[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 177 (Wednesday, December 19, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H10887-H10891]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   ESTABLISHING FIXED INTEREST RATES FOR STUDENT AND PARENT BORROWERS

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
Senate bill (S. 1762) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to 
establish fixed interest rates for student and parent borrowers, to 
extend current law with respect to special allowances for lenders, and 
for other purposes.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                S. 1762

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. INTEREST RATE PROVISIONS.

       (a) FFEL Fixed Interest Rates.--
       (1) Amendment.--Section 427A of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 1077a) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating subsections (l) and (m) as subsections 
     (m) and (n), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after subsection (k) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(l) Interest Rates for New Loans on or After July 1, 
     2006.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (h), with 
     respect to any loan made, insured, or guaranteed under this 
     part (other than a loan made pursuant to section 428B or 
     428C) for which the first disbursement is made on or after 
     July 1, 2006, the applicable rate of interest shall be 6.8 
     percent on the unpaid principal balance of the loan.
       ``(2) PLUS loans.--Notwithstanding subsection (h), with 
     respect to any loan under section 428B for which the first 
     disbursement is made on or after July 1, 2006, the applicable 
     rate of interest shall be 7.9 percent on the unpaid principal 
     balance of the loan.
       ``(3) Consolidation loans.--With respect to any 
     consolidation loan under section 428C

[[Page H10888]]

     for which the application is received by an eligible lender 
     on or after July 1, 2006, the applicable rate of interest 
     shall be at an annual rate on the unpaid principal balance of 
     the loan that is equal to the lesser of--
       ``(A) the weighted average of the interest rates on the 
     loans consolidated, rounded to the nearest higher one-eighth 
     of 1 percent; or
       ``(B) 8.25 percent.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 428C(c)(1)(A) of such 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 1078-3(c)(1)(A)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(1) Interest rate.--(A) Notwithstanding subparagraphs (B) 
     and (C), with respect to any loan made under this section for 
     which the application is received by an eligible lender--
       ``(i) on or after October 1, 1998, and before July 1, 2006, 
     the applicable interest rate shall be determined under 
     section 427A(k)(4); or
       ``(ii) on or after July 1, 2006, the applicable interest 
     rate shall be determined under section 427A(l)(3).''.
       (b) Direct Loans Fixed Interest Rates.--
       (1) Technical correction.--Paragraph (6) of section 455(b) 
     of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087e(b)), as 
     redesignated by section 8301(c)(1) of the Transportation 
     Equity Act for the 21st Century (Public Law 105-178; 112 
     Stat. 498) is redesignated as paragraph (9) and is 
     transferred to follow paragraph (7) of section 455(b) of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965.
       (2) Amendments.--Section 455(b) of the Higher Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087e(b)) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8); and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(7) Interest rate provision for new loans on or after 
     july 1, 2006.--
       ``(A) Rates for fdsl and fdusl.--Notwithstanding the 
     preceding paragraphs of this subsection, for Federal Direct 
     Stafford Loans and Federal Direct Unsubsidized Stafford Loans 
     for which the first disbursement is made on or after July 1, 
     2006, the applicable rate of interest shall be 6.8 percent on 
     the unpaid principal balance of the loan.
       ``(B) PLUS loans.--Notwithstanding the preceding paragraphs 
     of this subsection, with respect to any Federal Direct PLUS 
     loan for which the first disbursement is made on or after 
     July 1, 2006, the applicable rate of interest shall be 7.9 
     percent on the unpaid principal balance of the loan.
       ``(C) Consolidation loans.--Notwithstanding the preceding 
     paragraphs of this subsection, any Federal Direct 
     Consolidation loan for which the application is received on 
     or after July 1, 2006, shall bear interest at an annual rate 
     on the unpaid principal balance of the loan that is equal to 
     the lesser of--
       ``(i) the weighted average of the interest rates on the 
     loans consolidated, rounded to the nearest higher one-eighth 
     of one percent; or
       ``(ii) 8.25 percent.''.
       (c) Extension of Current Interest Rate Provisions for Three 
     Years.--Sections 427A(k) and 455(b)(6) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1077a(k), 1087e(b)(6)) are 
     each amended--
       (1) by striking ``2003'' in the heading and inserting 
     ``2006''; and
       (2) by striking ``July 1, 2003,'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``July 1, 2006,''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF SPECIAL ALLOWANCE PROVISION.

       Section 438(b)(2)(I) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1087-1(b)(2)(I)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``, and before july 1, 2003'' in the 
     heading;
       (2) by striking ``and before July 1, 2003,'' each place it 
     appears, other than in clauses (ii) and (v);
       (3) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following:
       ``(ii) In school and grace period.--In the case of any 
     loan--

       ``(I) for which the first disbursement is made on or after 
     January 1, 2000, and before July 1, 2006, and for which the 
     applicable rate of interest is described in section 
     427A(k)(2); or
       ``(II) for which the first disbursement is made on or after 
     July 1, 2006, and for which the applicable rate of interest 
     is described in section 427A(l)(1), but only with respect to 
     (aa) periods prior to the beginning of the repayment period 
     of the loan; or (bb) during the periods in which principal 
     need not be paid (whether or not such principal is in fact 
     paid) by reason of a provision described in section 
     427(a)(2)(C) or 428(b)(1)(M);

     clause (i)(III) of this subparagraph shall be applied by 
     substituting `1.74 percent' for `2.34 percent'.'';
       (4) in clause (iii), by inserting ``or (l)(2)'' after 
     ``427A(k)(3)'';
       (5) in clause (iv), by inserting ``or (l)(3)'' after 
     ``427A(k)(4)'';
       (6) in clause (v)--
       (A) in the heading, by inserting ``before july 1, 2006'' 
     after ``plus loans''; and
       (B) by striking ``July 1, 2003,'' and inserting ``July 1, 
     2006,'';
       (7) in clause (vi)--
       (A) by inserting ``or (l)(3)'' after ``427A(k)(4)'' the 
     first place it appears; and
       (B) by inserting ``or (l)(3), whichever is applicable'' 
     after ``427A(k)(4)'' the second place it appears; and
       (8) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(vii) Limitation on special allowances for plus loans on 
     or after july 1, 2006.--In the case of PLUS loans made under 
     section 428B and first disbursed on or after July 1, 2006, 
     for which the interest rate is determined under section 
     427A(l)(2), a special allowance shall not be paid for such 
     loan during any 12-month period beginning on July 1 and 
     ending on June 30 unless--

       ``(I) the average of the bond equivalent rates of the 
     quotes of the 3-month commercial paper (financial), as 
     published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
     System in Publication H-15 (or its successor), for the last 
     calendar week ending on or before such July 1; plus
       ``(II) 2.64 percent,

     exceeds 9.0 percent.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California, (Mr. George 
Miller) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).


                             general leave

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
on S. 1762.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was not objection.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in support of S. 1762. This legislation 
provides for the continued uninterrupted availability of student loan 
funds to students and their families. The legislation addresses a 
longstanding problem in the Federal student loan program as to how 
student loan interest rates are to be calculated. The problem first 
come to light several years ago when it was clear that a provision 
within the Higher Education Act would dramatically alter how interest 
rates would be determined. The interest rate formula set to take effect 
back in 1998 would have forced many of the leaders now participating in 
the Federal Family Education Loan Program to reduce or eliminate their 
participation.

                              {time}  0400

  Mr. Speaker, in 1998, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) worked diligently to craft a 
solution to a problem that virtually everyone agreed would be an 
unintended result of previous legislation. The compromise resulted in 
the lowest interest rates in the Stafford Loan Program's history. 
Service was uninterrupted to students and their families and student 
loan borrowers are now paying the historically low interested rate of 
5.99 percent in repayment.
  Unfortunately, the compromise reached in 1998 was not made permanent 
when enacted and is scheduled to expire in 2003, and the unworkable 
index from the previous legislation is set to go in effect again. It is 
clear the problem must be corrected to ensure the availability of 
capital within the student loan program. Lenders in the FFELP program 
will not be able to finance student loans under the index set to take 
effect in 2003.
  By taking action now and passing S. 1762, we can insure the continued 
availability of student loan funds to student nationwide. This 
legislation also extends the current special allowance formula for 
student loan providers, again, allowing them to continue uninterrupted 
service to the Nation's students and their families.
  Some have asked why do this now. It really does not take effect until 
2003. I think the answer is simple: Fixing the problem now will allow 
us to insure that proper attention is given to improving programs and 
services during the upcoming reauthorization. This issue consumed the 
last reauthorization process in 1998 and took away precious time and 
resources that could have been used more productively. We also have the 
availability of funds necessary to correct the problem now.
  We have agreement on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the 
Capitol that the time to do this is now, and it should be done now, 
and, therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote yes tonight on S. 1762.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 
minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio has properly explained this bill 
and what it would do for both the lenders and the student loan program 
and for the students, and he quite correctly reports to us that this is 
a work product of a lot of work on a bipartisan

[[Page H10889]]

basis to approve this legislation to extend the loan rates for the 
lenders to make sure they can continue to make a profit and to insure 
student loan availability to the students.
  Let me talk about a bill that we will not be able to bring up 
tonight, and one of the reasons that I believe S. 1762 will not pass 
tomorrow. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) have introduced legislation 
which would have provided loan forgiveness to those individuals who 
lost their spouses on September 11 to make sure that they in fact have 
this ability to get their lives back in order after this tragic loss of 
their spouses, in many cases of the major bread winner for the family. 
It also provided loans to the parents who had a child that might die in 
that tragedy. Currently they cannot forgive those loans. It also 
provided for those loans that have been consolidated, because they 
would not be forgiven under the current law if they had been 
consolidated by the spouse that died.
  This is an effort to try to help these families. We have paid a great 
deal of attention to this since September 11, recognizing the hardship, 
recognizing the tragedy that has befallen these families. We have tried 
to do everything we can to help them get their economic life in order. 
To have these student loans hanging out there when they have been beset 
by this tragedy, the victims of terrorism, is just unconscionable.
  The bill we are discussing here, the interest rate fix for 2003, need 
not be done until 2003. The urgency of these families we cannot deny. 
Already these cases have started to be brought to the attention of the 
department, and I think it is time for Congress to recognize it.
  This is legislation that is not partisan. I think it has every Member 
of the New York delegation supporting it from both parties, recognizing 
the needs of these families from the New York metropolitan area and the 
surrounding states, and we ask that this legislation be passed. But, 
for whatever reason, we will not be able to consider that. So I think 
unless we can try and provide the kind of urgency that these families 
need as they struggle, and we read day-to-day as they try to work their 
way through all of the bureaucracy that is now springing up over the 
various funds that have been put in place for them, trying to qualify 
for funds that have been created with public dollars, with private 
dollars, with charitable dollars, and at the same time deal with their 
families, with their children, with the holidays and the rest of it, it 
is not a big burden.
  This has been scored to be essentially de minimis in terms of the 
cost to the government by CBO. It is one of the things we can do to 
lighten that burden of these families who have lost individuals in 
those vicious attacks of September 11.
  So, with that, I will say that while this other bill is ready to be 
passed. I would hope that my colleagues would not support that 
legislation until such time as we can get consideration of H.R. 3163, 
offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) from the other side.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of my colleague from 
California. The committee has worked diligently with the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) and her cosponsor, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon), over the bill that that was outlined by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  While there were some policy concerns, and we have tried to work 
through many of them, unfortunately, the scheduling of that bill is way 
above my pay grade. We have worked for the last several weeks to try to 
bring some resolution to this matter, and we are going to continue to 
try to do what we can to bring it to a successful resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McKeon).
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for yielding me 
time and let you know that I rise in strong support of S. 1762. This 
very important legislation ensures the availability of higher education 
financing to the students embarking on a very important time in their 
lives. I do not believe there is a better way to serve the students of 
this Nation than to ensure a stable source of higher education funding 
for those who need it.
  This legislation provides for the uninterrupted continuation of the 
Federal Family Education Loan Program, known as FFELP, and provides 
certainty of interest rates for all borrowers in later years.
  As many of my colleagues will remember, in 1998 the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and I worked diligently on correcting the problem 
in the Higher Education Act dealing with student loan interest rate 
calculations. The success of our bipartisan efforts is evidenced by 
current student loan interest rates. Students in repayment now pay 5.99 
percent, the lowest Stafford rates in the program's history.
  This low rate, coupled with the discount programs available to 
students with excellent repayment histories and expanded tax benefits 
signed into law earlier this year by President Bush, provides students 
with a low cost means of financing their education, while maintaining a 
strong and stable student loan program.
  However, the agreement we reached in 1998 is running up against the 
clock. The interest rate formula resulting in new loan rates while 
maintaining the viability of the FFELP is set to expire on July 1, 
2003. If that occurs, students and parents will be unable to obtain 
these low cost loans from lenders across the country and lenders that 
make these low cost loans will not be able to finance student loans 
under the new rate.
  Unfortunately, in 1998 we knew we were only providing a temporary fix 
to the problem and we would need to address it again in order to 
permanently correct the problem. By taking this action now, there will 
be no interruption in the availability of student loan funds and 
Congress will be able to concentrate fully on the many issues that will 
confront us during the next reauthorization of the Higher Education 
Act, including grant aid eligibility, distance education, access, and 
the high cost of higher education, to name a few.
  This legislation also takes one additional step for students and 
their families. It provides assurances as to what interest rates will 
be in the future. It provides for both student loans and parent loans 
to be at a fixed interest rate beginning in 2006. Supporters of this 
provision feel this will allow families to plan future expenses, 
knowing clearly what the interest rates on their education loans will 
be. We can make the continued availability of low cost student loans 
one less thing students pursuing their dream of higher education need 
to worry about.
  Mr. Speaker, we have worked all year on trying to reach this 
compromise and work out this solution to this problem. We have worked 
both sides of the aisle and we have worked with the other body. 
Sometimes there comes a point where you either do it, or you lose that 
opportunity forever. I think we all know that we are at that point 
right now.
  I really feel sorry about the thing that has happened with my good 
friend from New York on not being able to bring her bill up today. But, 
as the chairman has said, that is above all of our pay ranks on 
determining that. But it seems to me that hearing the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) talk about taking this bill down when we 
have the final vote tomorrow, to inflict the pain of those who have 
suffered greatly in New York and now to expand that across all the 
students that will be coming for loans, does not seem to be just to me.
  It does not seem to be right where we should inflict somebody's pain 
or somebody else. I think we would be better off trying to find some 
other kind of different solution for the problem of the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. McCarthy). I would pledge to help her, as we have 
in the past, to solve this problem.
  I think there are other ways to do that, rather than to inflict 
punishment on all of the students that may want to attend school and 
have to have this financial aid to achieve their dream, their part of 
the American dream.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this 
bill, to

[[Page H10890]]

let the students, the young people of this country, have the 
opportunity to further their education.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I had suggested that the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) was coauthor of the McCarthy 
bill. He is not. But he has been very, very helpful with her in the 
drafting of that legislation, and the chairman has been very 
cooperative in this.
  But we have now been trying to get this bill scheduled for a month or 
more and just have not received any assurances that it will be 
scheduled. The practical effect of holding back on S. 1762 is that we 
have 18 months in which this solution can be put into effect, and 
status of the current law will continue to exist.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman, and I 
really do. I know that he has worked extremely hard to try and bring 
this bill up on the floor. He gave a promise to me, and, as far as I am 
concerned, he really kept his end of the deal. I am not upset with him 
at all.
  As far as trying to inflict pain on someone else, on all the work 
that he has done, that is not my style, and he knows that, and I would 
not do that. But, being in the minority, I do not have to many 
recourses on trying to do something.
  I believe in this bill very, very closely. These are victims that 
have suffered tremendously. Not only have they suffered tremendously, I 
do not think we are setting a good example on how we treat our victims 
that die because of war.
  You know, we talk about compassion here. Well, I have to deal with 
these victims in my district. I have to go to too many memorial 
services, which we are still going to. So every little thing that I can 
do for these victims, I am going to do it. And I do not like doing what 
I have to do tonight, and I have spent and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) has spent the evening. We have the 
votes, unfortunately, to bring this other bill down. But, as I said, we 
are in the minority, and I have tried every diplomatic way possible to 
find out what was wrong. We worked with the committee. We made many 
changes to satisfy our committee.
  So, with that, again, I apologize, because I do not like doing this. 
But it is also my job to protect the victims that are in my district, 
in Connecticut and throughout this country, and future victims.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I will be certainly on the floor first thing 
in a couple hours and have my colleagues to vote against this. I am 
hoping between now and then something can be worked out. I truly mean 
that.
  But, again, I thank my chairman. He has worked well with us on every 
single thing this whole year. I have been proud to work with the 
gentleman. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) 
for everything he has done. Believe me, we do not want to be here at a 
quarter after 4 in the morning having this kind of debate.

                               {time}  0415

  But I believe in it strongly and I am going to fight for this one.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us has great merit. 
It would stabilize the student loan program, and I intend to work as 
hard as I can to see that it is enacted.
  However, another piece of legislation that has great merit and 
bipartisan support is, in my judgment, being arbitrarily withheld from 
the floor. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) has worked 
very hard on this. She has had the active cooperation of the chairman 
of our committee and the subcommittee chairman, for which I commend 
them both.
  However, as she said just a moment ago, the minority has only certain 
rights. She and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) have 
worked diligently throughout the day and, frankly, in days prior to 
this, to try to bring this legislation before the body. In my judgment, 
an arbitrary and unreasonable decision has precluded them from doing 
so.
  In the few hours that remain before this vote is scheduled for floor 
consideration, there is an opportunity to do something about that. I 
would urge the Speaker and the leadership of the majority party to take 
that under advisement so we can move forward two pieces of meritorious 
bipartisan legislation.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Just in closing, Mr. Speaker, I would say that I want to make it very 
clear to the Members of the House that we have tried with all due 
diligence to get this legislation scheduled. We were informed at one 
point today that it would be scheduled, and then that changed in the 
last couple of hours, that it would not be. I do not know what the 
objection would be, and it is not clear to us what the objection would 
be to help out these families to provide this student loan forgiveness 
to those spouses that may have loans that have lost their spouse in the 
tragedy of September 11; but that has been articulated to us.
  As has been pointed out by the author of the bill and Members of the 
minority, extensive negotiations have gone on with respect to this 
legislation to try and make it workable, to try and make it deliver the 
benefit that is intended. That has all been worked out. Simply, what we 
now have is a determination about the scheduling of this.
  One could argue, one could argue that we could put this off until 
next year, but I think as we see these families trying to come to 
closure, both emotionally and economically, we would do this Congress 
proud to extend this benefit. We have made several provisions for the 
forgiveness of student loans. In this instance we simply have 
overlooked the spouses of those who were killed in the terrorist 
attack. That can be remedied by the quick passage of this legislation. 
We really do not know the opposition to it, since we are simply told 
that it will not be allowed to come to the floor; but we have not had 
those people come forward and express opposition.
  So for that reason, we will be asking Members to withhold their 
support from the bill under current consideration, S. 1762, for the 
loan rate fix on student loans. As I said before, there is 18 months 
before this has to be dealt with. We would like to deal with it now. A 
lot of work has gone into it. But clearly, we do not have the ability 
to set the agenda here and we have to use those leverages that are 
available to us.
  I would ask my colleagues to reject this bill so that we can get on 
with helping these families who are the victims of the terrorist attack 
on September 11.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, before I yield back the balance of my time, 
let me just say that I hope we will get this issue resolved sometime 
tomorrow before we take up the votes on this suspension.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will 
yield, I would say to the gentleman, that is today.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Well, reclaiming my time, it will be tomorrow's 
legislative day. The gentleman might think it is today, but it really 
is tomorrow.
  But be that as it may, the underlying bill really will fix a very 
serious problem that will impact the ability of private lenders to 
offer student loans. The concern is that once we get into the spring 
and early summer, it will have a devastating impact on the ability of 
these private lenders to offer student loans across the Nation.
  While I understand the concerns of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), we 
have to make sure that we do not do anything here that would inhibit 
the ability of any young person or, for that matter, someone who would 
like to continue their education from getting the financing necessary 
in order to do so.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill.

[[Page H10891]]

  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1762, a bill 
to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to establish fixed interest 
rates for student and parent borrowers, to extend current law with 
respect to special allowances for lenders, and for other purposes.
  This legislation proposes to settle the annual issue of student loan 
interest rate. The issue was temporarily resolved in 1998. S. 1762 
incorporates a permanent compromise agreed to by postsecondary student 
financial aid associations, student groups and lender organizations. 
Under the bill's provisions, the current variable interest rate 
formulas for Federal Family Education Loan Program education loans will 
remain in place until 2006, when the formula for borrowers will revert 
permanently to fixed rates of 6.8 percent for student borrowers and 7.9 
percent for parent borrowers. The only way many Hispanic students can 
enter postsecondary education and complete their degrees is through the 
availability to grants and loans. This bill is very important to all 
Hispanic students nationwide and especially for my state of Texas. I 
appreciate the support of the Texas Guaranteed Student Loan 
Corporation, the Texas Association of Student Financial Aid 
Administrators, and the Association of Texas Lenders for Education for 
their support.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Ranking Member Miller and 
Chairman McKeon of the 21st Century Competitiveness Subcommittee, for 
helping to bring the legislation before the House. I also want to fully 
recognize our Senate colleagues for all their work on this critical 
issue. I urge all my colleagues in the House to support this bill.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1762, 
a bill that will ensure the long-term availability of higher education 
loans for students and their families. Our nation's higher education 
loan system under the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) is 
an example of government at its best. By working in partnership with 
students, parents, colleges and universities and private sector loan 
providers, the federal government has made the dream of college a 
reality for more than 50 million Americans through the education loan 
program since 1965.
  As families come together during this holiday season, those with 
children heading off to college next fall will be talking about not 
only where to attend college, but how to pay for it. For high school 
students and their families gathered around their kitchen tables, 
today's action means that the only question they have to ask is ``where 
is their high school senior going to attend college,'' not whether they 
can afford it.
  For the past 35 years, education loans have been critical to the 
ability of America's families to be able to afford the rising cost of 
college tuition. By passing this legislation today, we will maintain 
our national investment in well-educated, well-trained young people who 
can compete with workers anywhere in the world. In short, this 
legislation is good for students, families, schools, taxpayers and the 
economy.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Boehner, Ranking 
Member Miller and Chairman McKeon for their leadership in assuring the 
continued availability of education loans for future generations of 
students. This is important legislation for out nation and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. BOEHNER. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) that the House suspend 
the rules and pass Senate bill, S. 1762.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on 
the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order 
that a quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8, rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________