U.S. Representative Salud Carbajal (D-CA-24) reintroduced legislation to reduce the cost of higher education for students across California and the United States.
The Degrees Not Debt Act would double the maximum Pell Grant award to $14,800, decreasing the amount of burdensome student loan debt for individuals pursuing higher education, and index that award cap to inflation by the 2028-2029 school year.
“I firmly believe higher education should be a ladder to success, not a lifetime of financial strain,” said Rep. Carbajal. “Today, student debt is holding back millions of Americans from building the lives they deserve, and that’s not acceptable. My legislation will double the Pell Grant award, helping students graduate with less debt and more opportunity.”
The Degrees Not Debt Act has the endorsement of the National Education Association, National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, University of California System, California State University System, California Community Colleges, Allan Hancock College, Santa Barbara City College, Ventura College, and Cuesta College.
“The University of California is proud to support the Degrees Not Debt Act, which would help ensure that the cost of higher education will not stand in the way of the nation’s college students. By doubling the Pell Grant and indexing it to inflation, this legislation would make an enormous difference. We must invest in the federal financial aid programs that enable students to access a high-quality and affordable education; they represent America’s future. UC appreciates Congressman Carbajal’s leadership and commends his commitment to the success of students across California and the nation,” said University of California Provost Katherine S. Newman.
“We are deeply appreciative of Rep. Carbajal and the cosponsors of the Degrees Not Debt Act for proposing legislation that invests in America’s workforce and communities by increasing the maximum Pell Grant award,” said California State University Chancellor Mildred García. “At the CSU, nearly half of our students rely on the Pell Grant each year to stay enrolled, pursue a life-changing degree and graduate with little to no debt. This legislation will help ensure that talented and diverse students for generations to come will be able to access higher education that would otherwise be out of reach.”
“The California Community Colleges are grateful for the leadership of Rep. Carbajal in standing up for affordability and access. Our guiding framework, Vision 2030, calls for policymakers to double down on ensuring that our students have access to financial aid that will enable to them to complete their education and enter today’s fast-changing workforce. The Pell Grant is such a critical tool and this legislation would be a game changer for students and the workforce nationwide,” said California Community Colleges Chancellor Sonya Christian.
Carbajal worked with House Democrats and the Biden-Harris Administration to raise the maximum Pell award for the 2023-2024 school year to $7,395, $500 higher than the previous year and $900 higher than 2021. These increases constitute the largest Pell increase in a decade.
Student loan debt in the U.S. totals more than $1.8 trillion – significantly larger than the total credit card debt held by Americans. Californians owe more than the average U.S. student loan borrower. As of June 2025, $151.5 billion in student loan debt belongs to California residents, with $38,300 being the average student loan debt. Close to 4 million student borrowers live in California.
About one in three U.S. college students—or more than 6 million students across the nation—currently rely on Pell Grants to help pay the enormous costs of college. But the current maximum Pell Grant award only covers a fraction of the average cost of an American four-year college education.
Bravo!
Someday, we’ll figure out that free higher education benefits all of society.
Nothing is ever free.
Except Trump’s airplane?
There’s the white sheet and torch guy. There he is.
HAMMONDS – that’s right, especially here. Civilized countries and those who inhabit them have benefitted from their taxes being used to provide higher education to the youth of those countries. When you have an educated populace, it may cost a little, but it will benefit everyone.
You all whine and cry about “foreign students” taking spots at our schools, but if your taxes were used to provide incentive via low cost/free tuition for citizens, that would decline.
You all whinge and moan about importing “foreign” talent, yet if we had more qualified and intelligent citizens, we wouldn’t need as much.
You see, you guys complain about everything and then complain about the cost to fix those things. The rest of the planet is passing us by almost every metric other than military spending because people like YOU love to cry and refuse to help fix anything.
I used to say some day soon this country will progress, but I don’t see that happening any time soon. We’re quickly becoming a pariah, once again, thanks to people like you.
Speaking of federal government:
Sheer insanity. How well did you or your supervisor do running two huge departments at the same time?!
“Michael Ellis, the deputy director of the CIA, unexpectedly removed a career lawyer who had been serving as the agency’s acting general counsel since January and appointed himself to the position, The New York Times reports.
Ellis, who was involved in a number of controversies during President Trump’s first term, is keeping his role as the agency’s second-highest official while assuming responsibility for the agency’s top legal decisions.
Social Security Administration commissioner Frank Bisignano was named to the newly created position of CEO of the IRS today, making him the latest member of the Trump administration to be put in charge of multiple federal agencies.
As IRS CEO, Bisignano will report to Treasury secretary Scott Bessent, who currently serves as acting commissioner of the IRS, the Treasury Department says. It is unclear whether Bisignano’s newly created role at the IRS will require Senate confirmation.
The Treasury Department said in a statement that Bisignano will be responsible for overseeing all day-to-day IRS operations while also continuing to serve in his role as commissioner of the Social Security Administration.
Sheer insanity is the defining characteristic of this federal administration.
I was expecting a proposal to cut the UC systems professors and administrations bloated compensation.
I guess throwing more money at it is the only solution?
This whole problem arose because we as a society stopped supporting education. No need to step even further backwards by cutting support.
Sounds like a comment from someone who never went to college.
Sounds to me like someone that paid their own way by working while attending.
Ah yes… the good old days when working part time at a burger joint could cover the cost of living and the $600 a year tuition at UCSB. When was that? 1975? Boomers have no right to say anything about the cost of college today.
And no…. no “inflation.” That tuition in 1975 was the equivalent of $3,600 today. You could work part time as a grocery bagger and make enough to cover all costs.
Let’s not forget home prices either. They bought homes in SB at that time around $40,000 which is now equivalent to $241,000.
Keep quiet.
Sounds to me like someone who would be considered from the boomer era – where the math does not currently add up in this century. It also sounds to me like someone who does not have any kids at or near college age.
A Boomer that happily invested in real estate. Math still adds up if you use the right numbers. We have children that age. Our son just finished a 5 year electrician apprenticeship. Was paid a good wage while working and learning.
Sail – Thank you for confirming that neither you or your son attended college at a UC and that you are playing the victim card. I see you were triggered and decided to bring up your real estate holdings in defense of some sort when no one asked about it – but ok good for you.
LOL “invested in real estate” when a bartender could afford to rent a home and a 24 year old college grad with a BA (tuition free) in anything could buy a house on the Mesa. Yeah…. cool stuff.
I can see why you’re disappointed. I mean seriously who gets hurt by this new law? No one? Well that’s lame! Why do it if it doesn’t cause pain to *someone*, and those uppity know-it-all pRoFeSSoRs need to be cut down a few notches anyway. MAGA wants to hurt people, especially the well educated, to whom MAGA cannot relate in the slightest.
I love it. The Pell grant is for undergraduate students who have a strong financial need. It does not depend on grades. This means it will open a lot of doors for people who have seen them slammed in their faces all their lives. As good as this is, and it has a ways to go before passing into actual law, it won’t do anything for the average, middle income kid. Their families might make a little too much to qualify for a Pell, but college is so freekin expensive that they still struggle, sacrifice and incur a ton of debt for that degree. More systemic change is still needed, but yeah this most definitely should happen.
We need a cap on the cost of tuition and on-campus housing—ideally tied to inflation.
Over the past several decades, college costs have far outpaced general inflation.
Since 1970, tuition at public four-year universities has increased at an average rate of about 7.2% per year, compared to only 3.9% for overall inflation.
That means college costs have risen roughly twice as fast as everything else in the economy.
We need to fix both sides of the problem, not just hand out more money.
When we took away funding for education, the schools had to start charging the students.
What about that is so hard for you to grasp?
I am concerned with controlling cost for everyone.
Most families making over the Pell frant limit ( approx$30k a year( cam not afford college either.
The state and public colleges should gave the same inflation increases.
Just increasing Pell grants is not sufficient.
Concerned? Now do wages, housing, and medical insurance.
The bloated UC’s are looking at their role as a for-profit endeavor, drawing in maximum dollars from anywhere and everywhere they can to pad their bottom lines, which are loaded with benefits and pensions for their Admin-heavy operation. Simple as that. The UC Regents love their wealthy foreign students. Local kids? Meh…
Only whining, no solutions as usual. Victim card and white grievance is all we get from the repug Christian nationalist.
Here is a solution —
As most people on this thread know from past discussions, my goal is to align California with EU countries by providing very low tuition for college students. Like the EU, however, we should not attempt to cover living expenses — the focus should be on affordable education, not subsidized housing.
Under Salud’s proposal to raise Pell Grants to $14,800, tuition would be fully covered at all UC campuses, and even more so for State Universities and Community Colleges. On top of that, Cal Grants provide additional aid — roughly 24% of students receive Pell Grants and 40% receive Cal Grants.
Rather than layering on more grants and paperwork, I’d propose using all available funds to lower tuition for everyone in California’s public colleges — no forms, no bureaucracy (saving money there too).
EU colleges typically charge modest tuition, which makes sense: students should have some personal investment in completing their coursework.
A similar structure here could look like this:
$250 per year at Community Colleges
$750 per year at State Universities
$1,200 per year at UC campuses
That’s it — and suddenly we’ve matched the EU model of accessible, low-cost higher education.
I’ve never understood why, in a state that strongly opposes school vouchers, we continue to hand out state-funded grants to private college students.
Salud like most of the far left always thinks the solution is to hand out more money, instead we need a systemic solution.
Please tell us which red state, that strongly believes in school vouchers, where your model is currently working.
My point is why should we give grants (basically vouchers) to students going to private colleges?
While i am not pleased with the academic progress of students in K-12 and feel we might need alternatives, i do not have the same concerns with CA public colleges
> As most people on this thread know from past discussions, my goal is …
It may shock you to learn that most people here don’t keep track of your goals.
> Salud like most of the far left always thinks the solution is to hand out more money,
Sorry, but when my eyes landed on that proof that you are a fundamentally dishonest person I ignored the rest. Next time, omit the absurd hyperbolic demonizing generalizations and take a political science class where you can actually learn about the political spectrum in the U.S. and where Salud falls on it.
@MarcelK, I see you are new to the school discussion.
Most of the other commenters were on a thread regarding the new reading curriculum in k-6.
As for Salud — I stand by my comment. A good democratic solider but without any real budgeting capabilities or systemic thinking. More spending is always good spending for Salud.
Citizen, how many children do you have that are at or near college age? Just curious.
I have three nephews and one niece in 10th–12th grade whom I’ll be helping to fund through college.
To keep expenses manageable, they’ll live at home while attending community college, then transfer to a State University or UC. I followed the same approach with 5 to date. So far, one didn’t complete the program and one continued to get a masters. — Overall the plan has worked well.
As you can imagine, college affordability is something we care deeply about.
Believe me I am as frustrated as everyone about college cost, but we have a workable solution with no debt.
Those are definitely the ages/grade levels where it all becomes critical mass with college quickly approaching. Good luck to the young ones in your family – I am sure it will all work out for them and good on you to help the nieces and nephews. And yes – great approach on taking the first couple of years at community college – huge money saver. The costs are frustrating so I get it voicing your concern – and I believe even though we may not believe in the same approach, we all wants best for kids in having an affordable college education.
@Generaltree — Agree we both want the same thing, affordable college.
We have a formula that works. A few qualify for grants but I’d rather have low cost tuition for all and think it is possible with the money that is currently proposed by Salud.
K-12 is an entirely different issue that I find very discouraging.
Good spending is necessary. That what Congressman Carbajal advocates for; not just more money for the oligarchs.
Instead of bickering who is paying for it why not drill down on why the heck it costs so much?
I agree —
In my view, the root problem is uncontrolled expenses. There needs to be a firm cap on tuition and housing increases, tied directly to inflation. Likewise, state funding should have a stable base, with annual adjustments linked to inflation — nothing more, nothing less.
Currently, the UC system allows tuition increases of inflation plus 2%, but even that small addition compounds significantly — 2% alone doubles in 36 years. Tuition should simply rise in line with inflation, not beyond it.
There are also systemic cost drivers such as tenure and pension obligations. Some progress has been made in addressing these, but much more is needed. My belief is that if we control income — meaning tuition and housing charges — the pressure to engage in uncontrolled spending will finally subside.
There would be no need for complicated and less than optimal “solutions” if we as a society hadn’t abandoned higher education.
Could it be related to the billion dollars of local real estate they have recently purchased?