Summary: House Education and the Workforce Committee Markup of Student Success and Taxpayer Savings Plan (H.Con.Res.14)
This analysis was prepared by Venable, LLP on behalf of AACOM.
Overview
On Tuesday, the House Education and the Workforce Committee advanced the Student Success and Taxpayer Savings Plan in a 21-14 party-line vote, which is estimated to produce $351 billion in savings according to CBO estimates. Each of the 33 Democrat-proposed amendments failed to pass by the same party-line vote. The measure includes major amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965, including overhauls of Pell Grant funding and eligibility, stricter limits on borrower loan caps, repeal of gainful employment and borrower defense regulations, and a new risk-sharing requirement that would hold institutions responsible for a portion of unpaid loans. The plan also rescinds the Biden-era SAVE income-driven repayment program and the ongoing payment pause, replacing them with just two pared-down repayment options—a fixed-payment schedule tied to debt load and an income-based “Repayment Assistance Plan”—projected to save $295 billion, according to a preliminary CBO score. Chairman Walberg (R-MI) argued that “higher education is at an inflection point” and blamed the “foolish actions” of the Biden-Harris administration—citing the SAVE plan and extended pause—for exacerbating a “budgetary catastrophe” that unfairly shifts costs to taxpayers.
A variety of democrats proposed amendments focused specifically on risk-sharing, student loan caps and graduate and medical education. Rep. Summer Lee (D-PA) proposed exempting institutions with over 20% Pell enrollment from the b ill’s risk-sharing requirement, warning colleges would cut programs or raise tuition—a change Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) called arbitrary, and Ranking Member Scott (D-VA) backed as crucial for opportunity. Rep. Alma Adams (D-NC) proposed requiring the Education Department to certify that risk-sharing would not unduly burden HBCUs—a move Rep. Burgess Owens (R-UT) dismissed and Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) advocated to protect vulnerable students. Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA) and Ranking Member Scott defended preserving the 90‒10 rule limiting for-profit reliance on GI Bill funds—criticized by Rep. Owens and supported by Rep. Bonamici for veteran safeguards. On loan caps, Rep. Lee urged eliminating all federal limits to protect low-income borrowers, countered by Chair Walberg who praised aggregate and annual caps as tuition guardrails. Rep. Lucy McBath (D-GA) offered an amendment to retain medical and dental residency time in rural areas under Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF), which was supported by Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-CT) and Rep. John Mannion (D-NY). Finally, Reps. Adams (D-NC) and Bonamici (D-OR) warned that eliminating and arbitrarily capping Grad PLUS loans without viable alternatives would force students into higher-cost private lending, among other issues.
Topic-Specific Summary of H.Con.Res.14 Markup
Risk-Sharing
Rep. Summer Lee (D-PA) proposed an amendment that would exempt any school with over 20% Pell-eligible enrollment, thereby rewarding institutions that serve low-income students and warned that the bill’s risk-sharing requirement will drive institutions to cut low-return programs like teaching and social work or to raise tuition and reduce quality, disproportionately harming community colleges and HBCUs. Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) countered that if graduates can’t repay loans, it reflects program costs exceeding their value rather than a flaw in risk sharing; he called the 20% Pell threshold arbitrary—pointing out that elite schools like Columbia qualify—and insisted that true access for low-income students comes from reducing tuition, not expanding loan exemptions. Ranking Member Scott (D-VA) supported Lee’s exemption amendment, noting that the share of Pell recipients rightly measures an institution’s commitment to opportunity, warning against discouraging students from public-service fields with lower salaries, and urging adoption to protect both vulnerable institutions and the careers they feed.
Rep. Alma Adams (D-NC) offered an amendment requiring the Secretary of Education to certify that the risk-sharing model won’t disproportionately harm HBCUs, noting that 77% of HBCUs would face significant penalties—such as North Carolina A&T owing roughly $3.9 million, Florida A&M about $2.6 million, and Tennessee State approximately $3.4 million annually—thereby pulling millions from student support and forcing schools to admit only low-risk, better-off students, undermining their mission to serve first-generation and low-income learners. Rep. Burgess Owens (R-UT) opposed the amendment, arguing that the bill’s accountability metrics apply equally to all institutions regardless of sector, that HBCU students will benefit from improved loan terms and repayment options, and that nothing in the risk-sharing provisions singles out or harms Historically Black Colleges. Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) supported Adams’s proposal, calling the risk-sharing model “misguided and harmful” for creating incentives to cut underpaid public-service programs and enroll wealthier students, disproportionately penalizing schools serving low-income and under-resourced students—including many HBCUs and community colleges—and urging colleagues to focus on true affordability and robust financial aid.
In his opening statement, Ranking Member Scott (D-VA) noted that he is “appalled” that the bill eliminates the 90-10 rule and the borrower defense to repayment eliminating. On the issue, Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA) offered an amendment to preserve the bipartisan 90-10 veterans’ loophole fix that bars for-profit colleges from drawing more than 90% of their revenue from GI Bill funds; he criticized its repeal as rewarding predatory institutions that disproportionately target veterans, women, minorities, and low-income students with poor outcomes and higher borrowing and default rates—highlighting that for-profits enroll only 10% of students but account for 50% of defaults—and urged colleagues to require schools to prove value by deriving at least 10% of their income from non-federal sources. Rep. Burgess Owens (R-UT) opposed reinstating the 90-10 rule, arguing that sector-neutral accountability based on student outcomes is preferable to regulations targeting institutions by tax status, claiming that heavy-handed limits force colleges to raise tuition to serve disadvantaged students and fail to improve completion or affordability, and urging support for the bill’s broader accountability framework instead of “picking winners and losers.” Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) supported Takano’s amendment, explaining that the 90-10 rule is a vital market-based consumer protection born of negotiated rulemaking; she warned that repealing it would weaken oversight, expose students—especially veterans—to exploitation by for-profit colleges, and undermine taxpayer safeguards, and called on colleagues to uphold transparency and protect high-quality education.
Student Loan Caps / Limits
Rep. Summer Lee (D-PA) argued that capping loans by program will disproportionately harm low-income, first-generation, and students of color—forcing them into expensive, inflexible private loans—and noted from personal experience that without generous federal aid she couldn’t have become a lawyer; her amendment would remove all loan limits and preserve access until true affordability measures are in place. Chair Walberg (R-MI) opposed removing loan caps, contending that uncapped lending has fueled tuition spikes and placed a $1.6 trillion debt burden on students and a $130 billion cost on taxpayers, and praised the bill’s clear aggregate and annual limits ($50 K for undergraduates, $150 K for graduate students, $200 K lifetime) as necessary guardrails to pressure colleges to lower costs. Rep. Alma Adams (D-NC) emphasized the need for targeted support for first-generation, Black, and Brown students—including robust Pell Grants and resources for HBCUs—agreeing that financial aid provisions must protect those who most rely on them. Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) framed the crisis as rooted in runaway tuition enabled by open-ended federal loans, praised Florida’s model of tuition-free college for high achievers, and argued that debt caps will compel institutions to cut prices and expand opportunity for low-income students. Ranking Member Scott (D-VA) attributed ballooning student debt to the decline of Pell Grant coverage—from covering 80% of college costs to about 30%—noting that even full-time work no longer shields students from crushing loans and urging that aid, not blame, is the solution.
Rep. Alma Adams (D-NC) offered an amendment to strike the provision capping federal aid at the median cost of attendance, arguing it arbitrarily punishes low-income, first-generation, working-parent, and minority students; would force them into excess private debt or out of school; and compounds historical underfunding at HBCUs, MSIs, community, and regional colleges. Chair Walberg (R-MI) opposed the amendment, citing a nonpartisan Urban Institute report indicating that 93% of undergraduates wouldn’t be affected by the median-cost cap, claiming it preserves access without rewarding institutions for raising prices, and submitted the report for the record. Ranking Member Scott (D-VA), the Ranking Member, criticized the cap as mathematically flawed—punishing half of all students, vulnerable to manipulation, bearing no cost-of-living adjustments, and likely to deter low-income applicants—and urged elimination of the provision. Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) defended the policy by clarifying that the cap uses the field-of-study median (not the overall average), contending it will curb runaway tuition by incentivizing institutions to lower costs, ultimately benefiting students and taxpayers. Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-CT) warned that low-income families exhaust every dollar of available loans and that the bill, absent any true cost-reduction measures, would disproportionately harm the most vulnerable students; she opposed the amendment.
Graduate and Medical Education
Rep. Lucy McBath (D-GA) offered an amendment to retain medical and dental residency time in rural areas under Public Service Loan Forgiveness, stressing that residencies are low-paid jobs despite long hours; she highlighted Georgia’s severe shortages—over 60 counties without a pediatrician and two-thirds lacking an OB/GYN—and urged support to boost rural physician access. Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) opposed the amendment, noting the bill already defers interest during residency for four years under the bipartisan Resident Education Deferred Interest Act; he argued that once physicians earn higher incomes, they should begin repayment and that caps on forgiveness pressure medical schools to lower tuition. Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-CT) supported the amendment, recounting a community-center dentist still struggling under debt sacrifices to serve underserved children; she warned that cutting forgiveness options forces professionals into higher-paying private practice, leaving vulnerable communities without care. Rep. John Mannion (D-NY) backed the amendment, citing primary-care shortages in Central New York’s rural Mohawk Valley—especially in community health centers serving veterans and people with disabilities—and emphasized PSLF’s role in recruiting and retaining needed providers. Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) spoke in favor, arguing that preserving residency credit under PSLF incentivizes medical students to enter critical but lower-paid specialties and public health settings, and urged colleagues to support the amendment to ensure care reaches underserved areas.
Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT) supported strengthening and preserving the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program—originally created by President Bush in 2007—to incentivize public-service careers (teachers, nurses, military, nonprofit workers). He highlighted an odd change in the bill that would exclude physicians’ residency years from PSLF just as the nation faces a growing doctor shortage, noted that his bipartisan “Service Act” would streamline and shorten the forgiveness timeline, and praised the Biden administration’s recent efforts to clear the backlog of qualified discharges after Trump-era obstruction. Chair Walberg (R-MI) argued that PSLF has become costly and unsustainable—citing uncapped forgiveness and advanced-degree loans that burden taxpayers with billions for highly paid professionals—and contended that expanding PSLF doesn’t address root causes of debt (rising program costs), urging focus instead on reforms that lower college prices.
Grad PLUS
Rep. Alma Adams (D-NC) warned that the bill’s proposed elimination and drastic limitation of Grad PLUS loans—with no viable alternatives—would devastate students and the institutions that serve them, forcing many borrowers into higher-cost, unprotected private loans and undermining access to graduate and professional degrees, particularly for students of color. She emphasized that arbitrary borrowing caps would slash Grad PLUS and Parent PLUS options, pushing families into predatory lending and jeopardizing the American Dream. Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) added that small private colleges—which rely heavily on Grad PLUS and unsubsidized graduate loan revenue—could face severe funding shortfalls, threatening programs that train health-care providers and even risking institutional closure.