PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 110-350.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Oct 7, 2008
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend by one year, from July 2009 to July 2010, the Secretary of Education's authority to purchase, or enter into forward commitments to purchase, Federal Family Education Loans (FFELs) from lenders upon the determination that there is an inadequate availability of loan capital to meet the demand for such loans.
Extends by one year, from June 30, 2009 to June 30, 2010, the authority of institutions of higher education (IHEs), with the Secretary's approval, to participate in the FFEL lender-of-last-resort program for borrowers otherwise unable to obtain such loans; thereby requiring guaranty agencies serving as lenders-of-last-resort to make FFELs to student and parent borrowers of such IHEs, until such date, regardless of their ability to otherwise obtain such loans.
People & committees
Rep. Miller, George [D-CA-7] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 110-350.
Became Public Law No: 110-350.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Cleared for White House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S8960)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S8960)
Received in the Senate, read twice.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 368 - 4 (Roll no. 591). (text: CR H8089-8090)
House roll call 591 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 368 - 4 (Roll no. 591).(text: CR H8089-8090)
House roll call 591 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H8096)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 6889.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8089-8092)
Mr. Hinojosa moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jul 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.6889 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.6889 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.6889 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.6889 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.