HR-10206-119
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Sponsored by Shomari Figures (D-AL)
What it does
This bill would amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to eliminate annual and aggregate borrowing limits on Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loans and to restore access to Federal Direct PLUS Loans for graduate and professional students. These loan limits and PLUS Loan restrictions were established by prior legislation (the One Big Beautiful Bill Act's education provisions) and were scheduled to take effect for periods of instruction after July 1, 2026; this bill would repeal those changes and revert to the pre-existing borrowing structure without caps.
Who benefits
Graduate and professional students (such as those pursuing law, medicine, business, and doctoral degrees) who would regain access to PLUS Loans and uncapped borrowing to cover tuition and living costs. Graduate and professional schools, particularly high-cost private universities, which benefit from students' ability to finance full tuition through federal borrowing. Loan servicers who process a larger volume of federal loans.
Who is hurt
Taxpayers, who bear the risk of loan defaults and the cost of federal loan subsidies and administrative expenses in the long run. Future borrowers who may accumulate larger debt loads, particularly those entering lower-paying professional fields, potentially facing repayment strain. Federal budget forecasts may show increased mandatory spending or subsidy costs, which could affect other discretionary priorities.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that graduate and professional students, especially those in medicine, law, and other high-cost fields, need access to sufficient federal financing to cover tuition that often exceeds arbitrary borrowing caps, and that eliminating limits prevents students from being pushed into higher-cost private loans with fewer consumer protections. They contend that PLUS Loans have historically provided a stable, income-driven-repayment-eligible option that expands access to advanced degrees for students without family wealth to cover costs upfront.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that removing loan limits could encourage graduate schools to raise tuition further, since students would have effectively unlimited federal borrowing to cover cost increases, a dynamic sometimes described as enabling tuition inflation. They contend that unlimited PLUS Loan access for graduate and professional students has previously contributed to some of the highest per-student federal debt loads, leaving many with unsustainable repayment burdens relative to their post-graduate earnings.
Constitutional context
This bill operates under Congress's Spending Clause authority (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) to structure federal loan programs, an area where Congress has broad discretion to set conditions and terms for programs it funds; South Dakota v. Dole (1987) established that such conditions are permissible as long as they meet certain criteria, though this bill raises no coercion concerns since it removes restrictions rather than imposing new conditions on states or institutions.
Checks and balances
Congress exercises its spending power to set loan terms directly through statute; the Department of Education implements the program administratively, with no significant shift in power between branches.
Historical precedent
This bill would reverse loan limit and PLUS Loan restrictions for graduate and professional students that were enacted in 2025 reconciliation legislation and scheduled to take effect for periods of instruction beginning after July 1, 2026.