S-5046-119
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 541.
Sponsored by Tim Kaine (D-VA)
What it does
This bill would prohibit the Secretary of Education from transferring the 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. It would also block the Secretary from routing functions through internal departmental reshuffling as a workaround. Additionally, the bill would require quarterly public cost reports on any interagency agreements entered into on or after February 1, 2025, and would withhold certain travel funds from the Secretary if those reports are not filed.
Who benefits
Students with disabilities and their families who rely on IDEA-funded programs administered by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. College students and institutions dependent on federal financial aid administered by the Office of Postsecondary Education. Native American students and tribal communities served by the Office of Indian Education. K-12 students and school districts receiving Title I and other grants administered by the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. State and local education agencies that have established relationships and processes with existing Education Department offices. Disability rights advocates and organizations that monitor federal special education enforcement. Congressional oversight committees that would receive the required quarterly cost reports.
Who is hurt
The executive branch's flexibility to reorganize federal agencies and consolidate functions would be constrained. Federal agencies that might otherwise absorb Education Department functions — such as the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, or Defense — would be blocked from doing so. Taxpayers who might benefit from potential administrative efficiencies through consolidation would not see those savings if the bill prevents reorganization. Administration officials who favor restructuring the federal education bureaucracy would be limited in their options.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the four protected offices administer programs serving tens of millions of students — including children with disabilities under IDEA, low-income K-12 students under Title I, and Native American students — and that transferring these functions to agencies without specialized education expertise would disrupt grant pipelines, enforcement mechanisms, and grantee relationships built over decades. They contend that the quarterly cost-reporting requirement adds a necessary layer of fiscal transparency, allowing Congress and the public to evaluate whether any interagency arrangements are saving or wasting money before disruption becomes irreversible.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that Congress is using this bill to micromanage executive branch organizational decisions that the Constitution assigns to the President, potentially infringing on the executive's inherent authority to structure the administrative apparatus. They contend that consolidating overlapping federal functions across agencies can reduce administrative overhead and improve service delivery, and that a blanket prohibition — rather than a case-by-case review — prevents the executive from pursuing efficiency gains that could ultimately benefit the same students the bill claims to protect.
Constitutional context
The Tenth Amendment reserves education as a traditional state function, but Congress exercises authority over federal education programs through the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1), as affirmed in South Dakota v. Dole (1987). The bill's core mechanism — Congress directing how the executive branch may or may not reorganize its own agencies — implicates separation of powers principles, though Congress has broad authority to define the structure and functions of executive departments it creates by statute.
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority to constrain executive reorganization of the Education Department; the executive branch retains the ability to seek legislative changes or pursue reorganization through statutory amendment, and courts could review whether the prohibition exceeds congressional authority over executive structure.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously used statutory restrictions to limit executive reorganization authority, including the abolition of the reorganization authority under the Reorganization Act after it lapsed in 1984, requiring any major agency restructuring to go through the legislative process.