A substantive amendment. v2 narrows the scope of the prohibition on transferring Department of Education functions by removing one specific statutory override and adds a new section requiring detailed quarterly cost analyses for interagency agreements. This new section also includes a prohibition on the Secretary's travel funds if reporting requirements are not met.
A bill to prohibit the transfer of certain offices and functions of the Department of Education to other Federal agencies, and for other purposes.
- Sponsor
- Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 4, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to prevent the Department of Education from outsourcing its core programmatic responsibilities to other federal agencies, ensuring accountability and transparency in interagency agreements.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits the Secretary of Education from transferring the core functions of four major Department of Education offices—Special Education, Postsecondary Education, Indian Education, and Elementary and Secondary Education—to other federal agencies. It also mandates detailed quarterly cost analyses for existing interagency agreements and restricts the Secretary's travel funds if these transparency reports are not provided.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill protects the integrity and specialized expertise of the Department of Education's core offices, preventing the fragmentation of critical education programs. They contend that transferring these functions could lead to reduced oversight, diminished focus on educational priorities, and a loss of institutional knowledge, ultimately harming students and educators. The reporting requirements also enhance transparency regarding existing interagency agreements.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill unduly restricts the Secretary of Education's administrative flexibility to streamline operations or leverage specialized capabilities in other agencies. They might contend that interagency agreements can improve efficiency or service delivery in certain circumstances, and a blanket prohibition could hinder effective governance or innovation.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward, allowing for a quick understanding of its core provisions by an informed reader.
Section 1(a)(1)(A)
Prohibition on External Transfer of Core ED Office Functions
This provision forbids the Secretary of Education from entering into new agreements or continuing existing ones (after the bill's enactment date) with other federal agencies to transfer functions of four specific Department of Education offices: Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Postsecondary Education, Indian Education, and Elementary and Secondary Education. These functions include administering programs, making grants, providing technical assistance, enforcing requirements, and conducting oversight.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision safeguards the specialized expertise and mission focus of the Department of Education's core programmatic offices. They believe it prevents the dilution of educational priorities that could occur if functions were outsourced to agencies with different primary missions, ensuring that education programs remain under the direct purview of education experts.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that this provision overly restricts the Secretary's ability to manage the Department efficiently. They could contend that in some cases, another federal agency might possess unique capabilities or resources that could enhance the delivery or administration of certain education-related functions, and a blanket prohibition removes this flexibility.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between maintaining the specialized focus and direct accountability of the Department of Education's core offices versus allowing administrative flexibility to leverage resources or expertise from other federal agencies for potential efficiency gains or improved service delivery.
Section 1(a)(1)(B)
Prohibition on Indirect External Transfer via Internal Reorganization
This clause prevents the Secretary of Education from circumventing the primary prohibition by first transferring a function or program from one of the four protected offices to another unprotected office within the Department of Education, and then subsequently transferring that function or program to another Federal agency. It closes a potential loophole for indirect outsourcing.
Section 1(b)
Grandfathering Clause for Pre-Existing Interagency Agreements
This section provides an exception to the transfer prohibition for any procurement, contract, or agreement between the Department of Education and another Federal agency that was already in effect on February 1, 2025. It also allows for the renewal of such existing agreements, provided the renewed terms are the same or substantially similar.
Section 2(a)
Quarterly Reporting on Interagency Agreement Costs
This provision mandates that the Secretary of Education, starting 14 days after enactment and quarterly thereafter, must provide detailed cost analyses for all interagency agreements entered into on or after February 1, 2025. These reports must be submitted to specific Congressional committees and made publicly available on the Department's website, detailing actual and estimated obligations for various aspects like grant administration, training, staff changes, technology upgrades, and overhead.
Section 2(b)
Sanction for Non-Compliance with Cost Analysis Reporting
This clause states that none of the funds allocated to the Department of Education for fiscal years 2026 or 2027 under "Program Administration" or "Student Aid Administration" may be used for the Secretary of Education's travel expenses unless the required quarterly cost analysis reports (from Section 2(a)) are provided.
The prohibition on transferring functions explicitly overrides several existing statutes: section 430 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1231), sections 415 and 419 of the Department of Education Organization Act (20 U.S.C. 3475 and 3479), section 1535 of title 31, United States Code (the Economy Act), and section 1501 of title 31, United States Code.
Section 1(a)(1)(A)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure the new law takes precedence over potentially conflicting existing statutes, rather than being evasive.
Case for: Proponents would argue that explicitly overriding these statutes is necessary to ensure the bill's prohibition is effective and cannot be circumvented by invoking existing interagency transfer authorities. This provides legal clarity and strength to the new policy.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against the technical necessity of overriding conflicting statutes, though opponents of the overall bill might see this as further evidence of its restrictive nature.
Estimated impact: This ensures the bill's core prohibition is legally binding and cannot be challenged by citing prior authorities for interagency transfers.