[House Report 117-549]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


117th Congress}                                            { Report

  2d Session  }        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES	           { 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 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, 
having considered the same, report unfavorably thereon with an 
amendment and recommends 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

    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 
communications, to the extent that any such one or more items are 
within the possession 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 estimates 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 potentially affected, budget 
        estimates, impact analyses, and other related discussions 
        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 officials, the 
        Department of Education, Members of Congress, researchers and 
        academics, and any group or organization advocating for such 
        waivers.
          (3) Budget estimates, impact analyses, cost benefit analyses, 
        and related estimates regarding the public service loan 
        forgiveness waiver announced on October 6, 2021, and the 
        income-driven repayment waiver announced on April 19, 2022, 
        arising from or used for purposes of discussions held between 
        the Executive 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 employees and officials, including political 
        appointees and career staff, relating to making public budget 
        estimates, impact 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.
          (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 Representatives relating to the Department of 
Education's (Department'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 congressional 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 requests, and 
throw cold water on efforts this Administration is taking to 
provide legal, sensible solutions to the student loan debt 
crisis. 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 
entitled ``The Cost of College: Student Centered Reforms to 
Bring Higher Education Within Reach.'' The Committee heard from 
researchers, administrators, and students who described the 
causes and consequences of rising college costs and presented 
recommendations on reforms to the system that make college more 
affordable. 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 
Education to Better Protect Students and Taxpayers.'' The 
hearing focused on the role of states, accreditors, and the 
federal government to hold colleges accountable and needed 
improvements to the accountability system. The Committee heard 
from Dr. Nicholas Hillman, Associate Professor at the 
University of Wisconsin-Madison; Melissa Emrey-Arras, Director 
at the U.S. Government Accountability Office; Noe Ortega, 
Commissioner of Postsecondary and Higher Education for the 
Pennsylvania Department of Education; and Dr. Barbara E. 
Brittingham, President of the New England 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 witnesses about the reasons for and consequences of non-
completion on students and society, differences in non-
completion across sectors, and successful strategies to improve 
completion. The Committee heard from Dr. Susan Dynarski, 
Professor at the University of Michigan; Dr. David Rudd, 
President of the University of Memphis; Dr. Pam Eddinger, 
President of Bunker Hill Community College; and Kyle Ethelbah, 
Director of TRIO programs at the University of Utah.
    On September 19, 2019, the HEWI Subcommittee held an 
oversight 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 President for Education Data and 
Policy of the Urban Institute; Yael Shavit, J.D., Assistant 
Attorney General of the Office of the Massachusetts Attorney 
General; Melissa Emery-Arras, Director of Education, Workforce, 
and Income Security at GAO; and Jeff Appel, Director of Policy 
Liaison and Implementation of the Department's Office of 
Federal Student Aid.
    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 consideration of H.R. 4674, in 
legislative session, and reported the bill favorably, 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, 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 suspend payments, interest accrual, and 
involuntary collection on federal 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 Senate 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 
entitled, ``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 Community Colleges, Corona Del Mar, CA; Dr. Lindsey 
M. Burke, Ph.D., Director, Center for Education Policy & Mark 
A. Kolokotrones Fellow in Education, The Heritage Foundation, 
Washington, DC; and Mr. Daniel A. Zibel, Vice President & Chief 
Counsel, National Student 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 Committee 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, Center for Educational Freedom, Cato Institute, 
Washington, DC; Mr. Mark Mitsui, President, Portland Community 
College, Portland, OR; Mr. Bob Lanter, Executive Director, 
California Workforce Association, Sacramento, CA; Mr. Brian 
Riedl, Senior Fellow in Budget, 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 Federal Student Aid.'' The Subcommittee heard testimony from 
The Honorable Richard Cordray, Chief Operating Officer, U.S. 
Department of Education Office of Federal Student Aid.
    On May 26, 2022, the Committee held a hearing entitled, 
``Examining the Policies and Priorities of the U.S. Department 
of Education.'' 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 
amended, to the House of Representatives by a vote of 28-21. 
The Committee 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 
        authorized by house or committee rules to start 
        official committee investigations or issue subpoenas. 
        Individual Members 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 committee's oversight authority without the 
        permission of a majority of the committee or its 
        chair.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Todd Garvey & Walkter J. Oleszek, Cong. Rsch. Serv., IF10015, 
Congressional Oversight and Investigations (2014) (emphasis added).

    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 officials, 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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 Department]'').
    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Minority claims that the Committee's oversight of the 
Biden Administration has not been sufficient and three separate 
resolutions 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 opportunities 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 introducing 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 
resolution 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 legislative agenda, and for that 
reason alone should be rejected.''\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 communications, to the extent that any such 
        one or more items are within the possession of the 
        Secretary and refer or relate to. . . . Meetings and 
        conversations that included discussions of the number 
        of borrowers potentially eligible to benefit and the 
        amount of outstanding debt potentially affected, budget 
        estimates, impact analyses, and other related 
        discussions 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 officials, the Department 
        of Education, Members of Congress, researchers and 
        academics, and any group or organization advocating for 
        such waivers.''

    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 designed 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 estimate, 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 disclosure 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 national importance.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\Id.

    While ROIs are, in theory, an oversight tool, and the 
Committee recognizes every Member has the right to introduce an 
ROI, it was 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 repayment (IDR) plans. The Department has provided legal 
justification for both actions.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\See generally Alexandra Hegji, Cong. Rsch. Serv., IF12136, 
Student Loans: A Timeline of Actions 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 administer. Instead, the Department, utilizing 
information it had about borrowers and servicer behavior 
through enforcement agencies, announced the one-time payment 
count revision. Under the terms of the adjustment, borrowers 
may have their payment history reviewed and revised if 
necessary to determine payment counts for IDR, which may also 
have implications for their required payment counts under PSLF 
as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 
program 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 administration of the PSLF program, including 
borrowers receiving misinformation 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 consolidation will result in 
lost payments; servicer errors during loan transfer to PHEAA; 
and inaccurate counts of qualifying payments they made towards 
PSLF.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H. Res. 1295 seeks to review documents related to the cost 
estimates 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 federal 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 request, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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/default/files/
fy2021-fsa-annual-report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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, 
anticipated cost estimates, and public statements all suggest 
the Committee 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 Committee takes its 
oversight responsibilities seriously, and will continue 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 
Committee will give any resolution of inquiry introduced by any 
member of the House the thoughtful consideration it is due.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\@SecCardona, Twitter (Sept. 15, 2022, 3:31 PM), https://
twitter.com/SecCardona/status/1570495463379587072.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

    The text of H. Res. 1295 is one declarative Plain English 
sentence 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.

                       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 
Impoundment 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 described 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:


             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 Secretary to produce records in his possession relating to 
cost estimates 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 Committee'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.

                             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, 
announcement to rewrite the statutory requirements governing 
income-driven repayment (IDR) plans, Committee Republicans 
requested information regarding these actions, including the 
legal authority 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 Representatives with five distinct sets of 
documents that informed the Secretary's waivers related to PSLF 
and IDR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\CITE our letters that we are referring to here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 
Education 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 
determine the scope of eligible borrowers and the amount of 
debt potentially affected through the PSLF waiver and IDR 
waiver. Third, the resolution requests any related budget 
estimates that came as a result 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 Secretary of Education is requested to 
share any documentation regarding the discussions and 
deliberations between Department of Education employees, 
including political appointees and career staff, relating to 
making public any budget estimates, impact analyses, 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 affected under the administration's PSLF waiver and 
IDR waiver.
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 eligibility 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 
Educational 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 
government 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         The loan must be a Direct Loan, but not a 
        Parent PLUS Direct 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\``Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program: Selected Issue'', CRS 
Report (R45389), Alexandra Hegji, October 29, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         The monthly payments must be made in a 
        qualifying repayment 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 granted.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\``Public Service Loan Forgiveness Data'' https://
studentaid.ed.gov/sa/about/data-center/student/loan-forgiveness/pslf-
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 organizations 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 regularly publishing data on the 
loan forgiveness amounts\8\ and by September 2018, the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) published its first 
report on PSLF implementation.\9\ This report noted that 
approximately 1 percent of applicants were granted forgiveness. 
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 
appropriated a total of $700 million over two years for 
borrowers to reapply 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 implementation 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2008/10/23/E8-24922/
federal-perkins-loan-program-federal-family-education-loan-program-and-
william-d-ford-federal-direct.
    \8\https://studentaid.gov/data-center/student/loan-forgiveness/
pslf-data.
    \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-expanded-public-service-loan-forgiveness.
    \12\https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-595.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Similar to the level of engagement over the PSLF program, 
Congress 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 Revenue 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 enrollment 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 increases the cost of these programs further, and Congress 
has every right to know by exactly how much.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\P.L. 116-91.
    \14\https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2020-02/55968-CBO-IDRP.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 engage in oversight of the impact of the 
executive actions. H. Res. 1295 would provide Congress with 
insight into the administration's 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 program 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 assumptions about the IDR and PSLF programs. 
It was through correspondence 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 administration refuses 
to provide this Committee with a full cost estimate 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The documents requested through this ROI will help Congress 
understand the true cost of Biden's unilateral actions, what 
estimates 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 unfounded. The Majority claimed that the administration has 
been responsive 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 
information 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 finding that the Department has been 
underestimating loan program costs for over twenty years. GAO 
acknowledges that the information 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-105365.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Lastly, the Majority made an assertion that Democrats 
should be able to discharge more loans and that ``running it 
[PSLF] properly . . . 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 discharging the loans that are eligible and 
that meet the full requirements under the law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\https://subscriber.politicopro.com/transcript/6edddb11-26a9-
4c25-9b4d-2f88553341fc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 damaging to the long-term effectiveness of the loan 
repayment programs, 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.

                                  [all]