The College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 was enacted as P.L. 110-84 on September 27, 2007. P.L. 110-84 makes changes to programs authorized under the Higher Education Act of 1965 and, in so doing, achieves projected savings of $752 million in mandatory spending over the period covering FY2007 through FY2012 and $3.6 billion over the period covering FY2007 through FY2017.
The FY2008 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 21, H.Rept. 110-153) contains reconciliation instructions that require the House Committee on Education and Labor and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions to report reconciliation legislation to reduce mandatory spending by $750 million over the period covering FY2007 through FY2012. As required, these committees reported reconciliation recommendations producing the required savings to their parent chamber prior to September 10, 2007.
Each of the aforementioned authorizing committees marked up a bill in June of 2007 with reconciliation recommendations that generate the required savings in mandatory spending. Each chamber also considered a broad set of Higher Education Act (HEA) amendments in conjunction with the reconciliation proposals. Under each bill, the required savings are achieved through cuts in payments to Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program lenders and guaranty agencies. Both bills generate substantially higher levels of savings in mandatory spending than required by the reconciliation directive, and the additional savings offset costs associated with a broad array of new or enhanced student aid benefits.
On June 25, 2007, the House Committee on Education and Labor reported H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 (H.Rept. 110-210), containing the required reconciliation proposals. On July 11, 2007, the measure was adopted by the House. On July 10, 2007, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions reported S. 1762, the Higher Education Access Act of 2007, containing its reconciliation recommendations. The provisions of S. 1762, were incorporated into the Senate version of H.R. 2669, which the Senate passed on July 20, 2007.
This report reviews and briefly describes the major proposals contained in both the House-passed and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 2669 to achieve savings in mandatory spending through changes to federal student loan programs and to enhance student aid benefits or make other changes to existing federal student aid programs. It also reviews and describes the major changes enacted under P.L. 110-84 that are projected to achieve savings in mandatory spending and those that establish new or enhanced student aid benefits or that otherwise amend pre-existing federal student aid programs. This report is structured to provide a record of proposals to achieve savings in mandatory spending or to provide new or enhanced student aid benefits considered during FY2008 budget reconciliation and that have gained passage by one or both chambers, as well as those enacted into law. This report will not be updated.
The House and Senate approved the conference report (H.Rept. 110-153) on S.Con.Res. 21, the Concurrent Resolution on the FY2008 Budget on May 17, 2007. The annual concurrent resolution sets forth the congressional budget. When the federal deficit is expected to be large, budget resolutions often require reductions in mandatory spending. In such instances, the budget resolution issues reconciliation instructions that require authorizing committees to report changes to legislation to reduce spending on mandatory programs under their jurisdiction.
The FY2008 budget resolution includes reconciliation instructions that direct authorizing committees to report legislation to reduce mandatory spending for the period FY2007-FY2012. Subsequently, these proposals were required to be reported by each committee to its parent chamber. Under the reconciliation instructions, the House Committee on Education and Labor and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions were responsible for a reduction of $750 million for FY2007-FY2012.
The Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program and the William D. Ford Direct Loan (DL) program are two of the major mandatory programs under each committee's jurisdiction. Each committee has looked to reduce mandatory spending on these federal student loan programs to meet the requirements of recent budget reconciliations. To meet the requirements of the FY2008 reconciliation instructions, changes to the FFEL program were made to achieve reductions in mandatory spending. These reductions in mandatory spending are sufficiently large that they offset a broad array of new and enhanced student aid benefits.
The federal government operates two major student loan programs: the Federal Family Education Loan program, authorized by Part B of Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA), and the William D. Ford Direct Loan program, authorized by Part D of Title IV of the HEA. These programs make available loans to undergraduate and graduate students and the parents of undergraduate students to help them finance the costs of postsecondary education.
Under the FFEL program, loan capital is provided by private lenders, and the federal government guarantees lenders against loss through borrower default; death; permanent disability; or, in limited instances, bankruptcy. Under the DL program, operated through the U.S. Department of Education (ED), the federal government provides the loans to students and their families, using federal capital (i.e., funds from the U.S. Treasury). The two programs rely on different sources of capital and different administrative structures, but essentially disburse the same set of loans.1
The DL program, established in 1993, was intended to streamline the student loan delivery system and achieve cost savings. While the DL program was originally introduced to gradually expand and replace the long-standing FFEL program, the 1998 HEA amendments removed the provisions of the law that referred to a "phase in" of the DL program. Currently both programs are authorized and the two programs compete for student loan business. In FY2007, these programs provided $63.9 billion in new loans to students and their parents. In that year the FFEL program provided 11,359,000 new loans averaging approximately $4,494 each, and the DL program provided 2,791,000 new loans averaging approximately $4,603 each.
The FFEL and DL programs are entitlements; funding is provided for these programs on a permanent indefinite basis, not subject to appropriations. The fiscal year cost estimates for both programs, under terms of the Credit Reform Act of 1990, are calculated by determining the net present value of the costs to the government over the lifetime of new loans disbursed in the given fiscal year. Under credit reform, an effort is made to capture, in the year in which credit is provided, the multi-year net cash flows associated with a new cohort of direct or guaranteed loans. This calculation establishes a "subsidy cost," which is the estimated long-term cost to the government of a direct or guaranteed loan.
In calculating the subsidy costs for the two programs, the main cost components are the interest benefits to students in the subsidized Stafford Loan program, the special allowance payments to lenders,2 and defaults. Subsidy cost calculations are highly dependent on interest rate forecasts over the life of the loans and therefore can vary significantly depending on these forecasts. In order to achieve savings in mandatory spending on the loan programs, Congress has often cut loan subsidies or introduced fees to generate funds that offset mandatory spending.
Each year the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issues a baseline budget forecasting estimated spending over a 10-year period under current law, assuming no policy changes are enacted over that time period. The CBO baseline serves as a benchmark for budgetary analyses. When legislation that would affect mandatory spending is introduced, its budgetary impact is measured against the CBO baseline. The current CBO baseline projects that over the 2008-2012 period the federal student loan programs would guarantee or disburse about $406 billion in new loans—costing about $21.2 billion.3
The savings in mandatory spending required by the FY2008 budget reconciliation instructions for the House Committee on Education and Labor, and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and enacted in P.L. 110-84, are achieved through changes to the FFEL program. In addition, the savings achieved through these changes are sufficiently large to offset a number of new or enhanced student financial aid benefits.
On June 25, 2007, the House Committee on Education and Labor reported H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 (H.Rept. 110-210). On July 10, 2007, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions reported S. 1762, the Higher Education Access Act of 2007. Through these measures, each committee reported reconciliation recommendations meeting the requirements of the FY2008 budget resolution.
On July 11, 2007, the House passed H.R. 2669. The Senate incorporated all of the provisions of S. 1762 into H.R. 2669 and passed it on July 20, 2007. House and Senate conferees reported a conference report to H.R. 2669, H.Rept. 110-317, on September 6, 2007; and the following day both chambers agreed to the conference report. On September 27, 2007, the President signed the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 into law as P.L. 110-84.
This section of the report begins by reviewing and briefly describing the major proposals contained in each the House-passed and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 2669 to achieve savings in mandatory spending through changes to the federal student loan programs and to enhance student aid benefits and make other changes to existing federal student aid programs and provisions. It then proceeds to review and describe the major changes enacted under P.L. 110-84 that are projected to achieve savings in mandatory spending and those that establish new or enhanced student aid benefits or that otherwise amend pre-existing federal student aid programs. This report is structured to provide a record of proposals designed to achieve savings in mandatory spending or to provide new or enhanced student aid benefits considered during FY2008 budget reconciliation and that have gained passage by one or both chambers, as well as those enacted into law.
The House reconciliation bill's student loan provisions produce a total of $20.4 billion in savings in mandatory spending over the 2008-2012 period and $41.1 billion over the 2008-2017 period. The $750 million in required savings over the 2007-2012 period is met, and the net savings is roughly $2.8 billion over the 2008-2012 period and $3.5 billion over the 2008-2017 period. In this instance, "net savings" refers to savings not being used to support specified mandatory spending. However, it was only necessary to generate $750 million in required savings over the 2007-2012 period to meet the requirements of the reconciliation directives. Much of the additional savings, roughly $17.6 billion over the 2008-2012 period and $37.6 billion over the 2008-2017 period, would be used to support a series of new or enhanced student aid benefits included in H.R. 2669.4 The principal savings provisions included in the House reconciliation bill would
The House reconciliation bill also includes provisions that would increase direct spending. As was noted above, the amount of savings required by the reconciliation instructions has been exceeded by a considerable amount, and additional savings would be used to offset the costs of new loan and grant aid. The provisions providing new or enhanced loan aid would
The provisions providing new or enhanced grant aid or adjustments to need analysis calculations would
The provisions for new or enhanced aid to specific institutions of higher education (IHEs), or adjustments to campus-based aid would
The Senate reconciliation bill's student loan provisions produce a total of $19.5 billion in savings in mandatory spending over the 2008-2012 period and roughly $42 billion over the 2008-2017 period. The $750 million in required savings over the 2007-2012 period is met, and the projected net savings over the 2008-2012 period is roughly $780 million and over the 2008-2017 period is $3.3 billion. Once again, "net savings," in this instance, refers to savings not being used to support specified mandatory spending. It was only necessary to generate $750 million in required savings over the 2007-2012 period to meet the requirements of the reconciliation directives. Much of the additional savings, roughly $18.5 billion over the 2008-2012 period and $36.2 billion over the 2008-2017 period, would be used to support a series of new or enhanced student aid benefits included in S. 1762.15 The principal savings provisions included in the Senate reconciliation bill would
The Senate reconciliation bill also includes provisions that would increase direct spending. The provisions providing new or enhanced loan aid would
The provisions providing new or enhanced grant aid or adjustments to need analysis calculations would
The provisions for new or enhanced aid to specific IHEs or adjustments to campus-based aid would
The student loan savings provisions in P.L. 110-84 produce a projected reduction in mandatory spending of roughly $20.9 billion over the 2007-2012 period and roughly $43.6 billion over the 2007-2017 period. They also generate the $750 million in savings over the 2007-2012 period needed to meet the requirements of the reconciliation directives. The projected net savings is roughly $752 million over the 2007-2012 period and $3.6 billion over the 2007-2017 period. Much of the additional savings, roughly $20.2 billion over the 2007-2012 period and $40 billion over the 2007-2017 period, is used to support a series of new or enhanced student aid benefits.22 The principal savings provisions included in P.L. 110-84 make the following changes:
P.L. 110-84 contains a number of provisions that are projected to increase direct spending through new or enhanced federal student loan benefits. New or enhanced benefits to borrowers of federal student loans include
Under P.L. 110-84, several new grant aid programs are established, existing grant programs are enhanced, and adjustments are made to need analysis procedures, as follows
P.L. 110-84 enhances existing and establishes new aid programs to specific IHEs, and makes adjustments to campus-based aid, as follows:
1. |
For detailed information on the array of FFEL and DL program loans, see CRS Report RL33673, Federal Family Education Loan Program and William D. Ford Direct Loan Program Student Loans: Terms and Conditions for Borrowers, by [author name scrubbed]. For a thorough discussion of how the loan programs operate, see CRS Report RL33674, The Administration of the Federal Family Education Loan and William D. Ford Direct Loan Programs: Background and Provisions, by [author name scrubbed]. |
2. |
The special allowance payment (SAP) amount is determined on a quarterly basis by a statutory formula that is tied to a financial index and ensures lenders receive, at a minimum, a specified level of interest income on loans. The special allowance is designed to compensate lenders for the difference between the statutorily established interest rate charged to borrowers and a market-indexed interest rate that is intended as fair market compensation on the loan asset. |
3. |
U.S. Congressional Budget Office Memorandum, CBO March 2007 Baseline Projections for the Student Loan and Grant Programs, March 2, 2007, Tables 1 and 2, at http://www.cbo.gov/budget/factsheets/2007b/studentloans.pdf. |
4. |
Information on cost estimates for H.R. 2669 as passed by the House on July 11, 2007 is based upon back up material provided to CRS by Congressional Budget Office staff. For detailed information on the cost associated with many specific proposals see U.S. Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate, H.R. 2669, College Cost Reduction Act of 2007, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Education and Labor on June 13, 2007, June 25, 2007, at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/82xx/doc8259/hr2669.pdf. |
5. |
The lender rate formulas (embedded in the SAP formulas), under current law, are based on the 91-day commercial paper (CP) rate plus an "add-on" of 1.74% (in-school), and 2.34% (in repayment) for Stafford Loans and; 2.64% for Consolidation Loans and PLUS Loans. The add-ons would be reduced under the proposal by the amounts indicated. |
6. |
Smaller lenders include the subset of consecutively ranked holders, starting with the holder with the lowest amount of outstanding loans, whose combined holdings total 15% of all outstanding loan volume, but excluding the final holder (if any) whose holdings when added to the group causes the group's total holdings to exceed 15%. |
7. |
Lenders and loan servicers with "exceptional performer" designations currently receive an insurance rate of 99%. Exceptional performer status is awarded to those with high compliance ratings with regulatory loan servicing requirements. |
8. |
For the purposes of this fee, a loan is considered to be "not in delinquency status" if the borrower is less than 60 days delinquent in making a required payment. |
9. |
Areas of national need include early childhood educators, nurses, foreign language specialists, librarians, highly qualified teachers of bilingual education or who are employed in low-income schools, child welfare workers, speech language pathologists, national service workers, school counselors, and certain public sector employees. |
10. |
For comprehensive information on the Pell Grant program, see CRS Report RL31668, Federal Pell Grant Program of the Higher Education Act: Background and Reauthorization, by [author name scrubbed]. |
11. |
Under current law only one such award is allowed per academic year. |
12. |
Throughout this report, when the effective data of an amendment is the start of an academic year, it is effective July 1 of the applicable academic year. |
13. |
Qualified educational benefits include Section 529 Savings Plans and Coverdell Education Savings accounts. |
14. |
Forty percent of the funding is allocated for HSIs, for the authorized activities specified in Section 503; 40% is allocated for HBCUs and PBIs, and should be distributed according to the formula in Section 324; and the final 20% should be allocated to all of the other minority-serving IHEs. |
15. |
Information on cost estimates for H.R. 2669, as passed by the Senate on July 20, 2007, is based on back up material provided to CRS by CBO staff. For detailed information on the cost associated with specific proposals, see U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Cost Estimate, Higher Education Access Act of 2007, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions on June 20, 2007; with subsequent revisions provided by the Committee through June 29, 2007, July 3, 2007, at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/82xx/doc8282/HigherEduRecon.pdf. |
16. |
The lender rate formulas (embedded in the SAP formulas), under current law, are based on the 91-day commercial paper (CP) rate plus an "add-on" of 1.74% (in-school) and 2.34% (in repayment) for Stafford Loans and 2.64% for Consolidation Loans and PLUS Loans. The add-ons would be reduced under the proposal by the amounts indicated. |
17. |
As has been noted earlier, lenders and loan servicers with "exceptional performer" designations currently receive an insurance rate of 99%, instead of 97%. Exceptional performer status is awarded to those with high ratings of compliance with regulatory loan servicing requirements. Under this proposal, those holders with current exceptional performer designations are allowed to retain such designations for the year for which the designation is made. |
18. |
The fixed payment amount is based on a calculation that determines the total amount currently spent on a per loan basis, and fixes this amount as the program-wide per-loan unit cost. This per-loan cost is, in subsequent years, indexed for inflation. |
19. |
Every two years, auctions would be held to determine which lenders are eligible to make FFEL parent PLUS Loans in each state. The two lenders with the lowest bids (i.e., those lenders willing to accept the lowest lender rate) would win the rights to make FFEL parent PLUS Loans to cohorts of parents within a state, at the second lowest rate bid. Bids would only be accepted if they proposed a lender rate at or below CP plus 1.74, which would constitute a lower lender rate than the one in effect prior to the auctions. A lender of last resort would be established by the Secretary for instances where no acceptable bids materialize. |
20. |
Public sector jobs include full-time jobs in public emergency management, government, public safety, public law enforcement, public health, public education, public early childhood education, public child care, social work in a public child or family service agency, public services for individuals with disabilities, public services for the elderly, public interest legal services (including prosecution or public defense), public library sciences, public school library sciences or other public school-based services, and teaching at a Tribal College or University. |
21. |
The IPA for this group is increased by selected amounts, depending upon family size and the number in college, for each academic year between 2009-2010 through 2012-2013. For the specific amounts, see § 601(c). |
22. |
See U.S. Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate, HR2669 College Cost and Access Act of 2007, as cleared by the Congress on September 7, 2007; September 19, 2007, at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/86xx/doc8643/hr2669pago.pdf. Note: total savings figures were calculated by summing the reductions in government payments to lenders and guarantors in the FFEL program and subtracting out the estimates reflecting the effect of interactions among the (sometimes overlapping) loan-related proposals. |
23. |
The lender rate formulas (embedded in the SAP formulas) are based on the 91-day commercial paper (CP) rate plus an "add-on." For loans made prior to October 1, 2007, the add-ons are 1.74% (in-school) and 2.34% (in repayment) for Stafford Loans and 2.64% for Consolidation Loans and PLUS Loans. Under the enacted provisions, the add-ons are reduced for loans made on or after October 1, 2007, by the amounts indicated. |
24. |
Under this provision, those holders with current exceptional performer designations are allowed to retain such designations for the year for which the designation is made. |
25. |
Every two years, auctions will be held to determine which lenders are eligible to make FFEL parent PLUS Loans in each state; the two lenders with the lowest bids (i.e., those lenders willing to accept the lowest lender rate) win the rights to make FFEL parent PLUS Loans to cohorts of parents within a state, at the second lowest rate bid. Bids will only be accepted if they propose a lender rate at or below CP plus 1.79, which constitutes a lower lender rate than the one in effect prior to the auctions. A lender of last resort is established by the Secretary for instances where no acceptable bids materialize. |
26. |
Public sector jobs include full-time jobs in emergency management, government, military service, public safety, law enforcement, public health, public education (including early childhood education), social work in a public child or family service agency, public interest law services (including prosecution or public defense or legal advocacy in low-income communities at a nonprofit organization), public child care, public services for individuals with disabilities, public services for the elderly, public library sciences, school-based library sciences and other school-based services, at a 501(c)(3) organization, and teaching at a Tribal College or University. |
27. |
The IPA for this group is increased by selected amounts, depending upon family size and the number in college, for each academic year between 2009-2010 through 2012-2013. For specific amounts see HEA, § 601(c). |