[House Report 117-550]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


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, CERTAIN 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 considered 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:

That the President, Joseph R. Biden, is requested, and the Secretary of 
Education, Miguel Cardona, is directed, to transmit, respectively, to 
the House of Representatives, not later than 14 days after the date of 
the adoption of this resolution, 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, 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 career 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 Department 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 student loan debt 
        forgiveness and Department of Education staff, including 
        political appointees and any group with interests relating to 
        student loan forgiveness.
          (4) Meetings held between the Executive Office of the 
        President, the Department 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, including 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 forgive Federal student loan debt. While the 
Committee supports and promotes Congress' Article I authority 
to conduct rigorous oversight, 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 requests, and 
dissuade this Administration's effort to provide legal, 
sensible solutions to the student loan debt crisis. As such, 
the Committee 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 
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.
    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 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, 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 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. 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 
amended, to the House of Representatives by a vote of 28-21. 
The Committee 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 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. 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 
officials in the Executive Office of the President, the 
Departments of Education, Treasury, Justice, Bureau of Consumer 
Financial Protection, or other outside groups as it relates to 
both student loan forgiveness and the legal justification of 
such forgiveness. 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. 
1296, the Minority suggested that the request was merely for a 
legal justification, 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.

    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 designed 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\See Charles W. Johnson, et al., House Practice, Ch. 49, Sec. 4 
(2015) (citing the precedent that to retain privileged status an ROI 
``must seek facts rather than opinion'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The facts regarding the One Time Student Loan Debt Relief Program

    H. Res. 1296 was introduced in Congress on July 28, 2022, 
nearly 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 program, borrowers with incomes below $125,000 
($250,000 for married 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\U.S. Dep't of Educ., Press Release, Biden-Harris Administration 
Announces Final Student Loan Pause Extension Through December 31 and 
Targeted Debt Cancellation to Smooth Transition to Repayment, (Aug. 24, 
2022), 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-repayment.
    \11\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the time of the announcement, the Administration 
released a legal memo from the Department of Education's Office 
of the General Counsel and an opinion from the Department of 
Justice's Office of Legal Counsel outlining the legal authority 
for the program.\12\ These memos answer the core question 
raised by H. Res. 1296--they are the legal justifications for 
the program this resolution of inquiry seeks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 
President 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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, Nerdwallet, (Oct. 18, 2022), https://
www.nerdwallet.com/article/loans/student-loans/student-loan-lawsuits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 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.

                      SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

    The text of H. Res. 1296 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. 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 
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. 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 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. 1296:
	
	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             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 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. 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 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. 1296 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 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 President's plans for, and 
legal authority to carry out, broad-based loan cancellation by 
executive action. Because the responses to those requests 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, 
respectively, certain documents to the House of Representatives 
relating to the legal authority to forgive federal student loan 
debt. We believe that the urgency for H. Res. 1296 is even more 
important 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/26/ed-secretary-cardona-biden-
administration-is-examining-loan-forgiveness.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The need for this resolution of inquiry is twofold. First, 
the administration's supposed authority to enact broad-based 
loan cancellation for every borrower is dubious and was 
completely unknown until the day the Biden administration 
announced the federal 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 Cancellation 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 Department 
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 Department of Education did not respond to the 
Ranking Member's letter requesting more details on how this 
executive action would be implemented.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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-repayment.
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 administration rescinded that memo and went forward 
with an analysis they refused to make public despite numerous 
congressional requests for that memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\https://static.politico.com/d6/ce/3edf6a3946afa98eb13c210afd7d/
ogcmemohealoans.pdf?mkt_ 
tok=NDc1LVBCUS05NzEAAAGGdHVzJZSFr4a_6xNGeCNg_zcF0NhbhJq7ZsWtj3ALb_2KNy 
Tubzh_BhlTeW_R0mrC1g8M_kY7EF02OEXdzs_OSb9IKZO2x4L9COzfLxnCmErnV3U.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Congressional History of the Higher Education Relief Opportunities 
        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 bipartisan 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 respond to 
conditions in the national emergency declared by the President 
on September 14, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\P.L. 107-122.
    \9\https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-
operations/middle-east/
operation-enduring-freedom.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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:

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        provides assurance to our men and women in uniform that 
        they will not face education-related financial or 
        administrative 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\https://www.congress.gov/108/crec/2003/04/01/CREC-2003-04-01-
pt1-PgH2522-5.pdf.

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 emergency, with flexibility around certain 
requirements of financial aid programs during a war, other 
military operation or national emergency while they were 
serving the country.
    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, Representative Tim Ryan (D-OH) managed 
floor debate for the Democrats 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 limitations 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 Century 
Competitiveness, Representative Buck McKeon (R-CA), addressed 
the bounds of the Secretary's authority under the legislation. 
He noted the bill gave only the Secretary of Education only 
narrow authority that would likely not extend to all possible 
instances of financial need, but the legislation was to 
maintain the integrity of the Title IV programs:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\P.L. 108-76.
    \14\Ibid.

          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 Student Assistance Programs. . . . While 
        it will not solve every issue that will arise, the 
        HEROS Act will alleviate concerns around student 
        financial assistance and postsecondary education. It 
        also stands as a clear indication of the commitment of 
        this Congress to the men and women fighting to protect 
        the freedoms of this great Nation.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\Ibid.

    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 educations will be jeopardized by 
        inadvertent, technical violations or defaults when they 
        are called to service. It also ensures that members of 
        our Armed Forces do not forfeit their tuition payments 
        when they answer the call to service.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\Ibid.

Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) submitted a statement in 
support of the HEROS Act of 2003 and its intent to help those 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
directly engaged in war:

          This is timely, essential legislation which ensures 
        that those brave men and women who make enormous 
        sacrifices for our nation do not forfeit their right to 
        an affordable and accessible education. . . . It is 
        only right that we ensure access to higher education 
        for those who work to protect the values and privileges 
        that we enjoy as Americans. . . . It [the HEROS Act of 
        2003] is a symbol of support 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\Ibid.

    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 authorization, or even unclear authorization, to 
provide all student loan borrowers any relief under the 
authority of the HEROS Act of 2003. Further, the U.S. Supreme 
Court has stated that it expects Congress to be clear if it 
wishes to assign agency decisions of vast economic and 
political significance, and as a result, the Court reads 
statutory silence as no authority: ``Congress, does not `hide 
elephants in mouseholes.'''\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, 531 US 457 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 compliance with H. Res. 1296 to allow for the 
review of unredacted documents, memoranda, legal opinions, 
records from meetings, correspondence 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 people and Congress deserve 
answers and transparency from this administration. Providing 
information, including a memorandum--requested repeatedly by 
members from both sides of the aisle--is a basic requirement of 
the administration, but it is a basic requirement 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 Department 
of Justice published legal memoranda describing the supposed 
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. 
Committee Republicans do not simply ``dislike'' the memorandum 
justifications: we are aware of the legislative history of the 
HEROS Act of 2003 and later extensions, and we are confident 
that Congress 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 before discharging loans.
    The Majority also claimed that as the cost of college grows 
exponentially, Congress must also provide loan relief to 
current and future student borrowers. The problem is that 
``forgiveness'' is a misnomer: 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 borrowers onto the backs of all American taxpayers. This 
mass student loan debt transfer will cost each taxpayer at 
least $2,500.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Further, this loan forgiveness plan will do nothing to fix 
the corrupt postsecondary education system. The administration 
knows that transferring up to $20,000 per borrower will do 
nothing to decrease 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 problem. 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\https://research.collegeboard.org/trends/college-pricing.
    \22\https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/
staff_reports/sr733.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
unprecedented nature of this politically-driven loan 
cancellation encourages students to borrow as much as possible 
because they expect taxpayers 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 consequences 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 
meetings, and whether there were other legal opinions the 
administration 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.
                                   Burgess Owens.
                                   Bob Good.
                                   Lisa C. McClain.
                                   Mary E. Miller.
                                   Scott Fitzgerald.
                                   Madison Cawthorn.
                                   Chris Jacobs.
                                   Brad Finstad.

                                  [all]