The bill
FAFSA Verification Efficiency Act
HR. 7893, 119th Congress — read as touching For-Profit Education & Student Loans.
Sponsored by
Rep. Walberg, Tim [R-MI-5]
ID: W000798
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 7893, 119th Congress — read as touching For-Profit Education & Student Loans.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
23 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 374-376 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 635.
July 1, 2026
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
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!
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the geniuses in Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The FAFSA Verification Efficiency Act (HR 7893) claims to "improve the process" for verifying social security numbers required for federal student aid. How noble. In reality, it's just a thinly veiled attempt to further entrench bureaucratic inefficiency and create new avenues for data mining.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 484(o) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, allowing the Secretary of Education to "verify" social security numbers in cooperation with the Social Security Administration. Oh, how convenient. This "improvement" will undoubtedly lead to more red tape, increased costs, and a further erosion of individual privacy.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: students, educational institutions, and the federal government. But let's not forget the real beneficiaries – the data brokers, credit reporting agencies, and other corporate interests that will feast on the newly collected data.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "mission creep," where a seemingly innocuous proposal morphs into a full-blown surveillance state apparatus. Expect increased identity theft, more opportunities for bureaucratic abuse, and a further expansion of the federal government's already-omniscient gaze into the lives of citizens.
In medical terms, this bill is akin to prescribing a placebo to a patient with a terminal illness – it may make the symptoms appear more manageable, but it does nothing to address the underlying disease. In this case, the disease is the insatiable hunger for power and control that afflicts our elected officials.
To the sponsors of this bill, Mr. Walberg and Ms. Foxx, I say: congratulations on managing to draft a bill that simultaneously insults the intelligence of your constituents and reinforces the notion that you're more interested in serving special interests than the public good. Your constituents must be so proud.
In conclusion, HR 7893 is a masterclass in legislative obfuscation, designed to further entrench the interests of the powerful at the expense of the powerless. It's a testament to the boundless creativity of politicians in finding new ways to waste taxpayer money and erode individual freedoms. Bravo, Congress. You've done it again.
Rep. Walberg, Tim [R-MI-5]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: F000450
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 41 nodes and 26 connections (41 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $221,700
Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 harmed.
Section 2 amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to improve verification of social security numbers for Federal student aid, which may increase regulatory burden on for-profit education institutions.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.
— 341 — Department of Education market prices and signals to influence educational borrowing, introducing consumer-driven accountability into higher education. Pell grants should retain their current voucher-like structure. If Congress is unwilling to reform federal student aid, then the next Adminis- tration should consider the following reforms: l Switch to fair-value accounting from FCRA accounting, and l Consolidate all federal loan programs into one new program that 1. Utilizes income-driven repayment, 2. Includes no interest rate subsidies or loan forgiveness, 3. Includes annual and aggregate limits on borrowing, and 4. Requires “skin in the game” from colleges to help hold them accountable for loan repayment. The Biden Administration has mercilessly pillaged the student loan portfolio for crass political purposes without regard to the needs of current taxpayers or future students. This must never happen again. l As detailed in Section III, the next Administration should work with Congress to spin off federal student aid into a new government corporation with professional governance and management. NEW POLICY PRIORITIES FOR 2025 AND BEYOND New Legislation That Should Be Prioritized For nearly 250 years, Congress has incorporated public and private institutions, including banks, the District of Columbia’s city government, and other organiza- tions that federal officials deem to be conducting operations in the public interest. Such charters offer a certain status to organizations, often viewed as a “seal of approval” according to one Congressional Research Service report, which can help these organizations in their fundraising and other advocacy efforts. When the nation’s largest teacher association, the National Education Associ- ation (NEA), cites its federal charter, it lends the NEA a level of significance and suggests an effectiveness that is not supported by evidence. In fact, the NEA and the nation’s other large teacher union, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT),
— 341 — Department of Education market prices and signals to influence educational borrowing, introducing consumer-driven accountability into higher education. Pell grants should retain their current voucher-like structure. If Congress is unwilling to reform federal student aid, then the next Adminis- tration should consider the following reforms: l Switch to fair-value accounting from FCRA accounting, and l Consolidate all federal loan programs into one new program that 1. Utilizes income-driven repayment, 2. Includes no interest rate subsidies or loan forgiveness, 3. Includes annual and aggregate limits on borrowing, and 4. Requires “skin in the game” from colleges to help hold them accountable for loan repayment. The Biden Administration has mercilessly pillaged the student loan portfolio for crass political purposes without regard to the needs of current taxpayers or future students. This must never happen again. l As detailed in Section III, the next Administration should work with Congress to spin off federal student aid into a new government corporation with professional governance and management. NEW POLICY PRIORITIES FOR 2025 AND BEYOND New Legislation That Should Be Prioritized For nearly 250 years, Congress has incorporated public and private institutions, including banks, the District of Columbia’s city government, and other organiza- tions that federal officials deem to be conducting operations in the public interest. Such charters offer a certain status to organizations, often viewed as a “seal of approval” according to one Congressional Research Service report, which can help these organizations in their fundraising and other advocacy efforts. When the nation’s largest teacher association, the National Education Associ- ation (NEA), cites its federal charter, it lends the NEA a level of significance and suggests an effectiveness that is not supported by evidence. In fact, the NEA and the nation’s other large teacher union, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), — 342 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise use litigation and other efforts to block school choice and advocate for additional taxpayer spending in education. They also lobbied to keep schools closed during the pandemic. All of these positions run contrary to robust research evidence showing positive outcomes for students from education choice policies; there is no conclusive evidence that more taxpayer spending on schools improves student outcomes; and evidence finds that keeping schools closed to in-person learning resulted in negative emotional and academic outcomes for students. Furthermore, the union promotes radical racial and gender ideologies in schools that parents oppose according to nationally representative surveys. l Congress should rescind the National Education Association’s congressional charter and remove the false impression that federal taxpayers support the political activities of this special interest group. This move would not be unprecedented, as Congress has rescinded the federal charters of other organizations over the past century. The NEA is a demonstrably radical special interest group that overwhelmingly supports left-of-center policies and policymakers. l Members should conduct hearings to determine how much federal taxpayer money the NEA has used for radical causes favoring a single political party. Parental Rights in Education and Safeguarding Students l Federal officials should protect educators and students in jurisdictions under federal control from racial discrimination by reinforcing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and prohibiting compelled speech. Specifically, no teacher or student in Washington, D.C., public schools, Bureau of Indian Education schools, or Department of Defense schools should be compelled to believe, profess, or adhere to any idea, but especially ideas that violate state and federal civil rights laws. By its very design, critical race theory has an “applied” dimension, as its found- ers state in their essays that define the theory. Those who subscribe to the theory believe that racism (in this case, treating individuals differently based on race) is appropriate—necessary, even—making the theory more than merely an analyti- cal tool to describe race in public and private life. The theory disrupts America’s Founding ideals of freedom and opportunity. So, when critical race theory is used as part of school activities such as mandatory affinity groups, teacher training programs in which educators are required to confess their privilege, or school
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.