Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
This bill amends the Higher Education Act to allow borrowers of Federal Direct PLUS loans made on behalf of dependent students (and certain consolidation loans) to access income-contingent repayment (ICR) and income-based repayment (IBR) plans. It revises the IBR partial financial hardship definition (using 15 percent of income above 150 percent of the poverty line) and removes existing exclusions that barred those Parent PLUS borrowers from these income-driven repayment options.
Left emphasizes borrower relief and equity; right emphasizes taxpayer cost and moral hazard.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive policy change that is well-specified in its statutory edits and definitions, but it omits fiscal, administrative implementation, and oversight detail that would be proportionate to the broader operational and budgetary consequences of expanding repayment eligibility.
This bill amends the Higher Education Act to allow borrowers of Federal Direct PLUS loans made on behalf of dependent students (and certain consolidation loans) to access income-contingent repayment (ICR) and income-based repayment (IBR) plans.
It revises the IBR partial financial hardship definition (using 15 percent of income above 150 percent of the poverty line) and removes existing exclusions that barred those Parent PLUS borrowers from these income-driven repayment options.
The changes take effect on enactment and apply to borrowers with outstanding balances who are repaying or will repay under ICR or IBR.
Moderately plausible if attached to broader higher‑education or budget legislation; standalone enactment faces fiscal scrutiny and mixed support.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive policy change that is well-specified in its statutory edits and definitions, but it omits fiscal, administrative implementation, and oversight detail that would be proportionate to the broader operational and budgetary consequences of expanding repayment eligibility.
Left emphasizes borrower relief and equity; right emphasizes taxpayer cost and moral hazard.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Left emphasizes borrower relief and equity; right emphasizes taxpayer cost and moral hazard.
Supports the bill as a targeted expansion of income-driven repayment to parents.
Views it as correcting an inequity that left parent-borrowers without affordable options and helping low- and middle-income families avoid financial distress.
Generally favorable but cautious.
Sees the policy as reasonable relief for a specific borrower group, while wanting clarity on fiscal impacts and implementation safeguards before full support.
Likely opposed.
Views the bill as an expansion of federal subsidy that shifts parental loan responsibility onto taxpayers and increases government involvement in higher education financing.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Moderately plausible if attached to broader higher‑education or budget legislation; standalone enactment faces fiscal scrutiny and mixed support.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Left emphasizes borrower relief and equity; right emphasizes taxpayer cost and moral hazard.
Moderately plausible if attached to broader higher‑education or budget legislation; standalone enactment faces fiscal scrutiny and mixed su…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive policy change that is well-specified in its statutory edits and definitions, but it omits fiscal, administrative implementation, and oversigh…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.