Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
This bill amends Section 480(f)(2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to exclude from Title IV need analysis the net value of: (A) a family farm on which the family resides, and (B) a small business (<=100 full-time or FTE employees) owned and controlled by the family. The change applies to award years beginning on or after the date of enactment.
Progressives emphasize potential aid erosion and fairness concerns
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly identifies a narrow substantive change and implements it by amending a specific statutory provision with an explicit effective date.
This bill amends Section 480(f)(2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to exclude from Title IV need analysis the net value of: (A) a family farm on which the family resides, and (B) a small business (<=100 full-time or FTE employees) owned and controlled by the family.
The change applies to award years beginning on or after the date of enactment.
The provision prevents those family-held assets from being counted when determining federal student aid eligibility.
Legislatively modest and politically popular with rural constituencies, but nontrivial fiscal impact and lack of offsets reduce odds in the Senate and in final reconciliation.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly identifies a narrow substantive change and implements it by amending a specific statutory provision with an explicit effective date. The statutory insertion contains concrete elements (an employee-count threshold for small businesses and a residency criterion for family farms).
Progressives emphasize potential aid erosion and fairness concerns
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize potential aid erosion and fairness concerns
A mainstream progressive would be sympathetic to protecting small family farms and businesses from forced liquidation, but wary of expanding exemptions that could reduce funds for need-based aid.
They would want clearer safeguards to prevent wealthier families from sheltering assets to increase aid eligibility.
Support would be cautious and conditional.
A pragmatic moderate would see merit in protecting operational family farms and bona fide small businesses from being penalized in FAFSA calculations, while wanting clarity on cost and implementation.
They would favor modest safeguards and a fiscal review before broad rollout.
Support is likely but contingent on details and offsets.
A mainstream conservative would strongly favor the bill as it protects family property and small business owners from federal means-testing that could force asset sales.
They would emphasize reducing government intrusion and preserving family enterprises.
Opposition concerns are minor compared with the bill's protections.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Legislatively modest and politically popular with rural constituencies, but nontrivial fiscal impact and lack of offsets reduce odds in the Senate and in final reconciliation.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize potential aid erosion and fairness concerns
Legislatively modest and politically popular with rural constituencies, but nontrivial fiscal impact and lack of offsets reduce odds in the…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly identifies a narrow substantive change and implements it by amending a specific statutory provision with an explicit effective date. The statutory insertion c…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.