Motion to Proceed Rejected (45-52)
45 Yea52 Nay3 Not voting1/2 required
SJRES-196-119
Motion to proceed to consideration of measure rejected in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 45 - 52. Record Vote Number: 190. (CR S3193)
Sponsored by Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
What it does
This joint resolution would use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to nullify a Department of Education rule published May 1, 2026, titled "Reimagining and Improving Student Education-Federal Student Loan Program Final Regulations" (91 Fed. Reg. 23768). If enacted, the rule would have no force or effect. Under the CRA, a successfully enacted disapproval resolution also generally prevents the agency from issuing a substantially similar rule without new congressional authorization.
Who benefits
Federal student loan borrowers who would have benefited from the underlying rule's provisions — depending on what the rule contained, this could include current borrowers seeking lower payments, forgiveness, or modified repayment terms. Supporters of limiting executive agency rulemaking authority would also benefit procedurally. Taxpayers who oppose the fiscal cost of any loan relief provisions in the underlying rule may benefit if the rule's spending effects are blocked.
Who is hurt
Federal student loan borrowers who stood to gain relief, reduced payments, or other benefits under the underlying rule. Colleges and universities whose students rely on favorable loan terms. Advocacy organizations that supported the rule's policy goals. Future borrowers who might have benefited from the rule's provisions. The Department of Education, which would be barred from issuing a substantially similar rule without new congressional authorization.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Department of Education exceeded its statutory authority by issuing sweeping changes to the federal student loan program without clear congressional authorization — a concern reinforced by the major questions doctrine established in West Virginia v. EPA (2022), which requires agencies to show explicit congressional approval for rules of vast economic and political significance. They contend that student loan policy of this scale involves hundreds of billions of dollars in potential costs and should be set by elected legislators, not agency rulemakers, and point to prior court rulings blocking similar Biden-era loan forgiveness actions as evidence that the underlying rule may not survive judicial review.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the Department of Education has long-standing statutory authority under the Higher Education Act to administer and modify federal student loan programs, and that the rule represents a lawful exercise of that delegated power to help millions of borrowers manage debt burdens. They contend that using the CRA to block the rule would strip relief from borrowers who are already struggling — with federal student loan debt exceeding $1.7 trillion — and that the CRA's prohibition on substantially similar future rules effectively removes Congress's own flexibility to address the issue through agency action going forward.
Constitutional context
The Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1) and the major questions doctrine are most relevant here. Under West Virginia v. EPA (2022), agency rules of vast economic and political significance require clear congressional authorization; prior courts have applied this doctrine to block large-scale student loan forgiveness rules. The CRA itself is a constitutional exercise of Congress's oversight authority over executive agencies.
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority to nullify the executive agency rule; the check on this power is the presidential veto (the President could veto the resolution), and courts retain authority to review whether the underlying rule was itself lawful independent of the CRA process.
Historical precedent
Congress used the CRA to block a prior Department of Education student loan-related rule in 2018 (the "Borrower Defense" rule), and federal courts blocked the Biden administration's broad student loan forgiveness program in Biden v. Nebraska (2023) under the major questions doctrine.
Motion to Proceed Rejected (45-52)