HR-10232-119
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Sponsored by John Mannion (D-NY)
What it does
This bill would prohibit the Secretary of Education from entering into or continuing agreements that transfer functions of four specific Department of Education offices (Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Postsecondary Education, Indian Education, and Elementary and Secondary Education) to other federal agencies, with an exception for agreements already in effect as of February 1, 2025. It would also require the Department to submit quarterly cost reports on interagency agreements to Congress and post them publicly, and would restrict use of certain travel funds if those reports are not provided.
Who benefits
Students, families, and school districts relying on programs run by these four offices (including students with disabilities, Indian education program participants, and postsecondary financial aid recipients), who would see continuity in which agency administers their programs. Department of Education career staff in these offices, who would be protected from having their jobs or functions relocated. Congress and the public, who would gain more transparency through the mandated cost reports.
Who is hurt
The executive branch, particularly the Secretary of Education, would lose flexibility to reorganize functions across agencies, including any effort to consolidate special education, student aid, or Indian education functions elsewhere (such as within the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, or Interior). Other federal agencies that might otherwise have taken on these functions would be barred from doing so. The Secretary's discretion over travel spending would be constrained if reporting deadlines are missed.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that transferring functions like special education services, Indian education, or federal student aid administration to other agencies without congressional approval risks disrupting services for vulnerable populations who depend on specialized expertise built up within the Department of Education. They contend that requiring cost transparency through quarterly reports ensures Congress can evaluate whether any reorganization actually saves money or degrades service quality before it proceeds further.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the executive branch needs flexibility to reorganize federal agencies for efficiency, and that Congress should not micromanage internal interagency agreements that fall within the President's authority to manage the executive branch. They contend the bill's broad prohibition, covering even minor procurement and resource-sharing arrangements, could hamstring legitimate administrative coordination and impose reporting burdens that slow down routine agency operations.
Constitutional context
This bill centers on the separation of powers between Congress and the executive branch over control of federal agency structure and operations, an area governed by Article I's power to organize executive departments and Article II's Vesting and Take Care Clauses rather than a specific education clause. Courts have generally upheld congressional authority to structure and limit executive agencies' organizational discretion, as in cases addressing statutory restrictions on agency reorganization, though no single landmark case controls this specific dispute over interagency functional transfers.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain authority by statutorily restricting the executive branch's ability to reorganize Department of Education functions, curbing presidential and Secretary-level administrative discretion, with the courts available to resolve any separation-of-powers dispute if the executive resists compliance.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously used appropriations riders and organic statutes, such as provisions in the Department of Education Organization Act itself, to restrict how the Department structures and delegates its functions, though this bill's specific ban on interagency transfers of these four offices has no direct historical analogue.