[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.

                          ____________________