PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 633.
Congressional Research Service
Version 07 · Reported to House · Jul 2, 2026
Truman Scholarship Clean House Act
This bill makes changes to the Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation, which awards scholarships to students who plan to attend graduate school in pursuit of a career in public service.
Specifically, the bill dissolves the current Board of Trustees (which oversees the foundation) and terminates all members of the board effective 90 days after the bill's enactment. New board members must be appointed as outlined by the bill.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Additionally, the bill (1) prohibits any board member (other than the Secretary of Education or the Secretary's designee) from serving more than two six-year terms, and (2) establishes a quorum as seven board members.
The board must appoint a new executive secretary of the foundation, who must (1) be appointed by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the board, and (2) serve a four-year term (but may be reappointed).
The bill establishes certain requirements for regional review panels, including that each panel must consist of at least five members appointed annually by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the board and no more than half of the panel may be affiliated with the same political party.
The bill establishes additional scholarship conditions, including by (1) stopping payments to scholarship recipients who commit certain actions (e.g., served as a leader in a student organization suspended for misconduct), and (2) requiring recipients who have their scholarship payments stopped or who are not employed in public service for a certain time period to repay their scholarship with 6% interest.
People & committees
Rep. Stefanik, Elise M. [R-NY-21] · R–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 633.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and Workforce. H. Rept. 119-728.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and Workforce. H. Rept. 119-728.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 19 - 13.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 2, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.7894 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.7894 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.7894 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.7894 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.