[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 151 (Tuesday, September 23, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H8590-H8597]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5244, CREDIT CARDHOLDERS' BILL OF 
                           RIGHTS ACT OF 2008

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1476 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1476

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     5244) to amend the Truth in Lending Act to establish fair and 
     transparent practices relating to the extension of credit 
     under an open end consumer credit plan, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of 
     rule XXI. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now 
     printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, 
     as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions of the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on Financial Services; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration of H.R. 5244 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.
       Sec. 3.  The chairman of the Committee on Armed Services 
     may insert in the Congressional Record at any time during the 
     remainder of the second session of the 110th Congress such 
     material as he may deem explanatory of defense authorization 
     measures for the fiscal year 2009.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Vermont is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. 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 in which 
to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 1476.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Vermont?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1476 provides for 
consideration of H.R. 5244, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act 
of 2008 sponsored by Congresswoman Maloney. This rule provides for 1 
hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Financial 
Services. It also provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, it is entirely appropriate that today, with the 
extraordinary spectacle of Wall Street titans coming to Congress hat in 
hand asking taxpayers for $700 billion, that we take up consideration 
of a bill of rights for Americans who hold credit cards. It is 
impossible for any of us who care to observe not to see the connection 
between the need for stronger consumer protections in the credit card 
industry today and the careless, reckless dismantling of consumer 
protections in the housing and financial markets in the past 30 years 
now known by the infamous term of ``deregulation.''
  Mr. Speaker, as we know, credit serves a vital function in our 
economy. You cannot have a functioning capitalist economy without a 
functioning credit system. But the question that we face as elected 
representatives of the people who sent us here is whether or not we 
will act to provide a critical consumer protection to the credit 
markets and the protection to consumers who depend on them, or will we 
continue to leave this laissez-faire to the rules made up as they go 
along by the people in charge on Wall Street.
  If this Congress had insisted on upholding consumer protections on 
Wall Street, if it had not simply stood aside to the proponents of the 
wild west, anything-goes markets that eviscerated the regulations, and 
instead kept consumers safe and the markets stable and strong, then we 
may well have averted the crisis that this House is now considering.
  Maybe we would not be facing this extraordinary threat to the 
strength of the middle class who is working hard, paying their bills, 
but hanging on by their fingernails.
  The challenge our economy faces now is largely a result of Wall 
Street abusing the credit system that we all need. And now ballooning 
credit card debt presents a similar threat to American consumers and 
possibly the markets.
  Today, the House of Representatives will have the opportunity to 
adopt legislation sponsored by Congresswoman Maloney that would prevent 
the reoccurrence of a crisis in credit cards that is happening in our 
housing industry.
  Let's just look at the situation of consumer credit as it exists 
today. In 2007, Mr. Speaker, 5.2 billion credit card solicitations were 
put in the mail, 36 solicitations per household. There are 1.22 billion 
credit cards in the United States. Outstanding consumer credit in the 
United States is approaching $1 trillion, $969.9 billion, to be 
precise, and the average credit card debt per household that carries a 
balance as opposed to those who simply use the credit card as a 
convenience to pay bills, that average balance is $17,103.
  Does that sound sustainable and does this sound familiar?
  Congresswoman Maloney's bill, H.R. 5244, institutes essential and 
overdue protections for the market and for the consumer by guarding 
against growing unmanageable debt and provides critical safeguards for 
consumers who have been relentlessly taken advantage of by credit card 
companies.

[[Page H8591]]

  Specifically, the bill, among other things, ends unfair and arbitrary 
interest rate increases. Credit card companies raise interest rates at 
will, bait and switch, ends unfair penalties for cardholders who pay on 
time, requires fair allocation of consumer payments so that the 
payments are attributed to the highest interest rate first, protects 
cardholders from due date gimmicks, prevents companies from using 
misleading terms and damaging consumer credit ratings, protects 
vulnerable consumers from high fee subprime credit cards, and bars 
issuing credit cards to vulnerable minors.
  The bill is the beginning of important reform in credit cards; the 
beginning of increased protection for consumers of credit card 
companies. H.R. 5244 is one side of the consumer protection coin.

                              {time}  1045

  The other side of the coin, which we're not taking up today but will 
hopefully get to, is for merchants who pay fees to credit card 
companies for every single credit card transaction, the so-called 
``interchange fees.''
  Mr. Speaker, in the United States, our credit card interchange fees 
are the highest in the entire world, accounting for as much as 2 
percent of the cost of every credit card transaction, in some cases, a 
good deal more. By comparison, those interchange fees in the United 
States are almost three times what they are in Australia, four times 
what consumers and businesses pay in the United Kingdom.
  These bloated interchange fees are passed on to the consumer. The 
average American family, in fact, pays an extra $300 a year on items 
they purchase as a result of credit cards. For example, interchange 
fees can add more than 8 cents to the price of a gallon of gas every 
time you fill up.
  I and others have introduced legislation that may be considered at 
some future time, H.R. 6248, the Credit Card Interchange Fees Act, 
which would require credit card companies to disclose their interchange 
rates, terms and conditions to consumers, businesses and the public. In 
addition, the bill would empower the Federal Trade Commission to review 
these rates and rules and prohibit any practices that violate consumer 
protection and anti-competitive laws.
  Mr. Speaker, Chairman Conyers on the Judiciary Committee also has 
important legislation being considered, the Credit Card Fair Fee Act. 
In the next Congress we'll have an opportunity to take up the Conyers 
bill and perhaps the Welch bill.
  But today we have the opportunity to take up the first step, the work 
of Congresswoman Maloney, where she has scores of cosponsors, where 
she's worked tirelessly to bring this legislation to the consideration 
of the floor. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support 
this underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for extending me the 
time.
  I rise in opposition to this new, record-breaking 62nd closed rule 
being offered by this Democrat-led Congress, and I object to the timing 
of bringing this underlying legislation to the floor at a particularly 
fragile and vulnerable time for American consumers, for American small 
businesses, and for the entire American economy.
  As every Member of this House, in fact, probably every single person 
on this planet with a working television already understands and 
they're very acutely aware, the United States capital markets for 
commercial credit have been frozen. And later this week, this Congress 
is going to be asked to vote on a massive and currently unfinished 
proposal to try to stem this enormous threat to our economy and to 
prevent it from spilling over into everyday Americans' lives who are 
simply trying to make ends meet.
  The enormity and complexity of this crisis and its corresponding 
legislative solutions makes me question why, Mr. Speaker, why, with all 
the other problems in our financial markets that require our immediate, 
fixed and unwavering attention, this House leadership would bring this 
bill to the floor under a closed rule, instead of focusing on the much 
larger problem that economists and editorial boards across this country 
believe has the potential to do catastrophic damage to global financial 
systems.
  Additionally, Mr. Speaker, I'm confused as to why this Congress is 
choosing this path because, despite whether the House considers this 
Democrat majority's 62nd closed rule, or this legislation today, it 
makes no difference, absolutely no difference as to whether the issues 
contained in this legislation to protect consumers from unfair or 
deceptive practices will even be addressed in a timely fashion.
  To protect consumers from questionable practices, the Federal Reserve 
has already proposed broad new rules. But rather than allowing the Fed 
to finish its job, this Congress thought it was important enough to 
pass a new law to give to them, and this Congress is passing a bill 
that preempts all of the work that Congress has asked these regulators 
to do, while doing nothing to strengthen the Federal Reserve's already 
existing consumer protection mandate.
  Like every other Member of this House, I am concerned about the 
crushing economic impact that rising food and fuel prices are having on 
American families. I'm even more concerned that passing legislation 
like this will discourage investment in credit card lending to fewer 
consumers and smaller businesses getting access to the credit that they 
need to stay afloat.
  Unlike the Democrat leadership bringing this bill to the House floor, 
I do not believe that it is wise policy to create a consumer credit 
crunch at the same time that our economy is already experiencing a 
massive commercial credit crunch. And I'm greatly concerned that 
current market conditions have the potential to greatly amplify the 
unintended consequences of this legislation at a time when families and 
small business need it the most. The ``it'' is credit.
  Limiting the ability of consumer credit issuers to base their prices 
according to risk, as this legislation proposes to do, will only 
increase rates and fees for everyone, while also severely constricting 
the availability of credit to higher risk consumers altogether.
  So, at a time when our constituents most need the flexibilities of 
these products, i.e., credit, this Democrat Congress is trying to 
preempt the focused efforts of three different regulators and 
restricting the access to credit card credit that is made available to 
American families and to small businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe a far more reasonable course of action would 
have been the one that was suggested by 14 members of the Financial 
Services Committee, a bipartisan group of seven Democrats and seven 
Republicans, when they asked the chairman of the committee to hold 
hearings on the Federal Reserve proposed rules before deciding whether 
passing legislation limiting consumer credit was necessary.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a copy of this 
bipartisan letter to Chairman Frank, as well as a copy of the 
administration's statement of administrative policy on this bill, which 
makes their concerns about unfair and deceptive practices as clear as 
their opposition to this underlying legislation that would ``result in 
less access to credit and higher interest rates for consumers.''
  That is what the White House has said, and I will once again quote: 
This legislation will ``result in less access to credit and higher 
interest rates for consumers.''
  Mr. Speaker, this comes at a particularly bad time, when consumers in 
our economy already have had enough stress to deal with without having 
to worry about unintended consequences of legislation passed by 
Congress that would make it even more difficult for families and small 
businesses to make ends meet.

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                               Washington, DC, September 22, 2008.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


       H.R. 5244--Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2008

       The Administration is concerned about unfair and deceptive 
     credit card practices and supports efforts to protect 
     consumers. Credit card plans have become more complex, and it 
     is important that disclosures are transparent and clear so 
     that consumers can understand their contracts and compare 
     products. Transparency alone is insufficient to protect

[[Page H8592]]

     consumers from all unfair credit card practices, and 
     legislation likely to result in higher interest rates for 
     consumers is not the answer; deceptive practices must also be 
     prohibited.
       The Federal Reserve, Office of Thrift Supervision, and 
     National Credit Union Administration are currently finalizing 
     regulations to prohibit unfair and deceptive credit card 
     practices and make disclosures more transparent. The proposed 
     regulations, which are expected to be finalized in December, 
     address a number of goals of this bill. Those proposed 
     regulations eliminate universal default, prohibit double-
     cycle billing, require advance notice of rate increases, and 
     rein in over-the-limit fees. Regulations are better suited to 
     addressing these problems than legislation because they can 
     be adapted more readily to changes in market conditions. The 
     proposed regulations are the result of extensive research and 
     consumer input, have received extensive public comment, and 
     should be finalized without legislation.
       The Administration opposes H.R. 5244, particularly section 
     2 of the bill, because it would broadly constrain the ability 
     of financial institutions to price risk, likely resulting in 
     less access to credit and in higher interest rates for 
     consumers. For the credit market to operate efficiently, 
     creditors must have the flexibility to react to changes in 
     customer risk and market conditions. Section 2 would restrict 
     when lenders may change terms of the credit agreement, 
     significantly constraining the ability of financial 
     institutions to adapt to changing credit risks and market 
     conditions.
                                  ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, July 23, 2008.
     Hon. Barney Frank,
     Chairman, Financial Services Committee, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On July 16, 2008 Federal Reserve 
     Chairman Ben Bernanke testified before the Financial Services 
     Committee and stated that the Federal Reserve had received 
     over 20,000 comments on its proposed Unfair or Deceptive Acts 
     or Practices rules for banks that issue credit cards. While 
     we may support some of the policy changes these proposed 
     rules address, we believe the Financial Institutions 
     Subcommittee should carefully review these proposed policies 
     and their impact on consumers and regulated industries. 
     Therefore, we request that the Subcommittee hold a hearing on 
     these proposed rules at its earliest convenience before 
     further steps are taken on this important subject.
           Sincerely,
         Dennis Moore; Carolyn McCarthy; Timothy Mahoney; Michael 
           N. Castle; Stephen C. LaTourette; Judy Biggert; Charlie 
           Wilson; Ed Perlmutter; Gregory Meeks; Jon Gerlach; 
           Christopher Shays; Shelley Moore Capito; Peter J. 
           Roskam; Don Cazayoux.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York, the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on 
Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, and the sponsor of the 
bill, Mrs. Maloney.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
his leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule on H.R. 5244, the Credit 
Cardholders' Bill of Rights. The rule before us gives the House an 
opportunity to have a clear up-or-down vote on meaningful credit card 
reforms that will level the playing field between cardholders and 
credit card companies.
  This legislation passed the House Financial Services Committee on 
July 31 on a vote of 39-27 and has the support of 155 cosponsors in 
this House.
  For too long our constituents have found themselves on the wrong side 
of a very uneven playing field between them and their credit card 
companies. This bill restores fairness to credit cards and brings back 
the notion that a deal is a deal.
  The bill that this rule will allow for consideration represents a 
work product that the committee and I started at the beginning of this 
Congress. We met with the stakeholders, issuers, consumer groups and 
the regulators and economists. We listened to real consumers and 
experts in consumer law and economics. We held six hearings in my 
subcommittee on the reforms contained in this bill and the reforms that 
are proposed by the Federal Reserve.
  A year ago I held a round table which produced gold standard 
principles to guide voluntary issuer action. Several issuers announced 
changes in policy consistent with the principles, and I applaud their 
efforts.
  In May, the Federal Reserve, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and 
the National Credit Union Administrator released proposed rules to 
prohibit unfair and deceptive acts and practices that track the key 
provisions of my legislation. These regulations have received an 
astonishing, record-breaking 56,000 comments from consumers in support, 
the largest ever in history.
  But without legislation, regulations can be stopped or scaled back, 
and lucrative abuse of practices will continue, and issuers who gave 
them up will lose profits and their market share. We need legislation 
to level the playing field for consumers and issuers so that the normal 
forces of the free market can work together again.
  The bill has been endorsed by 12 consumer groups. I would like to 
place their names in the Record and applaud their hard work. Labor 
unions, including the AFL-CIO, and especially the SEIU, and civil 
rights organizations, the Leadership Council on Civil Rights, the 
NAACP, and the National Council of La Raza. Editorials and op-eds 
endorsing the need for credit card reform have run in more than 55 
newspapers across the Nation, and these editorials can be seen on my 
Website. Commentators from Pat Robertson of Christian broadcasters and 
Lou Dobbs of CNN have consistently supported this effort. Senator 
Barack Obama has called for a Credit Cardholder's Bill of Rights, and 
Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin has said that Republicans 
should get on this issue and not leave it to Democrats. So it is a 
bipartisan effort.
  Even four of the five banking regulators have called for the specific 
reforms contained in this bill. I say this because some on the other 
side may argue against this rule. But I want the American people to 
understand all of the work that has gone into this work product. This 
bill, this process has been open and bipartisan.
  Today, with the rule now before us, we get to preserve the core 
principles of this legislation, and this rule gives us a chance to have 
a clean up-or-down vote on meaningful credit card reform. I support 
this rule and look forward to the underlying debate.
  I would like to conclude by saying that it is now clear that in the 
area of consumer credit, the same lack of reasonable regulations, 
transparency and prudent lending has led to a level of pain on Main 
Street that matches or exceeds the pain on Wall Street. This is our 
chance to do something about it.
  We are called upon to come forward with a $700 billion backstop for 
Wall Street. This legislation gives a backstop and support to Main 
Street.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

           H.R. 5244--The Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights

       There are 155 Cosponsors, 153 Democrats, 2 Republicans.
       Passed House Financial Services Committee on July 31st on 
     vote of 39-27.
       Endorsed by consumer groups, labor unions, civil rights 
     organizations and editorial boards from across the nation.
       Consumer Groups: U.S. Public Interest Research Group, 
     Consumers Union, Consumer Action, Center for Responsible 
     Lending, National Consumer Law Center, Demos: A Network for 
     Ideas & Action, Consumer Federation of America, ACORN, 
     National Association of Consumer Advocates, National 
     Association of Neighborhoods, and National Fair Housing 
     Alliance.
       Labor Unions: American Federation of Labor and Congress of 
     Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) and Service Employees 
     International Union.
       Civil Rights Organizations: Leadership Conference on Civil 
     Rights, National Association for the Advancement of Colored 
     People (NAACP), National Council of La Raza.
       Editorial Boards: New York Times, Frederick News Post, 
     Detroit Free Press, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Staten Island 
     Advance, The Miami Herald, The Philadelphia Inquirer, San 
     Gabriel Valley Tribune (California), Sun-Sentinel (Fort 
     Lauderdale, Florida), The Boston Globe, The Herald (SC), 
     Buffalo News (New York), Knoxville News-Sentinel (TN), The 
     Columbus Dispatch (OH), The St. Petersburg Times (FL), Daily 
     and Sunday Review (PA), The Lebanon Daily News 
     (Pennsylvania), Asbury Park Press (New Jersey), Newsday (NY), 
     The Charleston Gazette (W. VA), The Dallas Morning News, The 
     Baltimore Sun, The Times Union (Albany, NY), The Toledo Blade 
     (OH), The Burlington Free Press (Vermont), St. Paul Pioneer 
     Press (Minnesota), Brattleboro Reformer (Vermont), The Ithaca 
     Journal (New York), The Macon Telegraph (Georgia), The Kansas 
     City Star, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania), The Denver 
     Post, The Record (Bergen County, NJ), Lowell Sun 
     (Massachusetts), The Oregonian (Portland, Oregon), The 
     Columbus Dispatch (Ohio), St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri), 
     San Diego Union Tribune, Albuquerque Journal (New Mexico), 
     Portland Press Herald (Maine), USA Today, The News & Observer 
     (Raleigh, North Carolina), The Olympian (Washington), Morning 
     Call (Allentown, Pennsylvania), The Cincinnati Enquirer 
     (Ohio), The Seattle

[[Page H8593]]

     Post-Intelligencer, Grand Rapid Press (Michigan), The 
     Providence Journal (Rhode Island), The Detroit News 
     (Michigan), The Roanoke Times (Virginia), Lancaster New Era 
     (Pennsylvania), The Myrtle Beach Sun-News (South Carolina), 
     and The State Journal-Register (Springfield, IL).

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. We're often accused 
of, when a rule comes up, of bringing up something that doesn't relate 
to the rule at all or speaking on something completely different. I'm 
here because something has been added to this rule that shouldn't be in 
this rule at all that bears no relation to this rule.

                              {time}  1100

  In this rule, for a bill on credit cards, there was an attachment 
which would allow the chairman of the Armed Services Committee to 
insert a joint explanatory statement for the defense authorization act, 
that he would be allowed to file that at any time between now and the 
end of the 110th Congress. That's important because in the joint 
explanatory statement is when you learn sometimes about what earmarks 
have been added to the bill, and you're supposed to get that report and 
that explanation and statement before you consider the bill on the 
floor.
  We will be considering the bill on the floor later today or tomorrow, 
I guess, under a suspension of the rules with no ability to amend or to 
question anything in the defense authorization bill. That bill, when it 
came to the House floor earlier this year, contained more than 500 
earmarks.
  This is the defense authorization bill that we learned of just a day 
before it came to the floor. It came to the floor under a closed rule--
or under a rule which allowed me to offer just one amendment--more than 
500 earmarks, one amendment. There were a lot of Democratic earmarks; 
there were a lot of Republican earmarks. The majority saw fit to only 
allow me to question one Republican earmark. No coincidence there.
  And yet even worse--at least then we knew when the bill came to the 
floor we really couldn't do anything about it, but we knew which 
earmarks were in the bill. Now there's a possibility that there could 
be dozens, hundreds, maybe 10, we don't know. We don't know how many 
earmarks have been air-dropped into this legislation, or if any have, 
and we likely won't know--we just don't know because this rule on a 
credit card bill allows the chairman of the Armed Services Committee to 
file at any time between now and the end of the 110th Congress which 
earmarks were in the bill.
  Theoretically, the President could even sign this legislation in a 
couple of weeks or a couple of months, and we would only learn after 
that what earmarks were in the bill or those earmarks, theoretically, 
could even be added after the President signs the bill into law. I 
don't know how that could be stopped under this rule.
  I just wonder how the majority--and I would love to yield time to the 
Rules Committee to explain how we are doing this, how this squares with 
the statements earlier this year or earlier this Congress that, 
according to the majority, according to the Speaker of the House, we 
will bring transparency and openness to the budget process into the use 
of earmarks.
  I would be glad to yield 30 seconds to the Rules Committee to explain 
why this provision was added to the rule.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank the gentleman from Arizona.
  Here is my understanding. The gentleman raises, I think, a good 
point.
  The Armed Services Committee is working, as I understand it, on a 
bipartisan Department of Defense authorization bill. My understanding 
is the conclusion of the people who are most responsible on both sides 
of the aisle for that, on our side, expect that the Senate will not 
participate in a conference, so it will be a single bill that would be 
presented to this body under suspension.
  So my understanding is that the folks who represent us, both sides of 
the aisle on the Armed Services Committee, have come to the conclusion 
that given the way the other body is going to handle this, that this is 
the most practical and effective way to proceed.
  Since it's coming up under suspension, it's going to take a two-
thirds vote, obviously. So whatever the reasons are that Members may 
want to reject that, they're going to have an opportunity to do it.
  I will go on if you want, but I don't want to take too much of your 
time.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman.
  We're being asked to take--it is our understanding that this will 
happen. We're probably to understand that, yeah, they'll file something 
before we do a suspension bill that we couldn't amend or question even 
if we didn't like what was in there.
  Again, Mr. Speaker and Members here, this just doesn't square with 
the commitments that we have made on both sides of the aisle to have an 
open and transparent process. Like I said, it's bad enough to just 
learn before bills come to the floor that you've had a couple hundred 
earmarks added. But in this case, we're giving the authority to the 
authorizing committee to let us know about which air-dropped earmarks 
have been added after we pass the bill, after it's too late; 
theoretically, after the President even signs the legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Arizona has 
expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to yield the gentleman an additional 3 
minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. Here, like I said, we're being asked to give authority to 
actually not explain which earmarks have been added until after the 
bill has passed. I just can't see how that represents good government 
in any sense, how in the world we can say that we are having an open 
and transparent process when we have bills that come like this.
  Now with prior bills, we had a defense authorization bill that came 
to the floor a while ago that we only got the list of earmarks that 
were added after the deadline passed to file amendments to actually 
strike those earmarks.
  So we have had a number of these cases throughout this Congress. But 
I can tell you nothing compares to this. Nothing compares to having an 
unrelated provision added to a credit card rule, a rule to a bill to 
allow the authorizing Committee of Armed Services to, up to the end of 
this Congress, to wait a couple of months after the bill passes--after 
a bill that was passed under suspension of rules, I might add--to add 
an explanation as to which earmarks are in the bill.
  So I just want to register my objection there, and I would hope that 
Members would vote down this rule. We can't do business like this, 
particularly at a time when we have a financial meltdown, we have 
legislation on the floor this week to spend $700 billion. If that's not 
bad enough, here we have a situation where we're simply hiding--I don't 
know how else to say it--but hiding what we have done in the committees 
and on the floor and not letting Members of this body actually exercise 
the responsibility that we have here.
  With that, I register my objection. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, this credit card bill is extremely 
important, and I would like to just express appreciation to my 
colleague for having the vision to bring it forth.
  People all over the country, the majority of the people around this 
country, are concerned about what is happening to them with regard to 
credit cards. I think that this is a week in which we need to all be 
concerned about what the consumers are feeling. In particular, I'm 
interested in the fact that we were not, at least in terms of statute, 
prohibiting what could happen to underage consumers.
  In our committee, I produced a letter received by a 15-year-old boy 
offering him a credit card. The father of that boy works here on the 
Hill and brought the letter to the committee.
  This bill, if approved, would provide that no credit card may be 
knowingly issued to or open-end credit plan established on behalf of a 
consumer who has not attained the age of 18 unless the consumer is 
emancipated under applicable State law.
  Mr. Speaker, we have, in this country, right now over a billion 
credit cards. We have young people going to

[[Page H8594]]

college receiving credit cards. We had testimony before our committee 
that in colleges, the administration will quite often allow credit card 
companies to come in on enrollment day. They offer the students a 
sandwich at one of the local fast food restaurants in exchange for them 
applying for a credit card. This has got to stop.
  China has almost a 22 percent savings rate. The United States is 
negative .6. We are training our kids to go off to college where that 
is becoming increasingly expensive and then go out and get a credit 
card without having any source of income.
  This has to stop, and I would like to commend my colleague for 
introducing this legislation and for doing things that I think the 
public expects us to do as elected officials.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of my colleague, 
the gentleman, Mr. Welch, if he has additional speakers. I, at this 
time, do not appear to have any additional speakers.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I have at least two speakers at this point.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise as an enthusiastic supporter of the 
legislation that has been prepared by the gentlewoman from New York. 
Credit card abuse is rampant, and her legislation helps us to correct 
some of the most egregious abuses.
  I have just come from the Subcommittee on Health on which I serve. 
It's well known that the number one item in terms of credit card debt 
is for medical bills and that health care costs are the number one 
cause of personal bankruptcy in this country.
  When we wrote the bankruptcy bill a few years ago, what began as a 
reasonable reform to deal with problems with debtors became an entirely 
one-sided piece of legislation that ignored these rampant abuses in the 
credit card industry. So it's appropriate here, under new leadership 
and a Democratic Congress and the leadership of the gentlewoman from 
New York, we are finally belatedly addressing some of these abuses.
  But all of this will be for naught unless this measure becomes part 
of the great Wall Street bailout that the President has proposed. Once 
again, the proposal being advanced from this administration, not unlike 
our old debate about the bankruptcy laws, is all one-sided: give to 
those who cause the problem, give taxpayer money to those who cause the 
problem, and let those who cause the problem decide how that money is 
distributed. It's all one-sided.
  If such a bill in any form is to be passed--and I think there's great 
debate about the wisdom of approving anything in this area of the type 
that has been advanced--but if such a measure is to be approved, it is 
essential that we do just a little bit for the consumers who have been 
entrapped, in many cases, with massive amounts of credit card debt. And 
incorporating the modest but very important reforms that the 
gentlewoman from New York has advanced into this legislation is 
absolutely essential.
  We need not negotiate just over the unsatisfactory proposal that was 
advanced by the Treasury Department.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I will yield the gentleman an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. DOGGETT. We need not be limited by just trying to improve an 
unsatisfactory proposal advanced by the administration; we need to add 
to that negotiating list key consumer reforms like this so that the 
protection is just not for the wrongdoers on Wall Street, but it's for 
the average consumer struggling to make ends meet with a huge credit 
card debt. And I applaud the gentlewoman from New York for her 
leadership.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we reserve our time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota, a member of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. 
Ellison.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, let me start by thanking Chairwoman Maloney 
and Chairman Frank for their continued commitment to this much-needed 
credit card reform legislation. I'm proud and honored to have worked 
with both of them to ensure the financial security of working families 
across America.
  As co-chair of the Congressional Consumer Justice Caucus, I'm 
strongly in favor of H.R. 5244, the Credit Card Holder's Bill of 
Rights.
  Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to stand up for working 
families across America by passing legislation that will ensure the 
prosperity of the working class. And this legislation, Mr. Speaker, 
needs to be part of the financial markets' rescue plan. As we move 
forward to try to help people on Wall Street, we cannot leave alone the 
people on Main Street. Americans are suffering under tremendous weight 
of this credit crisis. We have to do something, and this is what we can 
do about it: giving people relief from these incredible abuses in the 
credit card industry.
  The debt crisis inundating so many Americans is in large part due to 
the result of an industry with few regulations and little oversight. 
Consumers with credit cards nationwide are facing excessive credit card 
fees, sky-high interest rates, and unfair incomprehensible agreements 
that credit card companies can revise at will.
  In short, American families are suffering while credit card companies 
are making record profits, Mr. Speaker. In 2007, credit card issuers 
imposed $18.1 billion--that's billion with a ``B''--in penalty fees on 
families carrying credit card balances for more than 50 percent since 
2003. This accounts for nearly half of the $41 billion industry 
profits.
  This year, credit card companies will break all record fees for late 
fees, over-limit charges, and other penalties pulling in more than $19 
billion.

                              {time}  1115

  H.R. 5244 bans unfair and deceptive practices that have resulted in 
billions of dollars in fees drained from hardworking families for the 
credit card industry.
  Also included in the bill is a ban on universal default. Last May, I 
introduced legislation to ban this unfair and ethical practice, and I'm 
pleased to see it included in the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. ELLISON. Universal default is the popular term for a practice 
that allows creditors to increase the rate on your credit card to the 
default rate, even when you haven't missed a single payment on that 
card. This means that we're going to look at real reform with this 
important piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairwoman Maloney, again, for her 
valiant advocacy, and this does need to be a part of the rescue 
package.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that the gentleman 
from Vermont is through with his speakers at this time, if I could 
confirm that.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. That is correct.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, since taking control of this House, this Democrat 
Congress has totally neglected its responsibility to address the 
domestic supply issues that have created the skyrocketing gas, diesel 
and energy costs that Americans are facing today, and no doubt, part of 
the credit crunch that we are facing today and credit card costs that 
Americans are facing today is as a result of the high cost of gasoline 
right now that all Americans are paying.
  By going on vacation for 5 weeks over August, while I and 138 others 
of my Republican colleagues stayed in Washington to talk about real 
solutions for American families, this Democrat majority has proven that 
they do not believe that the energy crisis facing American families and 
business was important enough to cancel their summer beach plans or 
book tours to get the job done.
  So, again, today, the Republicans are here on the floor of the House 
of Representatives asking each of our colleagues to vote with me to 
defeat the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I 
will move to amend the rule to allow this House to take up a measure 
that will allow Members to be able to vote for a pro-energy bill and

[[Page H8595]]

prevent Members from going home to campaign for reelection without 
actually passing a bill which will pass and have meaningful reform so 
that we can lower the price of gasoline at the pump.
  This legislation that I will be proposing that can be voted on today 
and that would turn into law would allow States to expand the 
exploration and extraction of natural resources along the Outer 
Continental Shelf. Not allowed in the Democrat bill that passed one 
week ago.
  It would open the arctic energy slope and oil shale reserves to 
environmentally prudent exploration and extraction. Not included in the 
Democrats' bill of a week ago.
  It would extend expiring renewable energy incentives. It would 
encourage the streamlining approval of new refining capacity and 
nuclear power facilities. Not included in the Democrat bill of a week 
ago.
  It would encourage advanced research and development of clean coal, 
coal-to-liquid, and carbon sequestration technologies, which was not 
included in the Democrat bill a week ago.
  Perhaps most of all, it would minimize drawn out legal challenges 
that unreasonably delay or prevent actual domestic energy production. 
Not included in the Democrats' bill of a week ago.
  Mr. Speaker, this requirement would finally force the Democrat 
leadership to take positive, meaningful action to increase the supply 
of American energy. It would reduce the price at the pump for American 
families and use, what we term in the Republican Party, an all-of-the-
above strategy combining increased supply of American-made energy, 
improved conservation and efficiency, and provide for new and expanding 
energy technologies to achieve American energy independence.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the 
vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we're here on the floor debating a bill 
today that may have unintended consequences of drying up the ability 
that families have and people have and small businesses have for 
getting credit.
  I do acknowledge, I think every Member of this House acknowledges, 
that gasoline prices, energy prices are way too high. Food prices are 
way too high. But people who are trying to live their lives need the 
opportunity to have credit, the opportunity to be able to have a credit 
card, and to be able to place those expenses on their credit card, and 
then manage their own ability to pay back. That is the essence of what 
we should be about is trying to help people do that today.
  Not about creating another credit card crunch. Not about creating 
credit cards where people don't know whether they're going to be able 
to get credit or not, and perhaps, more importantly, the opportunity 
for us to give this marketplace for American consumers stability where 
they know what they can count on and move forward to take care of their 
families and their small businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to say also that we believe that the 
provisions that were put in the rule specifically addressing the 
earmark reform or earmarks is unacceptable. It's unacceptable to say 
that this House will quite likely be voting on a massive bill only to 
find out weeks later we'll find out what was in the bill and those 
earmarks that accompany that.
  As the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) noted, that is 
disappointing. It's disappointing because this House was advised over 2 
years ago that this would be the most honest, open, and ethical 
Congress in history.
  Mr. Speaker, I have seen very little to no action on behalf of this 
new Democrat majority that is open about what they do, that is 
transparent in what they do. And once again, today, with a record 
shattering breaking new closed rule, we find that they aren't even 
willing to take ideas from people in their own party, and I think 
that's disappointing.
  As we wind down this last week that we're here before the election, 
we find that there are new tricks of the trade that take place in this 
Rules Committee. I'm disappointed that this new Democrat majority 
continues that. I support the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and 
what he said; and, Mr. Speaker, I would say that that's why I'm asking 
Members of this body not to support this rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  I yield back my time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I want to make three points.
  First, in response to the concerns expressed by the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake), I want to assure him, as well as my colleagues, 
that the Armed Services Committee intends today to file their 
explanatory statement. This is on the, incidentally, Duncan Hunter 
defense authorization bill. They want to file their explanatory 
statement before the bipartisan DOD authorization is considered on the 
floor. So Members are going to have an opportunity to read in the 
Congressional Record all the information that they want, including 
anything related to so-called ``earmarks.''
  Second, I want to speak to the energy concerns that were discussed by 
the gentleman from Texas. I understand the argument he's making. It's 
been made by him and his colleagues, and in fact, many of the arguments 
that were made were incorporated into the energy legislation that did 
pass this House for an all-of-the-above approach to energy, and I can 
appreciate that some Members here do believe that drilling is the way 
to go and almost the only way to go. And I can understand the political 
appeal that has been embraced by my friends on the other side to use 
every occasion to speak, whether it is on a credit card bill, whether 
it's on a veterans bill, doesn't matter the nature of the bill that 
they want to give their pitch about oil. And they've done it. We've 
listened, and we've passed legislation that does incorporate all of the 
above.
  But the third point I want to make is this: this legislation that has 
been brought to the floor by Congresswoman Maloney raises a 
fundamentally, profoundly important question for this Congress. Are we 
going to stand by hands off while the credit industry, most recently 
exhibited by Wall Street, basically plunders our economy, picks the 
pockets of consumers, has their way, tramples on the rights of 
individuals and families, disregards the needs of the middle class, all 
in the name of whatever it is in and however much money it is they can 
make? Or is Congress going to assert its role as the representatives of 
the people and establish a level playing field so that people can have 
access to the credit that they need in a way that companies are going 
to make a fair profit, the old, the elderly, the people on the margin 
aren't going to be ripped off?
  It's really that simple, and we can debate about what the fine points 
are in any kind of consumer protection legislation, and reasonable 
people can disagree on both sides of the aisle. But the fundamental 
question for this Congress is, are we going to do anything or not? And 
the whole reason we have this extraordinary spectacle of these Wall 
Street titans, billionaires, now coming in to Congress saying they're 
going broke and give us $700 billion, and oh, it's not for us, it's 
because we want the economy to work for the people who are on the dead-
end side of these mortgages, why did that happen?
  It happened because in many ways the Federal Trade Commission, the 
Federal Reserve, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the executive branch 
of government abdicated any responsibility that it had to stand up for 
people who needed an active government on their side.
  What Congresswoman Maloney's legislation says very simply is, Enough. 
Enough. Enough abuse. It's over; the free ride is over. We're going to 
have some fair rules, consumer protections. You get notice of what your 
bill is going to be. You can't change the interest rate arbitrarily. A 
contract is a contract both ways, and if there's an obligation to pay 
your credit card, which there is, there's an obligation on the part of 
the credit card company to abide by explicit terms and conditions in a 
contract.
  So this legislation is a first step, in my view long overdue, for 
Congress to stand up and say that there are going to be some basic 
rules of fairness, some

[[Page H8596]]

basic rules of the road that are going to protect everyday citizens. 
Credit is essential to our economy, and that's a point my friend from 
Texas made and he's right, and it's a useful and important tool for 
individuals and families.
  But there have to be fair rules, and one family up against a monolith 
of the credit card industry, there's got to be somebody on the side of 
that family, and that's got to be the United States Congress.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:

       Amendment to H. Res. 1476 Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       Sec. 4. It shall not be in order in the House to consider a 
     concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment of either 
     House of Congress until comprehensive energy legislation has 
     been enacted into law that includes provisions designed to--
       (A) allow states to expand the exploration and extraction 
     of natural resources along the Outer Continental Shelf;
       (B) open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and oil shale 
     reserves to environmentally prudent exploration and 
     extraction;
       (C) extend expiring renewable energy incentives;
       (D) encourage the streamlined approval of new refining 
     capacity and nuclear power facilities;
       (E) encourage advanced research and development of clean 
     coal, coal-to-liquid, and carbon sequestration technologies; 
     and
       (F) minimize drawn out legal challenges that unreasonably 
     delay or prevent actual domestic energy production.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of H. Res. 1476, if ordered; and 
the motion to suspend the rules and pass S.J. Res. 45.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 192, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 619]

                               YEAS--221

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Gillibrand
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--192

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Cazayoux
     Chabot
     Childers
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery

[[Page H8597]]


     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Cooper
     Cubin
     Davis, Lincoln
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graves
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hulshof
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (IL)
     Moran (VA)
     Neugebauer
     Pearce
     Pryce (OH)
     Reyes
     Rush
     Salazar
     Tierney
     Udall (NM)

                              {time}  1153

  Mr. FLAKE changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. ISRAEL changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. SESSIONS. 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 220, 
noes 194, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 620]

                               AYES--220

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Gillibrand
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--194

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Bean
     Cooper
     Cubin
     Davis, Lincoln
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Hulshof
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (IL)
     LaTourette
     Moran (VA)
     Neugebauer
     Pearce
     Pryce (OH)
     Reyes
     Rush
     Tierney
     Udall (NM)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes remain.

                              {time}  1201

  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.

                          ____________________