority in fiscal 2016, not including off-budget accounts. It would
assume $5.5 trillion in spending reductions over the next 10 years,
including by assuming repeal of the 2010 healthcare law. It also would
propose reducing spending on Medicare and Medicaid and changing programs
such as food stamps. It would call for restructuring Medicare into a
‘premium support’ system beginning in 2024, call for a deficit-neutral
overhaul of the tax code that lowers rates and assume $147 billion in
additional savings through ‘dynamic scoring,’ and would include
instructions to committees to trigger the budget reconciliation process to
cut mandatory spending. The resolution would call for fiscal 2016 base
discretionary spending that adheres to the sequester-reduced defense and
non-defense caps set by the Budget Control Act, and for future years it
would assume a 10-year increase in defense caps of $387 billion while
calling for cutting non-defense caps by $759 billion. As amended, for
fiscal 2016 it would call for allowing $96 billion in uncapped war-related
funding to provide additional defense funding beyond sequester-reduced
caps, without requiring offsets.” The bill was adopted by a vote of
228-199. [CQ, 3/25/15 <http://www.cq.com/vote/2015/h/142>; H. Con. Res. 27,
Vote 142,3/25/15 <http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll142.xml>]

   -

   35,000 Nevadans Received Pell Grants To Help Pay For College. [White
   House Report, Republican Budget Resolutions: Same Failed Top-Down
   Economics, 3/18/15
   <https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/budget_resolution_and_sequestration_impacts.pdf>
   ]

   -

   Republican Budget Eliminates Mandatory Funding For Pell Grants And
   Freezes Grants At Their Current Level Instead Of Keeping Pace With
   Inflation. “The Republican budgets eliminate mandatory funding for Pell
   Grants, and the House budget specifies that it would freeze the maximum
   grant at its current level, instead of allowing it to increase to keep pace
   with inflation. Over time, this would reduce financial aid for almost all
   of the more than 8 million students who rely on Pell Grants to afford
   college.” [White House Report, Republican Budget Resolutions: Same Failed
   Top-Down Economics, 3/18/15
   <https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/budget_resolution_and_sequestration_impacts.pdf>
   ]

   -

   House Republican Budget Elimination Of Mandatory Funding For Pell Grants
   Would Likely Force Further Cuts To Eligibility And Benefits. In October
   2015, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities CBPP Report on House
   Republican budget stated: “The plan freezes the maximum Pell Grant for ten
   years, even as tuition and room and board costs will continue to rise.  It
   also eliminates Pell Grant funding on the mandatory side of the budget
   (Pell Grants receive both mandatory and discretionary funding, as explained
   below), likely forcing further cuts in eligibility and benefits.  In
   addition, it would make student loans more expensive and cut other
   education and training programs (see box).” [Center on Budget and Policy
   Priorities, “House Budget Committee Plan Cuts Pell Grants Deeply, Reducing
   Access to Higher Education,”10/21/15
   <http://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/3-24-15bud.pdf>]

   -

   CBO: Eliminating Mandatory Funding For Pell Grants Would Increase Costs
   For Students – Students Who Borrowed $23,000 Would “Leave School With
   Additional Debt Of About $3,800 Because Of The Accrued Interest Costs.” In
   November 2014, the Congressional Budget Office Estimated impact of
   eliminating mandatory spending on student loans: “Under either alternative,
   borrowers who lost access to subsidized loans would pay interest on
   unsubsidized loans from the date of loan disbursement, which would raise
   their costs. If a student who would have borrowed $23,000 (the lifetime
   limit) through subsidized loans over five years beginning with the
   2014–2015 academic year instead borrowed the same amount through
   unsubsidized loans, that student would leave school with additional debt of
   about $3,800 because of the accrued interest costs. Over a typical 10-year
   repayment period, the student’s monthly payment would be $43 higher than if
   he or she had borrowed that same amount through subsidized loans.”
   [Congressional Budget Office, Reduce or Eliminate Subsidized Loans for
   Undergraduate Students, 11/13/13
   <https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/2013/44741>]

Heck Voted For GOP Student Loan Bill That Would Raise Student Loan Interest
Rates When Treasury Rates Rise. In May 2013, Heck voted for: “Under the GOP
proposal, student loans would be reset every year, pegged to 10-year
Treasury notes with added percentage points. For instance, students who
receive subsidized or unsubsidized Stafford student loans would pay the
Treasury rate, plus 2.5 percentage points starting for loans issued after
July 1. Current subsidized Stafford loans are offered at a fixed 3.4
percent rate and unsubsidized Stafford loans are offered at 6.8 percent.
The interest rate on loans to parents and graduate students is 7.9 percent.
Using Congressional Budget Office projections, the GOP plan would translate
to a 5 percent interest rate on all Stafford loans in 2014, but the rate
would climb to 7.7 percent for loans in 2023. ‘We're ripping off kids,’
said Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt. Stafford loan rates would be capped at 8.5
percent, while loans for parents and graduate students would have a 10.5
percent ceiling under the GOP plan.” [Associated Press, 5/24/13
<https://www.memphisdailynews.com/news/2013/may/24/house-backs-variable-rate-student-loans/print>;
H.R. 1911, Vote 183, 5/23/13 <http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll183.xml>]

   -

   Associated Press: “The GOP Plan Would Cost Students And Families
   Heavily.” “In real dollars, the GOP plan would cost students and
   families heavily, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research
   Service. The office used the CBO projections for Treasury notes' interest
   rates each year.” [Associated Press, 5/22/13
   <http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-threatens-veto-house-student-loan-plan>
   ]

   -

   Students With Subsidized Stafford Loans Would Pay Almost $5,000 More
   Over 10 Years In Real Dollars. “In real dollars, the GOP plan would cost
   students and families heavily, according to the nonpartisan Congressional
   Research Service. The office used the CBO projections for Treasury notes'
   interest rates each year. Students who max out their subsidized Stafford
   loans over four years would pay $8,331 in interest payments under the
   Republican bill, and $3,450 if rates were kept at 3.4 percent. If rates
   were allowed to double in July, that amount would be $7,284 over the
   typical 10-year window to repay the maximum $19,000.” [Associated Press,
   5/22/13
   <http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-threatens-veto-house-student-loan-plan>
   ]

###