[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 44 (Thursday, April 14, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H1988-H1992]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 256, BANKRUPTCY ABUSE PREVENTION AND
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 2005
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are advised that the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining; and the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for a unanimous consent
request.
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 256 because this
bill does not protect disabled veterans from creditors.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent
request to my friend, the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).
(Ms. CARSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 256.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise Members that, as
indicated most recently by the Chair on March 24, 2004, although a
unanimous consent to insert remarks in debate may embody a simple,
declarative statement of the Member's attitude toward the pending
measure, it is improper for a Member to embellish such a request with
other oratory, and it can become an imposition on the time of the
Member who has yielded for that purpose.
The Chair will entertain as many requests to insert as may be
necessary to accommodate Members, but the Chair also must ask Members
to cooperate by confining such remarks to the proper form.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
New Mexico (Mr. Udall) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S.256,
because this bill severely hurts a middle-class citizen's ability to
get a second chance.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 256 because the
bill does not protect disabled veterans from creditors.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), for a unanimous
consent request.
(Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition
to S.256 because the bill does nothing to address the epidemic of
identity theft or protect its victims.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the ranking member
of the Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), for a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S.256 because the
bill does nothing to address the problem of identity theft or protect
its victims.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), for a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S.256 because it is
morally bankrupt and puts credit card companies ahead of children.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Stark) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S.256 because the
bill does not accommodate the 50 million uninsured Americans forced
into bankruptcy by health care costs.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the ranking member
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, my good friend,
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for a unanimous consent
request.
(Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 256.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent
request to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms.
Kilpatrick).
(Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S.
256, this bankruptcy bill, because it does nothing to protect the
victims of identity theft.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Owens), my good friend, for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 256 because it
protects the risks that credit card companies take, while allowing them
to swindle citizens.
Mr. Speaker, as a result of the actions of the Republican led
Congress, unscrupulous credit card companies will increase their
strong, hard sell tactics pressuring more and more individuals and
families to purchase more credit. Credit card hucksters can take more
risks because they will now enjoy greater protection from the courts.
The taxpayer financed courts will become the debt collectors for the
credit card swindlers. A federalized system will now protect the
predators. Once again the doctrine of laissez-faire has been turned
upside down. The marketplace has chosen to cling to the aprons of
government. The banking private sector is demanding governmental
interference in a situation where the taxpayers prefer not to pay
agents for the work of strong enforcers. To serve the interest of
consumer justice I urge a ``no'' vote on S. 256, the Bankruptcy Reform
Bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from
San Diego, California (Mrs. Davis) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 256
because this bill adds to the burden of military families finding basic
financial strength.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend, the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), for a unanimous consent request.
(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Senate bill
256 because the bill punishes working families and lets large
corporations off the hook.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott) for a unanimous consent request.
[[Page H1989]]
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 256 because
this bill puts credit card companies ahead of children in the
priorities.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) for a unanimous consent
request.
(Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 256.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. SANDERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 256 because, on
a bill of this magnitude, it is undemocratic and an outrage that
amendments are not being allowed.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend, the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), for a unanimous consent
request.
(Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 256 because
this bill puts credit card companies ahead of children.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent
request to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 256
because this bill puts credit card companies ahead of children and does
not protect disabled veterans from creditors.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), for a unanimous consent
request.
(Ms. WATSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 256 because this
bill does nothing to address the epidemic of identity theft or protect
its victims.
{time} 1215
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield for a
unanimous consent request to my good friend, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).
(Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 256
because this bill does nothing to protect disabled veterans or to
address the epidemic of identity theft.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent
request to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro).
(Ms. DeLAURO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 256 because this
bill turns its back on middle-class America, continuing an
administration that proceeds to reward the wealthy and tax wages.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent
request to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine
Brown).
(Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S.
256 because this bill does nothing to protect our heroic Reservists and
Guard who are fighting for us every day in war.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent
request to my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 256.
It abuses the people.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent
request to my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Waters).
(Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 256 because the
Republicans have sold out to the credit card companies and they are
hurting American families.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The Speaker Pro Tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The Chair would remind Members
that their statements should be confined to their unanimous consent
requests.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield for a
unanimous consent request to my good friend, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
(Mr. MEEHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 256, which
clearly is a payback and payout to the credit card companies.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker I am pleased to yield for a
unanimous consent request to my good friend, the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Watt) from the Judiciary Committee, who had the
opportunity to participate in some of those hearings, and is the
chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.
(Mr. WATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and in
opposition to the bill; the rule because the rule shuts out all
amendments to this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 3\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Georgia has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, just previous to the unanimous
consent request, I was told by way of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Gingrey) that we had 4\1/2\ minutes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair advises the gentleman from Florida
that, during the series of unanimous consent requests, some Members
embellished with oratory beyond the proper form. One minute was taken
from the time for that.
Parliamentary Inquiries
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may inquire.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, did I understand you to tell the leader of
the Rules Committee managing the bill today that time would be taken
from him because of the unanimous consent request?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair advised on that earlier, and will
amplify the earlier statement. As indicated by previous occupants of
the Chair on March 24, 2004; November 21, 2003; July 24, 2003; June 26,
2003; June 22, 2002; and March 24, 1995, although a unanimous consent
request to insert remarks in debate may embody a simple declarative
statement of the Member's attitude toward the pending measure, it is
improper for a Member to embellish such a request with other oratory,
and it can become an imposition on the time of the Member who has
yielded for that purpose.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the floor manager in
no way encouraged anyone to speak contrary to the rule that you have
just enunciated.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are yielded to for that purpose.
They must confine their remarks to the proper form, or time can be
subtracted from the individual yielding.
Mr. CONYERS. And in the judgment of the distinguished Speaker, how
much time are you proposing to take from the floor manager?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. One minute was charged.
Mr. CONYERS. Is there some precedent for that, sir?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Yes, as just cited.
Mr. CONYERS. There is?
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, in the interest of comity, I ask unanimous
consent that the gentleman from Florida be yielded an additional 1
minute.
[[Page H1990]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. From the gentleman from Georgia's time?
Mr. GINGREY. Not from my time, no, Mr. Speaker. That he be allowed an
additional 1 minute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Beyond the hour available for debate on the
rule?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I request that we grant by unanimous
consent 30 seconds of my time to the gentleman from Florida.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, but I am
confused by the Chair's ruling. Parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may inquire.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, even though there is only 1
hour debate, a unanimous consent request by a Member that is not
objected to is not permitted for extension of time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Would the gentleman from Georgia like to
modify his request?
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to modify that request to
extend time by one minute on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
Mr. MURTHA. Objection, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, moving right along, I am
pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Schiff), my good friend.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday night I took an amendment to the
Rules Committee asking the committee to permit this body to consider
allowing each Member the opportunity to approve that amendment or
reject it. The Republican majority on the Rules Committee, however,
rejected giving Members that opportunity.
My amendment would have simply provided that if more than one half of
the creditor claims against you in bankruptcy are the result of
identity theft, you should not be forced out of the protections of
chapter 7. It was similar to an amendment offered by Senator Nelson of
Florida, but was even narrower than that amendment.
Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, the manager of the identity theft at
the FTC commented on how identity theft was becoming rampant in this
country, that it wreaks havoc on the credit of the victim and can even
force them into bankruptcy. Since then, the problem has grown even
worse, and an estimated 27.3 million Americans have fallen victim to
identity theft in the last 5 years.
We have all heard of recent breaches of massive databases holding
personal information. On Monday, the parent company of the Lexis-Nexis
reported that 310,000 people, nearly 10 times more than the original
estimate reported last month, may have had their personal information
stolen, including names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and
driver's license numbers.
And this is not an isolated incident. Identity thieves have gained
access to Choicepoint's database and personal information has been
stolen and compromised from a major bank, department of motor vehicles,
and a number of universities. Added together, these recent incidents in
the last several weeks alone have exposed more than 2 million people to
possible ID theft.
During the Judiciary Committee consideration of my amendment, I cited
two recent examples of identity theft victims who were forced to
declare bankruptcy, one young woman defrauded out of $300,000 and
another woman who was wiped out financially when her identity was
stolen, forcing her to file for bankruptcy right before Christmas.
When I offered the amendment in the Judiciary Committee it provoked
quite a debate as well as a disagreement between the Chair of the full
committee and the Chair of the subcommittee. The Chair of the
subcommittee argued that my amendment would somehow do harm, while the
Chair of the full committee argued that the problem with my amendment
was that it did nothing at all. The chairman of the subcommittee then
argued that the problem was that this issue had never been explored.
However, the chairman of the full committee argued that this issue, and
every other, had already been explored.
Well, Mr. Speaker and Members, it cannot be both. The chairman of the
subcommittee even pondered what would happen if a person had their
identity stolen, but then later became wealthy and had the ability to
pay off their debt. While admitting that he was stretching, he still
urged his colleagues to reject the amendment because it would ``clearly
disrupt the whole process of moving forward the bill.'' Thus prompting
a question: When is a markup not really a markup? And the answer is,
whenever the bankruptcy bill is in committee.
This is now the third session in a row where essentially no
amendments have been entertained in committee and no amendments have
been allowed here on the floor.
Mr. Speaker, just to conclude, last year the House supported identity
theft legislation cracking down on identity thieves. This amendment
gives us the chance to protect some of those who have been victimized
by identity theft, and I urge an ``aye'' vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings)
has 1 minute remaining. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) has 2
minutes remaining.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I have the right to close, and I wanted to
reserve the balance of my time for that purpose.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of
my time. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the
previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend
this rule so we can vote on the Schiff amendment to help victims of
identity theft. It will exempt from the bill's means test those
consumers who are victimized by identity theft if it means 51 percent
of the creditor claims against them are due to identity theft. This is
a very reasonable and much-needed amendment, being debated in the
Senate I might add, not on the bankruptcy measure, was offered in the
Rules Committee last night, but unfortunately was blocked by the
Republican majority by a straight party line vote.
Voting ``no'' on the previous question will not stop the bankruptcy
bill from coming to the floor today. S. 256 will still be considered in
this House before we leave for the weekend. However, a ``yes'' vote
will preclude the House from addressing one of the most serious
consumer issues in this country, identity theft. And I ask for a ``no''
on the previous question.
We owe it to our constituents to take action on this serious and
escalating problem.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time. As
we come to the end of the debate on the rule for S. 256, I urge my
colleagues to support its passage and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to pass bankruptcy reform. Today we must fix
our bankruptcy laws to prevent irresponsible and unnecessary
bankruptcies. Bankruptcy affects all American families. It is estimated
that the annual cost is $400 to every family in America, and it is time
to reform an outdated and broken system.
Despite the objections of a few Members, I know we have followed a
fair process to get to this point. The Rules Committee offered to
provide the minority with the ability to submit a substitute amendment.
Their substitute amendment could have included any provisions they felt
necessary. The Democrats rejected this offer, and they have failed to
provide any alternative plan.
It is important to note many of the individual amendments they have
discussed here today were considered over the past few years.
Regardless of the rhetoric, this legislation has been under
consideration and amended a number of times. We are now on the final
product.
This year alone, S. 256 passed the House Judiciary Committee where 18
[[Page H1991]]
amendments were considered. To the substance of the bill, contrary to
the claims of some, this legislation is not lining the pockets of
wealthy creditors with the savings of the financially challenged.
Mr. Speaker, when casting their vote, I ask my colleagues to consider
those constituents the current law harms. This bill gives support to
small businesses and financially responsible families. I ask my
colleagues to pass this rule and finally end the 8-year debate on
bankruptcy reform.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as
follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 211, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and
Consumer Protection Act of 2005
In the resolution strike ``and (2)'' and insert the
following:
``(2) the amendment printed in Sec. 2 of this resolution if
offered by Representative Schiff of California or a designee,
which shall be in order without intervention of any point of
order, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately
debatable for 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent; and (3)''
Sec. 2.
Amendment to S. 256, as Reported
Offered by Mr. Schiff of California
Page 19, after line 21, insert the following (and make such
technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):
``(8)(A) No judge, United States trustee (or bankruptcy
administrator, if any), trustee, or other party in interest
may file a motion under paragraph (2) if the debtor is an
identity theft victim.
``(B) For purposes of this paragraph--
``(i) the term `identity theft' means a fraud committed or
attempted using the personally identifiable information of
another individual; and
``(ii) the term `identity theft victim' means a debtor with
respect to whom not less than 51 percent of the aggregate
value of allowed claims is a result of identity theft using
the personally identifiable information of the debtor.''.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered.
There was no objection.
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. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227,
nays 199, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 104]
YEAS--227
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--199
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--8
Berkley
Cooper
Davis, Tom
Gillmor
LaHood
Payne
Solis
Wamp
{time} 1253
Mrs. TAUSCHER, Mr. DAVIS of Florida and Mr. PASTOR changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. BASS and Mr. HOEKSTRA changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 104 on H. Res. 211,
ordering the previous question, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted, ``nay''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 227,
noes 196, not voting 11, as follows:
[[Page H1992]]
[Roll No. 105]
AYES--227
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--196
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--11
Berkley
Cooper
Davis, Tom
Feeney
Gillmor
Gordon
Gutknecht
Jenkins
LaHood
Rangel
Solis
{time} 1302
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 105, on agreeing to
the resolution H. Res. 211, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted, ``no.''
____________________