The 'Less Bureaucracy, Better Student Aid Act' (H.R. 9609) proposes transferring the management of federal student aid and loan programs from the Department of Education to the Department of the Treasury. This includes responsibilities such as servicing federal student loans, collecting defaulted debts, administering repayment plans, and overseeing programs like Pell Grants and Direct Loans. The transition would occur in stages, starting with defaulted loan functions, followed by non-defaulted loan servicing, and then other student aid functions. Treasury would assume the same legal authorities as the Department of Education for these programs, and related personnel, records, contracts, and funds would also be transferred. The bill aims to streamline operations and reduce bureaucracy in managing student aid.
Supporters of H.R. 9609 argue that moving student aid management to the Department of the Treasury could lead to more efficient handling of loans and grants, leveraging Treasury's expertise in financial management. They believe this consolidation could reduce administrative overhead and improve service delivery to students. Proponents also suggest that the Treasury's existing infrastructure for managing large-scale financial programs could enhance the effectiveness of student aid administration.
Critics of the bill express concerns that transferring student aid responsibilities to the Treasury may disrupt existing services and create confusion during the transition period. They worry that the Treasury may lack the specialized focus on education that the Department of Education provides, potentially leading to policies that do not fully consider the unique needs of students and educational institutions. Additionally, there are apprehensions about the potential loss of institutional knowledge and expertise in student aid programs that currently reside within the Department of Education.
The analysis of H.R. 9609, the Less Bureaucracy, Better Student Aid Act, reveals no direct industry overlaps between the bill's subject matter and the top donor industries of its sponsor, Tim Walberg. The primary donor industries, which include Health Professionals contributing $1.32 billion and Retired individuals contributing $412.5 million, do not have a clear connection to student aid or educational bureaucracy. This lack of overlap suggests that the financial interests of the sponsor's donors are unlikely to influence the legislative intent of the bill. Therefore, the risk of conflicts of interest appears minimal. Voters should be aware that while the financial backing is substantial, it does not directly relate to the bill's focus on student aid reform.
Organizations that lobbied on issues related to this bill's policy area.
| Client | Lobbying Firm | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| TUNGSTEN MINING NL | SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS | $120,000 |
| DELTA | CAPITOL TAX PARTNERS, LLP | $70,000 |
| LEARN ALLIANCE (INFORMAL COALITION) | CAPITOL TAX PARTNERS, LLP | $40,000 |
| FRAYM | CASSIDY & ASSOCIATES, INC. | $40,000 |
| SUPPLY ENERGETICS, INC. | CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, INC. | $30,000 |
| VIEGA LLC | SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS | $30,000 |
| GLOBAL TECHNICAL SYSTEMS | GLOBAL TECHNICAL SYSTEMS | $30,000 |
| ML STRATEGIES, LLC (ON BEHALF OF DAIKIN U.S. CORPORATION) | PLURUS STRATEGIES, LLC | $30,000 |
| LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP INC. | CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, INC. | $30,000 |
| OISHII | BALLARD PARTNERS | $20,000 |
| ML STRATEGIES, LLC (ON BEHALF OF PRICESMART, INC.) | PLURUS STRATEGIES, LLC | $20,000 |
| DIRECT KINETIC SOLUTIONS | AMERICAN CAPITOL GROUP | $15,000 |
| NLMK PENNSYLVANIA | SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS | $10,000 |
| CARL ZEISS AG | FGS GLOBAL (US) LLC (FKA FGH HOLDINGS LLC) | undisclosed |
| ZIPPO MANUFACTURING COMPANY | SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS | undisclosed |
Source: Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) filings, 2026
Top industries funding Tim Walberg, ranked by total contributions.
Source: OpenSecrets.org (Center for Responsive Politics)
