Both Congress and the White House appear to be in the mood to repeal but not replace important social legislation. The one most directly affecting Iowa State students is the failure of Congress to extend the Perkins Loan program, which expired Sept. 30. 

Although an extension bill has strong bipartisan support, Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander, chair of the Senate education committee, and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy in the House of Representatives refused to bring the bill to a vote. The current academic year’s funding will continue, but unless a new law is passed, no loans will be issued to new applicants through this program.

Originated in the 1950s, the Perkins Loan program was designed to help low-income students with “exceptional need.” Perkins Loans have a fixed 5 percent interest rate, an annual cap of $5,000 and no interest accrues until nine months after graduation. Loans can be reduced or forgiven if graduates go into certain careers, such as medicine or teaching. In order to help more students, many universities lent smaller amounts, so the average Perkins Loan was about $2,000 per year. At Iowa State for the 2015-16 year, 2,941 students had loans totaling $4,083,987.  

The program supplements the much larger, federally funded direct subsidized loan program. In contrast to the subsidized federal program, the actual lender was the school students were attending. When students repaid their Perkins Loan, the funds were re-circulated and re-lent to more students. No new federal money has been put into the program since 2010.

We heard from recent ISU presidential candidates that a small amount of financial help can make the difference to a student whose financial situation is very constrained. Given the rise in tuition rates, any help is welcome. So why repeal the program? 

The Heritage Foundation argues that such “easy” access to loans for students motivates colleges to raise tuition rates. Another argument is that students find having multiple sources of loans with different rates and repayment rules too confusing. Both arguments are laughable.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin, who proposed the program’s extension, and Alexander are making vague noises about working on a bipartisan bill. Let’s hope they do that, but in the meantime, why repeal without any replacement?  This action only hurts students who need help the most, and also makes things more confusing for students and financial aid offices.