Latest action: Referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, Education and Workforce, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Creates consumer protections for outcomes-based student financing programs that tie loan repayment to job earnings.
The problem
Outcomes-based student financing is growing but lacks clear consumer protections. Students need safeguards when loans are tied to future income instead of traditional repayment.
The proposal
Establishes a consumer protection framework for income-share agreements and similar financing tools. Sets rules for disclosures, borrower rights, and oversight of these alternative student financing programs.
The impact
Students using income-based financing, education providers, and lenders are affected. Students gain protections; lenders face new regulations; schools can offer more flexible financing options.
Clear rules ensure students understand what they're agreeing to before signing income-based contracts. Reduces risk of unfair terms or hidden fees that could trap borrowers in bad deals.
Income-based financing helps students who can't get traditional loans. More financing options means more people can afford job training and college programs.
Outcomes-based financing encourages programs focused on real job skills and employment. Helps students enter careers that lead to earnings that match their debt obligations.
Clear federal rules let lenders operate confidently across states. Reduces confusion and makes it easier for legitimate companies to offer these products.
New regulations require companies to invest in compliance systems and legal expertise. These costs may be passed to borrowers or limit lender participation in the market.
Rules designed for income-share agreements might not work well for other financing models. Overly strict regulations could slow innovation in education financing.
Bill summary is unclear about specific protections being required. Borrowers won't know exact safeguards until regulations are written and finalized.
Some smaller or alternative lenders might exit the market if compliance requirements are too burdensome. This could reduce competition and choices for students.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
No donor data found for current cycle
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.