HR-9602-119
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 20 - 16.
Sponsored by Michael Baumgartner (R-WA)
What it does
This bill would transfer administration of Section 117 of the Higher Education Act — which requires colleges and universities to disclose large gifts and contracts from foreign sources — from the Department of Education to the Department of State. It would also transfer related personnel, funds, property, and records, and directs the Office of Management and Budget to ensure the reorganization does not increase the total number of federal employees across affected agencies.
Who benefits
The Department of State, which would gain authority and resources over foreign gift oversight; supporters of stronger foreign-influence monitoring on campuses, who argue State has more expertise in foreign relations and national security; and potentially universities if State's process is streamlined compared to Education's. Contractors or personnel systems tied to State's foreign affairs infrastructure may also see indirect gains.
Who is hurt
The Department of Education would lose this function and associated staff and funding. Universities and colleges could face administrative disruption during the transition, including new points of contact, forms, or compliance procedures. Department of Education employees currently handling this function face job or role uncertainty, subject to the no-net-increase personnel cap. Existing pending proceedings or investigations under Section 117 could see procedural transition friction despite savings-clause protections.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that foreign gift disclosure is fundamentally a national security and foreign policy matter, and that the State Department has greater expertise and diplomatic context to evaluate foreign funding of American universities than the Education Department does. They contend consolidating this function under State would improve enforcement consistency and close gaps that have allowed underreporting of foreign gifts, citing past inspector general findings that Education's oversight of Section 117 compliance was inconsistent.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that moving this function to State could create confusion for universities during the transition and diverts a domestic higher-education compliance matter to an agency focused on diplomacy rather than education policy. They contend that bureaucratic reorganizations often produce short-term disruption, and that the bill provides no clear evidence that State Department administration would meaningfully improve compliance or transparency compared to targeted reforms within the Education Department itself.
Constitutional context
This bill involves an internal executive-branch reorganization of functions Congress has already authorized under the Higher Education Act, which Congress may modify under its Article I authority to structure federal agencies and its Spending Clause power over federally funded higher education programs. It does not raise a significant constitutional question, as reassigning administrative responsibility between executive departments is a matter of ordinary legislative and executive organization rather than a contested rights or federalism issue.
Checks and balances
Congress exercises its authority to reorganize executive functions by statute, while the Office of Management and Budget (an executive branch entity) is given discretion to resolve ambiguous transfer determinations, with oversight retained through certification requirements to congressional committees.
Historical precedent
Congress has periodically reassigned specific administrative functions between federal departments through similar reorganization statutes, though no legislation directly analogous to transferring Section 117 foreign gift reporting specifically to the State Department has been identified.