PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (text: CR S3322-3323)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 11, 2019
Protecting Our Students and Taxpayers Act of 2019 or the POST Act of 2019
This bill modifies requirements for a proprietary (i.e., for-profit) institution of higher education (IHE) to participate in federal student aid programs.
Current law requires a proprietary IHE to derive at least 10% of its revenue from sources other than federal student aid. This bill requires a proprietary IHE to derive at least 15% of its revenue from sources other than federal funds (i.e., it replaces the so-called 90/10 rule with an 85/15 rule).
Additionally, the bill limits what a proprietary institution may treat as revenue to the school in calculating whether it derives at least 15% of its revenue from sources other than federal funds.
Finally, the bill makes compliance with the 85/15 rule a condition of institutional eligibility to participate in federal student aid programs (i.e., failure to comply results in immediate loss of institutional eligibility). Currently, a proprietary IHE must violate the rule for two consecutive years before losing eligibility.
People & committees
Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL] · D–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (text: CR S3322-3323)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 6, 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 S.1775 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 S.1775 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 S.1775 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 S.1775 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.