Sponsored by
Rep. Luna, Anna Paulina [R-FL-13]
ID: L000596
Follow the money
The bill
HRES. 883, 119th Congress — read as touching For-Profit Education & Student Loans.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Department of Education" section, p. 386-388 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Invalid Date
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another brilliant example of legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?
HRES 883 is a resolution that allows for the consideration of H.R. 2003, which aims to lower the interest rate on Federal student loans to 2 percent. Oh, how noble. How utterly, mind-numbingly predictable.
New regulations being created or modified? Ha! This bill is just a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It's a cosmetic fix designed to appease the masses while ignoring the underlying disease: the crippling cost of higher education in America.
Affected industries and sectors? Well, let's see... The student loan industry will likely take a hit (oh no, the poor banks!), but the real beneficiaries are the politicians who get to tout this as a "win" for their constituents. Meanwhile, the actual problem – the skyrocketing cost of tuition – remains unaddressed.
Compliance requirements and timelines? Oh boy, this is where it gets good. The bill waives all points of order against consideration, essentially allowing Congress to ram this through without any meaningful debate or scrutiny. It's like they're saying, "Hey, don't worry about the details; just trust us, we know what we're doing." (Spoiler alert: they don't.)
Enforcement mechanisms and penalties? *crickets* There aren't any. This bill is all carrot, no stick. It's a feel-good measure designed to get politicians re-elected, not actually solve the problem.
Economic and operational impacts? Well, let's just say this bill will have about as much impact on the student loan crisis as a teaspoon of sugar would on a diabetic's blood sugar levels. It's a token gesture, a drop in the ocean.
The real disease here is the systemic corruption that allows politicians to peddle empty promises while ignoring the root causes of the problem. This bill is just another symptom of that disease – a desperate attempt to appear relevant and effective while actually accomplishing nothing.
In short, HRES 883 is a legislative placebo, designed to make voters feel better without actually curing the underlying illness. And we're all just pawns in this game of political theater. How delightful.
No campaign finance data available for Rep. Luna, Anna Paulina [R-FL-13]
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped.
Resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 2003, which amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to lower the interest rate on Federal student loans to 2 percent. Lower interest rates reduce borrowing costs for students, increasing affordability and demand for higher education, which benefits for-profit education providers that rely on student loan financing.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
AI Analysis:
"The bill focuses on lowering federal student loan interest rates to 2%, which contrasts with Project 2025's preference for eliminating interest rate subsidies and moving toward market-based lending or income-driven repayment without subsidies. While both address student loan reform, their approaches are opposed in key areas."
— 353 — Department of Education 2. Intruding on the governance of colleges and universities controlled by a religious organization. l Revamp the system for recognizing accreditation agencies for Title IV purposes by removing the department’s monopoly on recognition by (1) authorizing states to recognize accreditation agencies for Title IV gatekeeping purposes and/or (2) authorizing state agencies to act as accreditation agencies for institutions throughout the United States. The next Administration and Congress might also consider amending the HEA to remove accreditors from the program triad entirely to allow accreditation to return to its original role of voluntary quality assurance. This would permit accreditors to put some “teeth” back into their standards without creating high- stakes disasters, such as institutional loss of Title IV access through paperwork submission errors, a state exercising its constitutional authority to administer its public colleges and universities, or an institution freely exercising the religious beliefs of its founders. With this option, neither the department nor the states would oversee or recognize accrediting agencies. The department’s role would be limited to evaluating the institution’s compliance with federal accounting requirements pursuant to evaluations conducted by appropriately credentialed auditors who have no conflicts of interest in performing the review paid for by the federal agency charged with overseeing compliance—not the institutions being reviewed. HEA: Student Loans l Beyond immediate policy moves and rulemaking to end the current Administration’s abuse of the department’s payment pause and HEA loan forgiveness programs, the department should work with Congress to overhaul the federal student loan program for the benefit of taxpayers and students. The federal government does not have the proper incentives to make sound lending decisions. The new Administration should consider: l Privatizing all lending programs, including subsidized, unsubsidized, and PLUS loans (both Grad and Parent). This would allow for market prices and signals to influence educational borrowing, introducing consumer-driven accountability into higher education. Pell grants should retain their current voucher-like structure. — 354 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise If privatizing student lending is not feasible, then the next Administration should consider the following reforms: l Switch to fair-value accounting from FCRA accounting. l Consolidate all federal loan programs into one new program that a) utilizes income-driven repayment, b) includes no interest rate subsidies or loan forgiveness, c) includes annual and aggregate limits on borrowing, and d) includes skin in the game to hold colleges accountable. l Eliminate Grad PLUS loans (for graduate students) and Parent PLUS loans (for parents of undergraduates). Graduate students are already eligible for unsubsidized Stafford student loans; Grad PLUS loans are redundant. They also lack some of the safeguards of Stafford loans, such as annual and aggregate borrowing limits. Parent PLUS loans are also redundant because there are many privately provided alternatives available. l The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which prioritizes government and public sector work over private sector employment, should be terminated. Whatever Congress chooses to do with future loans, there is still the question of the government’s responsible stewardship of the existing student loan portfolio—a substantial taxpayer asset. The current Administration has recklessly engaged in the policy fetish of forgiving and canceling student loans with abandon. l The next Administration should work with Congress to amend the HEA to ensure that no Administration engages in this kind of abuse in the future. l Specifically, the new Administration should urge the Congress to amend the HEA to abrogate, or substantially reduce, the power of the Secretary to cancel, compromise, discharge, or forgive the principal balances of Title IV student loans, as well as to modify in any material way the repayment amounts or terms of Title IV student loans. l Further, the next Administration should propose that Congress amend the HEA to remove the department’s authority to forgive loans based on borrower defense to repayment; instead, the department
AI Analysis:
"Both the bill and Project 2025 address the federal student loan program under the HEA, but the bill seeks to lower interest rates through continued federal lending, whereas Project 2025 advocates privatizing loans to introduce market-driven rates, representing opposing approaches."
— 353 — Department of Education 2. Intruding on the governance of colleges and universities controlled by a religious organization. l Revamp the system for recognizing accreditation agencies for Title IV purposes by removing the department’s monopoly on recognition by (1) authorizing states to recognize accreditation agencies for Title IV gatekeeping purposes and/or (2) authorizing state agencies to act as accreditation agencies for institutions throughout the United States. The next Administration and Congress might also consider amending the HEA to remove accreditors from the program triad entirely to allow accreditation to return to its original role of voluntary quality assurance. This would permit accreditors to put some “teeth” back into their standards without creating high- stakes disasters, such as institutional loss of Title IV access through paperwork submission errors, a state exercising its constitutional authority to administer its public colleges and universities, or an institution freely exercising the religious beliefs of its founders. With this option, neither the department nor the states would oversee or recognize accrediting agencies. The department’s role would be limited to evaluating the institution’s compliance with federal accounting requirements pursuant to evaluations conducted by appropriately credentialed auditors who have no conflicts of interest in performing the review paid for by the federal agency charged with overseeing compliance—not the institutions being reviewed. HEA: Student Loans l Beyond immediate policy moves and rulemaking to end the current Administration’s abuse of the department’s payment pause and HEA loan forgiveness programs, the department should work with Congress to overhaul the federal student loan program for the benefit of taxpayers and students. The federal government does not have the proper incentives to make sound lending decisions. The new Administration should consider: l Privatizing all lending programs, including subsidized, unsubsidized, and PLUS loans (both Grad and Parent). This would allow for market prices and signals to influence educational borrowing, introducing consumer-driven accountability into higher education. Pell grants should retain their current voucher-like structure.
AI Analysis:
"Both the bill and Project 2025 address federal student loan policy and the Higher Education Act, but the bill seeks to lower interest rates (a subsidy) while Project 2025 aims to eliminate interest rate subsidies and restructure loan programs, resulting in only weak thematic overlap."
— 354 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise If privatizing student lending is not feasible, then the next Administration should consider the following reforms: l Switch to fair-value accounting from FCRA accounting. l Consolidate all federal loan programs into one new program that a) utilizes income-driven repayment, b) includes no interest rate subsidies or loan forgiveness, c) includes annual and aggregate limits on borrowing, and d) includes skin in the game to hold colleges accountable. l Eliminate Grad PLUS loans (for graduate students) and Parent PLUS loans (for parents of undergraduates). Graduate students are already eligible for unsubsidized Stafford student loans; Grad PLUS loans are redundant. They also lack some of the safeguards of Stafford loans, such as annual and aggregate borrowing limits. Parent PLUS loans are also redundant because there are many privately provided alternatives available. l The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which prioritizes government and public sector work over private sector employment, should be terminated. Whatever Congress chooses to do with future loans, there is still the question of the government’s responsible stewardship of the existing student loan portfolio—a substantial taxpayer asset. The current Administration has recklessly engaged in the policy fetish of forgiving and canceling student loans with abandon. l The next Administration should work with Congress to amend the HEA to ensure that no Administration engages in this kind of abuse in the future. l Specifically, the new Administration should urge the Congress to amend the HEA to abrogate, or substantially reduce, the power of the Secretary to cancel, compromise, discharge, or forgive the principal balances of Title IV student loans, as well as to modify in any material way the repayment amounts or terms of Title IV student loans. l Further, the next Administration should propose that Congress amend the HEA to remove the department’s authority to forgive loans based on borrower defense to repayment; instead, the department — 355 — Department of Education should be authorized to discharge loans only in instances where clear and convincing evidence exists to demonstrate that an educational institution engaged in fraud toward a borrower in connection with his or her enrollment in the institution and the student’s educational program or activity at the institution. Cap indirect costs at universities. Currently, the federal government pays a por- tion of the overhead expenses associated with university-based research. Known as “indirect costs,” these reimbursements cross-subsidize leftist agendas and the research of billion-dollar organizations such as Google and the Ford Foundation. Universities also use this influx of cash to pay for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts. To correct course, l Congress should cap the indirect cost rate paid to universities so that it does not exceed the lowest rate a university accepts from a private organization to fund research efforts. This market- based reform would help reduce federal taxpayer subsidization of leftist agendas. NEW REGULATIONS Attacking the Accreditation Cartel For a college to participate in federal financial aid programs, it must be accred- ited, but accreditors have been abusing their quasi-regulatory power to impose non-educational requirements and ideological preferences on colleges. l The Secretary of Education should refuse to recognize all accreditors that abuse their power. l New accreditors should also be encouraged to start up. Confronting the Chinese Communist Party’s Influence on Higher Education According to media reports, more than 100 universities in the U.S. received nearly $100 billion in gifts and grants from China-based sources between 2013 and 2020. Much of this money derives from the Chinese Communist Party and its proxies. The next Administration must l Reverse the Biden Administration’s refusal to enforce Section 117 of the HEA, which directs colleges and universities to report gifts from, and contracts with, sources outside the U.S. worth $250,000 or more.
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.