Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5715) to ensure continued availability of access to the Federal student loan program for students and families.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Vermont, for the time that he is yielding me to discuss H.R. 2634, the Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Collection Cancellation Act of 2007. This legislation follows on the heels of legislation passed just 2 weeks ago providing aid to mostly African and Caribbean countries to fight AIDS and promote development programs in underdeveloped countries, including programs to improve food, water, the treatment of other infectious diseases, poverty alleviation programs, microcredit, schools and teachers, legal aid, agricultural assistance and biomedical research.

Today's legislation would follow up on this enormous prior financial commitment by further reducing or eliminating the debt obligations of the world's poorest nations. It attempts to accomplish this goal by creating a framework to having the debts of low-income countries owed to the United States and to international financial institutions eliminated.

To do this, this bill authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to negotiate the full cancellation of these countries' debts with the Paris Club, the IMF, and the World Bank, and to reach agreements on future creditor transparency and responsible lending.

It improves oversight by ensuring that countries receiving this debt relief have economies that are capable of redirecting their debt services payments, and requires a GAO audit of countries where illegal loans may have been made. Finally, it includes a sense of Congress that the U.S. should pay off $600 million worth of arrears to multilateral development banks.

Madam Speaker, no one in this body disputes the worthiness of this goal that is enshrined within this legislation. The reduction of global poverty and suffering around the world is a laudable goal, and it is certainly in our national interests to combat conditions that may breed the hopelessness and poverty that allows dictators and terrorists to thrive.

So it is doubtlessly important that the most heavily indebted poor countries be relieved of these kinds of crushing debt that prevents their future development, self-sufficiency and the improvement of their citizens' lives.

This policy should be implemented, along with other policies that increase public sector investment and decrease the barriers to trade with these countries, as well as ensuring that the countries eligible for this relief do not encourage terrorist activities or abuse human rights.

I am surprised, however, that Speaker Pelosi didn't see the irony in scheduling this step forward for developing nations on the first legislative week after handing them a serious defeat by turning off the fast track authority for the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. In other words, here we're trying to help poor countries and now the decision is made that we won't engage in trade with them that would help their countries also grow economically free.

While giving the most heavily indebted countries relief from crushing and unserviceable debt is necessary to increase their future development, it is simply not sufficient. The economies of these countries must be more integrated with the rest of the globe to provide their citizens with real choices and development alternatives for their future, and increased trade with America is a great way of accomplishing this.

So while I appreciate the Financial Services Committee's efforts on the issue of improving conditions for the world's poorest countries, I remind my colleagues that development does not occur in a vacuum, and that by postponing the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, we have effectively told all of these countries, people who should be our friends and we should be concerned about more than just their debt, but about their economic viability, we've said that Congress is less concerned about promoting trade with them and growing their economies than it is with complying with the demands of labor union bosses in an election year.

I encourage the Democrat leadership to take a long-term and more holistic view of global poverty, recognizing that these cycles of abject poverty cannot be broken without creating the conditions that encourage private sector investment, such as respect for contracts and rule of law and that it also encourages international trade.

Madam Speaker, I believe that a broader policy of understanding poverty and the United States' role in helping to make our world better would include trade and would include encouraging the private markets around the world.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, if I could inquire of my friend of any remaining speakers that he has.

I thank the gentleman very much.

Madam Speaker, I would like to put into the Record a statement of administrative policy from the White House on this bill.

Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 2634--Jubilee Act for

Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Cancellation of 2008

(Rep. Waters (D) CA and 104 cosponsors.)

The Administration has provided strong international

leadership on debt relief for the world's most heavily-

indebted poor countries. Ongoing debt relief initiatives,

including the Enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC)

Initiative and the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative

(MDRI), are expected to provide over $100 billion in debt

reduction to 32 countries and another eight countries could

eventually qualify under these initiatives. To ensure that

gains from debt relief are available for the long term, the

Administration led efforts in the multilateral development

banks to use a debt sustainability framework to determine the

appropriate mix of grants and lending. While the

Administration believes the goals of this bill are laudable,

the Administration does not support H.R 2634 for the reasons

stated below.

The countries to be covered by the bill are managing their

debt, and some of the countries that would be covered by this

bill are now actively working towards expanded access to

international capital markets. Providing debt relief to

countries that can service their debt sends the wrong

message, and undermines efforts to assist countries in

developing sound debt management practices that will allow

them to transition gradually toward access to private capital

markets.

Any debt relief should be conditioned on the adoption of

policies that promote sound economic practices. Policy

conditionality is important and often necessary to ensure

that debt relief is used in a manner that will promote

economic growth and provide real benefits to the poor.

The budget impact of such a program would be significant,

and would require trade-offs that could affect key foreign

policy priorities. The Treasury Department estimates that the

budget cost to forgive the $2.5 billion in nominal debt

(including loan guarantees) owed to the United States by

countries that do not currently qualify under the HIPC

Initiative would be approximately $1 billion. This cost

estimate assumes that all potentially eligible International

Development Association countries would qualify for debt

relief in FY 2008 and would change depending on the year that

each country qualifies. These countries also owe the World

Bank and IMF over $32 billion in nominal debt, in addition to

other bilateral and multilateral debts. While the bill calls

for international financial institutions to fund debt relief

from internal resources, the availability of such resources

is very likely to be limited, as recently demonstrated by the

requirements for donor funding of the MDRI. Any additional

debt relief from the international financial institutions is

therefore likely to require substantial additional

contributions from the U.S., in addition to the estimated $1

billion cost of the bilateral debt relief portion of the

proposal. Rather than embarking on expanded debt relief, the

United States must focus on fulfilling its current

commitments.

The Responsible Lending Framework described by the bill

could also hinder access by poor countries to private

capital. The bill calls for the creation of a binding

international legal framework for lending by all

multilateral, bilateral, and private creditors. While we

recognize the goals underlying such a framework--to encourage

sustainable lending and borrowing levels--the prospects for

such an agreement are doubtful. Given the wide range of

international creditors, creation of such a framework would

be very difficult and enforcement would be nearly impossible.

Finally, the threat of sanctions

based on such a framework would likely discourage legitimate

creditors from lending to poor countries, further reducing

these countries' access to financial markets.

Finally, H.R. 2634 contains several provisions raising

constitutional concerns by purporting to limit the

President's ability to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs.

Madam Speaker, as every American taxpayer is acutely aware, yesterday was Tax Day, or the final day for individuals and families to file taxes without incurring financial penalties. This is not to be confused with Tax Freedom Day, which the Tax Freedom Foundation has defined as the day on which the average American has finally earned enough money to pay this year's tax obligations at the federal, State and local level, which won't arrive this year until next week on April 23.

In recognition of these two important days on every taxpayer's calendar, today I will be asking each of 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 in order for the House to consider H.R. 2734, a comprehensive bill offered by my friend from Michigan, Congressman Tim Walberg.

This legislation repeals the sunset date of the 2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act and makes the tax reductions enacted by that act permanent. In other words, instead of increasing taxes, we would like to make these tax cuts permanent for economic growth and development in this country, which will encourage investment and thereby grow jobs in this country.

We have heard today several speakers from the Democrat majority question what is wrong with America today, and even blaming President Bush for the economic woes that exist. But today the Republican Party is saying if we want to do the things that President Bush wants, and I think that the American people want, let's make tax cuts permanent to ensure that we have job growth and development of companies and employers in America.

It also repeals the termination date for provisions of the 2003 Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, reducing income tax rates on dividends and capital gains, because that is how you grow jobs. The reverse is happening, which America understands right now, and that is the new Democratic majority wants to increase taxes, which causes the economy not to stimulate, but to contract, which is exactly what is happening now, which is exactly what we understand the new policies of the Democratic majority have been about for 17 months.

At some point, this Democratic majority is going to have to take responsibility for the things that happen under their watch, instead of just blaming President Bush. President Bush says let's make these tax cuts permanent. That is what has worked up to now, and we need to do it today.

We will also amend the Internal Revenue Code to make permanent a tax deduction for State and local sales tax. That needs to be done. We have done that each of the last 5 years. Also the tax deductions for tuition. Let me repeat that; the tax deduction for tuition. Here we are on the floor trying to do something for students, to get student loans, but yet we will not have a deduction for tuition and related expenses.

The increased expensing allowed for small businesses. Small business is the engine of our economy. That is why Republicans want to make the tax cuts permanent, so that we make sure that we allow small businesses to grow, not contract.

And the tax credit for increasing research and development. Research and development is how we are going to cure the ills and the problems of the world that we see today.

Instead, the new Democratic majority, now for 17 months, wants to increase taxes. They want to take away the deductions for tuition; they want to increase taxes on small business; they want to make investment very difficult in this country, doubling, if you listen to some of the candidates that are on the trail, doubling the capital gains rate. And certainly they won't be for increasing research and development. They want to tax that.

Finally, this opportunity today would express the sense of the House of Representatives that the Committee on Ways and Means 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 this week between Tax Day and Tax Freedom Day than to provide this kind of certainty to the American taxpayer. That is what we should be about, is good policy that encourages the opportunity to grow our economy and have new jobs.

By voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members will not be voting to kill or delay this debt relief legislation. They will simply be voting to provide tax relief, so that we can grow our economy for Americans at the same time that we provide debt relief to the world's poorest countries. What a wonderful opportunity.

Madam Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I would also like to ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material appear in the Record just prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today we are continuing the debate on H.R. 5715, the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008. This bill is a first step to prevent a crisis before it happens in the student loan program, and its consideration has come not a minute too soon. Peak lending season begins in July, and we cannot, we must not, wait until a student is denied a loan to put mechanisms in place to deal with the turmoil in the student loan market.

To date, 60 lenders have suspended their participation in all or part of the FFEL program. This includes 10 nonprofit State loan agencies affecting students in Pennsylvania, Texas, Colorado, Iowa, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire and Minnesota. These are not minor players exiting the program. Nine out of the top 10 consolidation lenders have stopped offering these loans, while 20 out of the top 100 originators have stopped making Stafford and PLUS loans. These 60 lenders account for 13 percent of the total Stafford and PLUS loan volume and 76 percent of total consolidation loan volume.

In fiscal year 2006, these lenders originated more than $6.5 billion in Stafford and PLUS loans to more than 800,000 students and parents, and more than $55 billion in consolidation loans to more than 1.8 million borrowers.

The bill before us includes necessary reforms to ensure the Department of Education can respond if students have access problems as lending season gets underway. First, it will allow students to receive additional financing that will help them stay in school if they are denied private, nonfederal loans. Second, the bill clarifies aspects of the Lender of Last Resort program, easing participation for students and schools and ensuring funds will be available should they become necessary. Third, the bill ensures that lenders have the authority to provide PLUS loans to struggling parents who are facing difficulties with their home mortgage. And, fourth, the bill grants new flexibility for parents with a new optional grace period that permits parents to defer PLUS loan payments until after the children graduate.

Finally, the bill authorizes the Department of Education to invest in or agree to the future purchase of outstanding loans which could free up capital and allow lenders to make new loans in the upcoming school year.

I want to thank the chairman for moving very rapidly on this situation. That's not our modus operandi around here; generally we wait until we're in the middle of a crisis to fix this. I hope that I'm wrong in thinking that there may be a crisis coming, but I think it is very appropriate to take these positive steps to ease or prevent a problem that could arise very shortly.

I again thank the chairman for his efforts. He has not been well this week, but you wouldn't notice it. He shows up at every meeting, and he has worked very hard. I hope he takes some time over the weekend to get some rest and gets feeling better for next week.

I strongly support this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to vote for it.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes at this time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, ranking member on our Subcommittee for Healthy Families, Mr. Platts.

Madam Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Our economy is struggling, families are dealing with a higher cost of living, rising fuel costs, a struggling mortgage market, and the threat of higher taxes. The cost of a college education continues to rise, only now students and families are wondering whether they'll be able to get the loans they need to pay their tuition bills.

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 single cost to the taxpayer.

I want to again thank Chairman Miller for his leadership and bipartisan cooperation on this legislation. I would also like to recognize Representatives Ruben Hinojosa and Ric Keller, the chairman and senior Republican on the Higher Education Subcommittee, for their role in making this legislation a reality.

The staff deserves special recognition for their efforts to bring this bill to the floor so quickly. On my staff I would like to thank Amy Jones along with Susan Ross and Sally Stroup; on Chairman Miller's staff, Gaby Gomez, Julie Radocchia, and Jeff Appel.

Madam Chairman, this bill is a positive first step. It's good for students and families, it's good for taxpayers, and it's good for our economy. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I claim time in opposition, but I will not be opposing the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank Chairman Miller for his work on this amendment. Like the underlying bill, this amendment was developed on a bipartisan basis to respond to some of the very specific challenges facing our student loan program. Although many of the challenges in this amendment are technical in nature, they will help to perfect the bill and ensure it has the impact we intend.

For instance, the purpose of this bill has never been to force a shift from the FFEL program to the Direct Loan program. That's why the amendment clarifies that if the Secretary of Education does purchase outstanding

loans, she can keep those loans with their existing servicing arrangements. This will ensure a seamless transition for students while having the intended effect of freeing up capital to make new loans.

The amendment also ensures the bill will have no cost to taxpayers. From the outset Chairman Miller and I agreed that it was important to move a bill that made meaningful reforms without driving up spending. H.R. 5715 does exactly that.

With regard to the Lender of Last Resort program, the amendment clarifies some of the steps that must be taken in order to designate school-wide participation in this program. These reforms will be enhanced even further by the amendment that will be offered shortly by Representative Petri.

I appreciate Chairman Miller's willingness to include language proposed by Representative Platts that adds greater clarity and flexibility within the Secretary's ability to purchase loans. Although it was always our intent that this new, temporary authority would include the concept of a ``forward purchase agreement,'' this amendment makes it explicit that the Secretary can enter into agreements to purchase loans in the future. The amendment also clarifies that lenders must reinvest the proceeds from the sale of loans to the Secretary back into making new loans to students.

Once again, I want to thank Chairman Miller for his work on this amendment and on the bill as a whole.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this commonsense amendment.

The Lender of Last Resort program was never intended to serve as a bailout for our student loan system as a whole. Rather, it was developed as a backstop for individual students on a case-by-case basis to be able to access a student loan if they encountered some rare circumstance in which they could not borrow through the standard channels.

I, for one, hope that the broad-based Lender of Last Resort authority in this bill will never be used. After all, the goal of this legislation is to prevent such a crisis within the loan program before it occurs. But I appreciate the steps being taken to ensure that if the Lender of Last Resort program ever needs to be deployed on a larger scale, we will have the infrastructure and processes in place to allow it.

However, because the program was simply never intended to be used on a school-wide basis, we should ensure that in implementing this authority, we are not unintentionally subverting current regulations. We also want to ensure that a guaranty agency is not unnecessarily punished for stepping in as a lender if needed. That is why this amendment requests that the Secretary review the regulations with the Lender of Last Resort program in mind. This program should be implemented in a manner that will be effective, efficient, and in the best interest of students.

I want to thank Representative Petri for offering this amendment, which requires the Secretary to ensure that regulations are updated to reflect the new responsibilities that would be given to guaranty agencies operating as a lender of last resort for entire schools rather than individual students.

This amendment is consistent with our longstanding support for greater sunshine, transparency and consumer protections.

I support this amendment, and I urge its passage.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his longstanding commitment to addressing the rising costs of college.

This amendment gets to the heart of the concern that many of us have harbored for a long time. It takes a hard look at whether or not an increase in Federal aid will lead to an increase in college tuition. Everyone recognizes that Federal student aid is a good investment. Pell Grants, together with campus-based aid programs, Federal student loans and other higher education benefits help make a college education accessible to every American student.

With enactment of the Higher Education Act in 1965, these financial aid programs truly did make college more affordable. But beginning in the eighties and in the decades since, college tuition has skyrocketed. Despite our best efforts to keep pace by investing in student aid, college is becoming less affordable for many families. Tuition goes up, so we increase financial aid. But when we increase financial aid, tuition goes up. It's a vicious cycle. And we are losing ground.

Unfortunately, this pattern has even led some of us to question whether an investment in financial aid is a wise one. After all, if we're driving tuition increases by, for instance, increasing loan limits, we may be doing more harm than good.

I think there's agreement that this bill will help borrowers by increasing unsubsidized borrowing limits. Particularly for borrowers who are unable to access higher-cost credit-based private loans, this additional Federal loan availability may be the difference between enrolling or not. But as we increase that type of financial aid, we need to very seriously review the consequences of that action. That's why this amendment calls on the Government Accountability Office to determine how the increase in borrowing limits impacts tuition.

I thank Representative Castle along with Representative Welch for their leadership on this issue. It's a good amendment. It improves the bill. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed, Madam Chairman.

I rise in support of the gentlelady's amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The purpose of this bill is to address the unique challenges facing students and families in this time of economic

uncertainty. That is why the bill takes steps to ensure parents are not automatically denied a PLUS loan simply because they're struggling with the same mortgage troubles facing so many other families in the country.

This amendment is consistent with the spirit of our bill because it recognizes that families also may be grappling with medical bills. And as the chairman explained, sometimes you are hit with a bill, and that shows up as a liability which would put you out of reach of getting another loan, and, in fact, you may not have that liability. And until that is clarified, you are held in abeyance. And students can't wait.

So this is a very important amendment that the gentlelady has presented. I thank Representative Castor for her amendment. It makes the bill better.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1107 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

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

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, Members of the House, today we continue the consideration of H.R. 5715, the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008. This is legislation that was reported from the Committee on Education and Labor with unanimous bipartisan support. Once again today, I want to thank my colleagues on the committee on both sides of the aisle and the staff on both sides of the committee for working in a manner which allowed us to report this bill in very short order to the House for its consideration, and on working with the Department of Education, the Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, for her cooperation in helping us with this legislation so that we can assure the parents, families, and students of this country that there will be no interruption in their access to student loans.

As the lending season starts to progress now, as students are getting their letters of acceptance, thinking about the next semesters of education and next year's education, as that lending season comes into its fullness, we want to make sure that there is no disruption.

We are concerned about a disruption because of the general disruption that is taking place in the Nation's credit markets, and specifically, concern about whether or not there will be a spillover onto the student loan markets so that students will have difficulty finding those loans.

We have worked with the Department of Education, we have worked with the administration, we have worked with the Republican members of the committee and our own caucus to devise a system of relief that is available to the Secretary and to the administration in the event that that should happen. And really what we're doing is three things: One, we're making sure that the existing law and the existing program for such an emergency, the Lender of Last Resort program, is functioning, that agreements are reached between the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of Treasury, and we've been told by the Secretary of Education that she has informed the members of the committee that that has been done, that the Secretary meet with the guarantee agencies that might stand in the stead of those lenders that cannot make those loans to make sure that there is a smooth transition between them and the universities and colleges, and that that program is in place.

Also, that schools are aware that they can apply to qualify for the Direct Lending program. Many colleges and universities use that today. They may want to consider that so, again, there is smooth transition should the private lending market not be able to come forward with the student loans, they could direct their students to either of those two programs.

And, finally, to try and help the private sector credit markets for student loans, as this bill does, to give standby

authority to the Secretary to purchase those government loans from the traditional lenders in the student loan field so that we might develop some liquidity in that market so that they can then take the money they receive from the Secretary and make a new tranche of student loans. If she purchases those loans, that money could only be used to provide a new set of student loans for the students for the coming year.

And we also raised the loan limit for students, for undergraduates, because we understand that the private student loan market is in very rough shape, and there are some students who use private loans to fill a small gap between the total cost of their education and what they were able to borrow. We think by raising the limit, we will be able to help most of those students in that situation.

So this is an important piece of legislation. It's legislation that we look to be acted upon in the Senate in a very timely fashion and then to be sent to the President, we believe, for his signature. And then we will have completed a series of standby authorities and a series of processes that we should be able to assure families and students that there will be no major interruption in the student lending for the remainder of this year and next year.

With that, I will reserve the balance of my time.

If I might, I have one additional speaker, but the speaker is on his way to the floor. If you want to go ahead, then we will have that speaker, and I think we will yield back our time.

Madam Chairman, I want to thank Mr. McKeon for mentioning my staff and to Julie Radocchia and also that I failed to mention her birthday yesterday when I recognized her service.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the manager's amendment to H.R. 5715, the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008. The amendment was done on a bipartisan basis with the input of the senior Republican member, Mr. McKeon. The manager's amendment we are considering here today makes various technical changes to the legislation and additional substantive changes to ensure continued access to Federal student loans.

Specifically, the amendment makes the following changes: It targets loan limit increases to undergraduate students and families. It clarifies that only eligible students as defined under section 435(a) may qualify for these loans as with all other Federal student aid. It clarifies that at the discretion of the Secretary, a loan may continue to be serviced by the current lender. And in regard to school-wide Lender of Last Resort eligibility, it specifies that the Secretary of Education shall determine whether a school qualifies and provides criteria for the Secretary to consider in making the determination. It specifies that funds received by lenders from loan sales will be used to originate new loans. And it clarifies that, at the discretion of the Secretary, a loan purchased by the Secretary may continue to be serviced by the current lender.

Now more than ever, families deserve every assurance that we are doing all that we can to make sure that they will continue to be able to access the low-cost loans they need to pay for college, regardless of what happens in the credit markets. I am confident that our efforts, coupled with the proper planning by the Federal Government, will provide them with that guarantee.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not expect to oppose the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I commend Mr. Petri for this amendment. He addresses an oversight in the legislation in making sure that the Secretary has the ability to review and revise the regulations concerning prohibited guaranty agency inducements to ensure that agencies do not engage in improper inducements. We don't think this is a problem, but we had a problem in the past in the rest of the program, and we passed on a bipartisan basis, the Student Loan Sunshine Act, and I think this amendment is an important part of keeping the integrity of that act and the continuity within the student loan program so that all participants in that program understand that we cannot condone even an appearance of improper relationships. When students and families are borrowing money and making sacrifices for that money, we want to make sure that they get the best deal available and they get the best facts available to them.

I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I do not expect to oppose the amendment.

Madam Chairman, Members of the House, this is an important amendment.

This committee, on a bipartisan basis, has struggled with trying to get a good handle, if you will, an understandable handle on the cost of education and the reasons for the increases in the cost of education, as we watched the cost spiral up in higher education much faster than the general inflation index. And it is a rising concern in families. As their budgets compete with fuel, food and mortgage payments, this obviously becomes a very serious matter.

Congressman McKeon and Congressman Castle have been on this watch

for many years in this committee trying to help us come to grips with this problem and trying to carry on a positive conversation with the universities and colleges so that we can better define those costs that they control, the costs that they don't control, and certainly the actions of the States in their support for the public institutions. I think this amendment is very helpful.

Congressman Welch has spoken to me about this during our deliberations of the higher education bill and of the college loan reduction bill that we passed last year.

This is an issue that continues to nag at us. I think providing some good guidance to GAO, with their expertise, we have an opportunity to really take a good look at a cross-section of institutions, what is properly driving the increases in cost and what maybe is improperly driving the increase in cost, and those things that can possibly be brought under control and be reduced by cooperative actions between the institutions, the States, and the Federal Government.

So I strongly support this amendment, and I want to thank Congressman Castle and Congressman Welch for offering this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I just want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida for introducing this amendment. She had talked to me about this early on, and it was an oversight. But she has raised the issue that for families that have engaged in serious medical encounters, the question of what the real bill is becomes a matter of serious negotiations that can take over a period of time.

You get your bill. It says you owe $65,000. And then it says, but the real cost was $45,000, and somebody will pay $20,000, and you owe whatever is in between. And then you find out that is really not true, that was the initial billing, and you back over a period of months. Those negotiations, because of an unexpected serious medical encounter within a family, should not bar, in these times, those individuals from being able to access student loans. It doesn't mean they've lost their incomes. It doesn't mean any of that at that point.

I think it is a very important addition to this legislation as we are trying to weave together a support system for families that must rely on loans for the education of their children.

I want to thank you very much for offering this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1103 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). 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 all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1103.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1103 provides for consideration of H.R. 2634, the Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Cancellation, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Financial Services. The rule also makes in order four amendments printed in the Rules Committee report, each of which is debatable for 10 minutes. The rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, structured, responsible debt relief has been proven to be one of the most effective methods of fighting global poverty. In 1996 the World Bank and the IMF, the International Monetary Fund, developed the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries, or HIPC, Initiative to provide debt relief to the world's most impoverished nations. The 28 countries that participated in this program have been spending the debt relief on good things in their country for the very poor people, on education and health. In the first 10 years of the program, the IMF and the World Bank provided $62 billion of debt relief, cutting the countries' debt by an average of two-thirds.

The results speak for themselves. The participating countries now spend four times as much on health, education, and social services as they do on paying back debt. Tanzania, for instance, has used its money from debt cancellation to eliminate school fees for elementary school education. Think about it. The poorest countries, their kids were having to pay fees to go to elementary school, something that's not even required here, while Zambia eliminated fees for health care in rural areas. Multilateral efforts in Niger reduced debt from 76 percent of their

gross domestic product, and think about that, 76 percent of the gross domestic product was used in debt relief, in 2002 to 14 percent in 2006. With that savings Niger has been able to make investments in health and education. They've reduced the infant mortality rate, cut it in half. Primary school completion has increased from 16 to 28 percent, and access to drinkable water increased from 40 percent for the people in Niger to 69 percent.

The bill that this rule will bring to the floor today will build on this record of quantifiable success to expand efforts to reduce the debts owed by impoverished nations. This legislation makes debt forgiveness immediately possible for nine countries that meet the standards of the Jubilee Act. This is not a giveaway program.

These nations are among the poorest in the world with per capita incomes of less than $3 a day, $1,065 a year. Countries initially eligible under this legislation for debt relief would include Cape Verde, Georgia, Kenya, Mongolia and Vietnam.

But as I mentioned, the Jubilee Act does not give countries that borrowed money a free ride with debt forgiveness. It includes strict parameters to ensure that the participating countries: one, have transparent and effective budget processes; two, do not support terrorism; three, cooperate in international counternarcotic efforts; and, four, uphold human rights standards.

In addition, funds made available as a result of loan forgiveness must be directed toward antipoverty programs, and countries must publish an annual report to be accountable on how those funds were spent.

These criteria ensure the loan forgiveness funds are used wisely and well. They provide an incentive for noneligible countries to reduce corruption and improve human rights practices so they may, one day, become eligible for debt forgiveness.

Fifteen additional countries, including Bangladesh, Nigeria and Zimbabwe would be eligible for debt cancellation upon making required reforms.

This is the brand of leadership that America needs more of where we are doing our share, but we are working with our allies and where we are using the incentive of debt forgiveness. Many of these debts, incidentally, were taken by kleptocrats who formerly ruled in these countries, and now these countries are trying to free themselves of the yoke of this terrible leadership. This debt forgiveness program allows us, working with our allies, the IMF and the World Bank, to give them a boost.

Finally, Madam Speaker, it must be noted that because the international financial institutions like the World Bank and the IMF are expected to pay the bulk of the debt relief, the tremendous improvements that can be achieved under this bill come at a very reasonable cost to the U.S. taxpayer.

The cost of America canceling bilateral debt for the countries initially eligible is estimated to be $197 million. That is less than what we spend for 14 hours in Iraq, just to put it in perspective. However, this bill does not actually authorize any debt cancellation. It authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to enter into negotiations to cancel debt. Any debt cancellation agreement reached by the Secretary returns to Congress for our approval. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has scored this legislation at no cost to the taxpayers.

Debt reduction has been proven to be one of the most effective, both cost effective and socially effective, ways to achieve significant reductions in global poverty.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.

Frank), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I am the last speaker on our side.

Madam Speaker, I want to point out a couple of things. Number one, this legislation comes to you with bipartisan support from the Financial Services Committee. There was a recognition on that committee between the members on the majority and the members on the minority that this Congress had an opportunity to do something concrete, something practical, to help the most impoverished countries in this world.

This legislation is practical. It is going to give relief that translates into higher literacy rates, lower infant mortality rates and better access to education, and it is done at very modest expense to the American taxpayer. It also is America working with other countries and with international institutions, the IMF and the World Bank, to have a positive influence in foreign policy. It makes sense. It is bipartisan. It should be done.

I have to say I disagree with the suggestion of my good friend from Texas that we essentially transform this into a debate about extending the Bush tax cuts. That is a refrain we are hearing constantly that is brought up as a way of taking attention off of the things that we can do immediately in the legislation that is before us.

The fact of the matter is that what we have seen in the past few years under the fiscal leadership of the Bush administration is we have gone from a record surplus to a record deficit. We have gone from a point of paying down our national debt to increasing it to close to $7 trillion.

The reality is that this legislation is about one thing and one thing only: It is about helping countries where the daily income of its citizens is on average $3 a day. That is what it is. We can decide that we are going to take concrete action to help those countries move ahead, or use this as an opportunity to engage in a debate about whether to extend tax cuts, as is being requested by the gentleman.

So, Madam Speaker, by passing this proposed rule and this bill for which it provides consideration, Congress can build on this immensely successful debt relief effort we have had on a bipartisan basis and started more than a decade ago to provide relief for the world's poorest countries. It is an essential tool in the fight on the war on poverty.

Incidentally, it is money well spent. Much less of our money and the money of our allies is spent than when we have to engage in military conflict. The legislation represents what I believe should be the face of American leadership around the globe. I believe the sponsors of this legislation believe it will make the world a better place and make the world safer and more stable.

This is a good bill, a bipartisan bill. It enjoys the support not only of Chairman Frank and Chairwoman Waters, but of their Republican counterparts on the committee, our colleagues Congressman Bachus and Congresswoman Biggert. That is why I urge a ``yes''

vote on the previous question and on the rule.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.