Federal Employee Student Debt Transparency Act

Bill Summary

H.R. 66, the Federal Employee Student Debt Transparency Act, amends 5 U.S.C. § 13104 (the section governing the contents of public financial disclosure reports) to create a specific, recurring disclosure requirement for certain senior executive-branch employees regarding their federal student loan debt. The bill’s scope is limited to two categories of executive branch personnel: (1) members of the Senior Executive Service (SES), which includes top career managers defined at 5 U.S.C. § 3132(a), and (2) Schedule C appointees, who are political appointees occupying confidential or policy-determining roles under 5 C.F.R. part 213, subpart C. These “covered employees” would need to report their federal student loan debt even if such liabilities are not currently captured by standard ethics rules or thresholds.

What must be reported and when: Within 60 days of enactment and then annually by February 28, each covered employee must file a report stating the outstanding principal and interest balances on each federal student loan they personally owe. The bill expressly targets loans made under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965—specifically Direct Loans (Part D) and legacy loan programs that were made, insured, or guaranteed under the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program (Part B) or the Perkins Loan program (Part E). New covered employees (i.e., newly appointed SES or Schedule C officials) must file their initial report within 60 days of assuming their positions and then continue with the annual February 28 schedule. The disclosure is limited to the employee’s own loans; the text does not require reporting of a spouse’s or dependent’s student loans.

Centralized oversight and reporting to Congress: The Director of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) must transmit to Congress, by May 1 of each year, (A) the total amount of federal student debt owed by all covered employees as reported for that cycle, and (B) the names of any covered employees who failed to file or to report required information. The OGE report aggregates the total debt across all covered SES and Schedule C employees but does not mandate publication of each individual’s balance in that annual transmittal; rather, it names non-filers for compliance visibility. However, because this requirement is codified in § 13104—the statute governing public financial disclosure contents—there is a strong likelihood that the submitted student-loan entries become part of the public financial disclosure regime that already applies to many SES and higher-level Schedule C officials under the Ethics in Government Act framework. That could mean, in practice, that the public would be able to view student loan balances for those covered employees who are public filers, subject to existing public-access rules under 5 U.S.C. § 13107. For covered employees not otherwise required to file public disclosures, agencies and OGE would need to implement procedures to collect these reports and determine their public status under the subchapter’s general rules.

Policy rationale and practical impact: The bill responds to a perceived gap in federal ethics reporting. Under existing OGE rules, some liabilities—especially routine loans on standard terms—are not always reportable, and federal student loans in particular may be excluded under current guidance. H.R. 66 would close that gap for the most senior managerial and political staff by mandating specific disclosure of federal student loan balances, regardless of amount or terms. Proponents frame this as a transparency tool in an era when the executive branch makes consequential decisions on federal student loan repayment policies, forgiveness initiatives, servicer contracting, and program administration (e.g., PSLF). The measure would give Congress a running tally of how much federal student debt is held by those shaping and implementing policy and would flag compliance problems by naming non-filers.

The bill is relatively narrow in scope. It covers federal student loans only; private student loans, refinanced private loans, or education-related lines of credit from commercial lenders are not included. Nor does the bill require disclosure of repayment plan type, delinquency status, or eligibility for forgiveness programs—only the outstanding principal and interest. The requirement applies only to SES and Schedule C employees, not to the broader civil service. The deadlines are straightforward: 60 days after enactment for current covered employees, 60 days after appointment for new covered employees, annual updates by February 28, and an OGE-to-Congress report by May 1. The bill does not add new civil or criminal penalties in its text, but because the requirement is placed within the federal financial disclosure subchapter, existing enforcement mechanisms for false statements or non-filing could apply, and the annual OGE report’s naming of non-filers adds reputational and congressional oversight pressure.

Potential effects and tradeoffs: The transparency goal is clear—shine light on a category of debt that may be directly implicated in policy decisions. Supporters will view the measure as improving public trust and helping identify real or perceived conflicts of interest. Skeptics will raise privacy concerns, point to potential stigmatization of younger or less-wealthy appointees, and note possible recruitment deterrence for SES or political roles. Because it targets only federal loans, the bill could create incentives for some officials to refinance into private loans to avoid disclosure, which would undercut PSLF or federal protections and arguably skew the data Congress receives. Finally, the aggregated debt figure could become a talking point in policy debates—supporters of relief may cite it as evidence that policy makers understand borrowers’ challenges; critics may cite it as evidence of potential self-interest—highlighting the bill’s likely salience in ongoing partisan arguments about student debt policy.

Pros

Enhances transparency around a policy-relevant liability for senior officials who influence student loan and higher-education policy.
Provides Congress and the public with credible data that can inform oversight of servicer contracts, forgiveness initiatives, and repayment reforms.
Helps identify potential conflicts of interest so agencies can manage recusals when officials work on student-loan–related matters.
Could normalize the reality that many public servants carry student debt, potentially reducing stigma and underscoring workforce diversity and socioeconomic representation.
Aggregated reporting to Congress enables trend analysis without mandating individual-by-individual publication in the OGE summary report.
Builds public trust after years of high-salience changes to student loan programs and litigation over forgiveness and repayment rules.

Targets a clear potential conflict area by shining light on whether senior officials might personally benefit from executive actions on forgiveness, repayment, or servicing.
Strengthens congressional oversight by requiring OGE to deliver an annual aggregate total and name non-filers, providing concrete compliance metrics.
Closes a perceived loophole in ethics filings whereby federal student loans may not appear under current reportability rules for standard-term debts.
Limited, focused scope on SES and Schedule C political appointees—those with significant policy impact—keeps the requirement proportional and avoids burdening the entire workforce.
Reinforces a broader transparency and good-governance agenda without directly dictating policy outcomes on student debt.
Relatively low-cost to implement, leveraging existing OGE systems and deadlines already familiar to senior officials.

Cons

Risks invading personal financial privacy of covered employees, potentially exposing sensitive details if reports are publicly accessible under existing disclosure rules.
May disproportionately affect younger, less-wealthy, and first-generation professionals, deterring them from serving in SES or political roles and undermining diversity and inclusion goals.
Creates an opening for partisan attacks that paint officials’ policy views as self-serving if they carry student debt, even when ethics safeguards are followed.
Covers only federal loans, potentially encouraging refinancing into private markets to avoid disclosure—undermining borrower protections like PSLF and distorting the policy picture.
Adds administrative and compliance burden on OGE and agencies without clear evidence of systemic conflicts that existing ethics processes cannot manage.
Ambiguity about public release could lead to overexposure of personal financial data beyond what is necessary for conflict screening.

Covers only federal student loans, excluding private education debt and refinanced loans—creating a potential avoidance pathway and an incomplete picture.
Does not add strong penalties or explicit enforcement mechanisms beyond naming non-filers, risking weak compliance in practice.
Could be seen as performative transparency that does not directly address ethics decision-making (e.g., recusals, divestiture) or broader conflicts beyond student loans.
Increases paperwork and bureaucracy for agencies and OGE at a time when many Republicans prefer to streamline, not expand, compliance mandates.
Aggregated totals may be used politically to advocate for expanded forgiveness or relief, potentially strengthening arguments Republicans oppose.
By situating the requirement in the public disclosure subchapter, it may unintentionally publicize personal details in ways that could discourage qualified conservative appointees as well.

This bill was introduced on January 03, 2025 in the House.

View on Congress.gov:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/66

Jan 03, 2025

Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

H11100
Jan 03, 2025

Introduced in House

Intro-H
Jan 03, 2025

Introduced in House

1000

This bill has not yet been enacted into law.

No related bills found for this legislation.

Federal Employee Student Debt Transparency Act

Bill Summary

Pros

Cons

Introduction

History

Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Introduced in House

Introduced in House

Laws Enacted

Related Bills