According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 3326 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state. The legislation mandates certain administrative actions by public institutions of higher education—namely, adjusting the employment certification process for adjunct and part-time faculty participating in the federal Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) Program, and providing annual notifications of program eligibility to all employees.

The LBB assumes that any costs incurred by implementing the bill’s provisions, such as staff time for processing PSLF certification forms or sending annual notifications, can be absorbed within existing institutional resources and operational budgets. This means no additional appropriations or budget increases would be required from the state to enforce compliance with the bill.

Additionally, the fiscal note indicates that there would be no fiscal implications for local governments, as the bill’s scope is limited to state public higher education institutions and does not impose any obligations on cities, counties, or other local entities​.

HB 3326 proposes administrative reforms intended to help adjunct and part-time faculty at public higher education institutions in Texas qualify more easily for the federal Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) Program. While well-intentioned, the bill expands the administrative obligations of state institutions by requiring them to standardize work hour calculations, verify PSLF employment certification forms within a defined timeframe, and issue annual PSLF eligibility notices to all employees. Though framed as a procedural clarification, these mandates represent a subtle but meaningful extension of state involvement in a federal entitlement program.

Opposition to this bill rests on principled concerns about the role and scope of government. Even in the absence of a significant fiscal impact, HB 3326 creates a new statutory duty for state institutions to facilitate and promote access to a federal loan forgiveness program—one that some view as fiscally irresponsible and systemically flawed. By institutionalizing participation in PSLF, the bill risks normalizing or endorsing policies that ultimately shift the cost of higher education debt from borrowers to taxpayers, and may incentivize future legislative efforts to deepen state entanglement in federal subsidy programs.

Furthermore, the bill encroaches on the autonomy of individual colleges and universities by imposing top-down mandates for employee notification and administrative certification processes. For lawmakers committed to preserving institutional discretion, limiting government mandates, and upholding the principle of personal responsibility in financial decisions, HB 3326 represents a step in the wrong direction. While the bill seeks to assist public service employees, it does so by expanding government obligations and administrative overhead, without sufficient justification or measurable benefit to the state. Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 3326.

• The bill aims to enhance access to a federal benefit (PSLF) by clarifying employment certification standards, which arguably increases individual liberty for eligible adjunct and part-time faculty. It removes bureaucratic ambiguity and empowers public servants to more easily claim a benefit they may qualify for. However, critics may argue that facilitating access to debt forgiveness programs funded by taxpayers undermines the broader principle of liberty when it leads to forced redistribution of private income to forgive others’ debts.
• By supporting wider use of the federal PSLF program, the bill may unintentionally undermine the principle that individuals should bear primary responsibility for their own financial decisions—including taking out and repaying student loans. Encouraging institutional facilitation of federal forgiveness could be viewed as shifting personal debt obligations onto the collective taxpayer, thereby diminishing the ethic of self-reliance and accountability.
• The bill does not directly affect the private sector or alter market dynamics. However, broader use of PSLF could have indirect consequences on the labor market and higher education economics by further distorting the cost/value balance of public sector employment and advanced degrees. Still, the immediate impact on free enterprise is minimal.
• There are no provisions in the bill that affect property rights, regulatory takings, or eminent domain. This liberty principle is not impacted.
• While the bill does not create a new agency or expand state spending, it does impose new statutory duties on state institutions: calculating work hours, certifying forms within a 60-day timeframe, and notifying employees annually. These are small administrative expansions, but they represent a growth in the scope of state involvement in federal programs. For lawmakers committed to a strict interpretation of limited government, even procedural mandates that facilitate a federal policy can be seen as an overreach.