House Report 117-550 — Resolution of Inquiry: Legal Authority to Forgive Federal Student Loan Debt
Summary
House Report 117–550 is an adverse report of the Committee on Education and Labor, submitted by Mr. Scott of Virginia and ordered to be printed November 10, 2022, with minority views, on H. Res. 1296, a resolution of inquiry about the legal authority to forgive federal student loan debt. The Committee reports unfavorably with an amendment and recommends that the resolution as amended not be agreed to. The amended text requests the President and directs Miguel Cardona, the Secretary of Education, to transmit, within 14 days, unredacted documents about any request for a memo on the authority to forgive student loan debt and about meetings on the subject between the White House, the Department of Education and other parties.
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 117Hrpt550 Crpt 117Hrpt550
- Case
- Crpt Crpt 117Hrpt550 Crpt 117Hrpt550
Cite this document
“House Report 117-550 — Resolution of Inquiry: Legal Authority to Forgive Federal Student Loan Debt.”
Original at www.govinfo.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/crpt-crpt-117hrpt550-crpt-117hrpt550/
, SHA-256 a83edc15a531008cefd7852744e36535179ba11ac6c2140f6057af7ad47191e5.Full text
117TH CONGRESS REPORT
" HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES !
2d Session 117–550
RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY REQUESTING THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTING
THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION TO TRANSMIT, RESPECTIVELY, CER-
TAIN DOCUMENTS TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RELATING TO
THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO FORGIVE FEDERAL STUDENT LOAN DEBT
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. 1296]
The Committee on Education and Labor, to whom was referred
the resolution (H. Res. 1296) of inquiry requesting the President
and directing the Secretary of Education to transmit, respectively,
certain documents to the House of Representatives relating to the
legal authority to forgive Federal student loan debt, having consid-
ered the same, reports unfavorably thereon with an amendment
and recommends that the resolution as amended not be agreed to.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2
Committee Action .................................................................................................... 2
Committee Views ..................................................................................................... 4
Section-by-Section Analysis .................................................................................... 7
Explanation of Amendments ................................................................................... 8
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch ....................................................... 8
Unfunded Mandate Statement ............................................................................... 8
Earmark Statement ................................................................................................. 8
Roll Call Votes ......................................................................................................... 8
Statement of Performance Goals and Objectives .................................................. 10
Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 10
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee ...... 10
New Budget Authority and CBO Cost Estimate ................................................... 10
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 10
Minority Views ......................................................................................................... 11
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the following:
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
39–008
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:48 Nov 21, 2022 Jkt 039008 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR550.XXX HR550
2
That the President, Joseph R. Biden, is requested, and the Secretary of Education,
Miguel Cardona, is directed, to transmit, respectively, to the House of Representa-
tives, not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution,
unredacted copies of all documents, memoranda, legal opinions, notes from meet-
ings, records (including telephone and electronic mail records), correspondence (elec-
tronic 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 President or the Secretary, respectively, and refer to the following:
(1) Any request by the President, Executive Office of the President, or the
staff of the Department of Education (including any political appointees and ca-
reer employees) to draft a memo regarding the authority to forgive any Federal
student loan debt.
(2) Meetings held between the Executive Office of the President and the De-
partment of Education relating to the forgiveness of Federal student loan debt.
(3) Meetings and conversations, both formal and informal, held between
White House officials and any group or organization advocating for Federal stu-
dent loan debt forgiveness and Department of Education staff, including polit-
ical appointees and any group with interests relating to student loan forgive-
ness.
(4) Meetings held between the Executive Office of the President, the Depart-
ment of Education, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Justice,
or the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to the forgiveness of
Federal student loan debt.
(5) Discussions between Department of Education employees and officials, in-
cluding political appointees and career staff, relating to the drafting of any
memoranda related to the forgiveness of Federal student loan debt.
(6) Any legal opinions sought by the Department of Education related to the
forgiveness of Federal student debt.
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
The stated purpose of H. Res. 1296 is to direct the President and
the Secretary of Education to transmit certain documents to the
U.S. House of Representatives relating to the legal authority to for-
give Federal student loan debt. While the Committee supports and
promotes Congress’ Article I authority to conduct rigorous over-
sight, including the requests for related documents, H. Res. 1296
is a resolution of inquiry that falls short of this endeavor. Rather,
H. Res. 1296 was introduced in an attempt to upend the Majority’s
agenda, bog down the Department in unnecessary production re-
quests, and dissuade this Administration’s effort to provide legal,
sensible solutions to the student loan debt crisis. As such, the Com-
mittee reported H. Res. 1296 unfavorably to the House with the
recommendation that it do not adopt this resolution.
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
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
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
Workforce Investment (HEWI Subcommittee) held a bipartisan
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:48 Nov 21, 2022 Jkt 039008 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR550.XXX HR550
3
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.
Following the series of higher education hearings, on October 15,
2019, Chairman Bobby Scott (D–VA–03) introduced H.R. 4674, The
College Affordability Act, a reauthorization of the Higher Education
Act of 1965. On October 29, 2019 the Committee began consider-
ation of H.R. 4674, in legislative session, and reported the bill fa-
vorably, as amended, to the House of Representatives by a vote of
28–22 on October 31, 2019.
Other Legislative Action
On January 24, 2019, Rep. Joe Courtney (D–CT–02) introduced
H.R. 748, 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–10 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
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
September 30, 2020. On March 25, the Senate passed the CARES
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:48 Nov 21, 2022 Jkt 039008 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR550.XXX HR550
4
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. 1296 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.
1296 in legislative session and reported it unfavorably, as amend-
ed, to the House of Representatives by a vote of 28–21. The Com-
mittee considered one amendment to H. Res. 1296, an amendment
offered by Chairman Bobby Scott (D–VA–03) that made a minor
technical edit, identifying the Secretary of Education and President
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
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
summarizes the oversight power of the Committee thusly:
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:48 Nov 21, 2022 Jkt 039008 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR550.XXX HR550
5
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
directly recognized a right in an individual Member,
other than a committee chair, to exercise a commit-
tee’s oversight authority without the permission of a
majority of the committee 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
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 not-
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).
6 While current Committee leadership takes notice of this position, it does not necessarily
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
agree with the conclusion reached by the Committee in the 109th Congress, and merely notes
it here for the record.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:48 Nov 21, 2022 Jkt 039008 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR550.XXX HR550
6
ing, ‘‘Perhaps most importantly, as a matter of procedure, H. Res.
467 challenges the Majority’s prerogatives and its right to set the
legislative agenda, and for that reason alone should be rejected.’’ 7
H. Res. 1296, in part, asks the Secretary of Education to provide,
‘‘unredacted 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 communications, to the extent that any such one
or more items are within the possession of the President
or the Secretary . . .’’
that relate to any meeting or request from any combination of offi-
cials in the Executive Office of the President, the Departments of
Education, Treasury, Justice, Bureau of Consumer Financial Pro-
tection, or other outside groups as it relates to both student loan
forgiveness and the legal justification of such forgiveness. This in-
quiry is overly broad and obviously designed to bog the Department
down in production of a gargantuan amount of material. Through-
out debate on H. Res. 1296, the Minority suggested that the re-
quest was merely for a legal justification, but the text of the resolu-
tion 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
The Committee has similar concerns as to whether an ROI that
requests ‘‘opinions’’ would be considered privileged under the Rules
of the House.9 Notwithstanding that point, ROIs are, in theory, an
oversight tool, and the Committee recognizes every Member has
the right to introduce an ROI. However, it was disappointing to
spend time considering H. Res. 1296, a resolution so obviously de-
signed to derail serious policy work and re-task a Department to
provide every jot and tittle related to a legal justification that has
been publically available since the program was announced.
The facts regarding the One Time Student Loan Debt Relief Pro-
gram
H. Res. 1296 was introduced in Congress on July 28, 2022, near-
ly a full month before any program to cancel federal student loan
debt was announced by the Biden Administration. It was not until
August 24, 2022 that the President and Department announced the
One Time Student Loan Debt Relief Program.10 Under the pro-
7 H. Rpt. 109–258, 6, 109th Cong., 1st sess. (2005).
8 Id.
9 See Charles W. Johnson, et al., House Practice, Ch. 49, § 4 (2015) (citing the precedent that
to retain privileged status an ROI ‘‘must seek facts rather than opinion’’).
10 U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Press Release, Biden-Harris Administration Announces Final Student
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
Loan Pause Extension Through December 31 and Targeted Debt Cancellation to Smooth Transi-
tion to Repayment, (Aug. 24, 2022), https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/biden-harris-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:48 Nov 21, 2022 Jkt 039008 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR550.XXX HR550
7
gram, borrowers with incomes below $125,000 ($250,000 for mar-
ried couples) would receive up to $10,000 in federal student debt
relief, with borrowers who qualify and received a Pell Grant during
their education becoming eligible for up to an additional $10,000 in
relief.11
At the time of the announcement, the Administration released a
legal memo from the Department of Education’s Office of the Gen-
eral Counsel and an opinion from the Department of Justice’s Of-
fice of Legal Counsel outlining the legal authority for the pro-
gram.12 These memos answer the core question raised by H. Res.
1296—they are the legal justifications for the program this resolu-
tion of inquiry seeks.
During debate on H. Res. 1296, members of the Committee cited
public statements, including one by Speaker Pelosi, and previous
memos from the DeVos Department of Education that the Presi-
dent does not have the legal authority to cancel student loan
debt.13 There have also been several lawsuits filed challenging the
President’s legal authority to cancel student debt under various
theories.14 None of these statements or lawsuits refute the point
that the Department provided its legal justification for the program
when it was announced. Notwithstanding the overly burdensome
production requirements designed to derail Administration efforts
to reduce student loan debt, H. Res. 1296 is in essence moot.
It is clear that the legality of the One Time Student Loan Debt
Relief Program will be decided in the courts. It is equally apparent
to the Committee that any claim of ‘‘congressional oversight’’ made
by a resolution of inquiry that was introduced before the program
it intends to oversee was even in existence is tenuous at best. As
such, the Committee reported H. Res. 1296 to the House adversely
with the recommendation it do not pass. The Committee takes its
oversight responsibilities seriously, and will continue to exercise
meaningful oversight of policies and programs within its rule X ju-
risdiction, 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 Committee will give any
resolution of inquiry introduced by any member of the House the
thoughtful consideration it is due.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
The text of H. Res. 1296 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.
administration-announces-final-student-loan-pause-extension-through-december-31-and-tar-
geted-debt-cancellation-smooth-transition-repayment.
11 Id.
12 Id.; Memorandum from Lisa Brown, General Counsel, U.S. Department of Education, to
Miguel A. Cardona, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education (Aug. 23, 2022), https://
www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/foia/secretarys-legal-authority-for-debt-cancellation.pdf; Use of the
HEROES Act of 2003 to Cancel the Principal Amounts of Student Loans, 46 Op. O.L.C.__(2022),
https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1528451/download.
13 Memorandum from Reed D. Rubinstein, Principal Deputy Gen. Couns., Dep’t of Educ., to
Betsy DeVos, Sec’y of Educ. (Jan. 12, 2021).
14 See Anna Helhoski, Student Loan Lawsuits; Where Challenges to Cancellation Stand,
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
Nerdwallet, (Oct. 18, 2022), https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/loans/student-loans/student-loan-
lawsuits.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:48 Nov 21, 2022 Jkt 039008 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR550.XXX HR550
8
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. 1296 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. 1296 contains no unfunded mandates.
EARMARK STATEMENT
In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, H. Res. 1296 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.
1296:
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:48 Nov 21, 2022 Jkt 039008 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR550.XXX HR550
9
Date: 9-15-2022
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR RECORD OF COMMITTEE VOTE
Roll Call:1 Bill: H. Res 1295, 1294.Amendment Nwnber: Mtn
Disposition: Agreed to by Full Committee Roll Call Vote
Sponsor/Amendment: Levin Motion to report H.Res 1295, H.Res.1296, and H.Res 1273, unfavorably,
to the House. Agreed to by Roll Call Vote 28-21.
Not Not
Name&Stru:e Aye No Name&State Aye No
Votmg
Vonng
Mr. SCOTT (VA) (Chairman) X Mrs. FOXX (NC) (Ranking) X
Mr. GRIJALVA (AZ) X Mr. WILSON (SC) X
Mr. COURNTEY (CT) X Mr. THOMPSON (PA) X
Mr. SABLAN (MP) X Mr. WALBERG (Ml) X
Ms. WILSON (FL) X Mr. GROTHMAN (WI) X
Ms. BONAM!CI (OR) X Ms. STEFANIK (NY) X
Mr. TAKANO (CA) X Mr. ALLEN (GA) X
Ms. ADAMS (NC) X Mr. BANKS (IN) X
Mr. DESAULN!ER (CA) X Mr. COMER (KY) X
Mr. NORCROSS (NJ) X Mr. FULCHER (ID) X
Ms. JAYAPAL (WA) X Mr. KELLER (PA) X
Ms. WILD (PA) X Ms. MILLER-MEEKS (IA) X
Mrs. MCBATH (GA) X Mr. OWENS (UT) X
Mrs. HA YES (CT) X Mr. GOOD (VA) X
Mr. LEVIN (Ml) X Mrs. MCCLAIN (Ml) X
Ms. OMAR (MN) X Mrs. HARSHBARGER (TN) X
Ms. STEVENS (Ml) X Mrs. MILLER (IL) X
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ (NM) X Mrs. SPARTZ (IN) X
Mr. JONES (NY) X Mr. FITZGERALD (WI) X
Ms. MANNING (NC) X Mr. CAWTHORN (NC) X
Mr. MRVAN (IN) X Mrs. STEEL (CA) X
Mr. BOWMAN (NY) X Mr. JACOBS (NY) )(
Mrs. CHERFILUS-MCC0RMICK (FL) X Mr. FINSTAD (MN) X
Mr. POCAN (WI) X Mr. SEMPOLINSKI (NY) X
Mr. CASTRO (TX) X
Ms. SHERRILL (NJ) X
Mr. ESPAILLAT(NY) X
Mr. KWEISI MFUME (MD) X
Vacancv
TOTALS: Ayes: 28 Nos:21 Not Voting: 3
Total: 53 / Quorum: / Report:
(29 D -24 R)
11.Although not present for the recorded vote, Member expressed he/she would have voted AYE if present at time of vote.
*Although not present for the recorded vote, Member expressed he/she would have voted NO if present at time of vote.
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
Insert graphic folio 11 HR550.001
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:48 Nov 21, 2022 Jkt 039008 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR550.XXX HR550
10
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. 1296 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. 1296 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. 1296 does not change existing law for purposes of clause
3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:48 Nov 21, 2022 Jkt 039008 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR550.XXX HR550
MINORITY VIEWS
Introduction
In response to statements made by the Secretary of Education
and other senior officials throughout the past year and a half that
the Biden administration was examining widespread student loan
forgiveness through executive action,1 Ranking Member Virginia
Foxx requested information from the Secretary regarding the Presi-
dent’s plans for, and legal authority to carry out, broad-based loan
cancellation by executive action. Because the responses to those re-
quests were largely ignored, Ranking Member Foxx introduced H.
Res. 1296 on July 28, 2022. This resolution of inquiry requests the
President and directs the Secretary of Education to transmit, re-
spectively, certain documents to the House of Representatives re-
lating to the legal authority to forgive federal student loan debt.
We believe that the urgency for H. Res. 1296 is even more impor-
tant today, after the administration’s announcement of a student
bailout plan which will have negative consequences for students
and families, for our nation’s postsecondary education system, and
for the fiscal future of our nation.
The need for this resolution of inquiry is twofold. First, the ad-
ministration’s supposed authority to enact broad-based loan can-
cellation for every borrower is dubious and was completely un-
known until the day the Biden administration announced the fed-
eral student loan scheme. On August 24, 2022, while Americans
were trying to understand the varied details of the announcement,2
the Department of Education released a Notice of Debt Cancella-
tion Legal Memorandum 3 and the Department of Justice released
a legal opinion 4 which serve as this administration’s only public
documents claiming possible authority under the Higher Education
Relief Opportunities for Students (HEROS) Act of 2003. The De-
partment of Education’s Legal Memorandum was not published in
the Federal Register until a week later. Second, despite previous
headlines that the administration was ‘‘ready to roll’’ on their loan
cancellation plan and other potential program changes,5 the De-
partment of Education did not respond to the Ranking Member’s
letter requesting more details on how this executive action would
be implemented.6
1 https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/26/ed-secretary-cardona-biden-administration-is-examining-
loan-forgiveness.html.
2 https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/biden-harris-administration-announces-final-student-
loan-pause-extension-through-december-31-and-targeted-debt-cancellation-smooth-transition-re-
payment.
3 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/08/30/2022-18731/notice-of-debt-cancellation-
legal-memorandum.
4 https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1528451/download.
5 https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2022/06/education-department-ready-to-roll-on-
bidens-student-debt-decision-cardona-says-00036812?source=email.
6 https://republicans-edlabor.house.gov/news/document;single.aspx?DocumentID=408346.
(11)
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:48 Nov 21, 2022 Jkt 039008 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR550.XXX HR550
12
This resolution of inquiry is about oversight and transparency.
The prior administration provided an analysis which showed that
no Secretary would have this authority.7 The current administra-
tion rescinded that memo and went forward with an analysis they
refused to make public despite numerous congressional requests for
that memo.
The Congressional History of the Higher Education Relief Opportu-
nities for Students (HEROS) Act
The Biden administration is abusing the HEROS Act of 2003, a
narrow and highly targeted law that has two decades of history of
providing flexibilities and relief for borrowers during a limited time
period. First passed in December 2001 and later signed into law,8
the HEROS Act of 2001 was pushed through Congress in a bipar-
tisan manner in the months after September 11, 2001, and after
the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom where American and
British Forces led bombing strikes against al-Qaida and Taliban
forces overseas in Afghanistan.9 The HEROS Act of 2001 provided
the Secretary of Education with specific waiver authority to re-
spond to conditions in the national emergency declared by the
President on September 14, 2001.
The HEROS Act of 2001 was set to expire near the end of 2003,
but overseas military operations continued. On March 20, 2003, an
American-led coalition began Operation Iraqi Freedom preemptive
airstrikes 10 of Saddam Hussein’s Presidential Palace and by March
25, 2003, United States troops were engaged in a ground war
marching toward Baghdad.11 On March 25, 2003, in the midst of
the first days of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Representative John
Kline (R–MN) introduced the HEROS Act of 2003 which he later
stated during debate on the House floor:
provides assurance to our men and women in uniform that
they will not face education-related financial or adminis-
trative difficulties while they defend our Nation. The
HEROS Act achieves this by granting the Secretary of
Education the authority to address the specific needs of
each student whose education is interrupted when they
are called to military service.12
Specifically, the HEROS Act of 2003 was intended by Congress to
provide United States Reservists, active-duty military, National
Guard and affected individuals residing or employed in an area
that is declared a disaster area in connection with a national emer-
gency, with flexibility around certain requirements of financial aid
programs during a war, other military operation or national emer-
gency while they were serving the country.
7 https://static.politico.com/d6/ce/3edf6a3946afa98eb13c210afd7d/ogcmemohealoans.pdf?mkt_
tok=NDc1LVBCUS05NzEAAAGGdHVzJZSFr4a_6xNGeCNg_zcF0NhbhJq7ZsWtj3ALb_2KNy
Tubzh_BhlTeW_R0mrC1g8M_kY7EF02OEXdzs_OSb9IKZO2x4L9COzfLxnCmErnV3U.
8 P.L. 107–122.
9 https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/middle-east/
operation-enduring-freedom.html.
10 https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/middle-east/
operation-iraqi-freedom.html.
11 https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/26/world/nation-war-overview-march-25-2003-heavy-losses-
among-iraqis-hints-uprising.html.
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
12 https://www.congress.gov/108/crec/2003/04/01/CREC-2003-04-01-pt1-PgH2522-5.pdf.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:24 Nov 22, 2022 Jkt 039008 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR550.XXX HR550
13
This history makes clear that this law does not provide authority
for the Secretary of Education to enact broad cancellation of federal
student loans for a vast population of borrowers.13 In fact, Rep-
resentative Tim Ryan (D–OH) managed floor debate for the Demo-
crats on the HEROS Act of 2003 and delivered an initial address
acknowledging the limitedness of the law: he noted that, while the
conflict in the Middle East could wage on longer, there were limita-
tions in the scope of the HEROS Act of 2003 which prevented the
bill from providing broader interest.14 Former Chairman of the
House Education and the Workforce’s Subcommittee on 21st Cen-
tury Competitiveness, Representative Buck McKeon (R–CA), ad-
dressed the bounds of the Secretary’s authority under the legisla-
tion. He noted the bill gave only the Secretary of Education only
narrow authority that would likely not extend to all possible in-
stances of financial need, but the legislation was to maintain the
integrity of the Title IV programs:
Another important aspect of the HEROS Act is that it
allows the Secretary of Education to act quickly should a
situation arise that has not been considered. It allows him
to protect the interests of our military personnel while at
the same time ensuring the integrity of the Federal Stu-
dent Assistance Programs. . . . While it will not solve
every issue that will arise, the HEROS Act will alleviate
concerns around student financial assistance and postsec-
ondary education. It also stands as a clear indication of the
commitment of this Congress to the men and women fight-
ing to protect the freedoms of this great Nation.15
Several members also included statements for the congressional
record further describing their intent in supporting the legislation.
Representative Shelia Jackson Lee (D–TX) provided a statement
for the congressional record which states her support for the
HEROS Act’s ability to provide relief from technical issues that
arise with being a borrower:
This discretion will empower the Secretary to drastically
reduce the likelihood that enlisted men’s and women’s edu-
cations will be jeopardized by inadvertent, technical viola-
tions or defaults when they are called to service. It also en-
sures that members of our Armed Forces do not forfeit
their tuition payments when they answer the call to serv-
ice.16
Representative Rahm Emanuel (D–IL) submitted a statement in
support of the HEROS Act of 2003 and its intent to help those di-
rectly engaged in war:
This is timely, essential legislation which ensures that
those brave men and women who make enormous sac-
rifices for our nation do not forfeit their right to an afford-
able and accessible education. . . . It is only right that we
ensure access to higher education for those who work to
13 P.L. 108–76.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
16 Ibid.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:48 Nov 21, 2022 Jkt 039008 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR550.XXX HR550
14
protect the values and privileges that we enjoy as Ameri-
cans. . . . It [the HEROS Act of 2003] is a symbol of sup-
port for the brave men and women involved in Operation
Iraqi Freedom and for all of those who selflessly devote
their lives to protecting our nation and our freedom.17
A review of the debate around the HEROS Act of 2003 confirms
that Congress never granted or even contemplated the possibility
that the executive branch was given clear congressional authoriza-
tion, or even unclear authorization, to provide all student loan bor-
rowers any relief under the authority of the HEROS Act of 2003.
Further, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that it expects Con-
gress to be clear if it wishes to assign agency decisions of vast eco-
nomic and political significance, and as a result, the Court reads
statutory silence as no authority: ‘‘Congress, does not ‘hide ele-
phants in mouseholes.’ ’’ 18
Importance of Resolutions of Inquiry in Response to Unprecedented
Illegal Action
Congress has not authorized the Secretary of Education to enact
mass loan cancellation. Therefore, congressional oversight and com-
pliance with H. Res. 1296 to allow for the review of unredacted doc-
uments, memoranda, legal opinions, records from meetings, cor-
respondence and other communications between the Department of
Education, White House, Department of the Treasury, Department
of Justice, and Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating
to debt cancellation are of upmost importance. The American peo-
ple and Congress deserve answers and transparency from this ad-
ministration. Providing information, including a memorandum—re-
quested repeatedly by members from both sides of the aisle—is a
basic requirement of the administration, but it is a basic require-
ment this administration has failed to meet up to this point.
Unfounded Objections of the Majority
During the markup, Committee Democrats claimed that H. Res.
1296 is moot because the Department of Education and Depart-
ment of Justice published legal memoranda describing the sup-
posed authority that the administration is relying on to quickly
transfer loan debt. However, the existence of these memoranda
does not de facto demonstrate the truth of their arguments. Com-
mittee Republicans do not simply ‘‘dislike’’ the memorandum jus-
tifications: we are aware of the legislative history of the HEROS
Act of 2003 and later extensions, and we are confident that Con-
gress has never given this type of authority. The memoranda were
published so belatedly not because the authority in question was
manifest but rather as a strategy to pull the wool over Americans’
eyes: in an effort to run out the clock, the Biden administration
purposefully released its opinions at the same time as the plan
itself was announced in order to give less time for public review be-
fore discharging loans.
The Majority also claimed that as the cost of college grows expo-
nentially, Congress must also provide loan relief to current and fu-
17 Ibid.
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
18 Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, 531 US 457 (2001).
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:48 Nov 21, 2022 Jkt 039008 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR550.XXX HR550
15
ture student borrowers. The problem is that ‘‘forgiveness’’ is a mis-
nomer: there is no such thing as ‘‘forgiveness’’ of student loans. The
loan debt will not go away but will simply be transferred to the
taxpayer. The bailout alone is estimated to cost over $500 billion
dollars,19 a huge sum which the Biden administration has simply
moved the loan debt agreed to by millions of student loan bor-
rowers onto the backs of all American taxpayers. This mass stu-
dent loan debt transfer will cost each taxpayer at least $2,500.20
Further, this loan forgiveness plan will do nothing to fix the cor-
rupt postsecondary education system. The administration knows
that transferring up to $20,000 per borrower will do nothing to de-
crease the cost of college. Both the Majority and Minority members
of this Committee know that college costs have outpaced inflation
for decades 21 and have voiced a commitment to solving this prob-
lem. However, economists estimate that student loan subsidies—
whether mass debt cancellation or the Lowering Obstacles to
Achievement Now (LOAN) Act—actually increase tuition by 60
cents for every dollar spent on student loan subsidies.22
Conclusion
The Biden administration’s illegal student loan bailout will break
the student loan program and exacerbate the problems plaguing
our postsecondary education system in the process. The unprece-
dented nature of this politically-driven loan cancellation encourages
students to borrow as much as possible because they expect tax-
payers to foot the bill and enables colleges to continue to increase
the cost of overpriced degrees with low returns for their students.
This move by the Biden administration will have cascading con-
sequences that will affect students, families, and taxpayers of today
and of future generations. To conduct proper oversight, H. Res.
1296 is necessary to ensure the critical information is no longer
shielded from Congress. We need to know who the administration
met with, whether those with conflicts participated in the meet-
ings, and whether there were other legal opinions the administra-
tion considered before acting to subvert the law. This resolution of
inquiry would begin to provide those answers.
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.
19 https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2022/8/26/biden-student-loan-forgiveness.
20 https://www.ntu.org/foundation/detail/cost-of-student-debt-cancelation-could-average-2000-
per-taxpayer.
21 https://research.collegeboard.org/trends/college-pricing.
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
22 https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr733.pdf.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:48 Nov 21, 2022 Jkt 039008 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR550.XXX HR550
16
BURGESS OWENS.
BOB GOOD.
LISA C. MCCLAIN.
MARY E. MILLER.
SCOTT FITZGERALD.
MADISON CAWTHORN.
CHRIS JACOBS.
BRAD FINSTAD.
Æ
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HEARING
VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:48 Nov 21, 2022 Jkt 039008 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6611 E:\HR\OC\HR550.XXX HR550
File and source
- File
- CRPT_crpt-117hrpt550_crpt-117hrpt550.pdf
- Size
- 375,091 bytes
- SHA-256
- a83edc15a531008cefd7852744e36535179ba11ac6c2140f6057af7ad47191e5
- Original
- www.govinfo.gov