Overview
Title
To limit the authority of the Secretary of Education to propose or issue regulations and executive actions.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 937 is a rule that says the person in charge of education rules can't make new rules if they cost a lot of money, like over $100 million a year, unless they check if it's really necessary. This is to make sure that making new rules doesn’t always mean spending more money.
Summary AI
H.R. 937 aims to restrict the Secretary of Education from introducing or enacting any regulations or actions if they are deemed economically significant and lead to an increase in subsidy costs. The bill requires the Secretary to evaluate whether any draft regulations will cause a rise in subsidy costs and, if so, prohibits further steps. It defines "economically significant" regulations as having an annual economic impact of $100 million or more, or those that significantly affect various economic factors or communities. This bill thus seeks to prevent economically impactful regulations from increasing federal subsidy costs under the Higher Education Act of 1965.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Editorial Commentary
General Summary of the Bill
H.R. 937, titled the "Protecting Taxpayers from Student Loan Bailouts Act," is a legislative proposal introduced in the 119th Congress aimed at restricting the Secretary of Education's power to propose or enact regulations and executive actions that are deemed economically significant and that increase subsidy costs. The bill defines economically significant actions as those likely to have an annual economic impact of $100 million or more or materially affect various economic sectors. Under the bill, if a proposed regulation or action meets these criteria and results in increased subsidy costs, the Secretary is prohibited from moving forward with it.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several issues are inherent in this bill, primarily concerning the limitation it places on the Secretary of Education's regulatory authority:
Hindrance to Necessary Educational Policies: The bill could prevent the adoption of critical regulatory updates or actions necessary to address educational challenges if they are deemed economically significant and increase subsidy costs.
Ambiguity in Definitions and Processes: The term "economically significant" lacks a detailed methodology for assessment, potentially leading to subjective or inconsistent application. Similarly, "subsidy cost" is not precisely defined, which can lead to varied interpretations.
Lack of Review Mechanism: There is no outlined process for contesting the Secretary's determinations regarding the economic significance of regulations, raising concerns about unchecked authority and a lack of oversight.
Potential Negative Social Outcomes: By focusing solely on financial criteria, the bill might disregard essential public or environmental benefits that justify the costs, possibly resulting in unmet public needs.
Impact on the Public
The public could experience mixed effects from this legislation. On one hand, the bill could safeguard taxpayer funds by preventing regulations that lead to increased federal budget commitments unless thoroughly justified. On the other hand, it might delay or stifle essential educational reforms meant to improve public education systems or respond effectively to emergent educational needs. The focus on economic impact without considering holistic societal benefits presents risks for public welfare if important regulations are halted due to financial considerations alone.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Educational Institutions and Students: Schools, colleges, and universities, along with students, may bear the brunt of delayed or abandoned reforms that financial considerations may hold back. Potentially beneficial policies aimed at improving educational outcomes and access might not materialize if interpreted as economically burdensome.
Taxpayers: The bill is framed in a way that ostensibly protects taxpayer interests by avoiding increased financial liabilities without thorough scrutiny. While this protects against unplanned fiscal expenditures, it could also mean that taxpayers might miss out on long-term benefits accruing from educational improvements.
Policy Makers and Advisors: They may face challenges in proposing necessary policy adjustments under stringent economic review processes. A lack of flexibility might stifle innovation and responsiveness in educational policy-making.
In conclusion, while H.R. 937 aims to impose financial discipline in educational policy-making, it underscores the balance that must be maintained between economic pragmatism and the need for adaptable, forward-looking educational strategies that optimize benefits for the broader society.
Financial Assessment
The proposed bill, H.R. 937, primarily addresses financial guidelines related to regulations under the purview of the Secretary of Education. It highlights financial implications by focusing on regulations deemed "economically significant."
Financial Definitions and Appropriations
The bill defines "economically significant" regulations as those likely to have an annual economic effect of $100,000,000 or more. These regulations, if determined to result in an increase in subsidy costs, face restrictions. The intent is to prevent any regulation from progressing if it leads to further financial outlays in terms of subsidies under the Higher Education Act of 1965.
Financial Reference Impact on Legislative Operations
Limitation on Authority: The bill restricts the Secretary of Education’s ability to propose regulations if they contribute to higher subsidy costs, even if they are needed to address pressing educational issues. This could delay or entirely block necessary updates simply due to their financial implications, potentially compromising the effectiveness of educational policies when faced with budgetary constraints.
Vague Economic Significance: The financial benchmark of $100,000,000 or more raises concerns about how this figure is determined without a clear time frame or additional context. This ambiguity can lead to inconsistent application and interpretation, affecting how decisions are made on regulations that may be necessary but financially substantial.
Lack of Contestation Mechanisms: Without a defined process to challenge the Secretary’s financial impact assessment, decisions could face scrutiny and lack accountability. This absence could result in unchecked power over what constitutes economically significant regulations, potentially leading to contested financial decisions.
Overlapping Cost Analyses: The requirement for additional cost analysis referencing multiple executive orders could lead to redundant procedures, causing bureaucratic delays. This complexity might hinder timely regulatory action, impacting both the educational sector and fiscal responsibility.
Balancing Fiscal Prudence and Policy Needs
By focusing exclusively on the financial impact, the bill prioritizes cost-bound regulations over potential public and educational benefits. Without consideration for non-monetary values like social or environmental implications, the bill could inadvertently result in negative outcomes where financial criteria outweigh essential policy needs.
In essence, while the bill seeks to impose fiscal discipline by restricting economically significant regulatory actions that lead to subsidy increases, it may also unintentionally curtail crucial policy developments within education that require substantial financial input to be effectively realized.
Issues
The limitation on the Secretary of Education's authority to issue regulations if they are determined to be economically significant and result in an increased subsidy cost could hinder necessary regulatory updates and responses to educational challenges. This is outlined in both Section 2 and SEC. 492A, and it poses a significant political and functional concern as it may prevent timely and effective policy implementation.
The term 'economically significant' as defined in SEC. 492A(d) is subjective and lacks clear guidelines or a detailed methodology for determining economic impact, potentially leading to inconsistent and arbitrary decision-making. This ambiguity raises concerns about transparency and accountability.
No mechanism is provided for contesting or reviewing the Secretary’s determination regarding the economic significance of a regulation in SEC. 492A. This could result in unchecked power and the possibility of contested decisions without a formal review process, raising ethical concerns about oversight and governance.
The bill's restriction on economically significant actions without considering essential public or environmental benefits that may justify costs (outlined in SEC. 492A(b)(2)) could lead to negative social outcomes if significant public needs are unmet due to financial criteria.
The requirement for additional cost analysis under multiple executive orders, as stated in SEC. 492A(c), could result in redundant processes and delay regulatory actions, which could have negative implications for both efficacy and efficiency of regulatory responses.
The condition of an economic effect of '$100,000,000 or more' as described in SEC. 492A(d)(1) lacks context such as the time frame within which this impact is measured, leading to potential interpretation ambiguities which could affect the reliability and consistency of regulatory processes.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill indicates that it can be referred to as the “Protecting Taxpayers from Student Loan Bailouts Act”.
2. Limitation on authority of Secretary of Education to propose or issue regulations and executive actions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The new section limits the Secretary of Education's ability to create, propose, or finalize regulations and executive actions that would significantly impact the economy or increase subsidy costs. If a regulation is deemed economically significant, meaning it costs $100 million or more annually or has major negative effects, it cannot proceed further if it would also result in increased subsidy costs.
Money References
- “(d) Definition.—In this section, the term ‘economically significant’, when used with respect to a draft, proposed, or final regulation or executive action, means that the regulation or executive action is likely, as determined by the Secretary— “(1) to have an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; or “(2) adversely to affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.
492A. Limitation on authority of the Secretary to propose or issue regulations and executive actions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section limits the Secretary's power to propose or issue regulations and executive actions that are deemed economically significant, meaning they could have a large financial impact or negatively affect the economy. If such actions would lead to an increase in subsidy costs, the Secretary is prevented from moving forward with them.
Money References
- , the term “economically significant”, when used with respect to a draft, proposed, or final regulation or executive action, means that the regulation or executive action is likely, as determined by the Secretary— (1) to have an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; or (2) adversely to affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.