A Democratic bill with 9 Democratic cosponsors · See all 9 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill establishes State-Federal partnerships to help students attend in-state public colleges without debt. It provides federal grant funding to states that commit to covering students' unmet financial needs. The legislation also creates a debt-free college grant program specifically for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs). Additionally, the bill expands federal financial aid eligibility to include DREAMer students who meet specific criteria. Finally, it sets rules for keeping states and institutions accountable, capping tuition, and maintaining existing funding levels.
Yes· 3 of 19
- Scored +9
Would students be better off under this?
Students across participating public institutions and MSIs gain access to debt-free education, tuition caps, and student success services.
- Scored +9
Does this make college cost less?
The legislation establishes debt-free college partnerships and caps tuition increases tied to the Consumer Price Index.
- Scored +8
Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this?
Young adults pursuing higher education benefit directly from debt-free college initiatives and expanded Pell Grant eligibility.
The opposite
- Scored -5
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill authorizes significant new federal spending through grants for state partnerships and Minority-Serving Institutions.
- Scored -3
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
The legislation commits substantial federal funds without corresponding revenue offsets or spending reductions elsewhere.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Debt-Free College Opportunities: Under Section 2 (adding section 499A-3), the bill authorizes grants to states to establish partnerships with the goal of providing debt-free college for all eligible students at in-state public institutions. This helps individuals attain higher education without taking on debt.
-
Support for DREAMer Students: Under Section 4, the bill amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide Federal Pell Grant and Title IV eligibility to DREAMer students. This gives these students access to federal financial aid for their education.
-
Aid for HBCUs and MSIs: Under Section 3 (adding section 372), the bill creates a grant program for HBCUs and Minority-Serving Institutions to provide need-based financial aid. This covers the unmet financial needs of students enrolled at these specific institutions.
-
Tuition Capping: Under Section 2 (adding section 499A-4) and Section 3 (adding section 372), participating states and eligible institutions must cap tuition and fees at levels tied to the date of enactment, allowing only yearly increases based on the Consumer Price Index. This protects students from unexpected or steep tuition hikes.
-
Student Support Services: Under Section 2 (adding section 499A-5), the bill requires states to use a portion of their grant funds to establish or increase funding for student success programs. This provides counseling, academic support, and microgrants to help students complete their degrees.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Risk of Institutional Ineligibility: Under Section 3 (adding section 372), if an HBCU or MSI loses its eligibility or breaches its grant terms, it must notify students and families of its ineligibility. This could disrupt financial planning and cause uncertainty for students relying on those specific grants.
-
Uncertainty During State Withdrawal: Under Section 2 (adding section 499A-8), if a participating State decides to withdraw from the partnership or becomes ineligible, it must notify students. While coverage may continue for certain Pell Grant recipients, state withdrawal creates potential uncertainty regarding long-term debt-free commitments for other enrolled students.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would students be better off under this? — Students across participating public institutions and MSIs gain access to debt-free education, tuition caps, and student success services. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income students receive prioritized coverage for unmet financial needs and increased institutional support services. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults pursuing higher education benefit directly from debt-free college initiatives and expanded Pell Grant eligibility. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — The bill includes targeted grant funding specifically designed to support Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — The legislation provides dedicated funding for Minority-Serving Institutions, including Hispanic-serving institutions. Would immigrants be better off under this? — The bill extends federal Pell Grant and Title IV eligibility to DREAMer students meeting specific criteria. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving institutions are included in the targeted grant programs. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Middle-income families attending in-state public institutions benefit from tuition caps and reduced unmet financial needs. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Tribal Colleges and Universities and Native-serving institutions are eligible for dedicated debt-free college grants.
- Education And Technology
- Does this make college cost less? — The legislation establishes debt-free college partnerships and caps tuition increases tied to the Consumer Price Index. Does this reduce what student borrowers owe or repay? — The bill's primary purpose is to ensure students can attain higher education without taking on debt. Does this put more money into public schools? — The bill provides substantial federal grant funding to support in-state public institutions of higher education.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Enabling low-income students to attain higher education debt-free helps lift individuals and households out of poverty. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — The bill provides targeted grant programs specifically for Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority-Serving Institutions. Does this make it easier for immigrants already here to become citizens? — The bill expands federal financial aid and Pell Grant eligibility to DREAMer students.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The legislation requires public consumer-oriented websites and annual evaluations tracking institutional performance and compliance. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — States voluntarily enter into partnerships and retain flexibility in designing formulas and implementing student success programs. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill establishes federal oversight, reporting requirements, and compliance conditions for participating state partnerships.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — By reducing student debt and increasing college access, the bill helps develop a more educated and productive workforce. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill authorizes significant new federal spending through grants for state partnerships and Minority-Serving Institutions. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — The legislation commits substantial federal funds without corresponding revenue offsets or spending reductions elsewhere.
- 9/28/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/15/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
- 8 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
5 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Tammy BaldwinDemocrat · Wisconsin
Richard BlumenthalDemocrat · Connecticut
Cory BookerDemocrat · New Jersey
Richard DurbinDemocrat · Illinois
Ben LujánDemocrat · New Mexico
Jeff MerkleyDemocrat · Oregon
Alex PadillaDemocrat · California
Adam SchiffDemocrat · California
Elizabeth WarrenDemocrat · Massachusetts