Referred to the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 21, 2011
Christopher Bryski Student Loan Protection Act or Christopher's Law - Amends the Truth in Lending Act to require lenders of private educational loans for which cosigners are held jointly liable to describe clearly and conspicuously, in writing, the cosigners' obligations regarding such loans, including the effect a borrower's or cosigner's death, disability, or inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity would have on such obligations.
Directs the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to publish a model form for describing those obligations.
Amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require institutions of higher education to provide borrowers of federal educational loans information at their entrance counseling on the effect their death, disability, or inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity would have on their federal and private educational loans.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.
Referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Bill text & related measures
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Mar 23, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.3240 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.3240 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.3240 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.3240 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.