HR-9611-119
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 20 - 16.
Sponsored by Mark Harris (R-NC)
What it does
This bill would transfer oversight of approximately 20 postsecondary education programs — including TRIO, GEAR UP, Historically Black College and University (HBCU) programs, Hispanic-Serving Institution programs, programs for students with disabilities, and veteran student success programs — from the Department of Education to the Department of Labor. It would also permanently repeal four programs: the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership, the Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship, the College Access Challenge Grant, and Project GRAD. The bill requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to ensure no net increase in federal employees results from the transfer.
Who benefits
Students at HBCUs, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, and other minority-serving institutions whose programs would continue under a new agency with a workforce-alignment mission. Veterans enrolled in higher education who may benefit if Labor's employment focus better aligns program outcomes with job placement. Advocates of reducing the Department of Education's footprint. OMB, which gains significant discretionary authority over the transition. Employers and workforce development stakeholders who may see closer alignment between higher education grant programs and labor market needs.
Who is hurt
Students currently enrolled in or applying to the four repealed programs (Byrd Honors Scholarship, LEAP, College Access Challenge Grant, Project GRAD), who would lose access to those funding streams entirely. Institutions — particularly HBCUs and community colleges — that rely on the repealed programs. Department of Education staff whose positions may be eliminated or restructured under the no-net-increase mandate. Students with disabilities whose transition and postsecondary programs would move to an agency with less established expertise in disability education law. Migrant and seasonal farmworker students whose specialized program would shift agencies. Smaller institutions that depend on stable, education-focused program administration and may face disruption during the transition period.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that higher education programs focused on workforce readiness, career access, and economic mobility are more logically housed in the Department of Labor, which already manages job training, apprenticeships, and employment pipelines. They contend that consolidating these functions under Labor would reduce duplicative bureaucracy, better align grant outcomes with employment metrics, and streamline federal oversight — pointing to the fact that TRIO and GEAR UP, for example, are explicitly designed to move low-income students toward economic self-sufficiency, a core Labor mission. They also argue that the no-net-employee-increase requirement ensures fiscal discipline during the transfer.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that moving these programs to the Department of Labor fundamentally reframes higher education as job training rather than a broader civic and academic enterprise, potentially narrowing program missions in ways that harm students at HBCUs, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, and disability-focused programs. They contend that the Department of Labor lacks the institutional expertise, legal infrastructure, and established relationships with accreditors and institutions that the Department of Education has built over decades. The outright repeal of four programs — including the Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship and LEAP — eliminates funding with no replacement, directly reducing access for students who currently depend on those dollars.
Constitutional context
The federal government's authority over higher education programs rests on the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1), which allows Congress to attach conditions to federal funds distributed to states and institutions. Under South Dakota v. Dole (1987), such conditions are permissible if they meet a five-part test, including being related to the federal interest in the program. Reassigning administrative authority between executive agencies is a congressional prerogative, but the Tenth Amendment's reservation of education as a traditionally state function remains a background consideration — though courts have generally upheld federal conditional spending in education.
Checks and balances
The executive branch — specifically the Department of Labor and OMB — gains administrative authority over the transferred programs, while Congress retains oversight through the House Committee on Education and Workforce and the Senate HELP Committee, to which OMB must certify compliance; existing judicial review procedures for affected programs are preserved under the savings provisions.
Historical precedent
The Department of Education Organization Act of 1979 transferred education functions from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to the newly created Department of Education, establishing a precedent for large-scale inter-agency transfer of education programs by Congress.