Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to "William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program".
- Sponsor
- Rep. Courtney, Joe [D-CT-2]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 9, 2026
Bottom line
H.J. Res. 155 is a legislative effort to block a Department of Education rule concerning federal student loans, leveraging the Congressional Review Act to prevent its implementation.
What it actually does
This joint resolution seeks to nullify a rule issued by the Department of Education regarding the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program. Utilizing the Congressional Review Act (CRA), it expresses congressional disapproval of the rule published in the Federal Register on October 31, 2025, thereby preventing it from taking effect or continuing to be enforced. The specific content of the Department of Education's rule is not detailed in the resolution itself, but its disapproval would effectively revert policy to the prior regulations or lack thereof.
Proponents argue
Proponents of this resolution likely argue that the Department of Education's rule is an overreach of executive authority, imposes undue burdens, or is detrimental to students, borrowers, or the federal budget. They may contend that the rule contradicts congressional intent or creates adverse outcomes that necessitate legislative intervention to protect stakeholders and ensure responsible governance of federal student loan programs.
Opponents contend
Opponents of the resolution (and thus proponents of the Department of Education's rule) would assert that the rule is a necessary and beneficial policy change designed to improve the Direct Loan Program, protect borrowers, or enhance program efficiency. They would likely argue that congressional disapproval undermines the Department's expertise and its ability to administer federal student aid effectively, potentially harming students or creating instability in loan programs.
The bill text is extremely short and straightforward, allowing for quick comprehension, but understanding its full implications requires knowledge of the underlying Department of Education rule.
Section 1
Congressional Disapproval of Department of Education Rule
This provision explicitly states that Congress disapproves of the rule submitted by the Department of Education concerning the "William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program," as published in the Federal Register on October 31, 2025. By enacting this disapproval, the resolution ensures that the specified rule will have no legal force or effect, effectively nullifying it under the Congressional Review Act.
Supporters argue
Supporters of the resolution argue that the Department's rule is either harmful, exceeds statutory authority, or is fiscally irresponsible, and that congressional action is necessary to protect borrowers or taxpayers from its negative consequences. They may believe the rule would complicate repayment, increase costs, or create unfair advantages.
Critics contend
Opponents of the resolution (and proponents of the rule) contend that the Department's rule was carefully crafted to address specific issues within the Direct Loan Program, such as improving borrower protections, streamlining processes, or ensuring program sustainability. They would argue that nullifying it would prevent necessary reforms and potentially harm borrowers or the integrity of the program.
Tradeoffs
The resolution presents a tension between executive branch regulatory authority and congressional oversight. It forces a choice between allowing the Department of Education to implement its policy vision for federal student loans and asserting legislative control to block those changes, potentially leading to policy instability or a return to prior regulations that the Department sought to amend.
The resolution invokes Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, which is the Congressional Review Act (CRA). This act allows Congress to disapprove of a rule issued by a federal agency within a specific timeframe, preventing it from taking effect and imposing a permanent ban on the agency from issuing a 'substantially similar' rule without new statutory authorization.
Section 1
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for invoking specific statutory authority; it's not intentionally evasive but relies on legal shorthand. However, the full impact of the CRA's 'substantially similar' clause is often overlooked.
Case for: Proponents argue that the CRA is a vital tool for congressional oversight, allowing the legislative branch to check executive agency overreach and ensure that regulations align with legislative intent. It provides an expedited process to reverse rules deemed harmful or inappropriate, and the 'substantially similar' clause ensures lasting policy direction.
Case against: Critics argue that the CRA can be a blunt instrument, nullifying entire rules without allowing for amendments or nuanced adjustments. They may also contend that its use can create policy uncertainty and undermine the expertise of federal agencies, and the 'substantially similar' clause can lead to regulatory paralysis.
Estimated impact: If enacted, the CRA resolution would permanently prevent the Department of Education from reissuing a "substantially similar" rule without new statutory authorization, significantly limiting the agency's future regulatory options on this specific matter.