August 22, 2004 -- Senate Committee Chairman's (Sen. Gregg) Senior Advisor and Committee lawyer, Tracy Locklin, Admits Committee's Position to TMA in conversation.
Students and Parents Nationwide have been damaged financially via illegal policy denying students under the age of 24 financial aid for college.
According to the Department of Defense, between January 2003 and June 2004, 349 of our young men and women in the U.S. Military under the age of 24 have died in IRAQ alone…69 were Teenagers, yet the Federal Government is illegally denying men and women [U.S. Citizens under the age of 24 federal financial aid to attend college unless their parents sign the loan[s.
The conspiracy in question centers around the Ford Federal Direct Student Loan Program (FDSLP), also known as the Student Loan Reform Act of 1993, Public Law 103-66, Title 20 U.S.C., Sections 1087a-j (hereinafter referred to as {FDSLP}, and, the illegal requirement that the student's birthday be prior to January 1, 1981 to be classified as an "Independent," to borrow money without the parent(s) co-signing the loan(s). Under the FDSLP independent students can borrow up to $46,000 cumulative for their undergraduate studies, yet dependent students can only borrow $23,000.
According to NASFAA (National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators) President, Dallas Martin, the Federal Policy requiring students to be at least 24 years old before they can emancipate themselves from their parents and borrow money for college as an Independent, is an attempt by the federal government to lower the default rates on federal loans for college. The problem is that the Policy being enforced is ILLEGAL as it violates the "Age Discrimination Act of 1975," and it also is a federal Felony (Title 18 U.S.C., Sec. 241) every time a student is denied the right to apply for financial aid under the FDSLP, either in the form of a subsidized or unsubsidized loan.
It is the Federal Government's position (letter from the office of General Counsel, U.S. Department of Education) that the definition of Independent student found in 20 U.S.C., Sec. 1087vv (d) is the defining law in the FDSLP, and I quote from Ms. Scaniffe's letter dated August 9, 2004, "Thus, by definition, any student not meeting the requirements of an independent student, is a dependent student." This is an accurate statement for specific other loan programs enacted prior to the FDSLP. The definition found in 20 – U.S.C., Sec. 1087vv went into effect January 1, 1987, some 6 years before the FDSLP was even enacted by Congress, and the "Historical Notes" in 1087vv explain what laws the definitions apply to; and, obviously the FDSLP is not one of them as it was not even passed by Congress until 1993.
From the Historical Notes found in Title 20 U.S.C., Sec. 1087vv, regarding the 1987 amendment;
"DEFINITION OF 'INDEPENDENT STUDENT'; APPLICATION TO SPECIFIED PERIODS OF ENROLLMENT
Section 406(b)(5), formerly section 406(b)(4), of Pub. L. 99-498, renumbered Pub. L. 100-50, Sec. 22(e)(2), June 3, 1987, 101 Stat. 361, provided that: ‘The definition of independent student contained in section 480(d) of the Act (20 U.S.C. 1087vv(d)) as amended by subsection (a) of this section shall apply with respect to the determination of such need for periods of enrollment beginning on or after January 1, 1987, in the case of programs operated under part B of title IV of the Act (FFELP) (part B of this subchapter), or for periods of enrollment beginning on or after July 1, 1987, in the case of programs operated under (subpart 2 of part A of this subchapter (Federal Early Outreach & student Services Program) and part C of subchapter I of chapter 34 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare (Federal Work Study Program), and part D of this subchapter).'" (Federal Perkins Loans) (Underline added for emphasis).
As you can clearly see (1) The definition became effective on January 2, 1987; (2) the definition is part and parcel to Public Welfare - Title 42, and Parts of the HEA enforceable in 1987; (3) the FDSLP wasn't even created until 1993, which makes it impossible for these definitions to be part of P.L. 103-66; and, (4) the Notes in 20 U.S.C., Sec. 1001 also demonstrate that 1087vv was not made part of the FDSLP.
Title 20 U.S.C., Sec. 1001 Notes,
"SHORT TITLE OF 1993 AMENDMENTS
Pub. L. 103-208, Sec. 1(a), Dec. 20, 1993, 107 Stat. 2457, provided that: ''This Act (see Tables for classification) may be cited as the 'Higher Education Technical Amendments of 1993'.'' Pub. L. 103-66, (FDSLP) title IV, Sec. 4011(a), Aug. 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 341, provided that: ''This subtitle (subtitle A (Sec. 4011-4047) of title IV of Pub. L. 103-66, amending sections 1072, 1078, 1078-3, 1078-8, 1085, 1087-2, and 1087a to 1087h of this title, repealing section 1078-1 of this title, omitting sections 1087i and 1087j of this title, and enacting provisions set out as notes under sections 1078, 1078-3, and 1078-8 of this title) may be cited as the 'Student Loan Reform Act of 1993."(Underline added for emphasis).
NOTE: Senator's Gregg, Warner, Kennedy, Clinton, & Edwards did not return calls regarding this issue.
Once again you can clearly see that the infamous definition of Independent student being used by the Federal Government to deny federal financial aid under the FDSLP was not incorporated by Congress in the "Student Loan Reform Act, P.L. 103-66." Interjecting definitions from a 1987 law into a 1993 law, which said 1993 law clearly omits the definitions in 1087vv, is egregious, appalling, and fraudulent. This illegal act has been sanctioned by the Senate Committee on Health & Education.
To see the truth for yourself all you have to do is first look at the "Historical Notes" in 20 U.S.C., 1087vv and 20 U.S.C., Sec. 1001, Short Title 1993 Amendments, Public Law 103-66, then look at Title 20 U.S.C., Sec 1087 (e)(2)(A) & (C) - Terms and Conditions of Loans (FDSLP). When you look closely at 1087(e) "Terms and Conditions of Loans" it refers you to 20 U.S.C., Sec. 1078 (Subsidized direct loans), and 1078-8 (unsubsidized direct loans). The PLUS loan (1078-2) is when the parents borrow on behalf of the student, which said loan is not in question. The primary dispute here rests with 1087 (e) (2)(C) (unsubsidized), which refers you to 20 U.S.C., Sec. 1078-8, which refers you to 20 U.S.C., Sec. 1091 for eligibility; and, 1091 does not even mention age as a determining factor for eligibility, nor does it have anything to do with a student parent(s) signing the loan(s), nor does it have anything to do with the parents' finances as it is based entirely on the students financial contribution.
By denying students under the age of 24 the federally protected right to borrow money as an Independent under the FDSLP, Parents Nationwide have been illegally coerced into going deeper and deeper into debt UNNECESSARILY, when in fact their child has the legal right to borrow money on their own without the parent[s borrowing the money on their behalf, placing both parties into debt instead of just one.
In addition, under the subsidized portion of the FDSLP, banks and loan companies have also conspired to illegally force Parents to sign loans UNNECESSARILY. It appears the federal governments Policy is to force Parents into more and more DEBT, knowing how the Parents want to help their Children receive a College education. Colleges and Universities nationwide have also willingly participated in this illegal scheme as they just make more and more money off the illegal scheme.
The BOTTOM LINE is that Parents and Students nationwide have been damaged financially, many students have had to drop out of college due to their parent[s not being able to qualify for financial aid due to an over extension of debt, many times simply because they have more than one child in college at one time and they simply get overextended. When this happens and the student attempts to obtain the necessary financial aid on their own, independent of their parents, the school tells them "You can't apply as an Independent because you're not 24."
One cannot borrow money to get a college education under the age of 24, but the Federal Government requires you to register with the Selective Service before you are even eligible to receive any federal financial aid of any kind for college. In the eyes of Secretary Paige and the United States Department of Education, and the Senate Oversight Committee (Health & Education), a young man or woman under the age of 24 is responsible enough to go off to War and die for our Government but not responsible enough to borrow money to get a college education. HOW STUPID IS THAT?
Where is President Bush (Leave no Child Behind), and Vice-Presidential Candidate Senator Edwards who sits on the Education Committee when you need them? Both parties talk a good game on Education, but like most things with the Federal Government and National Politics…IT'S ALL TALK.
Contact – TMA International Trusts (206)-350-1143
This article courtesy of
http://theofficialeducationsource.com.
You may freely reprint this article on your website or in
your newsletter provided this courtesy notice and the author
name and URL remain intact.
