PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 112-64.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Dec 13, 2011
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
National Guard and Reservist Debt Relief Extension Act of 2011 - Amends the National Guard and Reservists Debt Relief Act of 2008 to exempt for an additional four-year period qualifying Armed Forces reserve component and National Guard members (who, after September 11, 2001, are called to active duty or to perform a homeland defense activity for at least 90 days, and remain eligible for an exemption during the 540-day period following such active duty or homeland defense activity service) from the application of the means-test presumption of abuse under chapter 7 (Liquidation) of the Bankruptcy Code, as amended by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.
People & committees
Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9] · D–TN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 112-64.
Became Public Law No: 112-64.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S8158-8159)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S8158-8159)
Received in the Senate, read twice.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays (2/3 required): 407 - 1 (Roll No. 861). (text: CR H7906)
House roll call 861 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays (2/3 required): 407 - 1 (Roll No. 861).(text: CR H7906)
House roll call 861 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H7917)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2192.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7906-7907)
Mr. Chaffetz moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 172.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 112-256.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 112-256.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2192 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2192 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2192 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2192 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.