PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Buchanan, Vern [R-FL-16] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 27, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
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.
Analyze H.R.1905 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.
Examine H.R.1905 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.
Examine H.R.1905 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.
Examine H.R.1905 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.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-03-06 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The bill would change which students count toward a threshold used to determine whether certain private colleges and universities are subject to a tax on investment income. Students would count only if they meet a referenced federal student-eligibility rule. Covered institutions would also have to report student counts before and after applying that restriction.
Certain students not taken into account for purposes of calculation to determine if certain private colleges and universities are subject to excise tax on net investment income
For purposes of paragraph (1)(D), a student shall not be taken into account with respect to an eligible educational institution unless such student meets the student eligibility requirements under section 484(a)(5) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1091(a)(5)).
Each applicable educational institution described in section 4968(b) which is subject to the requirements of subsection (a) shall include on the return required under subsection (a)— (1) the number of students taken into account for purposes of the calculation in paragraph (1)(D) of section 4968(b) (determined before the application of paragraph (3) of such section), and (2) the number of students taken into account for purposes of the calculation in paragraph (1)(D) of section 4968(b) (determined after the application of paragraph (3) of such section).
Section 1 would name the legislation the Protecting American Students Act.
This Act may be cited as the Protecting American Students Act.
Section 2 would add a student-count restriction specifically for the endowment-threshold calculation in Internal Revenue Code section 4968(b)(1)(D). A student could count only if the student meets the eligibility requirements referenced in Higher Education Act section 484(a)(5).
Section 4968(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: (3) Certain students not taken into account in determining endowment threshold For purposes of paragraph (1)(D), a student shall not be taken into account with respect to an eligible educational institution unless such student meets the student eligibility requirements under section 484(a)(5) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1091(a)(5)).
Section 3 would require applicable educational institutions described in section 4968(b), if subject to section 6033(a)'s reporting requirements, to include two student counts on their required return: the count before applying the new restriction and the count after applying it.
Section 6033 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsection (o) as subsection (p) and by inserting after subsection (n) the following new subsection:
Each applicable educational institution described in section 4968(b) which is subject to the requirements of subsection (a) shall include on the return required under subsection (a)— (1) the number of students taken into account for purposes of the calculation in paragraph (1)(D) of section 4968(b) (determined before the application of paragraph (3) of such section), and (2) the number of students taken into account for purposes of the calculation in paragraph (1)(D) of section 4968(b) (determined after the application of paragraph (3) of such section).
Both the student-count restriction and the reporting requirement would apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.
The amendment made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.
The amendment made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated September 27, 2025, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Ways and Means on March 6, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2025-09-27T08:05:38Z. 2025-03-06: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. 2025-03-06: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-03-06. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential benefit, special exemption, or carve-out was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 27, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI