While New Hampshire Led The Nation In Student Debt, Ayotte Opposed College Affordability

When it comes to college affordability, Kelly Ayotte has been a huge disappointment for New Hampshire students.Ayotte voted multiple times to cut funding for Pell Grants. She voted against the refinancing of student debt, even though Granite Staters have at times carried the highest student loan debt in the country. Instead of allowing student loan borrowers the same opportunity to refinance as homeowners, Ayotte sides with special interests and big banks.Read more about Kelly Ayotte’s insulting record on college affordability to student loans borrowers and students:

• Ayotte voted against a proposal to provide Americans with two years of free community college

• Ayotte repeatedly voted against lower student loan interest rates, while New Hampshire at times led the nation in average student loan debt

• Ayotte introduced a bill which would allow private lenders to resume issuing student loans, critics claimed the bill was a giveaway to banks

• Ayotte voted to cut Pell Grants eight times

2012: NEW HAMPSHIRE LED THE NATION IN STUDENT LOAN DEBT

2012: New Hampshire Led The Nation In Average Student Loan Debt. According to the New Hampshire Union Leader, “New Hampshire already has the highest average student debt in the nation, $31,408 per student, and, said U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-NH, who was part of the panel, that could increase by a combined $30.5 mil-lion if Congress doesn’t stop the interest rates on subsidized Stafford Loans increasing from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent on July 1.” [New Hampshire Union Leader, 5/4/12]

2015: New Hampshire Had The Second Highest Average Student Loan Debt In The Country. According to Fortune, “When broken down by state, average debt for graduates ranges from about $18,900 to $33,800, with some stark stand-outs on both ends. These figures take into account the debt of students who graduate from colleges in each state. So you’d think that states that have higher tuition and cost of living will have graduates with higher debt loads. But those aren’t the only factors at play. New Hampshire’s No. 2 ranking on the high debt list, for instance, is driven in part by the large number of public university students who pay out-of-state tuition, which is generally higher than the in-state rate and therefore may lead to more student borrowing, says Debbie Cochrane, the research director for TICAS.” [Fortune, 10/29/15]

OPPOSED FREE COMMUNITY COLLEGE

2015: Ayotte Voted Against Providing All Americans With Two Free Years Of Community College, Paid For By Instituting A So-Called “Buffet Rule” Tax. In March 2015, Ayotte voted against an amendment to the Senate’s FY 2016 budget resolution that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would adjust the resolution to increase funding for social services’ education, training and employment by $60.3 billion and make related modifications to revenue, new budget authority, outlays, deficit and public debt amounts between fiscal years 2016 and 2025. The changes are intended to reflect future legislation that would require millionaires and billionaires to pay higher taxes in order to support two free years of community college for Americans.” The Senate rejected the proposed amendment by a vote of 45 to 55. [Senate Vote 100, 3/26/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/26/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11]

AYOTTE VOTED TO EFFECTIVELY REPEAL PUBLIC SECTOR STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS, IN-SCHOOL STUDENT LOAN INTEREST SUBSIDY

2015: Ayotte Voted For The FY 2016 Conference Report Budget Resolution, Which Assumes Savings From In-School Interest Subsidy, Repeal Of The Expansion Of Income-Driven Repayment And Elimination Of Public-Sector Loan Forgiveness. In May 2015, Ayotte voted for the FY 2016 conference report budget resolution which, according to Congressional Quarterly, “reflects the current post-sequester caps on discretionary spending – $523 billion for defense and $493.5 billion for non-defense programs in fiscal 2016. Raising the caps would require a change in law.” According to the Washington Post, “There is no explicit language in the budget resolution calling for cuts to other higher education programs, but there is a broad reduction of mandatory spending that will impact such programs. And House Republicans have made it clear which ones they have in mind. During a budget markup in March, Republican Budget Committee Policy Director Jane Lee said the budget assumes savings from the end of the in-school interest subsidy on student loans, the repeal of the expansion of an income-driven repayment program and the elimination of public-sector loan forgiveness.” The vote was on the Conference Report; the Conference Report passed by a vote of 51 to 48. [Senate Vote 171, 5/5/15; Congressional Quarterly, 5/5/15; Washington Post, 5/7/15]

• Low Income Students Would Be Squeezed By The Elimination Of The Subsidized Stafford Loan. According to the Washington Post, “Lower income students would be squeezed by the end of subsidized Stafford loans, on which the government pays the interest while the borrower is in school. The Education Department estimates that as of the end of December over 28 million borrowers received these loans.” [Washington Post, 5/7/15]

SUPPORTED GOP PLAN THAT COULD HAVE LED TO STUDENT LOAN INTEREST RATES HIGHER THAN 6.8 PERCENT

2013: Ayotte Effectively Voted For GOP Student Loan Interest Rate Plan Setting Interest Rates On New Student Loans To Treasury Rate Plus 3 Percent. In June 2013, Ayotte effectively voted to consider a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, was the “GOP Student Loan Interest Plan” and “would tie interest rates for federal undergraduate and graduate student loans to the 10-year Treasury borrowing rate plus 3 percentage points.” The vote was on a motion to end debate on the motion to proceed to the bill. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 40 to 57. [Senate Vote 142, 6/6/13; Congressional Quarterly, 6/6/13]

• Supporters Argued That Tying Student Loan Rates To Interest Rates Could Lead To Loan Rates Even Higher Than 6.8 Percent. According to The New York Times, “More liberal senators, led by Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, who leads the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said that as the economy improved and interest rates rose, the proposal could lead to higher rates than if the 6.8 percent rate remained in force. They argued that a long-term resolution of the issue should be drafted over the coming year in a broad rewriting of federal higher education policy that is under negotiation.” [New York Times, 7/11/13]

• Revenue Generated From GOP Plan Would Have Been Used For Deficit Reduction. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Any savings generated from the [GOP] plan would be used for deficit reduction.” [Congressional Quarterly, 6/6/13]

• Democrats Claimed GOP Proposal Would Increase Student Debt More Than Current Law; They Proposed Closing Tax Loopholes To Help Pay For Extension Of Reduced Student Loan Rates. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Democrats said that the variable rates in the GOP proposal would burden students with even more debt than if they let the current rate double. They propose paying for the $8 billion cost of an extension of the current rate by closing three tax loopholes.” [Congressional Quarterly, 6/6/13]

REPEATEDLY VOTED AGAINST LOWER INTEREST RATES

2015: Ayotte Voted Against Allowing Student Loan Borrowers To Refinance At 2013-2014 Student Loan Rates – 3.9 Percent For Undergraduates – Paid For By Requiring Millionaires To Pay A Tax Rate Of At Least 30 Percent. In March 2015, Ayotte effectively voted against an amendment to the Senate’s FY 2016 budget resolution that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have “increase[d] new budget authority and outlays during that period by $64.4 billion, and reduce[d] deficit figures over those fiscal years by $8 billion. The changes are intended to reflect future legislation that would allow student loan borrowers to refinance outstanding debt at 2013-14 interest rates, which would be offset by requiring millionaires to pay a federal tax rate of at least a 30 percent.” The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 46 to 53. [Senate Vote 86, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/24/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11]

• Warren’s Plan Would Have Allowed Students To Refinance Loans At 3.9 Percent Interest Rate. According to The Hill, “Warren’s amendment would have allowed people with college loan debt to refinance at interest rates from the 2013 2014 academic year. The Massachusetts Democrat, who is rejecting calls to run for president, said the move would allow undergraduates to refinance their loans to a 3.9 percent interest rate, with a ‘slightly higher’ rate for graduate students.” [The Hill, 3/25/15]

2015: Ayotte Voted To Block Amendment Lowering Student Loan Rates. According to The Hill, “Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked an effort by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to attach an amendment aimed at lowering student loan rates to the budget. Senators voted 46-53 against Warren’s amendment to the Republican budget resolution. Warren’s amendment would have allowed people with college loan debt to refinance at interest rates from the 2013-2014 academic year. The Massachusetts Democrat, who is rejecting calls to run for president, said the move would allow undergraduates to refinance their loans to a 3.9 percent interest rate, with a ‘slightly higher’ rate for graduate students.” [The Hill, 3/25/15; Senate Roll Call, 3/25/15]

2013: Ayotte Voted Against Capping Future Federal Student Loan Interest Rates, Paid For With A Millionaires Tax. In July 2013, Ayotte voted against an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would [have] lower[ed] interest rate caps from 8.25 percent to 6.8 percent for federal undergraduate student loans, from 9.5 percent to 6.8 percent for graduate loans and from 10.5 percent to 7.9 percent for PLUS loans. The cost of the reduced rates would [have] be[en] paid for by a 0.55 percent tax on individuals whose income exceeds $1 million or $500,000 if it is a married individual filing a separate tax return.” The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 46 to 53. [Senate Vote 183, 7/24/13; Congressional Quarterly, 7/24/13]

2013: Ayotte Effectively Voted Against Extending Subsidized 3.4 Percent Interest Rate On Student Loans For One Year. In July 2013, Ayotte effectively voted against a bill that, according to The New York Times, “would have renewed a subsidized 3.4 percent interest rate on Stafford loans, whose rates doubled to 6.8 percent on July 1.” According to Congressional Quarterly, the underlying bill “would extend a 3.4 percent fixed interest rate on federal subsidized undergraduate student loans for one year.” The vote was on a motion to end debate, which required 60 votes to succeed. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 51 to 49. [Senate Vote 171, 7/10/13; The New York Times, 7/11/13; Congressional Quarterly, 7/10/13]

• Bill’s $4.25 Billion Price Tag For One-Year Extension Of 3.4 Percent Rate Would Have Been Offset By Closing Inheritance Tax Loopholes. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The Democrats’ plan, sponsored by Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., would cost $4.25 billion, offset by ending a portion of the tax code that allows those who inherit specific types of IRAs and 401(k)s to avoid paying the taxes on them for many years.” [Congressional Quarterly, 7/24/13]

2013: Ayotte Effectively Voted Against Extending Reduced Federal Undergraduate Student Loan Rates Of 3.4 Percent For An Additional Two Years. In June 2013, Ayotte voted against considering a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would extend the current 3.4 percent fixed interest rate on subsidized federal Stafford loans made to undergraduate students for two years.” The actual vote was on a motion to end debate on a motion to proceed. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 51 to 46. [Senate Vote 143, 6/6/13; Congressional Quarterly, 6/21/13]

2013: Ayotte Voted For Increasing Student Loan Interest Rates From 3.4 Percent To 6.8 Percent As Part Of The FY 2014 Ryan Budget. In March 2013, Ayotte voted for increasing student loan interest rates from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, as part of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2014 to 2023. According to Education Votes, “[T]he Ryan plan […] would allow student loan interest rates on new Stafford loans to double this July, from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent.” The vote was on the House Republicans’ fiscal year 2014 budget resolution, which Senate Budget Committee chairwoman Patty Murray offered as a substitute amendment to the Senate’s fiscal year 2014 budget resolution. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 40 to 59. [Senate Vote 46, 3/21/13; Education Votes, 3/20/13]

2012: Ayotte Voted Against Applying Payroll Taxes to Income From S Corporations In Order To Pay For Keeping Subsidized Student Loan Interest Rates At 3.4% Until July 2013. In May 2012, Ayotte voted against a bill that, according to CBS, “would extend low interest rates on federally subsidized student loans for another year. Barring an extension, the rate on new loans for undergraduates would increase from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent this July […]; [the bill] would require some privately owned companies to pay higher payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.” The bill, named the Stop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act of 2012, was defeated by a vote of 51-43; passage of the bill would have required 60 votes under a unanimous consent agreement. [Senate Vote 113, 5/24/12; CBS, 5/8/12; CRS, 4/24/12; Congressional Actions, 5/23/12]

• Bill Would Have Required Some Subchapter S Shareholders To Pay Self-Employment On Net Income From Corporation. According to CRS, the bill would “require certain shareholders of a subchapter S corporation engaged as a partner in a professional service business to include income or loss attributable to such business in their net earnings from self-employment for employment tax purposes.” [CRS, 4/24/12]

• Opponents Claimed That The Tax Changes Would Harm Job Creation. According to CBS, “Senate Republicans argue Reid’s proposal […] seeks to raise taxes on ‘the very businesses we’re counting on to hire these young people,’ as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., contended on the Senate floor on Tuesday.’” [CBS, 5/8/12]

• Heritage Foundation: Tax Change Would Further Erode Precedent That Medicare Payroll Tax Should Only Be Used For Funding Medicare. According to the Heritage Foundation, “The Reid proposal is of a kind with recent proposals seeking to recast the payroll tax.[…] Obamacare applied a new 3.8 percent Medicare Hospital Insurance payroll tax add-on to investment income, including capital gains, dividends, rents, and royalties. It then used that income to fund new spending in Obamacare. This broke another precedent in that the Medicare payroll tax is now used to fund spending outside Medicare. Reid’s extension of the payroll tax would further erode both of these precedents by applying the payroll to business income for the first time and using the revenue raised to offset the cost of extending the subsidy for Stafford student loans. It would represent another big step down the slippery slope in which Congress increases the payroll tax as a way to pay for new spending every time it wants to expand the size of government. [Heritage Foundation, 5/8/12]

2012: Ayotte Effectively Voted To Eliminate Subsidies For College Loans; Causing Interest Rates To Double To 6.4 Percent As Part Of The FY 2013 Ryan Budget. In May 2012, Ayotte effectively voted to eliminate subsidies for college loans, as part of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2013 to 2022. According to the House Budget Committee, the budget would “Reform the Credit Reform Act to reflect the true cost of federal student loan programs that are driving up the cost of tuition.” According to the New Republic, “3.4 percent (the government’s current subsidized interest rate for Stafford loans, which were established in 2007 and will expire in July if not renewed) versus 6.8 percent (the unsubsidized interest rate to which the Ryan budget proposed returning those loans). The vote was on a motion to proceed to consider the House-passed budget resolution, which the Senate rejected by a vote of 41 to 58. [Senate Vote 98, 5/16/12; House Budget Committee, 5/20/12; New Republic, 4/27/12; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 112]

2012: Ayotte Effectively Voted Against A Bill Preventing The Interest Rate On Subsidized Student Loans From Doubling To 6.8 Percent. In April 2012, Ayotte effectively voted against a bill that, according to the Associated Press, would “extend today’s 3.4 percent interest rates on subsidized Stafford loans for another year.” Without the bill, interest rates on subsidized student loans would have doubled from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent on July 1, 2012. According to the Christian Science Monitor, the bill was paid for by regulation changes preventing “wealthy individuals from shielding some of their income from payroll taxes by incorporating themselves as S corporations.” The vote was on a motion to end debate on the motion to proceed; it needed 60 votes and was defeated 52-45. [Senate Vote 89, 5/8/12; Associated Press, 5/8/12; Christian Science Monitor, 5/8/12]

• Republicans Opposed Funding Mechanism, Proposed Eliminating An Affordable Care Act Preventative Health Services Fund To Pay For Bill. According to the Christian Science Monitor, “Democrats proposed what they call the ‘Newt Gingrich/John Edwards rule,’ that would prevent wealthy individuals from shielding some of their income from payroll taxes by incorporating themselves as S corporations. [. . .] Republicans, on the other hand, see this approach as not only raising taxes, an absolute dead letter among their caucus, but as short-circuiting a needed student loan extension by connecting it to payroll taxes that should go elsewhere. [. . .] In the GOP’s case, legislation sponsored by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R) of Tennessee would eliminate a public and preventive health services fund created by President Obama’s health-care law to pay for the extension.” [Christian Science Monitor, 5/8/12]

VOTED TO CUT PELL GRANTS EIGHT TIMES

2015: Ayotte Voted For The FY 2016 Conference Report Budget Resolution, Which Provided $523 Billion In Discretionary Defense Spending And Eliminated Guaranteed Funding For Pell Grants. In May 2015, Ayotte voted for the FY 2016 conference report budget resolution which, according to Congressional Quarterly, “reflects the current post-sequester caps on discretionary spending – $523 billion for defense and $493.5 billion for non-defense programs in fiscal 2016. Raising the caps would require a change in law.” According to the Washington Post, Tucked into the spending plan is the elimination of guaranteed funding for Pell Grants, which provide money for the country’s poorest students to attend college. Under the Republican plan, it would be up to Congress’ discretion to fund the program every year, leaving families vulnerable to future budget cuts.” The vote was on the Conference Report; the Conference Report passed by a vote of 51 to 48. [Senate Vote 171, 5/5/15; Congressional Quarterly, 5/5/15; Washington Post, 5/7/15]

• Under Current Law, A Portion Of Pell Grant Funding Is Mandatory. According to the Washington Post, “The way it works now, a portion of the funding for Pell is mandatory and another portion is discretionary. If the mandatory money is cut, there is no guarantee that Congress would use its discretion to pick up the costs, which could result in the maximum award declining by 15 percent, according to the Committee for Education Funding, an advocacy group.” [Washington Post, 5/7/15]

• No Explicit Language In The Resolution Specifying Which Programs Will Be Put In Education. According to the Washington Post, “There is no explicit language in the budget resolution calling for cuts to other higher education programs, but there is a broad reduction of mandatory spending that will impact such programs.” [Washington Post, 5/7/15]

• Nine Million Students Participated In The Pell Grant Program In 2013-2014; At Current College Costs, Only Cover About One Third Of Costs. According to the Washington Post, “Nine million students participated in the $33.7 billion Pell Grant program in the 2013-2014 school year. Although the program is currently running a surplus, that is expected to dry up by 2017. Even at its current level, with maximum awards topping $5,775 per school year, Pell barely covers a third of the cost of college, according to the the [sic] Institute for the College Access and Success (TICAS).” [Washington Post, 5/7/15]

2011: Ayotte Voted To Cut Pell Grant Funding By 24 Percent. In March 2011, Ayotte voted for a bill that, according to the Center on Budget and Policy, “would reduce funding for Pell Grants by approximately $5.7 billion, or 24 percent, and would reduce the maximum discretionary Pell Grant award by $845 (from $4,860 to $4,015), or 17.4 percent.  This cut would affect all 9.4 million students who receive Pell Grants.” The provision was part of a continuing resolution to fund the federal government until the end of FY 2011. The bill was rejected by the Senate by a vote of 44 to 56. The bill number was later used as the vehicle for another piece of legislation. [Senate Vote 36, 3/9/11; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1; Congressional Quarterly, 3/1/11; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/1/11]

2015: Ayotte Voted Against Restoring $89 Billion In Proposed Cuts To Pell Grants Included In Senate Republicans’ FY 2016 Budget Resolution. In March 2015, Ayotte voted against an amendment to the Senate’s FY 2016 budget resolution that, according to Congressional Quarterly would have “adjust[ed] the resolution to increase new budget authority for social services’ education, training and employment by $92.3 billion and increase outlays in that area by $89.3 billion between fiscal years 2016 and 2025. The changes are intended to reflect future legislation that would restore $89 billion in federal Pell grant reductions.” The amendment was rejected by a vote of 46 to 54. [Senate Vote 101, 3/26/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/26/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11]

• Senate FY 2016 Republican Budget Resolution Would End Mandatory Pell Grant Funding, And Did Not Require That Any Discretionary Funding Be Used To Fully Offset The Lost Mandatory Funding. According to the Association of Community College Trustees, “The House and Senate budget resolutions both include proposed cuts to student aid. However, the following cuts are non-binding, and would require additional legislative action by the Appropriations Committee or an authorizing committee to be enacted. Both proposals call for an elimination of $89 billion in mandatory funding for the Pell Grant program. The plans call for the program to be entirely funded through discretionary appropriations, however there is not a specific proposed set aside within the discretionary portion of the budget to offset the large mandatory reduction.” [Association of Community College Trustees, 4/1/15]

2013: Ayotte Voted To Cut Pell Grant Funding As Part Of A Proposed Repeal Of The ACA And The 2010 Reconciliation Act. In March 2013, Ayotte voted for an amendment that, according to Huffington Post, “sought to ‘establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to provide for the repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.’” According to The New York Times, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 “eliminate[d] fees paid to private banks to act as intermediaries in providing loans to college students and use much of the nearly $68 billion in savings over 11 years to expand Pell grants and make it easier for students to repay outstanding loans after graduating.” The amendment was to the Senate Budget for FY 2014. The vote was on the amendment, which the Senate rejected by a vote of 45 to 54. [Senate Vote 51, 3/22/13; Huffington Post, 3/22/13; New York Times, 3/30/10; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 202]

• Amendment Would Also Have Stripped Funding From Community Colleges And From Historically Black Colleges And Universities. According to Congressional Record, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said the following about the amendment: “Also, $2.55 billion went to investments in historically Black colleges and universities serving minority students. That would be cut out with the Cruz amendment. Another $2 billion went to community colleges, and that would be cut out by the Cruz amendment. So it is not just the Affordable Care Act, folks, that is being cut or done away with by the Cruz amendment but all of the things we did to bolster education for minority students and for disadvantaged students, and in raising the Pell grants.” [Congressional Record, 3/22/13]

2013: Ayotte Voted For Freezing Pell Grants At 2012-2013 Levels For The Next 10 Years As Part Of The FY 2014 Ryan Budget. In March 2013, Ayotte voted for cutting spending on Pell Grants, as part of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2014 to 2023. According to the House Budget Committee, “The Department of Education attributed 25 percent of recent program growth to the $619 increase in the maximum award enacted in the stimulus bill that took effect in the 2009–10 academic year. To get program costs back to a sustainable level, the budget recommends maintaining the maximum award for the 2012–2013 award year of $5,645 in each year of the budget window.” The vote was on the House Republicans’ fiscal year 2014 budget resolution, which Senate Budget Committee chairwoman Patty Murray offered as a substitute amendment to the Senate’s fiscal year 2014 budget resolution. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 40 to 59. [Senate Vote 46, 3/21/13; House Budget Committee, 3/12/13]

• Ryan’s Budget Ended The Entitlement Portion Of Pell Grants, Meaning That The Actual Amount Available For Pell Grants Each Year Would Depend On The Congressional Appropriations Process. According to the House Budget Committee, “This award would be fully funded through discretionary spending.” [House Budget Committee, 3/12/13]

2012: Ayotte Effectively Voted To Cut Spending On Pell Grants, Making 1 Million Students Ineligible As Part Of The FY 2013 Ryan Budget. In May 2012, Ayotte effectively voted to cut spending on Pell Grants, as part of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2013 to 2022. According to the House Budget Committee, the budget “puts Pell on a sustainable path by limiting the growth of financial aid and focusing it on low income students who need it the most.” According to U.S. News and World Report, “Under the Ryan budget, more than 1 million students would no longer be eligible for Pell grants in the next decade, according to Education Trust, and those who did qualify would receive less aid.” The vote was on a motion to proceed to consider the House-passed budget resolution, which the Senate rejected by a vote of 41 to 58. [Senate Vote 98, 5/16/12; House Budget Committee, 5/20/12; U.S. News and World Report, 9/5/12; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 112]

• The Budget Tightened Eligibility For Pell Grants, Reduced The Amount Of Income That Could Be Used For Living Expenses, Capped The Maximum Grant Level And Made Students Attending College Less Than Half-Time Ineligible. According to U.S. News and World Report, “There’s no doubt that the ‘Ryan budget,’ the fiscal year 2013 budget resolution passed by the House, would severely diminish Pell grants. It would lower the income level at which students qualify for an automatic maximum grant, create a maximum income to be eligible for a grant, reduce the amount of income a student or family can keep to cover minimal living expenses before being expected to contribute toward college costs, freeze the maximum grant at the fiscal year 2012 level of $5,550, and make students attending school less than half-time ineligible for grants.” [U.S. News and World Report, 9/5/12]

• Ryan’s Budget Ended The Entitlement Portion Of Pell Grants. According to U.S. News and World Report, “It would also end the entitlement portion of the program, which is designed to ensure funding is automatically allocated for every student who qualifies for a Pell grant, opening the door for future cuts.” [U.S. News and World Report, 9/5/12]

2011: Ayotte Effectively Voted For FY 2012 Ryan Budget, Which Cut Spending On Pell Grants To Pre-Stimulus Levels. In May 2011, Ayotte effectively voted for cutting spending on Pell Grants, as part of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2012 to 2021. According to the House Budget Committee, the budget would “Return Pell grants to their pre-stimulus levels to curb rising tuition inflation and make sure aid is targeted to the truly needy.” The vote was on a motion to proceed to consider the House-passed budget resolution, which the Senate rejected by a vote of 40 to 57. [Senate Vote 77, 5/25/11; House Budget Committee, 4/5/11]

• Ryan’s Budget Would Have Cut Pell Grants To About $16.3 Billion For FY 2012. According to The Washington Times, “The proposal calls for reducing Pell Grant spending to ‘pre-stimulus levels,’ cutting the annual federal allocation by about half. In 2008, the federal government appropriated $16.3 billion to Pell Grants, according to the Department of Education. The Obama administration wants $41.2 billion for the program in its 2012 budget.” [The Washington Times, 4/5/11]

March 2011: Ayotte Voted To Cut Maximum Pell Grant Amount By $845, As Part Of Senate Democrats’ FY 2011 Government Funding Plan. In March 2011, Ayotte voted against ] the Senate Democrats’  plan for funding the government through fiscal year 2011, which, according to the Senate Appropriations Committee, “maintains the maximum Pell award level of $5,550.” By contrast, the committee stated, “The House Republican CR slashes the maximum annual Pell Grant award by $845 to $4,705, a 15 percent cut below the current maximum of $5,550.” The amendment failed by a vote of 42 to 58. [Senate Vote 37, 3/9/11; Senate Appropriations Committee, 3/4/11]New Hampshire Pell Grant Impact

2013-2014: 34,069 Students Attending New Hampshire Colleges And Universities Were Awarded A Total Of $99 Million In Pell Grants. [U.S. Department of Education, Distribution of Federal Pell Grant Program Funds by Institution, 2013-14]