Bipartisan loan bill still eludes Senate
WASHINGTON — A handful of senators struggled on Thursday to hold together a bipartisan deal to keep student loan rates from doubling on July 1 as their colleagues traded political barbs with little more than a week to go before the deadline.
Top White House officials, meanwhile, told lawmakers they are open to changes in President Obama's student loan proposal if a compromise could be reached that would win congressional approval.
The behind-the-scenes negotiations are an attempt to head off a rate hike that Congress' Joint Economic Committee estimated would cost the average student borrower $2,600 more. Both parties rushed to microphones to point fingers at the other for the potential hike but kept in touch with back-channel efforts that would prevent them from being blamed for adding to high college costs.
“There's no question there are discussions going on in the Senate right now, bipartisan discussions. Whether it bares fruit in the next 10 days is going to be a nail-biter,” said Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn.
The bipartisan deal, which would link undergraduate student loans' interest rates with the financial markets, would save the government more than $8 billion during the next 10 years, according to an unpublished Congressional Budget Office report.
Democratic and Republican Senate aides insisted on anonymity in discussing the budget office report because it has not been released to the public yet, and they are not authorized to discuss it publicly.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Ticks reduce moose population in northern states
- Authorities in California search for 5 jail escapees
- 121 tourists stranded on schooner near Statue of Liberty
- Egyptian Bary admits links to 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa
- Hurricane shattered Charleston, S.C., tested mayor 25 years ago
- Threats from Mexican cartels lead protesters to scrap immigration rallies, organizer says
- Pentagon program seeks to retain U.S. technological edge against foreign rivals
- GOP senators fret U.S. would let Iran disconnect, not scrap, centrifuges
- Pope picks moderate to be Chicago archbishop
- DHS headquarters’ planning goes awry
- Scope of Chrysler’s latest SUV recall questioned