[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 26704-26712]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3639, EXPEDITED CARD REFORM FOR 
                         CONSUMERS ACT OF 2009

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 884 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

[[Page 26705]]



                              H. Res. 884

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3639) to amend the Credit Card Accountability 
     Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 to establish an 
     earlier effective date for various consumer protections, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 
     of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Financial Services. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill, 
     modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be 
     considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of 
     the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the 
     original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the 
     five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are 
     waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further 
     amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except 
     those printed in part B of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules. Each further amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     further amendments are waived except those arising under 
     clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such 
     further amendments as may have been adopted. In the case of 
     sundry further amendments reported from the Committee, the 
     question of their adoption shall be put to the House en gros 
     and without division of the question. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  The Chair may entertain a motion that the 
     Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee 
     on Financial Services or his designee. The Chair may not 
     entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the 
     bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). The gentleman from Colorado is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), 
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House 
Resolution 884.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 884 provides for 
consideration of H.R. 3639, the Expedited CARD Reform for Consumers Act 
of 2009, under a structured rule. The rule self-executes an amendment 
to clarify that the accelerated effective date of December 1, 2009, 
will apply only to those provisions of the Credit Card Act that deal 
directly with credit cards and currently have an effective date on or 
after February 22, 2010.
  The amendment also provides that the accelerated effective dates are 
not applicable to any credit card issuer which is a depository 
institution with fewer than 2 million credit cards in circulation as of 
the date of the enactment of the bill.
  This rule makes in order five amendments printed in the Rules 
Committee report. The amendments are each debatable for 10 minutes. The 
rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, Congress passed and the President 
signed into law the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and 
Disclosure Act, the CARD Act for short. This legislation ordered 
important new rules to credit card issuers to end unfair, exploitive, 
and sharp practices, and to protect consumers against the tide of 
arbitrary rate hikes, spiking fees, and hidden charges.

                              {time}  1030

  The bill moved to end double-cycle billing, universal default and 
over-the-limit fees.
  We passed this bill to give Americans a fair shake. The CARD Act 
marked a broad overhaul in the way credit card companies do business, 
and I acknowledge some of these changes require no small measure of 
time and resources to implement. Indeed, many lenders have made an 
honest effort to come into compliance with these new rules.
  However, Mr. Speaker, the reason I stand here today is that some 
lenders have not used this interim period in such good faith. Since the 
CARD Act was signed into law, instead of preparing to implement these 
consumer protection provisions, some credit card companies have raised 
interest rates and have decreased credit limits on their consumers in 
advance of the effective dates. Responsible cardholders who have 
regularly met monthly obligations have seen their minimum payments and 
interest rates arbitrarily double and triple. They are finding their 
credit limits slashed, and they're hit with new and hidden fees. To 
many consumers, this is a slap in the face, and it is a violation of 
the spirit of the law designed to protect them. This has now unfairly 
increased the financial burdens on Americans in already difficult 
times.
  Card issuers' actions highlight the need for protections under the 
CARD Act now more than ever. The credit card industry requires its 
cardholders to act responsibly, and it holds them accountable. It is in 
fairness that we require card issuers to act with the same level of 
responsibility and accountability.
  H.R. 3639 would accelerate the implementation of certain provisions 
in existing law related to regulations and operations of the credit 
card companies. The CARD Act has set deadlines for implementing various 
reforms and procedures, with most of those measures scheduled to take 
effect in February and in August of 2010. This bill would move those 
effective dates forward to December 1, 2009.
  American consumers don't need protection next year. They need it now, 
so I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and in favor of 
the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding time for us.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the consideration of a wholly 
unnecessary and potentially destructive bill that could further 
aggravate the struggles of small businesses and families who are 
suffering from an unavailability of credit during these times of 
economic uncertainty.
  Here we are on the 4th of November, and the majority thinks that this 
bill is going to be passed in time to move this date up to December 1. 
It's totally unrealistic in addition to all the other comments that I'm 
going to make.
  H.R. 3639 would accelerate the implementation of H.R. 627, the Credit 
Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009, a bill 
that was signed into law earlier this year. I opposed the bill at that 
time because it took the wrong approach to addressing concerns with the 
credit card industry. The provisions it seeks to accelerate would 
impose unfunded private-sector Federal mandates, increased costs to 
borrowers; and it would limit the availability of credit to potential 
borrowers, which is just the opposite of what our colleagues think they 
are achieving.
  These provisions are inappropriate in a credit card market that is 
fiercely competitive, and those who are concerned about the terms of 
their credit cards should rely on individual responsibility to become 
informed. Rather than taking the approach laid out in H.R. 627 and that 
which is accelerated by the bill before us today, consumers can always 
exercise the option of either avoiding carrying a balance or of

[[Page 26706]]

shopping for a different credit card. Many people do not realize that 
credit cards were created to provide for a convenient form of payment 
for goods and services. They were not originally intended to serve as a 
loan system, which is how many people are using them now.
  Mr. Speaker, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and 
to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  I would say to my friend from North Carolina, in walking around the 
district in the suburbs of Denver, which I represent, or in doing a 
government at the grocery every other Saturday, a number of topics are 
raised. It could be the Middle East. It could be energy, health care, 
immigration; but always among the top five are credit cards and 
overdraft fees because so many people are affected by what turns out to 
be some sharp practices by some issuers. The purpose of the CARD Act is 
to stop those sharp practices.
  Most of the issuers are diligent, thorough, responsible companies; 
but some are not. What we've seen in the interim is that those who are 
not have just continued to increase their prices, to increase the 
interest rates, and to take advantage of this interim period. It's that 
type of sharp practice, that irresponsible behavior, that we're trying 
to stop by expediting the date to December 1, 2009.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).
  Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
  In a nutshell, I think we would be much better served and, 
ultimately, the public would have been much better served with an open 
rule. I have an amendment which, under an open rule, I would have 
proposed. While all of this is very interesting--talking about credit 
card debt and those protections--and while you can have a conversation 
about that, the elephant in the room is this idea of national debt.
  My amendment would have simply said that income tax return forms 
would have been amended to have four lines on them as follows: Number 
one, the taxpayer's dependent shares of the national debt; the taxpayer 
family's share of the national debt; how much each individual's share 
of the national debt increased in the last year; and how much adjusted 
gross income would be required to meet the burden of that share in the 
national debt.
  Here is where we are right now: this Congress and this administration 
have doubled the national debt in 5 years, and they will triple the 
national debt in 10 years. Why does that matter?
  That matters because we are experiencing a feeling in this country 
that one generation is not passing on a legacy of prosperity to the 
next generation. In other words, one generation is actually stealing 
from the next generation. Why? Because of a lack of discipline that 
comes from this Chamber, a lack of discipline that says we're going to 
spend our way into prosperity.
  What Americans understand, Mr. Speaker, is you cannot borrow and 
spend your way into prosperity. As to the idea that we're going to 
incur more and more and more debt, whether it's from a stimulus that 
has underperformed, whether it's on a bloated budget or whether it's on 
a health care bill that takes people's breath away, it's so costly, I 
think, by and large, Americans have said enough is enough.
  So, towards that end, I rise in opposition to the rule. I think the 
rule is tone deaf, and it doesn't offer a larger conversation on debt.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield myself so much time as I might consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate hearing from my friend from 
Illinois. He has a number of things he wants to talk about. The trouble 
is that nothing he has talked about has anything to do with the bill 
that's before the House today. It's completely outside the topic.
  I would just say to my friend from Illinois that this country, by 
taking a tack under President Bush and a Republican Congress, to cut 
taxes, prosecuting two wars, and driving this country into an economic 
ditch is what we, the Democrats, are trying to build ourselves out of. 
It will take time, and it will take a lot of effort on the part of 
everyone, but he should not be so quick to blame, because the roots of 
this financial distress go back to the Republican Congress and to 
President Bush.
  Now, coming back to the topic at hand, this is about credit cards and 
about abusive practices which hurt individual Americans. It's not some 
amorphous kind of question that we face. It's for people who are barely 
making ends meet now, who have had good credit histories and who see 
their credit card interest rates rising three and four and five and 
six--and double sometimes--from what they were originally paying, 
through no fault of their own. This has got to stop.
  So the purpose of the bill that is before the House today is to 
expedite the rules and regulations that were first passed by the House 
last May. It is to expedite them up to December 1, 2009.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Excuses. Excuses. Excuses. That's all we hear from the other side of 
the aisle. Blame. Blame. Blame. Don't take responsibility, blame George 
Bush. I think that's getting a little old with the American people. 
Excuses.
  You know, this country was founded on the concept of individual 
freedom. That's what we were founded on and on taking responsibility. 
We are not in the business of blaming others, or we should not be. Our 
economy was doing really great until the Democrats took control of this 
House in 2007. You can look. We've got charts. We can show you that job 
growth was going on and that the economy was doing terrific. The 
Democrats take over, and all of a sudden everything starts going 
downhill.
  You know, the people who take out credit cards are not having guns 
held to their heads. They take out the credit cards. If they don't like 
the rates of interest that they're paying, they should get other credit 
cards, but don't blame the credit card companies for extending credit 
to people who then are irresponsible.
  All this Congress is doing is setting the example for this 
irresponsibility by, as my colleague from Illinois said, continuing to 
spend money we do not have. That is the crux of the argument. It is the 
largest deficit in the history of this country. In fact, it is larger 
than all the other deficits put together. This Congress is the example 
for those irresponsible people out there.
  I want to talk a little bit about an article by Horace Cooper, which 
was printed in the May 15, 2009, issue of Politico, which gives the 
history and potential consequences of the bill before us, both of which 
are necessary in understanding the right approach to this issue, and I 
will be quoting Mr. Cooper for the next few minutes:
  While most Americans take credit card use and ownership for granted, 
credit cards are a relatively new financial device coming in in only 
the past 50 years, but their widespread use is ample evidence of the 
value they bring to most Americans.
  Their use started in the 1950s with the original Bank of America 
cards, which cardholders were able to use at multiple merchants. 
Notably, the entire balance would have to be paid off each month. Now 
there are more than 175 million credit card holders, and today, credit 
cards typically have revolving accounts, giving individual users the 
ability to decide how much of their charges they wish to pay off each 
month.
  Cooper continues by highlighting the consequences these new 
restrictions will have on financially vulnerable populations, stating: 
What the advocates of these reforms have failed to understand is that 
these changes will dramatically raise the costs of extending loans to 
cardholders and will cause the riskiest cardholders to be dropped all 
together, and that will hurt people

[[Page 26707]]

in the urban community--and minorities most--because their income is 
lower than average.
  Fees and rate hikes are among the means that credit card companies 
use to recoup the costs associated with credit card lending. Because 
credit card charges aren't secured, lenders can't seize your home or 
even the assets you've purchased. Credit card companies use interest 
rates and other fees as a way to offset the risks associated with a 
given cardholder.
  A cap or limit on fees will cause credit card companies to limit 
their exposure, particularly to minorities in inner city areas, since 
those with low incomes are at a higher risk for default, but this won't 
help the rest of the credit card-holding public. Everyone will likely 
see lower credit lines and higher average interest rates, since these 
are now ``forever'' rates instead of adjustable ones, and shorter 
credit card activation periods, weeks instead of months of authorized 
credit use.
  Particularly troubling is that even minorities, women and working 
class families with good records of paying their debts will see credit 
access dry up. This is especially bad during an economic downturn as it 
means that fewer new small businesses, which increasingly rely on 
credit cards, will start to bring more jobs and economic growth into 
the economy, and it will be far harder for all families, including 
minorities and working class families, to bridge job losses or even 
temporary layoffs by using credit cards to temporarily buy family 
staples.

                              {time}  1045

  Critics of the credit card industry fail to appreciate the 
alternatives that presently exist to credit card use by most Americans; 
payday lending, auto title loans, and pawnshops for those who wish to 
operate within the law, and street lamp vendors named ``Rocky'' for 
those who don't. Minority and lower income families will be 
disproportionately forced to these alternatives when traditional credit 
card access goes away.
  Mr. Cooper brings to the attention of the American people some very 
important points. What Republicans have done is to provide an 
alternative measure, H.R. 2327, the Protection of Consumer Credit and 
Consumer Choice Act of 2009, which embodies the principles necessary to 
protect the availability of credit while providing consumers with the 
information needed to make informed decisions.
  H.R. 2327, of which I am a sponsor, would require credit card issuers 
to provide clear and conspicuous disclosures pertaining to, one, the 
time provided to make timely payments; two, allocation of payments when 
different annual percentage rates apply to different balances of such 
accounts; three, increases in APRs; four, a two-cycle average daily 
balance method of balance calculation; and, five, fees that may be 
assessed at the opening of each account.
  Additionally, this alternative bill would require credit card issuers 
to provide advanced written notice of a change in such terms before it 
takes effect, with certain exceptions.
  With the presence of this reasonable alternative that provides 
sensible consumer protections, while avoiding the pitfalls of assigning 
a variety of new federally unfunded mandates, I urge my colleagues to 
vote against this rule and oppose the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend if she has any other 
speakers?
  Ms. FOXX. I do not have any further speakers, but I do intend to 
speak a little longer on the rule.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago during 1-minutes, one of our 
Democratic colleagues came in and talked about the number of ``shalls'' 
in the proposed health care bill by the Democrats and then spoke about 
the Ten Commandments and pointed out that the Ten Commandments 
liberally uses the word ``shall.''
  I think that it is the height of arrogance to compare the outrageous 
2,000-page bill written in Speaker Pelosi's office with the Ten 
Commandments given to us by God through Moses, whose face is looking 
down on us from the wall of this Chamber. That, to me, is the epitome 
of the arrogance of the majority party right now, saying that it is 
okay to have a lot of ``shalls'' in that because the ``shalls'' were in 
the Ten Commandments.
  With Federal spending and debt already out of control, the Democrat 
leadership is content with putting the cost of their government 
takeover of health care on the Nation's credit card. Again, my friend, 
Mr. Roskam from Illinois, alluded to this a few minutes ago.
  The Wall Street Journal called Speaker Pelosi's 1,990-page takeover 
of health care the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever 
introduced.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Speaker Pelosi's plan 
will cost $1.055 trillion over the first decade, not $894 billion as 
Speaker Pelosi claims. But the Democrats are using a procedural 
maneuver to include the $245 billion ``doc fix'' without violating 
PAYGO, so the real cost of the bill is closer to $1.3 trillion.
  At more than $1 trillion and nearly 2,000 pages, H.R. 3962 is the 
antithesis of patient-centered reforms that empower Americans to truly 
own and control their health care coverage. The fact is, H.R. 3962 will 
force millions of Americans off their current coverage, hand control 
over medical decisions to new czars and bureaucrats, raise taxes, 
stifle job creation, expand entitlement spending, and break already-
strained State budgets.
  Pelosi's plan creates 111 new boards, bureaucracies, commissions, and 
programs. Americans can say goodbye to personal private insurance as 
individual health insurance coverage is grandfathered out of existence 
in section 202 and more limitations also are added to Health Savings 
Accounts, sections 531 and 533.
  H.R. 3962 permits Federal funds to be spent on abortion services, 
section 222, and includes a government-run plan, section 321, that will 
force tens of millions of Americans off their current coverage. So much 
for the promise that if you like your current coverage, you can keep 
it.
  The bill increases taxes by $729.5 billion, including a mandate that 
employers provide coverage or pay a tax equal to 8 percent of wages, 
section 512; a 5.4 percent surtax on small businesses, section 551; and 
a mandate that Americans purchase government-deemed acceptable health 
care coverage or face a tax of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross 
income, section 501.
  In navigating the new health care system, Americans will have to deal 
with a host of new czars and bureaucracies, including the Health 
Benefits Advisory Committee, section 223, the Health Choices 
Administration and Health Choices Commissioner, section 241.
  Community organizations like ACORN may assist the Health Choices 
Commissioner in enrolling individuals in the Health Insurance Exchange, 
section 305. We all know how successful ACORN has been in enrolling 
people appropriately into different programs.
  H.R. 3962 includes a huge expansion of the Medicaid entitlement, 
eligibility up to 150 percent of the Federal poverty level, but leaves 
already overstretched State governments to pick up the $34 billion tab, 
section 1701.
  Mr. Speaker, I am mentioning these sections because I want the 
American people to know they can verify what we are saying simply by 
going to the bill and looking at it in these sections. This is not 
something we are making up. It is there.
  To appease their trial lawyer base, Democrats continue to ignore the 
enormous medical liability crisis that needlessly drives up costs. They 
pay lip service to medical malpractice reform with money for States 
that pursue ``effective'' lawyer-friendly alternatives, section 2531, 
but they explicitly exclude States that limit attorney's fees or cap 
damages. Members of Congress are not subject to the same health care 
system Americans will have to live by under the public health insurance 
option, section 330.
  The Democrats claim their bill allows for the sale of health 
insurance

[[Page 26708]]

across State lines. In reality, this bill will only provide for 
regional compacts that States can enter into if their State 
legislatures approve it. However, these compacts can only exist after 
the Federal Government has established stringent national rules for 
minimum benefits and what constitutes a qualified plan, virtually 
eliminating the individual market and creating a national exchange, 
causing many to wonder how this would even be possible.
  Rather than forcing through a bad bill with only limited support, the 
Democrats should keep working until they can get a bill that represents 
the opinions of most Americans and helps rather than hurts Americans.
  Democrats in Congress often portray Republicans as obstructionists 
with no health care reform solutions of our own. This is simply not 
true. Republicans in Congress are listening to the American people. We 
know that Americans want commonsense, responsible solutions that make 
health insurance more affordable, reduce the number of uninsured 
Americans, and increase quality at a price our country can afford while 
making sure that Americans who like their health insurance can keep it.
  We have proposed many commonsense solutions that fell on deaf ears as 
the Democrats in charge wrote their bill in secret. Republican Members 
have introduced more than 50 health care reform bills this year. House 
Republicans will support responsible health care reform and offer an 
alternative plan to Pelosi's 1,990-page, $1.3 trillion takeover of 
health care.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have and how much 
time does Ms. Foxx have?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 24 minutes 
remaining, and the gentlewoman from North Carolina has 12 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I just was listening to my friend from North 
Carolina, and she really didn't talk about the bill. She talked about 
health care, which is a problem that has been lingering for a long 
time. Republicans for 12 years in the Congress, as well as 8 years 
under President Bush, failed to do anything about discriminating 
against people with prior illnesses. This health care bill takes care 
of that.
  They failed to deal with anything related to the increase in premiums 
that individuals and businesses across the country are experiencing. We 
are going to take care of that.
  Finally, they didn't do anything with the antitrust laws that protect 
insurance companies, and we are going to deal with that so that there 
is portability.
  Now, let's get back to the bill at hand. The bill at hand deals with 
a real problem faced by Americans every day because companies are 
taking advantage of them by jacking up interest rates, continuing to 
use sharp practices, all to the detriment and to the harm of middle 
Americans. We have got to change that. So for purposes of this bill, 
this credit card bill, we are going to expedite the new rules to 
December 1. That is the purpose of the bill. That is the purpose of the 
underlying rule. That is why we are here today.
  But with respect to the credit card bill, it is the usual Republican 
mantra, ``Just say no, we like the status quo,'' just as it applies to 
the health care bill. ``Just say no, we like the status quo.''
  We can't afford the status quo when it comes to credit cards. We 
can't afford the status quo when it comes to health care.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I like my colleague from Colorado very much on 
a personal level, but let's get real: This bill is going nowhere. 
Republicans have an alternative bill that will do very well. And those 
of us here know that this bill is just a time consumer, because the 
Democrats have no real legislation to offer. They know this bill can't 
go into effect by December 1, but they need something to keep us here 
this week because they are trying to twist arms to get the votes for 
the health care bill. So we have to spend time talking about something, 
so this is what was brought up.
  Let me say that, talking about health care now, we are doing that 
because we know when the health care bill does come to the floor, the 
almost 2,000-page health care bill, or a little over 2,000 pages, I 
suspect, won't get any time for discussion, not what it deserves, 
taking over one-sixth of the economy, because, and I quote from today's 
Roll Call, ``House Rules Chairman Louise Slaughter, Democrat-New York, 
said that the rule would be locked down, allowing a vote on a 
Republican alternative and perhaps one other, but no additional 
amendments,'' continuing the tradition that has been going on here this 
entire session--no amendments, because you don't want debate on what it 
is we should be debating.
  But let me talk a minute about the Republicans' alternative plan. It 
will lower health care premiums for American families and small 
businesses, which addresses the number one priority for health care 
reform of Americans. It will establish universal access programs to 
guarantee access to affordable care for those with preexisting 
conditions.
  I have read part of the plan that you have. It provides for waiting 
lists and taking people with existing conditions out of your plan. You 
don't even guarantee those people coverage.
  Ending junk lawsuits. The Republican plan will help end costly junk 
lawsuits and curb defensive medicine by enacting medical liability 
reforms modeled after the successful laws in California and Texas.
  It will prevent insurers from unjustly canceling a policy or 
instituting annual lifetime spending caps. It will encourage small 
business health plans. It gives small businesses the power to pool 
together and offer health care at lower prices, just as corporations 
and labor unions do. It will encourage innovative State programs. It 
will allow Americans to buy insurance across State lines.
  It will codify the Hyde amendment. The Republican plan explicitly 
prohibits Federal funds, whether they are authorized funds or 
appropriated funds, from being used to pay for abortion. It will 
promote healthier lifestyles. It will enhance Health Savings Accounts, 
and it will allow dependents to remain on their parents' policies for a 
longer time.
  We have alternatives, sensible alternatives, what the American people 
want. And I think yesterday's elections give us some idea about what 
the American people want.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I think that my friend from North Carolina and I are going to have a 
lot of time on the Rules Committee to debate health care issues, so I 
am going to just remind her that the health care matter was never 
addressed by a Republican Congress and really not addressed by the 
President of the United States, except to create the doughnut hole for 
seniors. That is about the sum and substance of 12 years of Republicans 
in Congress and 8 years of President Bush in the White House.

                              {time}  1100

  Now, we've had three committees debate this health care bill over 
time, many, many amendments, lots of discussion, lots of conversations 
all across America dealing with the health care bill. So we're going to 
see that come up here very soon and we will continue to have this kind 
of spirited debate.
  As it applies to the elections, I'm not sure if I want to remind my 
good friend from North Carolina that the Democrats picked up a seat in 
New York that they hadn't held for 154 years. So there was good news 
and bad news for both Democrats and Republicans in yesterday's 
elections.
  But I would remind my friend we are here on the credit card bill. 
This is to move up the date for the rules and regulations to go into 
place to December 1 to stop the sharp practices that we see occurring 
today, which is the increase of interest rates, the continued use of

[[Page 26709]]

double billing cycles, and the like, which are hurting everyday 
Americans. And that's got to stop.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, again, as our good colleague from Illinois 
pointed out, the health care bill is going on the Federal credit card 
and it's going to have very high interest rates, and it's something the 
American people want us to talk about because of its effect on the 
economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from 
Indiana and the Republican Conference Chair, Mr. Pence.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. And while I 
appreciate my good friend's clarification that this rule has to do with 
a credit card bill that's on the floor today, I take this opportunity 
respectfully to speak about that issue which is foremost in the minds 
of the American people at this hour, and that is this freight train of 
Big Government moving through the Congress at a frightening speed that 
we believe with all our hearts will result in a government takeover of 
health care in America.
  After months of behind-closed-doors dealings, the Democratic 
majority, in cooperation with the White House and special interest 
groups, produced late last week finally a bill. It may be amended 
again, Mr. Speaker, but we have a 1,990-page bill that, according to 
independent press estimates, includes $1.2 trillion in new Federal 
spending on expanded health insurance coverage over the next 10 years. 
It includes $729.5 billion in new taxes on small businesses and 
individuals. It is in every real sense a government takeover of health 
care and the burden and payment of which will be borne principally by 
Americans that make less than $200,000 per year.
  An independent estimate that we received yesterday, as Republicans 
spent hours reading the bill in our reading room, was that actually, 
despite the fact that as a candidate President Obama pledged that he 
would not raise taxes on Americans who make less than $200,000 a year, 
with the Pelosi health care bill, actually the tax increases would fall 
most squarely on Americans making below that threshold amount. Eighty-
seven percent of the taxes that are being levied in the Democrat health 
care bill will be paid by Americans that make less than $200,000 a 
year, fees and mandates and fines and penalties falling squarely on our 
middle class. It's really extraordinary when you think of it that it's 
taking place during what is, without debate, the worst recession in a 
quarter of a century.
  But it doesn't just stop there. When we say that it's a government 
takeover of health care, we are talking real numbers and real 
bureaucracy. Those that say otherwise ignore the fact that in this 
legislation there are 43 entitlement programs that are created, 
expanded, or extended. There are 111 additional offices, bureaus, 
commissions, programs, and bureaucracies that the bill creates over and 
above the entitlement expansions included in the prior bill.
  Lastly, we all know as legislators that the word ``shall'' is not a 
friendly word when it comes in law. When the word ``shall'' appears in 
law, it means that someone must do something, a business, an 
enterprise, an element of the bureaucracy shall take action. The word 
``shall'' appears in the Democrat health care bill 3,425 times. Yet the 
majority and the administration continue to insist that this is not a 
government takeover of health care? I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, 
the American people are catching on and they know otherwise.
  But the good news is there's an alternative. People can go to 
healthcare.gop.gov, and as has emerged in recent days, Republicans have 
a bill. I know our colleagues have been pointing at some blank pages on 
the floor in the last 24 hours, but the American people surfing the net 
know that the Republican bill is actually a little bit over 200 pages, 
allows Americans to purchase health insurance across State lines the 
way big businesses can, allows associations to pool their employees to 
bring down the cost of insurance. It brings about medical malpractice 
reform to end junk lawsuits and end defensive medicine in America, and 
we use those savings to actually strengthen those funds at the State 
level, those programs that cover preexisting conditions for Americans.
  While the majority is focused on growing government to achieve 
something called universal coverage, Republicans are focused on what 
the American people want us to focus on, and that is lowering the cost 
of health insurance and lowering the cost of health care by giving the 
American people and American enterprise more choices, reasonable limits 
on litigation, and helping people with preexisting conditions.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to 
allow the gentlewoman from North Carolina to close and then I will 
close.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, again I thank my colleague from Colorado.
  He mentioned that we would be able to debate the health care bill in 
the Rules Committee, that we'd have a long time to do it. But the Rules 
Committee is the only committee in the Congress that meets behind 
closed doors, that does not allow C-SPAN to televise what it does, 
despite the fact that Barack Obama promised to have deliberations on 
all bills broadcast on C-SPAN and Nancy Pelosi promised the most open 
Congress in history. This is like the book ``1984'' by George Orwell. 
They say one thing and do absolutely another. It's doublespeak.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so 
an amendment can be added to the rule. The amendment to the rule would 
provide for separate consideration of H. Res. 554, a resolution to 
require that legislation and conference reports be posted on the 
Internet for 72 hours prior to consideration by the House. It does not 
affect the bill made in order by the rule.
  The amendment to the rule provides that the House will debate the 
issue of reading the bill within 3 legislative days. It does not 
disrupt the schedule.
  The bill currently has 214 cosponsors. The discharge petition has 182 
names, including five Democrats. This bill has gained support of an 
overwhelming majority of Americans and is widely respected by 
government watchdogs.
  The existing House rule that committee reports be available for 3 
days prior to floor consideration has been repeatedly waived by 
Republicans and Democrats alike.
  This is not a partisan measure. As Members of Congress, we ought to 
agree that regardless of the legislation brought before us, we should 
always have the opportunity to read and understand the legislation 
before we vote. The American public agrees with this commonsense 
position. A recent survey by Rasmussen Reports found that 83 percent of 
Americans say legislation should be posted online and available for 
everyone to read before Congress votes on it. The poll also found that 
this is not a partisan issue: 85 percent of Republicans, 76 of 
Democrats, and 92 percent of unaffiliated voters favor posting 
legislation online prior to its being voted on.
  In the beginning of the year, Members of this Congress, Democrat 
Members of this Congress, voted to spend almost $790 billion in 
taxpayer dollars on a stimulus package that most Members did not even 
read. The enormous document wasn't posted on the government's Web site 
until after 10 p.m., the day before the vote to pass it was taken.
  Furthermore, before the debate on the cap-and-tax bill offered last 
summer, the House was presented with a 300-plus-page amendment at 3 
a.m. for debate the following morning and a vote the following 
afternoon. This was unacceptable and further demonstrated the need to 
read the bill and the arguments.
  Mr. Speaker, we are elected to Congress to represent our 
constituents. How are we supposed to determine what is right for our 
fellow Americans if we have to vote on something before we even have 
time to read it?
  We need to have this debate. If people oppose having the text of 
bills available to read, they should make their case. This amendment to 
the rule allows them to do just that. I urge my

[[Page 26710]]

colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can have this debate 
and do the right thing for the American people.
  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 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question and ``no'' on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, just to correct a couple of points, TVs 
are always allowed in the Rules Committee, always are invited to each 
and every hearing and committee meeting. Sometimes they come, sometimes 
they don't. My guess is that they'll be there for the debate on the 
health care bill.
  I just want to remind my friends on the other side of the aisle, in 
the bill that produced the doughnut hole for seniors on Medicare and 
was written by a Republican Congress with a Republican President, the 
word ``shall'' appeared in that bill 2,080 times.
  Ms. FOXX. Would the gentleman yield for one short question?
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I will yield to my good friend for about 10 seconds.
  Ms. FOXX. Do you think that two wrongs make a right?
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. No. And the gentlewoman makes a point. No question 
about that.
  But the problem here, Mr. Speaker, is that my friends on the 
Republican side of the aisle, they're concerned that there's too much 
regulation or we're focused on trying to rein in credit card companies 
or rein in insurance companies when it comes to health care. Their 
focus is on the profits of those companies. Well, our focus is on 
middle Americans who felt the sharp practices of credit card companies 
and have seen their premiums go sky high as part of the health system 
that we have in this country today.
  Speaking about this bill, this credit card expedited bill, our 
purpose before the House of Representatives is to pass a rule that 
allows us to take up the credit card bill to move up rules and 
regulations to be imposed on credit card companies on December 1, 2009, 
instead of waiting until February of 2010 and August of 2010. The 
purpose is because we have seen rates being increased dramatically on 
all sorts of people. We see billing practice continue to be applied 
which hurts everyday Americans, and this has got to stop. It's not fair 
that the profits come before treating people honorably, responsibly, 
those people who have been paying their credit cards on time regularly. 
They're seeing their credit cards' interest rates increase. This has 
got to be limited and stopped.
  So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous 
question and on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Foxx is as follows:

     Amendment to H. Res. 884 Offered by Ms. Foxx of North Carolina

       At the end of the resolution, insert the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 3. On the third legislative day after the adoption of 
     this resolution, immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV and without intervention 
     of any point of order, the House shall proceed to the 
     consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 554) amending the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives to require that 
     legislation and conference reports be available on the 
     Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House, and 
     for other purposes. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption 
     without intervening motion or demand for division of the 
     question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Rules; (2) an amendment, if offered by the 
     Minority Leader or his designee and if printed in that 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII at least one legislative 
     day prior to its consideration, which shall be in order 
     without intervention of any point of order or demand for 
     division of the question, shall be considered as read and 
     shall be separately debatable for twenty minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and 
     (3) one motion to recommit which shall not contain 
     instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of House Resolution 554.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by the 
     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 form 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. PERLMUTTER. 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.
  Ms. FOXX. 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 House Resolution 884, if ordered;
  Suspension of the rules on H. Res. 858; and
  Suspension of the rules on H. Res. 839, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 176, not voting 28, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 841]

                               YEAS--228

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren

[[Page 26711]]


     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--176

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachus
     Baird
     Bartlett
     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
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--28

     Abercrombie
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Braley (IA)
     Chu
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     DeLauro
     Gerlach
     Johnson (GA)
     Kirk
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Marshall
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nunes
     Obey
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Shea-Porter
     Slaughter
     Stupak

                              {time}  1138

  Mr. HOEKSTRA, Ms. GRANGER, Messrs. HUNTER and LATHAM changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 841 on H. Res. 
884, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea.''
  Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 841, my pager malfunctioned and 
did not go off. Thus, I was not notified that votes were starting and I 
missed my first vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  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

  Ms. FOXX. 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 234, 
noes 175, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 842]

                               AYES--234

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--175

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Bartlett
     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
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao

[[Page 26712]]


     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Neugebauer
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
  


                             NOT VOTING--23

  

     Barrett (SC)
     Boucher
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Culberson
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     Gerlach
     Hirono
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Markey (MA)
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Murphy, Patrick
     Myrick
     Nunes
     Rothman (NJ)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Slaughter
     Stupak
     Tierney


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1146

  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 for:
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 842, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________