A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of…

This joint resolution invokes the Congressional Review Act (CRA) of 1996, which allows Congress to overturn federal agency rules through a simple majority vote in both chambers, followed by presidential signature. The target is the Department of Education's RISE Final Regulations, a sweeping set of rules finalized in the final year of the Biden administration. Those regulations created new pathways for borrowers to receive partial or full loan forgiveness based on hardship, length of repayment, and other factors, and they also restructured income-driven repayment plans to reduce monthly payment burdens for many borrowers.

The constitutional basis for this resolution rests on Congress's Article I authority over federal spending and its power to set the terms of federal loan programs established under the Higher Education Act. Supporters argue the Department of Education exceeded its statutory authority by creating broad new forgiveness mechanisms without explicit congressional approval, an argument that echoes the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in Biden v. Nebraska, which blocked a separate loan forgiveness plan under the HEROES Act.

The fiscal implications are substantial. The Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget had projected that the RISE regulations could reduce federal student loan repayment collections by tens of billions of dollars over the coming decade, depending on uptake and forgiveness triggers. Blocking the rule would, in theory, preserve more repayment revenue for the federal government, though actual fiscal outcomes depend on borrower behavior and future policy changes.

Historically, the CRA has been used most aggressively following transitions of political power. Congress successfully used it to block numerous Obama-era regulations in 2017. This resolution represents a similar pattern, with a Republican-led Congress seeking to reverse rules finalized under a Democratic administration. If the resolution passes and is signed into law, it would also invoke the CRA's rarely tested prohibition on agencies issuing rules that are 'substantially the same' without new legislative direction.

Stakeholders affected include the approximately 43 million Americans with federal student loan debt, particularly those enrolled in or eligible for income-driven repayment plans. Colleges and universities, the student loan servicing industry, and fiscal watchdog organizations also have direct interests in the outcome. The resolution has broad implications for the balance of power between the executive branch's regulatory authority and Congress's oversight role in higher education finance.

Two lenses on the same bill. Explain is AI analysis of the civic record. Fiscal covers budget and markets. Neither tells you how to vote.

Congress is considering a resolution that would cancel a major set of federal student loan regulations finalized by the Department of Education under the Biden administration. Using the Congressional Review Act, lawmakers are seeking to nullify the RISE Final Regulations, which created new income-driven repayment structures and expanded eligibility for loan forgiveness based on financial hardship and other factors. If the resolution passes both chambers and is signed into law, the regulations are permanently void and the Department of Education cannot issue a substantially similar rule without new legislation from Congress.

Supporters of the resolution, primarily Republican lawmakers and fiscal conservative groups, argue that the Department of Education overstepped its legal authority by essentially creating a large-scale loan forgiveness program without explicit congressional approval. They point to the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Biden v. Nebraska, which struck down a separate forgiveness plan, as evidence that the executive branch cannot unilaterally reshape the student loan system at a cost of tens of billions of dollars. Supporters also contend that taxpayers who did not take on student debt or who already repaid their loans should not be asked to subsidize new forgiveness mechanisms created by regulatory fiat.

Opponents, including Democratic lawmakers, student advocacy organizations, and some higher education groups, argue that the RISE regulations were a lawful use of the Department's existing authority under the Higher Education Act and that blocking them will harm real borrowers who were relying on reduced payment options. They warn that without flexible repayment pathways, default rates could rise, which paradoxically costs the federal government more in collection and recovery expenses than structured forgiveness would. Critics also argue that using the CRA in this manner sets a troubling precedent for Congress to override technical agency rulemaking whenever there is a change in political control.

For ordinary Americans with federal student loans, the practical stakes are significant. The RISE regulations had offered restructured monthly payment calculations and hardship-based forgiveness that many borrowers had anticipated. If the resolution succeeds, those provisions disappear and any replacement would require an act of Congress, a process that could take years. Borrowers currently in income-driven repayment plans face uncertainty about their payment amounts and long-term forgiveness timelines, while those who had not yet applied for new benefits under the rule would lose access to them entirely.