By By Kirby Reed and Candice McFadyen

Debate on Capital Hill over whether to reduce federal financial aid has many students at the University and nationwide worried about covering education costs.

In a narrow 22-19 vote, the House Education and Work Force Committee recently approved a bill to cut federal student aid by $14.5 billion over the next five years. Education and student groups will be watching closely as it travels to the House floor for a full vote within the next few weeks.

The measure, if implemented, would require banks that offer student loans to pay a one percent insurance charge. It will also double the current interest on student loans from 1.5 to 3 percent.

Opponents of the bill contend it will discourage private lenders from granting student loans and leaving students with fewer options and higher costs. They estimate that the typical student will pay $5,800 more from their own pocket. (WHERE INFO FROM? ARTICLE HAD “ACCORDING TO DC BUREAU…” BUT MORE SPECIFIC? ALSO, QUOTE?)

Republicans generally support the bill while many Democrats remain wary.

“These same students that we’re helping to get in school and through school, at the end of the day, they pay taxes and are going to pay takes,” said Representative John Boehner (R-Ohio), chair of the House Education and Workforce Committee. “And they’re going to be paying much higher taxes if we don’t get serious about getting the budget under control.”

Those against the proposal include Representative George Miller (D-Calif.), senior Democrat on the committee.

“You can dress this proposal any way you want to, and you can describe it any way you want to, but at the end of the day, what you will have is a $15 billion cut in student aid accounts of this government,” he said, adding that outgoing money from student aid accounts would unlikely be replenished.

Student activists at Georgetown University and the University of Maryland at College Park protested the measure by sporting T-shirts that read, “Stop the Raid on Student Aid.”

Many fear that a lack of funds will prohibit students from attending the university or college of their choice.

“If it wasn’t for the loans I received here at Hofstra, I wouldn’t be able to go to school,” Kate Gingras, a sophomore, said. “Other countries are able to help their citizens through school – why doesn’t the United States?”

Sophomore Matt Schorr considered possible long-term effects of the bill.

“The fact of the matter is that student loans cost enough money as it is,” he said. “The pay for most jobs is not increasing and people who are going to school and using these loans most likely will not be able to get a high enough paying job to pay off a loan with three percent interest. It will make many people think twice about a college education.”

Rising tuition costs are also factoring into students’ decision of whether to pursue a higher education. Exceeding the national average, tuition on Long Island has increased 300 percent over the last 20 years and continues to go up, noted New York Senator Charles Schumer.

Gabrielle Mnkande, a freshman assessed her own family’s situation regarding higher education.

“There are two other children in my family. We have to rely on loans and it would only eat my parents out of house and home once my brother and sister go to college,” she said. “I think Hofstra students should protest against this proposition.”

Elyse Emmerling agreed.

“My parents can’t afford Hofstra as it is and are taking out loans so I can come here,” Emmerling, a freshman, said. “We can’t afford to pay extra on loans because I’m not receiving any financial aid here.”

Professor Richard Himelfarb, a political science professor at the University, did not comment directly on the proposal but recommended that students be more concerned with tuition hikes than federal aid cuts.

“Anything which impairs the opportunity of students to get an education is something to be concerned about,” Yee Yip, professor of philosophy, said. “If we continue to spend on social programs especially certain programs, than it could have detrimental impacts on society. Education then becomes something the rich can afford and we lose out on the full human potential of all Americans.”

Leslie Donelin, an admissions officer at the University, said the proposal is absurd because it targets those least able to handle extra costs.

The Office of Financial Aid was not available for comment before deadline and refused initial requests for questioning.