[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 60 (Wednesday, April 16, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H2362-H2367]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5715, ENSURING CONTINUED ACCESS TO
STUDENT LOANS ACT OF 2008
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1107 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1107
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5715) to ensure continued availability of
access to the Federal student loan program for students and
families. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule
XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall
not exceed one hour equally divided and contrilled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Education and Labor. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The
amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as
adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The
bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill
for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute
rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived.
Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendment
to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those
printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules.
Each further amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
further amendments are waived except those arising under
clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such
further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 5715
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of
the previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated
by the Speaker.
{time} 1045
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized
for 1 hour.
Ms. CASTOR. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30
minutes to the gentleman from Florida, my colleague from the Rules
Committee, Mr. Diaz-Balart. All time yielded during consideration of
the rule is for debate only.
I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous
consent that Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and
extend their remarks on House Resolution 1107.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1107 provides for
consideration of H.R. 5715, the Ensuring Continued Access to Student
Loans Act of 2008, under a structured rule.
The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the
Committee on Education and Labor. The rule makes in order four
amendments in the Rules Committee report, each of which is debatable
for 10 minutes. The rule also provides one motion to recommit, with or
without instructions.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5715, the Ensuring
Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008, and the underlying rule.
Under this act, the Congress will ensure that low-interest student
loans remain available for college students and their families even in
the face of the credit crunch. In doing so, the Congress will build on
the new commitment to college and university students and their
hardworking families that this new Democratic majority has provided.
See, our action today comes on the heels of the historic College Cost
Reduction and Access Act that was signed into law a few months ago that
saves college students an average of $4,400 on student loan interest.
We increased the Pell Grant, and we now will forgive student loans for
students that commit to a 10-year career in public service.
This single largest investment in college financial assistance since
the GI Bill in 1944 comes at no new cost to taxpayers. The new Congress
promised to make college more affordable for all Americans, and we have
delivered on that promise.
Our next step today is to ensure that families can continue to access
the loans they need to pay for college. See, in today's economy, a
college education is as important as a high school diploma was a
generation ago. And with college costs growing by nearly 40 percent
over the last 5 years, students are graduating from college with more
debt than ever before. It is estimated that 200,000 students do not go
to college every year because they simply cannot afford the costs.
Well, our efforts today will restore the American dream for those
families.
[[Page H2363]]
We know that many families across this great country are facing
severe financial strains. The economic downturn, the cost of housing,
the cost of health care, gas prices have hit our families especially
hard. Middle class families are especially being squeezed in this
unfortunate Bush economy.
In addition to these basic needs, the rising cost of a college
education has left many families very concerned that a college
education may not be within reach for their children. A recent press
report noted that 70 percent of parents said that they are very
concerned about how they're going to be able to afford the cost of a
college education for their kids.
Families now are forced to pull from many different sources to pay
for college and to simply make ends meet. They're drawing on their
savings account, Federal loans, private loans, and the equity in their
homes all at the same time to send their kids to college. And despite
all of their hard work and the fact that they've set money aside,
they're still unable to come up with the cost of tuition because these
costs are rising. The costs of sending their child away to school or
just down the street to the community college is simply out of reach
for so many so they turn to the loans.
In 2007, families borrowed almost $60 billion in Federal student
loans. Now, in this credit crunch, banks are tightening their loan
requirements and raising rates. We want to make sure that families have
access to the low-interest loans, that they remain available for these
hardworking families so their kids can attend college.
Madam Speaker, this bill has a number of very significant
improvements under our Federal college loan program. The best deal
going in college loans these days is the Stafford loan. We are going to
increase the annual loan limit for the Stafford loan by $2,000 for
undergraduates and graduate students. These loans are the most
affordable and available to students with the best interest rates.
Currently, there's a cap on the amount that a student can receive, so
our legislation today will raise that cap. It increases the total loan
limit, as well, over the course of a student's college education from
$31,000 for dependent undergraduates to $57,500 for independent
graduate students.
The other significant loan available to families these days is the
Parent PLUS loan. The Parent PLUS loan, the primary benefit for the
PLUS loan for parents is that they can borrow Federally guaranteed low-
interest loans, not tied to the students, but that's a loan for the
parents. The parents can borrow the total cost of undergraduate
education including tuition, room and board, supplies, lab expenses,
and travel, and other aids. It's a non-need-based loan. Well, we're
going to give parents a little more flexibility under our actions today
to pay off their PLUS loans.
Currently, those loans become due 60 days after the bill is sent to
them. We're going to give them a little extra time and allow the
student to complete their college education before that loan becomes
due. We're going to help struggling homeowners pay for college because
right now, it is not clear under the law that parents that are
struggling with pending foreclosure or difficulty in paying their
housing costs can also access the great PLUS loans to help their kids
get through college. So we're going to allow for that today.
We're also going to give the Department of Education additional tools
so that these, the cost of college and the access to student loans,
remain available for America's hardworking families.
I would like to thank Chairman George Miller of the Education and
Labor Committee here in the House for his leadership on making sure
that families continue to have access for student loans but for also
being a champion for American families, colleges, and our entire
educational system which is in better hands now that the Democrats are
in charge here in the House.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would like to
thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) for the
time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, we've all heard about how the housing crisis is really
creating a credit crisis as well. And the credit crisis is not limited
to the mortgage industry but is spreading to the many sectors of our
economy. And one sector that the credit crisis has hit hard is the
student loan industry.
Companies that offer student loans are finding it difficult to have
access to the capital needed to finance student loans. There's over
$340 billion in outstanding Federal and non-Federal student loans
currently funded through capital markets with another $130 billion
waiting in the pipeline to be funded by the markets. Because of the
current conditions, a good portion of that $130 billion may never make
it through the process.
As a result of the credit situation, the difficulty in the credit
market, 18 of the top 100 lenders have left the Federal Family
Education Loan program, FFEL, while another 45 smaller lenders have
suspended their participation or left the program. In total, those
lenders account for about 12 percent of the total of Stafford and PLUS
student loans. Another 11 lenders have left the non-Federal loan
program.
So what does that instability in the credit markets mean for students
and parents? Less competition and choice and higher costs through
increased interest rates and reduction of repayment benefits and
increased fees.
So the Congress should not stand by and let the credit crisis have a
detrimental effect on student loan programs. Those programs open the
door of higher education to millions of students. And that's why I'm
very pleased that the Committee on Education and Labor has decided, in
a bipartisan manner, to really try to prevent the credit market
instability from producing a crisis in student loan programs. And the
underlying legislation, called the Ensuring Continued Access to Student
Loans Act of 2008, will help provide new protections and clarify those
in current law that ensure students and families have continued access
to Federal loans despite the challenges created by current conditions
in the credit market.
Specifically, legislation will increase adding loan limits for
unsubsidized Stafford loans by $2,000 for each year of undergraduate
and graduate school and increase aggregate limits accordingly. It also
permits the Secretary of Education to give an entire institution the
authority to become a lender of last resort. This will ensure all
students and parents will be eligible to receive lender-of-last-resort
loans. The Secretary of Education will also be given temporary
authority to negotiate with lenders to purchase new loans, thereby
freeing up capital.
I think it's appropriate, and I am pleased to commend the chairman of
the committee, Chairman Miller, and also the ranking member, Mr.
McKeon, who have worked in a bipartisan fashion, very diligently, on
this very important issue, and they are to be commended, as is the
committee generally.
Although the Education and Labor Committee worked in a bipartisan
manner to draft this important legislation, that bipartisan spirit did
not make it past the doors of the Rules Committee. Yesterday, the
majority in the Rules Committee hit a new record of 50 closed rules.
They had the chance to offer an open rule today on the underlying
legislation, but instead, by party-line vote, the majority voted
against an open rule and also blocked a number of Republican amendments
from being offered, including an amendment from the ranking member of
the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. McKeon.
So much for bipartisanship in the Rules Committee.
At this time I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank my colleague, the Member from Florida,
and I also thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member,
Representative Miller and Representative McKeon.
This whole question of the affordability of higher education we know
is a crushing burden on middle class families. And it has been made
much worse, as many of the speakers have pointed out, by the credit
crisis, innocent victims caught up in the consequences of credit-gone-
wild in the
[[Page H2364]]
subprime mortgage. So I really appreciate, and I think all of us
appreciate, the quick work of the committee to provide flexibility in
financing that's going to be beneficial to working families across this
country.
One of the questions that has been on the mind of many of us, I
think, on both sides of the aisle, however, is whether or not when we
go to the well and ask taxpayers to put more money into student aid, as
we've done and as we should do, and when we make loan eligibility more
generous so families pinch themselves in order to take on additional
debt and students take on additional debt, the question we're starting
to ask is whether or not that becomes a way in which institutions of
higher education simply increase tuition. And then at the end of the
day, you find that the families are increasing their debt load. Their
kids are going to school, but they're graduating with a mountain of
debt that's equal to the mortgage on the house that many of us, when we
first bought our home, is equal to.
{time} 1100
So Representative Castle had an idea, and I joined with him, to ask
for the first time to get a study from the General Services
Administration to see what connection exists between tuition going up
as student aid, both grants and loans, increases.
I am pleased that the committee has seen fit to support this
amendment that Congressman Castle and I are offering because we have to
do two things if we're going to make college affordable: One is, we've
got to make grants and loans available to our students and the
families. But two, we really have to ask the institutions of higher
education to do something on the cost side. And that's the intent of
this amendment, to start getting information that will be available to
us to consider whether enough is being done on the cost side.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, it's my privilege
to yield 5 minutes to my distinguished friend from Texas (Mr.
Sessions).
Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman from Florida, my good friend
on the Rules Committee.
Madam Speaker, today we walk in to the floor to hear question after
question after question. And I admire the gentlewoman from Florida for
asking these questions that she asks and posing the issues, the issues
of our time, energy policy, tax policy, men and women who are
hardworking Americans trying to pay their bills. And yet I would say
the conclusion that came out, which I agree with, ``And this is why,
thank goodness, we have a Democrat majority,'' the Democrat majority
has now been in power for some 17 months, and yet we find the Democrat
majority is simply coming to the floor asking questions, ``Oh, my gosh,
what's happening?'' And the answer that I heard over and over was,
we've got to make sure ``we,'' meaning the government, provide these
low-cost loans. We've got to make sure that the government has all
these things available for people.
The government should not be the answer to the problem. The answer
should be that this Democrat majority needs to understand that they've
got to accept responsibility that gas prices have gone up 60 percent
since they have taken over, that it is their agenda that this country
now operates under; that we have seen and we understood now through not
just two budgets, but through the policy that is being enunciated all
around this country on behalf of the Democrat Party of raising taxes
and making sure that we have an economic policy that is not based upon
trying to grow more jobs, but rather, about fairness.
We have seen the tax policy from this new Democrat majority of 17
months, raising taxes, going to double the capital gains tax. Well,
Madam Speaker, what I would say to you is, no wonder we're in economic
problems. Seventeen months ago, the people who planned for jobs in this
country--that are called employers--have understood that they're going
to pay higher taxes. We already have the second highest corporate tax
rate in the world, but now we're going to tax investors.
So the tax policy is very plain and simple. The tax policy is that we
are going to bleed, soak investors for more money so that the
government can get the money so that we can then do more from the
government perspective. Well, Madam Speaker, I would have to say to
you, this could be the death of the free enterprise system. When you
tax people, they make decisions. And when you tax something, you get
less of it. In this case, we are now seeing economic downturn. We are
now seeing dollars that are investment dollars, rather than coming to
the United States, they're going overseas. The tax policy does have an
impact on the economic viability of this country.
Secondly, the energy policy. We have seen the answer from the
Speaker. Speaker Pelosi put forth an energy bill that was really pretty
good, but it had nothing to do with supply side. The supply of energy,
of gasoline is what America needs today. And so we passed this big
energy bill, and we see prices continuing to rise. We're told we're
supposed to make this transition to this green environment, and all the
jobs that will come as a result of that. But, in fact, what will happen
is we will lose the jobs that we have today and wait for that to come.
Madam Speaker, we're almost to the point where a majority of the
gasoline is no longer oil, it's gasoline, because the jobs that produce
the oil to gasoline are overseas because we don't want those jobs in
this country. Dubai is being built and has flourished as a result of
Democratic Party policies. The money from American consumers are
building Dubai. Since 1995, the Republican Party, in trying to work
with President Clinton, we said, let us supply more energy here. What
do we do? We get a veto.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield 3 additional minutes to
the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SESSIONS. So, Madam Speaker, today we come to the floor now
worried about college students and families trying to pay for college
expenses, and what we get is question after question after question.
This majority is not prepared, in my opinion, to deal with the things
that will produce jobs, which will produce the ability for people to
have money in their pocket to pay for their education. And that comes
from the policies of tax and spend of the Democratic Party, where they
are not in favor of a tax policy for investors to invest in America,
but rather, for investors to pay an incredible increase in taxes to
Uncle Sam. So what happens is that America no longer can look up and
say we are the beacon of freedom, we are producing jobs.
The production of new jobs means that the free enterprise system is
alive and well, which means that we don't have to come to government
for our needs. It is the policy of the Democratic Party and of our
Speaker to tax and spend America to the highest level in the history of
our country and it is the policy of this House not to have supply side
for our energy. And without a supply side, without a tax policy that
allows investment dollars to be here, we will continue to see this
Democrat majority come and ask questions and lament about all the
problems that lie ahead of us, and we will continue to hear ``and
government is the answer.''
Madam Speaker, I would suggest to you that the answer would be: The
free enterprise system, lowering taxes, a supply side policy that helps
get more energy available to consumers, and one where government is the
backstop and not the first answer.
I will end by saying this: Without employers, we will not have
employees, and that should be a challenge to the Democrat majority.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller), the chairman of the Education and Labor
Committee.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding. And I thank the Rules Committee for bringing this rule to the
floor that will enable us to consider the Continued Access to Student
Loans Act to help families and students who are struggling to pay for
the cost of education.
One of the more successful programs in this country has been the
system of student loans that we provide under Federal guarantees to
families and to students to pay for those educations. That program now
has been caught up
[[Page H2365]]
in the decline and the seizing of the American credit markets, and
therefore, we're worried that there will not be loans available to
families and students who are applying for school this coming fall.
As a result of that, we have been working with the Secretary of
Education and with the entire committee on the Republican side and the
Democratic side of the aisle to make sure that we have in place a
number of provisions that will allow, if necessary, the Federal
Government to step in and assure those families that they will have
access to those loans so they will not have to miss classes that they
need, miss a semester that they need, and compound their problems by
extending the time that they will have to remain in college before they
graduate.
We have been meeting with the traditional lending community within
the student loan community, and many of them have told us that they
expect to participate in the student loans for the coming year, but
they also believe that there will be a gap, that the supply of those
loans will not meet the demands because of the seizing of the credit
market, that the credit markets have failed to function over the last
many weeks not only for student loans, but for the municipal bond
market, for various joint agencies of the government that have very
high credit ratings.
In the case of student loans, these are government-backed loans, but
the markets are not purchasing the old loans as they were in the past.
For that reason, we are seeking to activate and have on standby
authority the lender of last resort authority that the Secretary of
Education has under current law where if, in fact, the money is not
available for those loans, she will be able to go to the Secretary of
Treasury and make a demand to fund those loans.
There will also be available the direct lending program that
currently exists. Many universities and students use that program
today. We have been talking with them and making sure that they would
be able to expand the capacity. Should the universities decide to
direct a number of the students to the direct lending program, they
have assured us they that could clearly double their capacity and in a
short time be able to go beyond that.
So we have the lender of last resort program in place because there
is not enough money in the banks to provide for student loans. We have
the direct lending program in place for those who choose to go there so
they can keep their eligibility for school.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. CASTOR. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. And then we also, in this
legislation, provide for the Secretary to purchase existing loans from
those lenders so that they can recapitalize their liquidity situation
and be able to make new loans to students and to families seeking those
loans.
Those three tools should, in fact, provide a seamless system so if
the private credit markets fail to provide the necessary resources, or
the credit markets fail to provide the liquidity that's necessary, we
will be able to stand in their place for a temporary period of time
until the credit markets sort it out.
We also make provisions in this legislation to increase the amount of
money that undergraduates can borrow in the program so that those
students who have been using the private loan markets, which are in
complete shambles, will be able to increase the amount of money that
they may need to borrow for tuition and for school expenses and be able
to continue their education.
I also want to acknowledge the fact that we've made provisions in
here so that temporary problems that families may be having with home
payments or with health care payments, those would be considered as
exigent circumstances so that they can continue to be eligible for the
loans under the government guaranteed program. Ms. Castor will be
offering that amendment. And the gentleman from Vermont will be
offering an amendment to really look at this link between increased
tuition and increased resources made available to students.
This is an important package. It's a timely package. We hope that it
won't be necessary to be used, but we need to have it in place so that
we can backstop the failures of the credit market that are currently
existing as an outflow of the subprime mortgage problem that is
affecting the entire economy of this country and many other countries
around the world.
I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Again, I want
to thank the Rules Committee for recommending this bill to the floor.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, yesterday was a
day commonly known as ``Tax Day,'' a day that millions of Americans
headed down to their local post office to send their hard-earned money
to the Federal Government. It's not to be confused with Tax Freedom
Day, which the Tax Freedom Foundation has defined the day on which the
average American has finally earned enough to pay this year's tax
obligations to the Federal, State and local governments, which
unfortunately will not arrive this year until next week, April 23.
{time} 1115
In recognition of those two important days on every taxpayer's
calendar, today I will be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
previous question to this rule. If the previous question is defeated, I
will amend the rule to make it in order for the House to consider H.R.
2734, a bill offered by my friend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Walberg). That legislation would repeal the sunset date of the 2001
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act and make the tax
reductions enacted by that law permanent. I'll say it again. It means
that we will make the tax cuts permanent to make certain that all
American taxpayers will not have to pay an increase in taxes.
So I will provide Members the opportunity to make those tax cuts
permanent and to make certain that our Tax Code encourages economic
growth and job creation. It also repeals the termination date for
provisions of the 2003 Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act,
reducing income tax rates on dividends and capital gains. It amends the
Internal Revenue Code to make permanent the tax deduction for State and
local sales taxes, which is particularly important in States such as
Florida that I'm honored to represent. It also includes a tax deduction
for tuition and related expenses, the increased expensing allowance for
small business assets and related provisions, and the tax credit for
increasing research activities.
In summary, Madam Speaker, what it will do is to maintain, in a time
of economic uncertainty, the ability for the Nation's economy to
continue to create jobs and compete globally. On the other hand, if
Members are for tax increases, if they want taxpayers to pay more in
taxes, then they will simply vote with the majority.
Finally, it expresses the sense of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Ways and Means that they should report legislation on
or before the end of the year to simplify the Federal income tax
system.
Madam Speaker, I can think of no more fitting action for Congress
during the week between Tax Day and Tax Freedom Day to provide this
kind of certainty to the American taxpayer.
By voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members will not be voting
to kill or delay the underlying student loan legislation. They will
simply be voting to provide tax relief to Americans.
I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote
``no'' on the previous question on behalf of taxpayers who wish to
continue economic growth.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, today the Congress will build on the new
commitment to college and university students and their hardworking
families that this new Democratic majority in the Congress has
provided. Our efforts to ensure continued access to low-cost student
loans for families comes on the heels of the historic College Cost
Reduction and Access Act that was signed into law a few months ago that
will save college students an average of $4,400 on student loan
interest, will increase the Pell Grant, and will forgive loans for
those who provide 10 years of public service to their community.
This is the single largest investment in college financial assistance
since the
[[Page H2366]]
GI Bill in 1944 and comes at no new cost to taxpayers. The new Congress
promised to make college more affordable for all Americans, and we have
delivered on that promise.
Our next step today is to ensure that families can continue to access
the loans they need to pay for college. And let me provide you with one
example from my hometown in Tampa, Florida: a student at the University
of South Florida, a large public university of over 40,000 students.
This student is a communications major and is one semester away from
graduation. But she has reached her loan limit. She can't access that
Stafford Loan that provides the lowest interest rate available out
there. She is the first in her family to ever attend college. She only
lacks 11 credit hours to graduate, and she plans to graduate this
summer, but she has been forced to apply for a higher interest rate,
private loan, to cover the expenses of her summer tuition. Well, this
legislation is ready-made for her and thousands of other students
across America and their families. It gives them that extra-added
flexibility to be able to put the money to good use and graduate on
time rather than end up paying higher loans and interest rates.
You see, Madam Speaker, we're not just Members of Congress. We are
also parents ourselves. And we are also concerned about the increasing
cost of college, especially given the fact that college costs have been
increasing more rapidly than available grant and financial aid, Federal
loans, and families' ability to pay. Well, our efforts today will
restore the American Dream for many families. And we know and
appreciate that many families are facing extreme financial strains. The
economic downturn, the cost of housing, the cost of health care, gas
prices have hit our families hard. Families are really being squeezed
in this unfortunate Bush economy.
But there is a reason to hope because we will continue to fight for a
new direction for our country, a direction that values access to
education, values better jobs, and values an opportunity for all
Americans.
With that, Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous
question and on the rule.
Mr. McKeon. Madam Speaker, this rule will allow consideration of a
bill that takes a critical first step in addressing disturbances in the
student loan financial markets brought on by broader market turmoil.
We've all read the headlines and spoken with our constituents about
this difficult economy. Our economic confidence has been shaken, and
people are nervous. But what may be overlooked is that students and
families thinking about how to pay for college are in a particular
bind.
It's hard enough to pay for college when tuition regularly rises at
two or three times the rate of inflation and textbooks can run close to
$1,000 each year. Add to that the idea that lenders are scaling back on
student loans, and it's easy to see why Americans are nervous about
paying for college.
Like most challenges to our economy, there's no easy answer to the
difficulties in our student loan programs. We will need a combination
of actions--maybe some legislatively, others through regulation--that
will increase liquidity and restore confidence among investors and
consumers.
This bill is a first step, and one that deserves bipartisan support.
It signals our commitment to a strong Federal Family Education Loan
program, and should help ease the minds of students and families. And
it does these things without a cost to the taxpayer.
Madam Speaker, I am disappointed that the bill is not being brought
up under an open rule. H.R. 5715 was developed on a bipartisan basis,
and is stronger because of it. The idea that members will not be
permitted to collaborate on this effort to protect college students and
their families is disappointing, if not surprising given the track
record of the 110th Congress.
I will oppose this rule because it limits the full participation of
all members. But I will strongly support the underlying measure, H.R.
5715, when it is brought to the floor and I urge all my colleagues to
join me in telling students and families that we are committed to
college access.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of
H. Res. 1107, the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 5715,
``Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008.''
Every generation sets out to improve upon the previous generation. We
teach our children that if they focus, are responsible, and work hard
they can be anything. Yet we have provided a false truth for the
majority of our children. Rising tuitions in higher education even at
our community colleges are keeping a lot of our youth from attending
college. For those that are able to attend, they are burdened by
extensive loans just to buy books, attend class, and maintain housing.
Families are sending their children to school, trying to qualify for
parent loans and wondering how they are going to make the payments when
they are struggling to pay their mortgage and facing their own issues
with possible unemployment.
In my home State of Texas, families are struggling to assist children
with their education while they face an unemployment rate of 4.3
percent across the State. As of the end of last year, Texas was ranked
as having the 20th highest unemployment rate (out of the 50 States).
And we are not alone as States grapple with unemployment and a falling
housing market.
H.R. 5715, ``Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act,''
provides much needed support to our families in a time when they most
need it by specifically addressing the needs of parents, students, and
even lenders. The Student Loans Act would:
Increase unsubsidized loan limits for students
This bill will increase unsubsidized loan limits by $2,000 for each
year of undergraduate and graduate school. It also increases the
aggregate loan limits to $31,000 for dependent undergraduates and
$57,500 for independent undergraduate students.
Delay repayment of parent PLUS loans
Currently PLUS loan borrowers--parents--go into repayment 60 days
after disbursement of the loan. This bill would give families an option
of not entering repayment for up to 6 months after a student leaves
school.
PLUS loan eligibility for struggling homeowners
Under current law, parents with an adverse credit history are
ineligible to receive a parent PLUS loan, except under extenuating
circumstances. In light of the current housing market, the bill
temporarily qualifies up to 180 day delinquency on home mortgages as an
extenuating circumstance, therefore making it more possible for parents
struggling with the current housing market to secure loans for their
children.
Lender of Last Resort flexibility
The bill makes clear in statute that the Secretary of Education has
the mandatory authority to advance Federal funds to Guaranty Agencies
in the case that they do not have sufficient capital. Further, the bill
allows a Guaranty Agency to designate a school (rather than an
individual student) as a ``lender of last resort school,'' in
accordance with guidelines set by the Secretary.
Authority for the Secretary of Education to purchase FFEL loan assets
The bill gives the Secretary the temporary authority, upon a
determination that there is inadequate availability to meet demand for
loans, to purchase loans from FFEL lenders. Such purchases could only
be made in the case they are revenue-neutral or beneficial to the
Federal Government.
Federal Institutions' participation
The bill includes a Sense of the Congress that the Federal Financial
Institutions and entities (including the Federal Financing Bank, the
Federal Home Loan Banks, and the Federal Reserve) should consider
using, in consultation with the Secretaries of Education and the
Treasury, available authorities, if needed, to assist in ensuring
continued student loan access.
Conclusion
I urge my colleagues to support this Rule, so that we can come to
floor and discuss the Continued Access to Student Loans Act. I remind
my colleagues that many of their own employees, right in the Capitol,
are affected by this bill. Let's support education by allowing for
greater flexibility, eligibility, and participation for students and
their families.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of
Florida is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 1107 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this
resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point
of order, consider the bill (H.R. 2734) to make the Economic
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and certain
other tax benefits permanent law. All points of order against
the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2)
an amendment in the nature of a substitute if offered by
Representative Rangel of New York, which shall be considered
as read and shall be separately debatable for 40 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
[[Page H2367]]
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, on that I demand
the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________