Congress enacted legislation in May aimed at ensuring access to student loans, but higher education experts say it’s not yet clear that lawmakers did enough to prevent a crisis once the borrowing season begins in earnest this summer.

So lenders and their congressional backers seeking another, more direct lifeline from the government have focused on the little-known Federal Financing Bank. The Treasury-controlled bank already lends money to other, non-federal borrowers, and could do the same for them.

But those student lenders, along with Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski, D-Pa., and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., are finding the path to be difficult. The congressional schedule is packed, a Memorial Day recess is approaching and some lawmakers may have lost their appetite for further action on the student loan front. Bush administration officials say the Federal Financing Bank (FFB) lacks the authority to help, and critics claim the administration wants to cut the bank’s authority further, not expand it. Simply stated, help might not be on the way.

A Treasury spokeswoman said there are “no plans to get rid of the FFB,” and that legislation already enacted is “the right approach.”

But not everyone is convinced.

The White House Office of Management and Budget “has wanted to limit the role of the Federal Financing Bank for 20 years. It’s not a surprise that the administration didn’t want the FFB to get into this business,” said Terry Hartle of the American Council on Education.

The student loan law (PL 110-227) enacted in May increases the total amount of federally backed loans that students can borrow; undergraduates whose parents claim them as dependents could borrow up to $31,000, a boost from the current limit of $23,000. And the law authorizes the Education Department to buy up existing loans to inject liquidity into the market.

But lenders say they are waiting for Education Secretary Margaret Spellings to unveil the terms under which the department will purchase their loans. Those terms will determine whether selling the loans will be profitable for lenders, and whether the money they receive will be enough to keep them making their own loans.

Meanwhile, they’re pushing for other assistance options they say need to be put in place quickly to keep the lending system running smoothly — options like money from the Federal Financing Bank.

“What’s been done is half of the solution,” said Mark Kantrowitz, publisher of Finaid.org., a Web site about student lending and financial aid. “It doesn’t really address the liquidity constraints.”

Indeed, the law enacted in May included a sense-of-Congress section that said federal financial institutions “such as the Federal Financing Bank” should consider “using available authorities . . . if needed . . . to assist in ensuring that students and families can access federal student loans for academic year 2008-09.”

“That’s the most important part of the legislation,” said Scott Miller of the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency.

Kanjorski last month introduced a bill (HR 5914) that would give the Federal Financing Bank the power to help; Dodd has called for such action but not yet offered a bill.

Kanjorski’s bill would clarify that the Federal Financing Bank can not only buy student loans in so-called participation interest, which allows banks to continue to hold and service them, but it also can advance money to lenders and invest in securities backed by student loans.

Brett Leif, president of the National Council of Higher Education Loan Programs, said allowing the Federal Financing Bank to get involved in those ways is important because it would signal that lenders are committed to student loans.

“If you’re selling your loans to the government, you could take that as a short-term view that the lender is getting out of the program,” Leif said. “But if you’re going for bonds or loans or asset-backed securities, it signals that you’ll be in the business for a while.”

At the moment, however, the Bush administration maintains that the changes reflected in PL 110-227 — and the Federal Reserve’s May 2 decision to accept debt backed by student loans in its Term Lending Facility — are enough. Spellings, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and OMB Director Jim Nussle wrote to Dodd in late April stating that the administration had explored using the federal bank to help but had concluded that the bank “does not have the authority under the Federal Credit Reform Act” to be involved.

“I think Congress has taken sufficient action at this point in time,” said Michael Dannenberg, director of the education policy program at the nonpartisan New America Foundation.

But other higher education experts aren’t so certain. Since President Bush signed the bill, more lenders have dropped out of the program, bringing the total of those who have suspended participation to 66, according to Finaid.org. Sallie Mae, the nation’s largest lender, says it has picked up some of the students who used to rely on those banks.

“We’ve got our finger in the dam, helping to prevent wide-scale disruption for students and colleges,” said Sallie Mae spokesman Conwey Casillas. “But without a very near-term liquidity answer, this is not sustainable.”

Another backstop, the government’s direct lending program, has also seen a significant uptick. Since Feb. 29, 288 new schools have become eligible to participate. Some in the higher education community, who have long argued for a total switch to direct lending, which they say is cheaper for the government, view this as acceptable — if not outright positive.

But industry watchers and lenders desperate to stay in business say this could ultimately overtax the system.

Lenders are using their clout, and the approaching high season for student loans, to keep attention on the issue and hold open the possibility of follow-up legislation — primarily focusing on the Federal Financing Bank. They continue to talk with administration officials as well as Congress about the option.

“If lenders were to do nothing, and the plans that come out of the Department of Education are not robust enough, then valuable time has been lost,” Leif said. “These are important decisions, and we don’t have a lot of time.”