S.J.Res. 196Senate joint resolution · 119th CongressIn progressdonor lobbied itEducation

A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to "Reimagining and Improving Student Education-Federal Student Loan Program Final Regulations".

Sponsored byJeff MerkleyD-ORIntroduced Jun 4, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Jun 24, 2026) to consideration of measure rejected in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 45 - 52. Record Vote Number: 190. (CR S3193)

What it does

not written yet

The Congressional Research Service writes the plain-English summary for every bill, usually a few weeks after it's introduced. This one doesn't have one yet. It will appear here when it does.

In the meantime the most reliable description is the bill's own official title, which is the heading above — written by its sponsor, and the only account of the bill that exists at this stage. The full text is on congress.gov ↗

We don't write our own summaries. Everything else on this site links back to a record you can check, and a description of a bill that came from us rather than from the bill would be the one thing here that didn't — on the page that asks you to take a position on it.

Face Value

as placed on the calendar
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

What Congress did

1 recorded
  • On the decisive vote

    Senate · Jun 24, 2026

    Whether to start debating it at all. Not a vote on the bill itself.

    4552

    Motion to Proceed Rejected

    Every vote →

Who lobbied on this

6 organizations

These organizations told Congress, in their own quarterly disclosures, that they were lobbying on this bill.

  • National Nurses Unitedwanted it passed
    …SUPPORT - S.J.Res. 196, a Congressional Review Act resolution on the classification of nurse degrees as graduate, not professional Support S.J.Res. 182, a… filing ↗
  • …Res 189/S.J. Res 196) filing ↗
  • …No. 119-21] (S.4568/H.R.8691) Nursing is a Professional Degree Act (H.R. 6718) Professional Student Degree Act (H.J. Res. 189 / S.J. Res. 196) A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the… filing ↗
  • …S.J. Res 196, A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the… filing ↗
  • American Nurses Associationno position stated
    …Res. 189 / S.J. Res. 196) A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the… filing ↗
  • …E-Rate Teacher Pay Child Nutrition Graduated Corporate Tax Act S 4407/HR 7985, CHATBOT Act S 4297/HR 8800, FY27 National Defense Authorization Act S J Res 196, A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the… filing ↗

Most filings say only that an organization lobbied on a bill, not which side it took — where that's the case we say so rather than guessing. Quotes are verbatim from the filing. How this is built.

Discussion

10 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
17
grantwoodDemoVA-4voted Nay28d ago
Voting no. Not because the goal is wrong, but because this creates a new process on top of three that already exist and don't talk to each other.
16
wxriveraDemoMN-4voted Yea20d ago
This is the kind of unglamorous plumbing that never makes the news and matters more than the stuff that does.
9
RedRiverRonDemoNJ-1voted Nay17d ago
Honest question, not a gotcha: what would change your mind on this?
9
m.kowalczykDemoLA-1voted Yea20d ago
That's the part I can't get past either. The authority is broad and the guardrails are thin.
6
yusuf.aDemoCA-28voted Nay21d ago
My objection is scope creep. The title describes something narrow; the text is considerably broader than the title suggests.
-1
gulfcoastgailDemoNJ-8voted Yea24d ago
Agreed on the substance, disagree on the timing. Doing this badly now makes doing it well later harder.
4
gulfcoastgailDemoNJ-8voted Yea28d ago
Reading the summary, this looks like it mostly codifies what agencies are already doing informally. That's worth doing — informal practice evaporates when administrations change.
-1
BudgetHawk88DemoUT-3voted Yea24d ago
I'd add that the states already doing this haven't seen the effects the opponents predicted. That's some evidence.
3
grantwoodDemoVA-4voted Nay22d ago
This is my worry too — the cost estimate always assumes full compliance and full compliance never happens.
7
aviva_sternDemoMO-2voted Yea21d ago
Fair, but the alternative on the table is nothing, and nothing has a cost too.
Your position on S.J.Res. 19648% Yea · 21 VoteWire users