Less Bureaucracy, Better Higher Education Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Harris, Mark [R-NC-8]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 15, 2026
Bottom line
H.R. 9611 shifts a substantial portfolio of higher education programs from the Department of Education to the Department of Labor, while also eliminating several existing programs, with the stated goal of reducing bureaucracy and aligning education with workforce needs.
What it actually does
This bill proposes a significant restructuring of federal postsecondary education program administration by transferring the oversight of 20 specific programs, including TRIO, GEAR UP, and various minority-serving institution programs, from the Department of Education to the Department of Labor. Additionally, it repeals four other postsecondary education programs, aiming to streamline bureaucracy and potentially reorient these programs towards workforce development.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that consolidating these programs under the Department of Labor will create a more efficient and responsive system, better aligning postsecondary education with workforce development needs and reducing bureaucratic redundancies. They believe this shift will enhance accountability and ensure that federal investments in higher education directly contribute to economic growth and skilled labor pipelines.
Opponents contend
Opponents may contend that transferring these programs, many of which focus on access, equity, and academic support, away from the Department of Education risks diluting their educational mission and prioritizing workforce outcomes over broader academic and social development. They might also raise concerns about the Department of Labor's capacity to manage such a diverse portfolio of educational programs effectively, potentially disrupting services to vulnerable student populations.
The bill is relatively short and straightforward to read, but understanding the full implications of transferring numerous programs and repealing others requires familiarity with the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the functions of both departments.
Section 2(a)(1)
Transfer of Augustus F. Hawkins Center of Excellence Program
This provision moves the Augustus F. Hawkins Center of Excellence Program, which supports teacher preparation programs at minority-serving institutions, from the Department of Education to the Department of Labor. The goal is to integrate teacher training more closely with workforce development strategies.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this aligns teacher training with broader workforce needs, ensuring graduates are prepared for current and future labor market demands.
Critics contend
Critics may argue that teacher preparation is fundamentally an educational function best managed by the Department of Education, and moving it to Labor could de-emphasize pedagogical quality in favor of workforce metrics.
Tradeoffs
Balances the desire for workforce alignment in teacher education against the traditional educational mission and expertise of the Department of Education.
Section 2(a)(2)
Transfer of Strengthening Institutions Programs (Part A, Title III)
This section transfers most of the Strengthening Institutions programs (Part A of Title III of the HEA), which provide grants to eligible institutions to expand their capacity to serve low-income students, from the Department of Education to the Department of Labor. Excluded are sections 316, 317, 319, and 320.
Section 2(a)(3), (4), (12)
Transfer of HBCU-Specific Programs
This bill transfers several programs specifically designed to support Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), including the Strengthening HBCUs Program, the HBCU Capital Financing program, and Masters Degree Programs at HBCUs and Predominantly Black Institutions, from the Department of Education to the Department of Labor. This aims to integrate HBCU support with broader workforce initiatives.
Section 2(a)(7), (8)
Transfer of Federal TRIO and GEAR UP Programs
This provision moves the Federal TRIO Programs and Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) from the Department of Education to the Department of Labor. These programs traditionally provide outreach and support services to disadvantaged students to help them prepare for and succeed in higher education.
Section 2(b)(1)
Repeal of LEAP Program
This provision repeals the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership (LEAP) Program, which provides federal grants to states to help them establish and maintain state-funded student grant programs. This elimination would remove a key federal incentive for state-level student financial aid.
Section 2(b)(2)
Repeal of Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship Program
This provision repeals the Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship Program, which provided scholarships to exceptionally able high school graduates who demonstrated promise of continued academic achievement. The repeal would eliminate this federal merit-based scholarship.
Section 5(a)
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Oversight and Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Cap
This section mandates that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) ensure that the transfers and repeals enacted by this bill do not result in a net increase in full-time equivalent employees across the federal agencies impacted. OMB is also tasked with making necessary determinations for function transfers and incidental dispositions of personnel and assets.
Transfers "Projects overseen by the Office of Postsecondary Education that the Secretary of Education determines are congressionally funded community projects" to the Department of Labor.
Section 2(a)(20)
Why it matters:This phrasing is somewhat standard for legislative language that needs to cover a potentially undefined or evolving set of projects (often earmarks). It could be seen as a way to ensure all relevant projects are moved without needing to list each one individually.
Case for: Proponents would argue this ensures a comprehensive transfer of all relevant postsecondary education projects, including those with specific community ties, to the Department of Labor for better alignment with workforce development.
Case against: Critics might argue that the vagueness of "congressionally funded community projects" and the reliance on a Secretary's determination creates uncertainty and could lead to arbitrary transfers, potentially moving projects that are not well-suited for DoL oversight.
Estimated impact: Potentially impacts a diverse range of local projects that receive federal funding, shifting their administrative oversight and potentially their strategic direction. The exact number and scope are undefined by the bill text.