“Big, Beautiful Bill” is now back home, which will reconnect to take over the Senate issue on Wednesday morning.
Getty pictures
The Senate voted on Tuesday the version of the “big, beautiful” tax and budget of President Trump 51-50, with Vice President JD Vance violating the tie. The 940 -page bill, which is now returning to the body for final approval, contains a number of provisions related to higher education that seems to weaken non -profit colleges, while making it more difficult for students to access financial assistance and student loans. Although some Republicans in the House complain about the changes of the Senate from the bill that passed in May, the bet is that under pressure from Trump, they will receive the adoption of the Senate.
“With the end of July 4, appointed by the president, it is likely that the Senate issue will mostly keep intact,” says Michael Itzkowitz, founder of the High Education Hea team and former Obama training official. “There is not much time for the house to make big changes to this point.” If the bill passes the passage, it will not be provisions to hold it, says Jon Fansmith, a senior vice -president of government relations and the national commitment to the US Council for Education. The deeper cuts of the Senate bill on Medicaid and the greatest increase in expenditure deficiencies can worry about the body’s Republicans, he says. “They may not be able to get this over the finish line tomorrow. And if that doesn’t happen, I think everything goes back to the table,” says Fanmith. “But their goal is to try to move quickly.”
Proposals in the bill affecting the College budgets fall into three major categories: supply taxes, changes in Pell grants and regulatory abolitions. It also contains a liturgy of changes in federal student loans, which will destroy popular repayment plans guided by income, will reduce lending from postgraduate students and parents and eliminate financial difficulties and postponement options. Tower Adam Minsky’s contributors explains all these changes in detail here. Read below for a distribution of what else the Higher ED bill has.
About College Tax
One of the biggest changes between the Senate bill and the issue that has passed through the home is a change in the proposal for the investment revenue of college benefits. The original bill that had passed home increased the existing 1.4% tax for 21% for the richest institutions. The Senate bill escalates and describes a special tax structure of a special tax, which will impose a tax of 8% of more than $ 2 million per student, a tax of 4% for a benefits of between $ 750,000 and $ 2 million per student of $ 750,000 per student of $ 750,000 per student. Colleges will only be subject to tax if at least 3,000 students paying tuition (from the current cut of 500 students) and if at least half of these students are in the United States. Unlike the body’s bill, the Senate issue does not punish schools to have a high number of foreign students, excluding them from the calculation of the donation per student. The Senate MP increased the part of the proposal that will relieve religious institutions from tax, which, as Fanmith says, was part of an attempt to get rid of the very conservative Hillsdale college of funding tax. (Hillsdale will still be exempt from tax because it enrolls less than 3,000 students).
The US Council for Fansmith’s training has always opposed an origin tax. “It’s a bad policy, it’s a bad idea, it gets money given to institutions for charity and giving them to the federal government, which basically means that it is not used for the purposes given, which is the support of financial aid, the research, the things they really want.
To pell grants
The Senate bill would make some changes to students’ eligibility for Pell grants, federal government scholarships offered to low -income students. The bill proposes to be included in external income in the customized calculation of gross income used to determine students’ financial needs and also suggests that, regardless of other factors, students who can pay at least twice the maximum Pell grant will be no longer eligible for Pell. Another change: If a student receives enough help with a non -federal grant to cover the full cost of college for the term, they will no longer be eligible for pell grant, even if they met the income requirements.
Specifically, the final edition of the Senate did not include changes to the Pell eligibility requirements that would hurt low -income students and the institutions that are enrolled in them, including a change in the house in the definition of full -time program from 12 credits to From the Pell program, a Cbo Anyalys showed).
A proposal to create a grant of the Pell of the Labor Potential that was slaughtered in the final bill, after the Senate MP ruled that it had violated the rules of reconciliation of the budget. The final edition approved by the Senate of HR 1 includes the Pell proposal of the workforce with a remarkable change: unrecognized institutions will not be allowed to receive Pell Grant money.
The Grant Pell Grant program of the workforce would extend access to Pell grants to short -term, eight to 15 weeks of educational programs, even if they do not lead to an official grade or credentials. Eligibility for the workforce would be the same as the normal Pell -students grant must show a “excellent financial need”, which, which, which, which, which, which, which,, which, which,, which For most recipientsIt is a household income of $ 60,000 or less each year. Students with any credentials beyond an undergraduate diploma would not be eligible. According to the proposal, students could not receive both a grant of the workforce as well as a regular Pell grant and the workforce will contribute to its maximum lifetime pell grant, which is usually about six years of courses. The short -term programs enrolled by students must be approved by the state and meet certain federal requirements, including the 70% integration rate and the 70% job placement rate. A Pell Grant workforce would be a benefit for speculative colleges that dominate the commercial school and the workforce of the workforce. (Those that are not accredited will be excluded, however.)
About regulatory changes
In the section entitled “Regulatory Assistance”, the Senate bill abolishes or weakens several regulations for higher education institutions. Rule 90/10, which requires speculative colleges to receive at least 10% of their revenue from non -federal sources, will return to a previous, more lenient version of the rule. The bill will completely eliminate the paid employment rule, a regulation for the Obama era that puts protective messages in speculative colleges to ensure that their students are ready for employment and are able to refund their student loans. It could also touch the borrower’s repayment regulations, which will be established in 2022, which would make it more difficult for students to cancel their students’ federal loans if they have been deceived by their school.
“It is not surprising that many student protections are in the fragment of cuts,” says Itzkowitz. “First of all, they were implemented mainly by democratic administrations. Secondly, a more conservative Congress in general favors the idea of abolishing as many regulations as possible.”
The bill also delays the Regulations 2022 related to closed school rejections. Essentially, by 2035, students with federal loans whose colleges close will have tougher time to cancel these loans.
New in the adoption of the Senate bill are reinforced accountability measures that require colleges to maintain good results for students in order to be eligible for federal funding. According to the bill, the “low profitability outcome programs” are defined as programs whose median graduates’ median profit are less than a comparable adult and these programs would not be eligible for federal funding. For Bachelor’s institutions, a comparable adult worker is described as someone aged 25 to 34 years old who is currently not in college and has only a high school diploma. For postgraduate organizations, a comparable adult worker is a 25 to 34 -year -olds who only has a degree in a university.
“If a college program produces graduates who earn less than someone who never went to college, it will no longer receive federal funding. This is a win-win for students and taxpayers,” says Itzkowitz. “However, it excludes noticeable certificate programs from any accountability. This is a huge policy omission, as certificates are often the most dangerous certificates for students, many of whom work adults, first generation or color women.”
More than Forbes
