House Report 117-549 — Resolution of Inquiry: Department of Education's Cost Estimates for the Secretary's Waivers
Summary
House Report 117–549, dated November 10, 2022, is an adverse report of the Committee on Education and Labor on H. Res. 1295, a resolution of inquiry directing the Secretary of Education to transmit certain documents relating to cost estimates for the waivers related to public service loan forgiveness and income-driven repayment. The committee reports unfavorably with an amendment and recommends that the resolution not be agreed to. The amendment directs the Secretary of Education, Miguel Cardona, to transmit documents not later than 14 days after adoption of the resolution, concerning a waiver announced on October 6, 2021, and a waiver announced on April 19, 2022. The report states that the committee reported the resolution unfavorably by a vote of 28–21 on September 15, 2022.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
- Issuer
- Congressional materials
- Document type
- Crpt Crpt 117Hrpt549 Crpt 117Hrpt549
- Case
- Crpt Crpt 117Hrpt549 Crpt 117Hrpt549
Cite this document
“House Report 117-549 — Resolution of Inquiry: Department of Education's Cost Estimates for the Secretary's Waivers.”
Original at www.govinfo.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/crpt-crpt-117hrpt549-crpt-117hrpt549/
, SHA-256 cf52799295be63103dcf0fdbb29201f918c138d6b0f7c527c9bda05dfbedbb03.Full text
117TH CONGRESS REPORT
" HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES !
2d Session 117–549
RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION TO
TRANSMIT CERTAIN DOCUMENTS TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S COST ESTIMATES
FOR THE SECRETARY’S WAIVERS RELATED TO PUBLIC SERVICE LOAN
FORGIVENESS AND INCOME-DRIVEN REPAYMENT
NOVEMBER 10, 2022.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, from the Committee on Education and
Labor, submitted the following
ADVERSE REPORT
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H. Res. 1295]
The Committee on Education and Labor, to whom was referred
the resolution (H. Res. 1295) of inquiry directing the Secretary of
Education to transmit certain documents to the House of Rep-
resentatives relating to the Department of Education’s cost esti-
mates for the Secretary’s waivers related to public service loan for-
giveness and income-driven repayment, having considered the
same, report unfavorably thereon with an amendment and rec-
ommends that the resolution not be agreed to.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2
Committee Action .................................................................................................... 2
Committee Views ..................................................................................................... 5
Section-by-Section Analysis .................................................................................... 8
Explanation of Amendments ................................................................................... 9
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch ....................................................... 9
Unfunded Mandate Statement ............................................................................... 9
Earmark Statement ................................................................................................. 9
Roll Call Votes ......................................................................................................... 9
Statement of Performance Goals and Objectives .................................................. 11
Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 11
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee ...... 11
New Budget Authority and CBO Cost Estimate ................................................... 11
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 11
Minority Views ......................................................................................................... 12
39–008
VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:57 Nov 20, 2022 Jkt 039008 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6646 E:\HR\OC\HR549.XXX HR549
2
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the following:
That the Secretary of Education, Miguel Cardona, is directed to transmit to the
House of Representatives, not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption of
this resolution, copies of all documents, memoranda, legal opinions, notes from
meetings, records (including telephone and electronic mail records), correspondence
(electronic or otherwise), and other communications, or any portion of any such com-
munications, to the extent that any such one or more items are within the posses-
sion of the Secretary and refer or relate to the following:
(1) Impact analyses, cost benefit analyses, eligibility determinations, and
budget estimates generated by the Department of Education, including any esti-
mates and assumptions used to generate each analysis or estimate, relating to
the public service loan forgiveness waiver announced on October 6, 2021, and
the income-driven repayment waiver announced on April 19, 2022.
(2) Meetings and conversations that included discussions of the number of
borrowers potentially eligible to benefit and the amount of outstanding debt po-
tentially affected, budget estimates, impact analyses, and other related discus-
sions regarding the public service loan forgiveness waiver announced on October
6, 2021, and the income-driven repayment waiver announced on April 19, 2022,
including any formal or informal discussions held between the White House offi-
cials, the Department of Education, Members of Congress, researchers and aca-
demics, and any group or organization advocating for such waivers.
(3) Budget estimates, impact analyses, cost benefit analyses, and related esti-
mates regarding the public service loan forgiveness waiver announced on Octo-
ber 6, 2021, and the income-driven repayment waiver announced on April 19,
2022, arising from or used for purposes of discussions held between the Execu-
tive Office of the President, the Department of Education, the Department of
the Treasury, and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
(4) Discussions and deliberations between Department of Education employ-
ees and officials, including political appointees and career staff, relating to mak-
ing public budget estimates, impact analyses, and the number of borrowers po-
tentially eligible to benefit and the amount of outstanding debt potentially af-
fected under the public service loan forgiveness waiver announced on October
6, 2021, and the income-driven repayment waiver announced on April 19, 2022.
(5) Budget estimates, impact analyses, cost benefit analyses, and the number
of borrowers potentially eligible to benefit and the amount of outstanding debt
potentially affected under the public service loan forgiveness waiver announced
on October 6, 2021, and the income-driven repayment waiver announced on
April 19, 2022.
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
The stated purpose of H. Res. 1295 is to direct the Secretary of
Education to transmit certain documents to the U.S. House of Rep-
resentatives relating to the Department of Education’s (Depart-
ment’s) cost estimates for the Secretary’s waivers related to public
service loan forgiveness (PSLF) and income-driven repayment
(IDR). While H. Res. 1295 is a resolution of inquiry designed to
compel production from the Department in the name of congres-
sional oversight, the purpose and content of the resolution falls
short of that stated purpose. Instead, The Committee believes H.
Res. 1295 was introduced in an attempt to upend the Majority’s
agenda, bog down the Department in unnecessary production re-
quests, and throw cold water on efforts this Administration is tak-
ing to provide legal, sensible solutions to the student loan debt cri-
sis. As such, the Committee reported H. Res. 1295 unfavorably to
the House with the recommendation that it do not pass.
COMMITTEE ACTION
116TH CONGRESS
On March 13, 2019, the Committee held a bipartisan hearing en-
titled ‘‘The Cost of College: Student Centered Reforms to Bring
VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:57 Nov 20, 2022 Jkt 039008 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR549.XXX HR549
3
Higher Education Within Reach.’’ The Committee heard from re-
searchers, administrators, and students who described the causes
and consequences of rising college costs and presented rec-
ommendations on reforms to the system that make college more af-
fordable. The Committee heard testimony from Dr. Douglas
Webber, Professor at Temple University; Dr. Alison Morrison-
Shetlar, Interim Chancellor at Western Carolina University; Jenae
Parker, student at Franklin University; Dr. Elizabeth Akers, senior
fellow at the Manhattan Institute; and James Kvaal, President of
The Institute for College Access and Success.
On April 3, 2019, the Subcommittee on Higher Education and
Workforce Investment (HEWI Subcommittee) held a bipartisan
hearing entitled ‘‘Strengthening Accountability in Higher Edu-
cation to Better Protect Students and Taxpayers.’’ The hearing fo-
cused on the role of states, accreditors, and the federal government
to hold colleges accountable and needed improvements to the ac-
countability system. The Committee heard from Dr. Nicholas
Hillman, Associate Professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madi-
son; Melissa Emrey-Arras, Director at the U.S. Government Ac-
countability Office; Noe Ortega, Commissioner of Postsecondary
and Higher Education for the Pennsylvania Department of Edu-
cation; and Dr. Barbara E. Brittingham, President of the New Eng-
land Commission of Higher Education.
On May 9, 2019, the HEWI Subcommittee held a bipartisan
hearing entitled ‘‘The Cost of Non-Completion: Improving Student
Outcomes in Higher Education.’’ The Committee heard from wit-
nesses about the reasons for and consequences of non-completion
on students and society, differences in non-completion across sec-
tors, and successful strategies to improve completion. The Com-
mittee heard from Dr. Susan Dynarski, Professor at the University
of Michigan; Dr. David Rudd, President of the University of Mem-
phis; Dr. Pam Eddinger, President of Bunker Hill Community Col-
lege; and Kyle Ethelbah, Director of TRIO programs at the Univer-
sity of Utah.
On September 19, 2019, the HEWI Subcommittee held an over-
sight hearing entitled, ‘‘Broken Promises: Examining the Failed
Implementation of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program.’’
This oversight hearing examined the problematic implementation
of PSLF that resulted in a 99 percent application rejection rate.
The Subcommittee heard testimony from Kelly Finlaw, a New York
City teacher and PSLF applicant; Dr. Matthew Chingos, Vice Presi-
dent for Education Data and Policy of the Urban Institute; Yael
Shavit, J.D., Assistant Attorney General of the Office of the Massa-
chusetts Attorney General; Melissa Emery-Arras, Director of Edu-
cation, Workforce, and Income Security at GAO; and Jeff Appel, Di-
rector of Policy Liaison and Implementation of the Department’s
Office of Federal Student Aid.
On October 15, 2019 Chairman Bobby Scott (D–VA–03) intro-
duced H.R. 4674, The College Affordability Act, a reauthorization of
the Higher Education Act of 1965. On October 29, 2019 the Com-
mittee began consideration of H.R. 4674, in legislative session, and
reported the bill favorably, as amended, to the House of Represent-
atives by a vote of 28–22 on October 31, 2019.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:57 Nov 20, 2022 Jkt 039008 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR549.XXX HR549
4
Other Legislative Action
On January 24, 2019, Rep. Joe Courtney (D–CT–02) introduced
H.R. 748, the Middle Class Health Benefits Tax Repeal Act of 2019,
in the House. The bill passed the House on July 17, by a vote of
419–6. H.R. 748, was renamed the CARES Act and served as the
first comprehensive bill to respond to the COVID–19 pandemic.
Section 3513 of the CARES Act, negotiated in a bipartisan fashion
by the Committee and the Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions, directed the Secretary of Education to sus-
pend payments, interest accrual, and involuntary collection on fed-
eral student loans owned by the Department of Education until
September 30, 2020. On March 25, the Senate passed the CARES
Act by a vote of 96–0. On March 27, the House agreed to the Sen-
ate amendments to H.R. 748 by voice vote, and President Trump
signed the CARES Act into law as Public Law 116–136.
117TH CONGRESS
On March 17, 2021, the HEWI Subcommittee held a hearing en-
titled, ‘‘Rising to the Challenge: The Future of Higher Education
Post COVID–19.’’ The Subcommittee heard testimony from Mr.
Keith Thornton, Jr., Student, Florida International University,
Miami, FL; Mr. Eloy Ortiz Oakley, Chancellor, California Commu-
nity Colleges, Corona Del Mar, CA; Dr. Lindsey M. Burke, Ph.D.,
Director, Center for Education Policy & Mark A. Kolokotrones Fel-
low in Education, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC; and
Mr. Daniel A. Zibel, Vice President & Chief Counsel, National Stu-
dent Legal Defense Network, Takoma Park, MD.
On April 28, 2021, the Committee held a hearing entitled,
‘‘Building Back Better: Investing in Improving Schools, Creating
Jobs, and Strengthening Families and our Economy.’’ The Com-
mittee heard testimony from Mr. Rasheed Malic, M.P.P., Senior
Policy Analyst, Early Childhood Policy, Center for American
Progress, Arlington, VA; Mr. Neal McCluskey, Ph.D., Director, Cen-
ter for Educational Freedom, Cato Institute, Washington, DC; Mr.
Mark Mitsui, President, Portland Community College, Portland,
OR; Mr. Bob Lanter, Executive Director, California Workforce As-
sociation, Sacramento, CA; Mr. Brian Riedl, Senior Fellow in Budg-
et, Tax, and Economics, The Manhattan Institute, Alexandria, VA;
and Ms. Mary W. Filardo, Founder and Executive Director, 21st
Century School Fund, Washington, DC.
On October 27, 2021, the HEWI Subcommittee held a hearing
entitled, ‘‘Examining the Policies and Priorities of the Office of Fed-
eral Student Aid.’’ The Subcommittee heard testimony from The
Honorable Richard Cordray, Chief Operating Officer, U.S. Depart-
ment of Education Office of Federal Student Aid.
On May 26, 2022, the Committee held a hearing entitled, ‘‘Exam-
ining the Policies and Priorities of the U.S. Department of Edu-
cation.’’ The Committee heard testimony from The Honorable
Miguel Cardona, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education.
On July 28th, 2022, H. Res. 1295 was introduced by Ranking
Member Virginia Foxx (R–NC–05). The bill was referred solely to
the Committee on Education and Labor.
On September 15th, 2022, the Committee considered H. Res.
1295 in legislative session and reported it unfavorably, as amend-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:57 Nov 20, 2022 Jkt 039008 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR549.XXX HR549
5
ed, to the House of Representatives by a vote of 28–21. The Com-
mittee considered one amendment to H. Res. 1295, an amendment
offered by Chairman Bobby Scott (D–VA–03) that made a minor
technical edit, identifying the Secretary of Education by name. The
amendment was adopted by voice vote.
COMMITTEE VIEWS
Oversight and its attempted politicization
The power of Congressional oversight authority at the Committee
level is vested solely with the Chair and the majority party, per
House and Committee rules. The Congressional Research Service
summarizes the oversight power of the Committee thusly:
Ranking Members and individual Members are not au-
thorized by house or committee rules to start official com-
mittee investigations or issue subpoenas. Individual Mem-
bers may seek the voluntary cooperation of agency officials
or private persons. However, no judicial precedent has di-
rectly recognized a right in an individual Member, other
than a committee chair, to exercise a committee’s oversight
authority without the permission of a majority of the com-
mittee or its chair.1
The Committee takes its responsibility to conduct oversight very
seriously and views this work as a critical constitutional function
of Congress. To that end, the Committee has held 16 oversight
hearings during the 117th Congress 2—which included nearly 50
hours of hearings with several Biden-Harris Administration offi-
cials, such as: the Secretary of Education, Miguel Cardona 3; the
Undersecretary of the Department of Education, James Kvaal 4;
and the Chief Operating Officer of the Office of Federal Student
Aid, Rich Cordray.5
The Minority claims that the Committee’s oversight of the Biden
Administration has not been sufficient and three separate resolu-
tions of inquiry (ROIs) have been recently introduced and referred
to the Committee. Resolutions of Inquiry (ROIs) are a tool of the
House to obtain information from the Executive Branch. As an ROI
can be introduced by any Member they reflect one of the few oppor-
tunities for the Minority to exert oversight authority within the
confines of the House rules.
Further, as ROIs retain privilege of consideration in the House
if they are not reported out of Committee in a timely fashion, it has
become established practice Committees to considered them fully to
eliminate this privilege. Recognizing this fact, House Republicans
1 Todd Garvey & Walkter J. Oleszek, CONG. RSCH. SERV., IF10015, Congressional Oversight
and Investigations (2014) (emphasis added).
2 See H. Comm. on Educ. & Lab., Committee Activity, (last visited Sept. 27, 2022), https://
edlabor.house.gov/hearings-and-events (outlining all hearings in the 117th Congress. Oversight
hearings are generally styled ‘‘Examining the Policies and Priorities of [Overseen Agency or De-
partment]’’).
3 Examining the Policies and Priorities of the U.S. Department of Education Before the H.
Comm. on Educ. & Lab., 117th Cong. (May 26, 2022); Examining the Policies and Priorities of
the U.S. Department of Education Before the H. Comm. on Educ. & Lab., 117th Cong. (June
24, 2021).
4 Examining the Implementation of COVID–19 Education Funds, Before the H. Subcomm. on
Early Childhood, Elem. & Secondary Educ. & the H. Subcomm. on Higher Educ. & Workforce
Investment, 117th Cong. (November 17, 2021).
5 Examining the Policies and Priorities of the Office of Federal Student Aid, Before the H.
Subcomm. on Higher Educ. & Workforce Investment, 117th Cong. (Oct. 27, 2021).
VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:57 Nov 20, 2022 Jkt 039008 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR549.XXX HR549
6
made a concerted effort to hijack the Committee process by intro-
ducing a flood of 23 resolutions of inquiry at the end of July, timing
which would necessitate the relevant Committees of jurisdiction to
take up and report out these ROIs before September 30, the last
scheduled legislative day before the 2022 midterm elections. This
all but guaranteed that multiple Committees would have to spend
precious time on agenda items chosen by the Minority.
When faced with an ROI from a Democratic minority in 2005,
the Committee’s Republican leadership determined that the resolu-
tion was similarly designed to derail the majority’s agenda,6 noting,
‘‘Perhaps most importantly, as a matter of procedure, H. Res. 467
challenges the Majority’s prerogatives and its right to set the legis-
lative agenda, and for that reason alone should be rejected.’’ 7
H. Res. 1295, in part, asks the Secretary of Education to provide,
‘‘copies of all documents, memoranda, legal opinions, notes
from meetings, records (including telephone and electronic
mail records), correspondence (electronic or otherwise), and
other communications, or any portion of any such commu-
nications, to the extent that any such one or more items
are within the possession of the Secretary and refer or re-
late to. . . . Meetings and conversations that included dis-
cussions of the number of borrowers potentially eligible to
benefit and the amount of outstanding debt potentially af-
fected, budget estimates, impact analyses, and other re-
lated discussions regarding the public service loan forgive-
ness waiver announced on October 6, 2021, and the in-
come-driven repayment waiver announced on April 19,
2022, including any formal or informal discussions held be-
tween the White House officials, the Department of Edu-
cation, Members of Congress, researchers and academics,
and any group or organization advocating for such waiv-
ers.’’
This is just one of the five prongs of inquiry made in H. Res.
1295. On its face, this inquiry is overly broad and obviously de-
signed to bog the Department down in production of a gargantuan
amount of material. Throughout debate on H. Res. 1295, minority
members suggested that the request was merely for a cost esti-
mate, but the text of the resolution belies this point. Further, as
the Republican majority noted the last time it disposed of an ROI,
a request for ‘‘communications’’ is, in itself problematic:
A resolution of inquiry can only produce ‘‘facts.’’ The
communications encompassed by the resolution are not
limited to ‘‘facts’’ and thus should not be subject to disclo-
sure in response to the inquiry. At a minimum, seeking
the production of these communications would chill debate
between the agencies and the President on issues of na-
tional importance.8
While ROIs are, in theory, an oversight tool, and the Committee
recognizes every Member has the right to introduce an ROI, it was
6 While current Committee leadership takes notice of this position, it does not necessarily
agree with the conclusion reached by the Committee in the 109th Congress, and merely notes
it here for the record.
7 H. Rpt. 109–258, 6, 109th Cong., 1st sess. (2005).
8 Id.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:57 Nov 20, 2022 Jkt 039008 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR549.XXX HR549
7
disappointing to spend time considering H. Res. 1295, a resolution
so obviously designed to derail serious legislative work and re-task
a Department committed to responding to the student loan debt
crisis into responding to frivolous political missives.
The facts regarding IDR Payment Count Revision and PSLF Waiver
On October 6, 2021, the Department announced a time-limited
waiver of rules under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF)
program. On April 19, 2022, the Department announced a one-time
payment count revision of payments made under income driven re-
payment (IDR) plans. The Department has provided legal justifica-
tion for both actions.9
Department regulations require that borrowers who are having
trouble making their payment get clear and accurate information
about their options for staying out of delinquency.10 Unfortunately,
we know from a recent Government Accountability Office Report
that, in many cases, borrowers were inappropriately steered into
long-term forbearance, delaying loan forgiveness under IDR, when
there were better options available to them.11 Going case-by-case
through the multimillion-borrower portfolio to rectify these errors
in servicing would be both extremely difficult and costly to admin-
ister. Instead, the Department, utilizing information it had about
borrowers and servicer behavior through enforcement agencies, an-
nounced the one-time payment count revision. Under the terms of
the adjustment, borrowers may have their payment history re-
viewed and revised if necessary to determine payment counts for
IDR, which may also have implications for their required payment
counts under PSLF as well.
The time-limited PSLF waiver in place through October 31, 2022,
includes changes designed to address persistent issues with the
program and allow student borrowers to count payments that
would have otherwise not qualified for PSLF. Although this pro-
gram was intended to encourage borrowers to remain in public
service employment by providing eventual relief from the financial
burden of student loan debt, in practice this program was largely
failing borrowers. A 2017 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(CFPB) report highlighted multiple issues related to the adminis-
tration of the PSLF program, including borrowers receiving misin-
formation from their servicer about whether they are on track for
PSLF; delays in processing IDR repayment plan certification and
consolidation requests; failure to inform borrowers that consolida-
tion will result in lost payments; servicer errors during loan trans-
9 See generally Alexandra Hegji, Cong. Rsch. Serv., IF12136, Student Loans: A Timeline of Ac-
tions Taken in Light of the COVID–19 Pandemic (2022) (chronicling actions taken to date to
ease student loan burden in midst of the pandemic); Edward C. Liu & Sean M. Stiff, Cong. Rsch.
Serv. LSB10818, Statutory Basis for Biden Administration Student Loan Forgiveness (2022)
https://www.crs.gov/reports/pdf/LSB10818.
10 See Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Department of Education Announces Actions to Fix
Longstanding Failures in the Student Loan Programs (Apr. 19, 2022), https://www.ed.gov/news/
press-releases/department-education-announces-actions-fix-longstanding-failures-student-loan-
programs.
11 See U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., GAO–22–103720, Federal Student Aid: Education Needs
to Take Steps to Ensure Eligible Loans Receive Income-Driven Repayment Forgiveness 22
(2022) https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-103720.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:57 Nov 20, 2022 Jkt 039008 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR549.XXX HR549
8
fer to PHEAA; and inaccurate counts of qualifying payments they
made towards PSLF.12
H. Res. 1295 seeks to review documents related to the cost esti-
mates for the payment count revision and the PSLF waiver. This
request is unnecessary at this time. While the Department has yet
to formally release cost estimates, the Committee notes that the
Department regularly publishes costs of administration of the fed-
eral student loan program in end of the year financial statements,
and those estimates are recalculated in advance of the release of
the President’s yearly budget. These statements are not given just
to Committees of jurisdiction in Congress—they are released to the
general public, in accordance with multiple laws including the
Higher Education Act of 1965.13 Without any Congressional re-
quest, the cost estimates will be published twice in the next six
months. At no point during the deliberation on H. Res. 1295 did
the Minority acknowledge these facts, as doing so would refute
rhetoric that the Department was hiding the cost of these actions,
and further obviate the need for this ROI.
In addition to the scheduled release of official cost estimates, it
should be noted the Department is providing the Committee with
regular updates of real data on both the number of loans and dollar
amounts forgiven under these actions. Again, this information has
not been hidden, but is in fact publicly available. A few hours after
H. Res. 1295 was considered in Committee, Department Secretary
Miguel Cardona tweeted out to approximately 80,000 followers that
over 170,000 borrowers had received loan forgiveness totaling over
$10 billion.14 The combination of regular actual updates, antici-
pated cost estimates, and public statements all suggest the Com-
mittee need not take any further action to obtain the costs of the
IDR payment count revision and the PSLF waiver. Further, if some
intervening action was needed to obtain this data, the Committee
need not demand every note from every meeting at the Department
to do so. As such, the Committee reported H. Res. 1295 to the
House adversely with the recommendation it do not pass. The Com-
mittee takes its oversight responsibilities seriously, and will con-
tinue to exercise meaningful oversight of policies and programs
within its Rule X jurisdiction, including federal student aid at the
U.S. Department of Education. While the aegis of oversight rests
with the Chairman and the majority of the Committee, the Com-
mittee will give any resolution of inquiry introduced by any mem-
ber of the House the thoughtful consideration it is due.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
The text of H. Res. 1295 is one declarative Plain English sen-
tence directing the Secretary of Education to furnish to the House
of Representatives documents or communications in his possession
broadly related to cost estimates for the IDR and PSLF waivers
issued by the Department in 2021 and 2022.
12 U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bur., Staying on track while giving back: the cost of
student loan servicing breakdowns for people serving their communities 6–8 (2017), https://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201706_cfpb_PSLF-midyear-report.pdf.
13 U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Fed. Student Aid FY21 Annual Report viii (Nov. 2021) (containing a
list of the various statutory requirements satisfied by the report) https://studentaid.gov/sites/de-
fault/files/fy2021-fsa-annual-report.pdf.
14 @SecCardona, Twitter (Sept. 15, 2022, 3:31 PM), https://twitter.com/SecCardona/status/
1570495463379587072.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:57 Nov 20, 2022 Jkt 039008 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR549.XXX HR549
9
EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS
The amendment in the nature of a substitute is explained in the
descriptive portion of this report.
APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Pursuant to section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability
Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104–1, H. Res. 1295 does not apply to
terms and conditions of employment or to access to public services
or accommodations within the legislative branch.
UNFUNDED MANDATE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Im-
poundment Control Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93–344 (as amended
by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995,
Pub. L. No. 104–4), H. Res. 1295 contains no unfunded mandates.
EARMARK STATEMENT
In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, H. Res. 1295 does not contain any congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as de-
scribed in clauses 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI.
ROLL CALL VOTES
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the following
roll call vote occurred during the Committee’s consideration of H.R.
1295:
VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:57 Nov 20, 2022 Jkt 039008 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR549.XXX HR549
10
Insert offset folio 13 here HR549.001
VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:57 Nov 20, 2022 Jkt 039008 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR549.XXX HR549
11
STATEMENT OF PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Pursuant to clause (3)(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the goal of H. Res. 1295 is to direct the Sec-
retary to produce records in his possession relating to cost esti-
mates for IDR and PSLF waivers issued by the Department.
DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the Committee states that no provision of H.
Res. 1295 is known to be duplicative of another federal program,
including any program that was included in a report to Congress
pursuant to section 21 of Pub. L. No. 111–139 or the most recent
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.
STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
COMMITTEE
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 2(b)(1)
of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Commit-
tee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the
descriptive portions of this report.
NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CBO COST ESTIMATE
The Committee has not received a cost estimate for the bill from
the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
H. Res. 1295 does not change existing law for purposes of clause
3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:57 Nov 20, 2022 Jkt 039008 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR549.XXX HR549
MINORITY VIEWS
Introduction
In response to President Biden’s announcement on October 6,
2021, to alter and expand the law governing the Public Service
Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program and the April 19, 2022, an-
nouncement to rewrite the statutory requirements governing in-
come-driven repayment (IDR) plans, Committee Republicans re-
quested information regarding these actions, including the legal au-
thority to carry them out by executive action and the cost of these
waivers that significantly expand these programs beyond what is
authorized under the law.1 The administration repeatedly failed to
provide any substantial information. Therefore, Ranking Member
Virginia Foxx introduced H. Res. 1295. This resolution requests
that the Secretary of Education provide the House of Representa-
tives with five distinct sets of documents that informed the Sec-
retary’s waivers related to PSLF and IDR.
First, the resolution requests the Secretary of Education to
produce any estimates and assumptions used by the Department of
Education to generate an analysis of the expected cost for the
PSLF waiver and the IDR waiver. Second, the Secretary of Edu-
cation is asked to provide documents detailing the meetings and
conversations among White House officials, the Department of
Education, Members of Congress, and outside stakeholders who
discussed these policy decisions and who may have helped to deter-
mine the scope of eligible borrowers and the amount of debt poten-
tially affected through the PSLF waiver and IDR waiver. Third, the
resolution requests any related budget estimates that came as a re-
sult of the discussions held between the Executive Office of the
President, Department of Education, Department of Treasury, and
the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. Fourth, the Sec-
retary of Education is requested to share any documentation re-
garding the discussions and deliberations between Department of
Education employees, including political appointees and career
staff, relating to making public any budget estimates, impact anal-
yses, and the number of borrowers potentially eligible to benefit
and the amount of potential debt affected through the PSLF waiver
and IDR waiver. Lastly, the resolution requests the Secretary of
Education to provide final budget estimates, impact analyses, cost
benefit analyses and the number of borrowers potentially eligible
to benefit as well as the amount of outstanding debt potentially af-
fected under the administration’s PSLF waiver and IDR waiver.
1 CITE our letters that we are referring to here.
(12)
VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:57 Nov 20, 2022 Jkt 039008 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR549.XXX HR549
13
The Congressional History of Conducting Oversight over PSLF and
IDR
First authorized under the College Cost Reduction and Access Act
of 2007, the PSLF program was created to encourage individuals
to enter and continue working in public service professions and to
counter the financial deterrent of perceived lower wages in public
service jobs than in other occupations.2 Congress created this PSLF
benefit for Direct Loan borrowers only. In 2007, the first year eligi-
bility for PSLF would count, Direct Loan borrowers only accounted
for 21 percent of outstanding federal student loans.3 Most federal
loans in 2007 were disbursed through the old Federal Family Edu-
cational Loan (FFEL) program. Because the subsidies provided to
the lenders and guarantors operating the FFEL program were
more costly to the federal government than direct lending at the
time, CBO’s initial estimate of PSLF projected the federal govern-
ment would save approximately $30 million dollars from 2008 to
2017 as a small portion of borrowers switched from FFEL to the
Direct Loan program.4 The criteria to receive the PSLF benefit was
specifically laid out in the law:
• The loan must be a Direct Loan, but not a Parent PLUS Di-
rect Loan.
• The borrower must make 120 qualifying monthly payments
on or after October 1, 2007. Those payments must be on-time,
full, scheduled, separate, and monthly.5
• The monthly payments must be made in a qualifying repay-
ment plan, which only includes the standard plan or one of the
income-driven repayment (IDR) plans. Borrowers in extended
or graduated repayment plans are not eligible.
• The borrower must be employed full-time for a qualifying
‘‘public service’’ employer while making the payments, while
applying for loan cancellation, and when forgiveness is grant-
ed.6
Any payment made on a FFEL loan prior to consolidation into
the Direct Loan Program does not count as a qualifying payment
toward the 120 total payments required for PSLF eligibility. In
2008, the Department published regulations clarifying certain
points about the program, including definitions of public service or-
ganizations and ‘‘full-time.’’ 7 But it was not until 2018, over 10
years after the program’s enactment, that federal entities outside
of the Department of Education took notice on implementation of
the program. In 2018, the Department of Education began regu-
larly publishing data on the loan forgiveness amounts 8 and by Sep-
tember 2018, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) pub-
2 ‘‘Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program: Selected Issue’’, CRS Report (R45389), Alexandra
Hegji, October 29, 2019.
3 https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2018/09/25/everyone-calm-down-about-rejected-
student-loan- forgiveness-applications/#314370397f6f.
4 https://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/82xx/doc8282/higheredurecon.pdf.
5 ‘‘Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program: Selected Issue’’, CRS Report (R45389), Alexandra
Hegji, October 29, 2019.
6 ‘‘Public Service Loan Forgiveness Data’’ https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/about/data-center/stu-
dent/loan-forgiveness/pslf-data.
7 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2008/10/23/E8-24922/federal-perkins-loan-pro-
gram-federal-family-education-loan-program-and-william-d-ford-federal-direct.
8 https://studentaid.gov/data-center/student/loan-forgiveness/pslf-data.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:57 Nov 20, 2022 Jkt 039008 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR549.XXX HR549
14
lished its first report on PSLF implementation.9 This report noted
that approximately 1 percent of applicants were granted forgive-
ness. However, the reports were clear that borrowers’ applications
for PSLF were denied for legitimate, legal reasons, such as not
making the correct number of payments in a qualifying repayment
plan.10 This led to the creation of the Temporary Extended Public
Service Loan Forgiveness (TEPSLF) program in 2018 and appro-
priated a total of $700 million over two years for borrowers to re-
apply under, again, specific parameters, such as that a borrower’s
last 12 months of payments had to be as much as they would have
paid under a PSLF qualifying IDR plan to receive a second review
for PSLF eligibility.11 GAO released a report on the implementa-
tion of TEPSLF on September 5, 2019,12 stating that the primary
reason applicants were denied TEPSLF was because of statutory
requirements that applicants must first apply for and be denied
PSLF. Of the denied TEPSLF applications, 71 percent were denied
because they had not first submitted a PSLF application. It is also
important to note that nowhere in the GAO report did they find
evidence that the Department of Education was not following the
law. GAO also did not find that the Department was improperly
denying borrowers forgiveness or slow walking the implementation
process.
Similar to the level of engagement over the PSLF program, Con-
gress has not amended the Higher Education Act to modify the law
around income-based or income-contingent repayment plans, except
for the Fostering Undergraduate Talent by Unlocking Resources for
Education (FUTURE) Act of 2019, which allowed the Department
to receive federal tax information directly from the Internal Rev-
enue Service for the purposes of better administrating IDR plans.13
However, under the Obama administration, the Department of
Education engaged in rulemaking to create the Pay-as-You-Earn
(PAYE) repayment plan in 2012 and the Revised Pay as You Earn
(REPAYE) in 2015, both allowing the borrower to pay less monthly
and reach forgiveness faster. IDR plans have skyrocketed in enroll-
ment with 24 percent of undergraduate borrowers and 39 percent
of graduate Direct Loans borrowers enrolled in IDR by 2017 and
an estimated $200 billion in loans set to be forgiven between 2020–
2029 alone.14 Vastly expanding this cost through illegal waivers
that allow millions of ineligible borrowers to receive relief only in-
creases the cost of these programs further, and Congress has every
right to know by exactly how much.
The Necessity of Resolutions of Inquiry for these Programs
Now that the Biden administration has chosen to unilaterally
change the rules of two forgiveness programs, Congress must en-
gage in oversight of the impact of the executive actions. H. Res.
1295 would provide Congress with insight into the administration’s
9 https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-547.
10 https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertfarrington/2018/09/13/appeal-pslf-credits/
?sh=3ad27a4a3ce3.
11 https://studentaid.gov/manage-loans/forgiveness-cancellation/public-service/temporary-ex-
panded-public-service-loan-forgiveness.
12 https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-595.pdf.
13 P.L. 116–91.
14 https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2020-02/55968-CBO-IDRP.pdf.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:57 Nov 20, 2022 Jkt 039008 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR549.XXX HR549
15
agenda to cancel larger balances but would not account for the
costs of such cancellation. Moreover, the Republican members of
this Committee continue to be concerned about the cost of running
the federal student loan program as it appears the costs of this pro-
gram have been underestimated for years. According to a recent
GAO report, the Department of Education’s budget for student
loans was off by $311 billion over the last twenty years.15 We do
know that this budget mistake is due in large part to incorrect as-
sumptions about the IDR and PSLF programs. It was through cor-
respondence between the Department and congressional Democrats
that it came to light that the IDR waiver alone could forgive as
much as an estimated $211 billion.16 Moreover, while the Biden ad-
ministration refuses to provide this Committee with a full cost esti-
mate for the PSLF waiver, a recent analysis estimated that as
much as $145 billion in student loans are eligible for cancellation
through this unlawful waiver.17
The documents requested through this ROI will help Congress
understand the true cost of Biden’s unilateral actions, what esti-
mates the administration used to make the decision to erase these
debts owed to the taxpayer, and what the impacts are to taxpayers.
Unfounded Objections of the Majority
During the debate of H. Res. 1295, Democrats made a number
of other objections to the resolution of inquiry, all of which are un-
founded. The Majority claimed that the administration has been re-
sponsive to letters from the minority. However, Ranking Member
Foxx has sent more than 60 letters to the Department and received
only 45 responses.
The Majority also claimed that H. Res. 1295 and the documents
requested ‘‘will have the effect of bogging down the administration
with extraordinary production requests.’’ The administration has
prioritized work and dedicated staff to enacting both the PSLF and
IDR waivers. Estimates and assumptions, deliberations and final
decisions should have all occurred for the administration to move
forward with the waivers. If these actions have all taken place,
then the administration should be able to quickly compile key in-
formation that they relied upon.
The Majority then relied upon one GAO estimate of $9.5 billion
in cancelled loan debt through PSLF as the assumed current best
estimate of costs of the program. However, this estimate came from
the previously mentioned GAO report that focused on the new find-
ing that the Department has been underestimating loan program
costs for over twenty years. GAO acknowledges that the informa-
tion they received from the Department had deficiencies and that
until the Department replaces their model with a borrower-based
microsimulation model to incorporate more sophisticated factors,
the estimates will have deficiencies.18
Lastly, the Majority made an assertion that Democrats should be
able to discharge more loans and that ‘‘running it [PSLF] properly
15 https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-105365.
16 https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Education%20Department%20
Response%20to%20Sen%20Warren%20-%204-8-21.pdf.
17 https://www.nber.org/papers/w30208.
18 https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-105365.pdf.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:57 Nov 20, 2022 Jkt 039008 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR549.XXX HR549
16
. . . actually doing discharges, as people are entitled, is going to
cost some money.’’ 19 The Minority would respond that the only
measure of correctly running a program is to follow the law as
written. The ultimate goal should not be to discharge the most
loans possible but to administer PSLF and IDR properly by dis-
charging the loans that are eligible and that meet the full require-
ments under the law.
Conclusion
Oversight is not a partisan exercise. It is a duty of the legislative
branch of government. Refusing to fulfill this duty and instead to
allow an administration to usurp the power of Congress is dam-
aging to the long-term effectiveness of the loan repayment pro-
grams, our postsecondary systems, Congress, and the American
people.
VIRGINIA FOXX,
Ranking Member.
GLENN ‘‘GT’’ THOMPSON.
TIM WALBERG.
GLENN GROTHMAN.
ELISE M. STEFANIK.
RICK W. ALLEN.
JIM BANKS.
JAMES COMER.
RUSS FULCHER.
FRED KELLER.
MARIANNETTE MILLER MEEKS,
M.D.
BURGESS OWENS.
BOB GOOD.
LISA C. MCCLAIN.
MARY E. MILLER.
SCOTT FITZGERALD.
MADISON CAWTHORN.
CHRIS JACOBS.
BRAD FINSTAD.
Æ
19 https://subscriber.politicopro.com/transcript/6edddb11-26a9-4c25-9b4d-2f88553341fc.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:57 Nov 20, 2022 Jkt 039008 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6611 E:\HR\OC\HR549.XXX HR549
File and source
- File
- CRPT_crpt-117hrpt549_crpt-117hrpt549.pdf
- Size
- 295,877 bytes
- SHA-256
- cf52799295be63103dcf0fdbb29201f918c138d6b0f7c527c9bda05dfbedbb03
- Original
- www.govinfo.gov