Orderly Liquidation of the Department of Education Act
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. Moran, Nathaniel [R-TX-1]
ID: M001224
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Invalid Date
Introduced
đź“Ť Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed Senate
House Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
đź“š How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
Another brilliant example of legislative theater, courtesy of our esteemed representatives in Congress. Let's dissect this farce and expose the underlying disease.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Orderly Liquidation of the Department of Education Act (HR 2456) claims to aim at terminating the Department of Education and transferring its functions to other entities, supposedly to improve education by returning authority to states and local communities. What a lovely fairy tale. In reality, this bill is a thinly veiled attempt to dismantle federal oversight and accountability in education, paving the way for further privatization and exploitation.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill proposes to:
1. Terminate the Department of Education on October 1, 2026. 2. Establish an Office of Education within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to oversee certain functions transferred from the Department of Education. 3. Transfer various programs and authorities to the Director of Education in HHS, including those related to education for the blind, higher education excellence programs, and grants under section 619 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
These changes are nothing more than a shell game, designed to obscure the fact that the federal government is abandoning its responsibility to ensure equal access to quality education. By transferring functions to HHS, Congress can claim it's "streamlining" bureaucracy while actually creating new opportunities for bureaucratic bloat and inefficiency.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects will be impacted:
1. Students with disabilities, who will likely face reduced support and resources. 2. Low-income families, who rely on federal programs to access quality education. 3. Teachers and educators, who will face increased uncertainty and potential job losses. 4. State and local governments, which may struggle to fill the funding gaps left by the federal government's withdrawal.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a recipe for disaster:
1. Reduced accountability: By eliminating federal oversight, states and localities will have more freedom to neglect or exploit vulnerable populations. 2. Increased inequality: The loss of federal support will exacerbate existing disparities in education, further marginalizing already disadvantaged groups. 3. Privatization and profiteering: With the federal government out of the picture, private interests will swoop in to capitalize on the chaos, prioritizing profits over people.
In conclusion, HR 2456 is a cynical attempt to dismantle the Department of Education under the guise of "reform." It's a classic case of legislative malpractice, driven by ideology and greed rather than a genuine concern for improving education. As with any disease, we must diagnose the underlying causes: corruption, cowardice, stupidity, and greed. The symptoms are clear; now it's time to treat the patient – or in this case, the politicians responsible for this travesty.
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
No campaign finance data available for Rep. Moran, Nathaniel [R-TX-1]
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
— 321 — Department of Education through the pandemic’s Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief (ESSER) Funds,4 which relied on ESEA formulas. The same year, the department spent more than $2 billion just to administer Title IV of the HEA, which authorizes federal student loans and Pell grants. It provided $22.5 billion in Pell grants, and it oversaw outlays of close to $100 billion in direct student loans. Since 1965, Congress has continued to layer on dozens of new laws and pro- grams as federal “solutions” to myriad education problems. In 1973, it passed the Rehabilitation Act,5 and, in 1975, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)6 to address educational neglect of students with disabilities. In 2002, it cre- ated the Institute for Education Sciences to consolidate education data collection and fund research. Congress has also enacted a series of Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Acts, including Perkins V in 2018.7 Congress could have, and once did, distribute management of federal education programs outside of a single department. But for those interested in expanding federal funding and influence in education, this unconsolidated approach was less than ideal, because a single, captive agency would allow them to promote their agenda more effectively across Administrations. Eventually, the National Educa- tion Association made a deal and backed the right presidential candidate— Jimmy Carter—who successfully lobbied for and delivered the Cabinet-level agency. When it was established in 1979—becoming operational in 1980—the agency was supposed to act as a “corralling” mechanism. Carter signed the Department of Education Organization Act8 into law in 1979, believing in part that it would reduce administrative costs and improve efficiency by housing most of the federal education programs that had proliferated in the wake of Johnson’s War on Poverty under one roof. It has had the opposite effect. Instead, special interest groups like the National Education Association (NEA), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and the higher education lobby have leveraged the agency to continuously expand federal expenditures—a desirable funding stream from their vantage point because federal budgets are not constrained like state and local budgets that must be balanced each year. By FY 2022, the department’s discretionary and mandatory appropriation topped $80 billion, not including student loan outlays. Each of its programs has attendant federal strings and red tape. One recent example is the Biden Administration’s requirement that state educa- tion agencies and school districts submit “equity” plans as a condition of receiving COVID recovery ESSER funds in the American Rescue Plan (ARP).9 This exercise led to the hiring of numerous new government employees as the rules were pro- mulgated, plans were created after collecting public feedback, and those plans were eventually deemed satisfactory. The next Administration will need a plan to redistribute the various congres- sionally approved federal education programs across the government, eliminate — 322 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise those that are ineffective or duplicative, and then eliminate the unproductive red tape and rules by entrusting states and districts with flexible, formula-driven block grants. This chapter details that plan. As the next Administration executes its work, it should be guided by a few core principles, including: l Advancing education freedom. Empowering families to choose among a diverse set of education options is key to reform and improved outcomes, and it can be achieved without establishing a new federal program. For example, portability of existing federal education spending to fund families directly or allowing federal tax credits to encourage voluntary contributions to K–12 education savings accounts managed by charitable nonprofits, could significantly advance education choice. l Providing education choice for “federal” children. Congress has a special responsibility to children who are connected to military families, who live in the District of Columbia, or who are members of sovereign tribes. Responsibility for serving these students should be housed in agencies that are already serving these families. l Restoring state and local control over education funding. As Washington begins to downsize its intervention in education, existing funding should be sent to states as grants over which they have full control, enabling states to put federal funding toward any lawful education purpose under state law. l Treating taxpayers like investors in federal student aid. Taxpayers should expect their investments in higher education to generate economic productivity. When the federal government lends money to individuals for a postsecondary education, taxpayers should expect those borrowers to repay. l Protecting the federal student loan portfolio from predatory politicians. The new Administration must end the practice of acting like the federal student loan portfolio is a campaign fund to curry political support and votes. The new Administration must end abuses in the loan forgiveness programs. Borrowers should be expected to repay their loans. l Safeguarding civil rights. Enforcement of civil rights should be based on a proper understanding of those laws, rejecting gender ideology and critical race theory.
Introduction
— 323 — Department of Education l Stopping executive overreach. Congress should set policy—not Presidents through pen-and-phone executive orders, and not agencies through regulations and guidance. National emergency declarations should expire absent express congressional authorization within 60 days after the date of the declaration. Bolstered by an ever-growing cabal of special interests that thrive off federal largesse, the infrastructure that supports America’s costly federal intervention in education from early childhood through graduate school has entrenched itself. But, unlike the public sector bureaucracies, public employee unions, and the higher education lobby, families and students do not need a Department of Education to learn, grow, and improve their lives. It is critical that the next Administration tackle this entrenched infrastructure. NEEDED REFORMS Federal intervention in education has failed to promote student achievement. After trillions spent since 1965 on the collective programs now housed within the walls of the department, student academic outcomes remain stagnant. On the main National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), reading out- comes on the 2022 administration have remained unchanged over the past 30 years. Declines in math performance are even more concerning than students’ lack of progress on reading outcomes. Fourth- and eighth-grade math scores saw the largest decline since the assessments were first administered in 1990. Average fourth-grade math scores declined five points, and average eighth-grade math scores declined eight points. Just one-third of eighth graders nationally are proficient in reading and math. Just 27 percent of eighth graders were pro- ficient in math in 2022, and just 31 percent of eighth graders scored proficient in reading in 2022. The NAEP Long-term Trend Assessment shows academic stagnation since the 1970s, with particular stagnation in the reading scores of 13-year-old students since 1971, when the assessment was first administered. Math scores, though modestly improved, are still lackluster. Additionally, the department has created a “shadow” department of education operating in states across the country. Federal mandates, programs, and proclama- tions have spurred a hiring spree among state education agencies, with more than 48,000 employees currently on staff in state agencies across the country. Those employees are more than 10 times the number of employees (4,400)10 at the federal Department of Education, and their jobs largely entail reporting back to Washing- ton. Research conducted by The Heritage Foundation’s Jonathan Butcher finds that the federal government funds 41 percent of the salary costs of state educa- tion agencies.11
Introduction
— 323 — Department of Education l Stopping executive overreach. Congress should set policy—not Presidents through pen-and-phone executive orders, and not agencies through regulations and guidance. National emergency declarations should expire absent express congressional authorization within 60 days after the date of the declaration. Bolstered by an ever-growing cabal of special interests that thrive off federal largesse, the infrastructure that supports America’s costly federal intervention in education from early childhood through graduate school has entrenched itself. But, unlike the public sector bureaucracies, public employee unions, and the higher education lobby, families and students do not need a Department of Education to learn, grow, and improve their lives. It is critical that the next Administration tackle this entrenched infrastructure. NEEDED REFORMS Federal intervention in education has failed to promote student achievement. After trillions spent since 1965 on the collective programs now housed within the walls of the department, student academic outcomes remain stagnant. On the main National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), reading out- comes on the 2022 administration have remained unchanged over the past 30 years. Declines in math performance are even more concerning than students’ lack of progress on reading outcomes. Fourth- and eighth-grade math scores saw the largest decline since the assessments were first administered in 1990. Average fourth-grade math scores declined five points, and average eighth-grade math scores declined eight points. Just one-third of eighth graders nationally are proficient in reading and math. Just 27 percent of eighth graders were pro- ficient in math in 2022, and just 31 percent of eighth graders scored proficient in reading in 2022. The NAEP Long-term Trend Assessment shows academic stagnation since the 1970s, with particular stagnation in the reading scores of 13-year-old students since 1971, when the assessment was first administered. Math scores, though modestly improved, are still lackluster. Additionally, the department has created a “shadow” department of education operating in states across the country. Federal mandates, programs, and proclama- tions have spurred a hiring spree among state education agencies, with more than 48,000 employees currently on staff in state agencies across the country. Those employees are more than 10 times the number of employees (4,400)10 at the federal Department of Education, and their jobs largely entail reporting back to Washing- ton. Research conducted by The Heritage Foundation’s Jonathan Butcher finds that the federal government funds 41 percent of the salary costs of state educa- tion agencies.11 — 324 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise CHART 1 Trends in Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Reading EIGHTH-GRADE READING, AVERAGE SCORES 270 265 263 260 260 255 1992 1994 1998 ’02’03 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2022 FOURTH-GRADE READING, AVERAGE SCORES 225 220 220 217 215 210 1992 1994 1998 2000 ’02’03 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2022 SOURCES: The Nation’s Report Card, “National Average Scores,” Grade 4, https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ reading/nation/scores/?grade=4 (accessed March 17, 2023), and The Nation’s Report Card, “National Average Scores,” Grade 8, https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/nation/scores/?grade=4 (accessed March 17, 2023). A heritage.org
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.