PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 10, 2014
Protecting Educational Loans for Underserved Students Act - Amends title IV (Student Assistance) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to establish criteria for the Secretary of Education to use in determining whether the credit history of applicants for William D. Ford Federal Direct PLUS loans renders them ineligible for such loans. (Federal Direct PLUS loans are provided to graduate or professional degree students and the parents of dependent undergraduate students.)
Directs the Secretary to consider an applicant to have an adverse credit history on the basis of his or her credit report, absent a determination that the applicant has extenuating circumstances, if : (1) the applicant is 90 or more days delinquent on the repayment of a debt exceeding $2,000; or (2) during the three years before the credit report date, the applicant has been subject to a default determination, bankruptcy discharge, foreclosure, repossession, tax lien, wage garnishment, or write-off of a title IV debt.
Requires applicants that have been subject to such actions to participate in loan counseling provided by the applicable institution of higher education before becoming eligible for Federal Direct PLUS loans.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Prohibits the Secretary from: (1) denying a Federal Direct PLUS loan to an applicant for having debt that is unrelated to title IV loans and is in collection or has been charged off, provided the applicant participates in such loan counseling; or (2) using the applicant's lack of a credit history as a reason to deny a Federal Direct PLUS loan to such applicant.
Requires the Secretary to retain a record of the Secretary's basis for determining that an applicant has extenuating circumstances that make the applicant eligible for a Federal Direct PLUS loan despite having an adverse credit history.
Makes the Secretary's determination that an applicant does not have an adverse credit history effective for the two years following such determination.
People & committees
Rep. Richmond, Cedric L. [D-LA-2] · D–LA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
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
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.4480 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.4480 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.4480 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.4480 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.