Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
The bill suspends the Department of Education’s authority to administratively garnish borrowers’ disposable pay under the Higher Education Act until the Secretary certifies a specified set of reforms or decides garnishment will no longer apply. Required reforms include rapid refunds for improper garnishment, Secretary authority to suspend garnishments, quarterly employer verifications, creation of a centralized database of garnished borrowers, employer liability for improper withholdings, doubled restitution to affected borrowers within 10 days, and a 10-year statute-of-limitations on garnishment for older loans.
Progressives emphasize borrower protections and quick restitution
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory amendment that clearly alters legal authority and creates new liabilities, procedural requirements, and reporting obligations.
The bill suspends the Department of Education’s authority to administratively garnish borrowers’ disposable pay under the Higher Education Act until the Secretary certifies a specified set of reforms or decides garnishment will no longer apply.
Required reforms include rapid refunds for improper garnishment, Secretary authority to suspend garnishments, quarterly employer verifications, creation of a centralized database of garnished borrowers, employer liability for improper withholdings, doubled restitution to affected borrowers within 10 days, and a 10-year statute-of-limitations on garnishment for older loans.
Substantive changes to a federal revenue-collection tool, potential fiscal impacts, and high salience make enactment uncertain absent broad political consensus.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory amendment that clearly alters legal authority and creates new liabilities, procedural requirements, and reporting obligations. It provides specific mechanisms and timelines for suspension, certification, data collection, and remedies, and it assigns responsibility to the Secretary with defined oversight to Congress.
Progressives emphasize borrower protections and quick restitution
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize borrower protections and quick restitution
Likely broadly supportive because the bill strengthens borrower protections, prevents wrongful wage seizures, and requires quick restitution.
It also increases transparency and oversight of garnishment practices, which aligns with priorities to limit punitive collection practices.
Cautious, generally favorable to reducing wrongful garnishment while seeking assurances about administrative feasibility, costs, and employer burden.
Views the bill as reasonable consumer-protection reform if implemented with clear cost estimates and operational safeguards.
Likely opposed because it restricts a federal tool to enforce loan repayment, increases liabilities for employers, and imposes restitution and punitive penalties.
Views these reforms as undermining accountability and burdening employers and taxpayers.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Substantive changes to a federal revenue-collection tool, potential fiscal impacts, and high salience make enactment uncertain absent broad political consensus.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize borrower protections and quick restitution
Substantive changes to a federal revenue-collection tool, potential fiscal impacts, and high salience make enactment uncertain absent broad…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory amendment that clearly alters legal authority and creates new liabilities, procedural requirements, and reporting obligations. It provides…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.