Higher Education Affordability and Fairness Act of 2005
Referred to the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 4, 2005
Higher Education Affordability and Fairness Act of 2005 - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to increase the tax deduction for qualified higher education tuition and related expenses. Makes such tax deduction permanent. Increases adjusted gross income limits for purposes of determining the allowable amount of the Hope Scholarship tax credit. Directs the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct an annual study to examine whether the Federal income tax incentives to provide education assistance affect higher education tuition rates in order to identify if institutions of higher education are absorbing the intended savings by raising tuition rates. Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the maximum Pell Grant should be increased to $4,700 to pay approximately: (1) 20 percent of the tuition, fees, room and board, and other expenses of the average college; or (2) the tuition and fees of the average public college.
Referred to the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, 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 the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, 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 the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, 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.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E17)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Bill text & related measures
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Mar 23, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.117 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.117 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.117 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.117 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.