[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 72 (Tuesday, May 12, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5349-S5351]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             CREDIT CARDHOLDERS' BILL OF RIGHTS ACT OF 2009

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 627, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 627) 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.

  Pending:

       Dodd/Shelby amendment No. 1058, in the nature of a 
     substitute.

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I see my friend from Oklahoma is here and 
I gather has an amendment. I would be happy to entertain that amendment 
at this hour, if he cares to offer it.
  Mr. COBURN. It was my understanding the Senator was going to put down 
a substitute bill?
  Mr. DODD. It is already submitted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, it is my understanding the substitute is 
open for amendment, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.


                Amendment No. 1067 to Amendment No. 1058

  Mr. COBURN. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1067 to amendment No. 1058.

  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To protect innocent Americans from violent crime in national 
                           parks and refuges)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM VIOLENT CRIME.

       (a) Congressional Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution provides that 
     ``the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be 
     infringed''.
       (2) Section 2.4(a)(1) of title 36, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, provides that ``except as otherwise provided in 
     this section and parts 7 (special regulations) and 13 (Alaska 
     regulations), the following are prohibited: (i) Possessing a 
     weapon, trap or net (ii) Carrying a weapon, trap or net (iii) 
     Using a weapon, trap or net''.
       (3) Section 27.42 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, 
     provides that, except in special circumstances, citizens of 
     the United States may not ``possess, use, or transport 
     firearms on national wildlife refuges'' of the United States 
     Fish and Wildlife Service.
       (4) The regulations described in paragraphs (2) and (3) 
     prevent individuals complying with Federal and State laws 
     from exercising the second amendment rights of the 
     individuals while at units of--
       (A) the National Park System; and
       (B) the National Wildlife Refuge System.
       (5) The existence of different laws relating to the 
     transportation and possession of firearms at different units 
     of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge 
     System entrapped law-abiding gun owners while at units of the 
     National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System.
       (6) Although the Bush administration issued new regulations 
     relating to the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding 
     citizens in units of the National Park System and National 
     Wildlife Refuge System that went into effect on January 9, 
     2009--
       (A) on March 19, 2009, the United States District Court for 
     the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction 
     with respect to the implementation and enforcement of the new 
     regulations; and
       (B) the new regulations--
       (i) are under review by the administration; and
       (ii) may be altered.
       (7) Congress needs to weigh in on the new regulations to 
     ensure that unelected bureaucrats and judges cannot again 
     override the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens 
     on 83,600,000 acres of National Park System land and 
     90,790,000 acres of land under the jurisdiction of the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service.
       (8) The Federal laws should make it clear that the second 
     amendment rights of an individual at a unit of the National 
     Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System should not 
     be infringed.
       (b) Protecting the Right of Individuals To Bear Arms in 
     Units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife 
     Refuge System.--The Secretary of the Interior shall not 
     promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an 
     individual from possessing a firearm including an assembled 
     or functional firearm in any unit of the National Park System 
     or the National Wildlife Refuge System if--
       (1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from 
     possessing the firearm; and
       (2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the 
     law of the State in which the unit of the National Park 
     System or the National Wildlife Refuge System is located.


                           Amendment No. 1068

  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I send another amendment to the 
underlying bill to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DODD. Let me suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded to ask a question of the Chair, a 
parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to terminating the quorum 
call?
  Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, is this just a parliamentary 
inquiry?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator cannot reserve the right to 
object. Is there an objection to terminating the quorum call?
  Mr. DODD. I do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The assistant legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1068.

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be 
considered as read, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To protect innocent Americans from violent crime in national 
                           parks and refuges)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. __. PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM VIOLENT CRIME.

       (a) Congressional Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution provides that 
     ``the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be 
     infringed''.
       (2) Section 2.4(a)(1) of title 36, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, provides that ``except as

[[Page S5350]]

     otherwise provided in this section and parts 7 (special 
     regulations) and 13 (Alaska regulations), the following are 
     prohibited: (i) Possessing a weapon, trap or net (ii) 
     Carrying a weapon, trap or net (iii) Using a weapon, trap or 
     net''.
       (3) Section 27.42 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, 
     provides that, except in special circumstances, citizens of 
     the United States may not ``possess, use, or transport 
     firearms on national wildlife refuges'' of the United States 
     Fish and Wildlife Service.
       (4) The regulations described in paragraphs (2) and (3) 
     prevent individuals complying with Federal and State laws 
     from exercising the second amendment rights of the 
     individuals while at units of--
       (A) the National Park System; and
       (B) the National Wildlife Refuge System.
       (5) The existence of different laws relating to the 
     transportation and possession of firearms at different units 
     of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge 
     System entrapped law-abiding gun owners while at units of the 
     National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System.
       (6) Although the Bush administration issued new regulations 
     relating to the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding 
     citizens in units of the National Park System and National 
     Wildlife Refuge System that went into effect on January 9, 
     2009--
       (A) on March 19, 2009, the United States District Court for 
     the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction 
     with respect to the implementation and enforcement of the new 
     regulations; and
       (B) the new regulations--
       (i) are under review by the administration; and
       (ii) may be altered.
       (7) Congress needs to weigh in on the new regulations to 
     ensure that unelected bureaucrats and judges cannot again 
     override the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens 
     on 83,600,000 acres of National Park System land and 
     90,790,000 acres of land under the jurisdiction of the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service.
       (8) The Federal laws should make it clear that the second 
     amendment rights of an individual at a unit of the National 
     Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System should not 
     be infringed.
       (b) Protecting the Right of Individuals To Bear Arms in 
     Units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife 
     Refuge System.--The Secretary of the Interior shall not 
     promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an 
     individual from possessing a firearm including an assembled 
     or functional firearm in any unit of the National Park System 
     or the National Wildlife Refuge System if--
       (1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from 
     possessing the firearm; and
       (2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the 
     law of the State in which the unit of the National Park 
     System or the National Wildlife Refuge System is located.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I have a cloture motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I rise in support of the Dodd-Shelby 
substitute amendment.
  Nearly every adult American has at least one credit card. They 
provide convenience, access, and service. They have become an essential 
tool for conducting financial transactions in this country and all over 
the world.
  The existing rules governing credit cards, however, no longer strike 
the right balance between the interests of credit card companies and 
the consumer.
  Credit card contracts are unclear at best, and thoroughly confusing 
at worst. Card issuers raise rates for unclear reasons, use billing 
methods that consumers do not understand, and assign fees and charges 
without warning. The bill seeks to remedy this by providing consumers 
with greater transparency, fairer terms, and more certainty in their 
dealings with the card issuers.
  During the committee markup before the Banking Committee, I made it 
clear that I shared many of Chairman Dodd's goals with respect to this 
issue. For example, I supported prohibiting double-cycle billing, 
banning the practice of universal default, limiting certain fees, and 
placing some restrictions on credit cards issued to young adults in 
this country.
  I also thought consumers deserved more and clearer disclosure 
regarding the terms of their agreements. Finally, I expressed to 
Senator Dodd the view that we should codify the Federal Reserve rules 
in a statute to ensure that they become permanent and not subject to 
the whims of future regulators.
  At the markup before the Banking Committee, however, I indicated 
there were some areas where Chairman Dodd and I disagreed at that 
point. Most notably, the original draft would have prohibited card 
issuers from using risk-based pricing for existing cardholders, both 
retrospectively and prospectively. I did not think it was wise to 
abandon the concept of risk-based pricing.
  Without the means to price for risk, the credit card companies would 
be forced to impose significant costs to all--all--users of credit 
because they would be unable to account for the particular risk of an 
individual borrower. It would also be much more difficult for card 
issuers to innovate and create new products and services.
  I believe credit should be priced according to the risk profile of 
each individual. Consumers who prudently manage their use of credit 
deserve to be rewarded with lower prices and better terms. Moreover, 
they should not be forced to subsidize the bad habits of others. I also 
believe markets must have the freedom to adapt to new circumstances and 
consumer demands.
  In the weeks that followed the Banking Committee markup, I worked 
with Senator Dodd to craft a compromise that allowed for the use of 
risk-based pricing. The Dodd-Shelby amendment before us allows card 
issuers to price risk but requires that they consider both positive and 
negative changes in the consumer's risk profile when setting rates and 
terms. This means that consumers will pay more when their credit risk 
goes up and can have their rates reduced when it comes down.
  In total, the Dodd-Shelby substitute amendment reflects a broad, 
bipartisan compromise on many of the issues I raised in the committee. 
It prohibits double-cycle billing, the practice of universal default, 
and places restrictions on credit cards issued to young adults. It 
limits certain fees, provides more robust disclosure, and provides 
consumers with statutory certainty. It also preserves the fundamental 
concept of risk-based pricing, which is vital to the ongoing function 
of the credit card market.
  I am hopeful this legislation has struck a better balance between the 
needs of consumers and the credit card companies. I am also hopeful 
this balance in design ultimately results in a balance in fact. To 
ensure this, I asked that we include a provision in this substitute we 
have offered that requires the Federal Reserve to track the impact this 
legislation has on the cost and the availability of credit and to 
report its findings to the Congress. Over time, if the Federal Reserve 
finds we have not achieved that balance, in fact, we will be made aware 
and we should not then hesitate to make the necessary changes.
  This legislation addresses some practices that are simply 
unnecessary. It gives consumers the chance to have a more equitable 
relationship with the credit card companies. It also preserves the 
basic framework necessary to maintain the function of a very important 
marketplace.
  I look forward to working with Senator Dodd, the chairman of the 
committee, on the floor of the Senate on this bill, and I urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the substitute 
amendment offered by Senator Dodd and myself.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I wish to take a moment to thank my good 
friend and colleague from Alabama, Senator Shelby, the former chairman 
of the committee and a very good partner to work with. I wish to thank 
Bill Duhnke, Mark Oesterle, and Jim Johnson, as well as Amy Friend and 
Charles Yi and Lindsey Graham of my office who did a terrific job of 
working together over long hours, including up and through a good part 
of this weekend, to reach an agreement on the substitute.
  Senator Shelby and I have worked closely together over a number of 
years, but during the last 2\1/2\ years of my chairmanship of the 
committee, I could not have asked for a better partner on this issue of 
trying to develop whatever we can in terms of bipartisan solutions to 
problems. This is an example. I suspect many people thought it would 
not be possible. This is an issue that has divided people in the past--
dealing with credit card reform and the needs of consumers--but because 
of the

[[Page S5351]]

hard work and because of the determination to try and reach that 
agreement, we are proud to announce today that we have a substitute to 
offer to our colleagues.
  It is not everything everyone would like. There are certainly people 
who will oppose this legislation because they think we have gone too 
far. There are others who think we should be going much further. They 
will make cases for that, I presume, in an amendment process. But this 
is a body of 100 Members. We deal with the other side of this building 
as well, not to mention the White House and other interests, in trying 
to meld those together. Major steps forward are not an easy task, but 
it is made easier when you have people you can work with who understand 
the legislative process and who are willing to sit down and try and 
compromise where we can on behalf of the people we represent.
  This is a bill we are going to try to pass, not because the President 
wants it, not because Senator Shelby wants it, and not because I want 
it but because the American people need it. They are paying outrageous 
fees. They are watching exorbitant interest rates go up. Seventy 
million accounts over an 11-month period and one out of four families 
watched credit card interest rates go up, in many cases at any time and 
for any reason; not because they were late on payments, not because 
they failed to pay but because the industry has the right, under their 
contracts, to change those terms for any reason, at any time. That is 
unfair.
  There is no other contractual relationship that I know of--when you 
buy an automobile, when you buy a home, when you buy appliances, there 
is a contract. You don't change the terms of the contract after awhile 
because you don't like them or because you want to raise the rates. 
There is an understanding there is a responsibility. Consumers have it 
but lenders have it, too, in this case the issuers. But with 70 million 
accounts going up, interest rates going up, affecting 1 out of 4 
families at a very difficult time: when 10,000 families are losing 
their homes every day and 20,000 losing their jobs, the idea that the 
card companies will raise those rates and add on fees is outrageous, 
and it affects every demographic group. It doesn't affect just one 
income group; it is across the country. All of us hear, on a daily 
basis, stories from our constituents about these egregious behaviors. 
So our bill is designed to deal with this.
  We like credit cards. They are a wonderful vehicle. They are a 
valuable vehicle for many people. This is not to be punitive. It is 
certainly not an expression of our opposition to the use of these 
vehicles. It is when these vehicles are being abused by the issuers at 
the expense of consumers when we must step in and change the rules, and 
that is what we are doing with this legislation.
  I am pleased to be able to stand here, once again, with my friend 
from Alabama and thank him on the floor of the Senate for his 
cooperation in pulling this together. We urge our colleagues to take a 
look at the bill, come on over, ask us and our staffs about it. We will 
be glad to have a conversation with you. We are grateful as well that 
groups such as the Consumer Federation of America and others are 
strongly supporting this legislation.
  This is a unique moment and opportunity. We spent the last 6 or 7 or 
8 months talking about financial institutions and getting them 
stabilized. We talked about TARP money, automobile bailouts, and all of 
those sides of the equation. How about taking a week out to do 
something on behalf of the consumer, the average citizen who is 
suffering terribly in this economic time and paying outrageous fees, 
outrageous interest rates; taking 1 week out to do something on their 
behalf, while we have tried to do some of these other things. It is 
long overdue. My hope is we can do it this week and send a bill to the 
President of the United States that accomplishes the goals we have 
outlined with this legislation.
  With that, I see my colleague from Florida and I yield the floor.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to 
speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      American Journalist Released

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, the morning's newspapers 
chronicle the happy fact that the American journalist Roxana Saberi was 
released from prison in Iran. This is a happy occasion, certainly for 
her and for her family, as she has been in Iran since 2003. She has 
been a journalist for National Public Radio and the BBC. She ostensibly 
was arrested by virtue of having bought a bottle of wine and the 
charges were later elevated to working without press credentials and 
espionage.
  The fact is the U.S. Government weighed in on this. Secretary 
Clinton, in a meeting with one of the high Iranian officials that had 
been called to a conference on Afghanistan in the Hague, the United 
States handed the Iranian diplomats a letter calling for the release of 
Ms. Saberi and, along with that, in that letter, calling for the 
release of Bob Levinson and Esha Momeni. Bob Levinson is from Florida. 
He has a wife and seven children. He disappeared from the island of 
Kish over 2 years ago. We have reason to believe he is being held in a 
prison, perhaps the very same prison where Ms. Saberi was held. Each 
time his name is brought up to any Iranian officials, be it by me, be 
it by any other representative of the United States, the standard line 
is: We don't know anything about him, but usually that Iranian official 
will then change the subject to the three Iranians being held by the 
Americans in Irbil, Iran.
  If they are suggesting some kind of exchange by consistently doing 
this--whether it is with American officials or whether it is with the 
Swiss officials who represent us in Tehran; whatever it is--the release 
of Ms. Saberi is certainly a good first step. If the Iranians want a 
better relationship with the United States, clearly the new 
administration has offered that. Now it is up to the Iranian officials. 
They did the right thing by releasing Ms. Saberi yesterday. If they 
want to additionally show a humanitarian gesture of returning a father 
and a husband to his wife and seven children, what better chance than 
to release Bob Levinson.
  This Senator has met with the Iranian Ambassador to the United 
Nations and, of course, received no information, even though the 
Iranian Ambassador was very gracious in his hospitality. Perhaps he did 
not even know, because in some of the information I expressed to him, 
he expressed surprise. Whoever knows about it, whatever compartmented 
part of the Iranian Government knows about it, it is now time. If Iran 
wants to have a better relationship with the United States, this would 
be the next humanitarian gesture: release Bob Levinson.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________