[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13060-13068]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 627, CREDIT 
     CARD ACCOUNTABILITY RESPONSIBILITY AND DISCLOSURE ACT OF 2009

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 456 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 456

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the 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, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider 
     in the House, without intervention of any point of order 
     except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI, a motion 
     offered by the chair of the Committee on Financial Services 
     or his designee that the House concur in the Senate 
     amendment. The Senate amendment shall be considered as read. 
     The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided 
     and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Financial Services. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption 
     without intervening motion. The question of adoption of the 
     motion shall be divided for a separate vote on concurring in 
     section 512 of the Senate amendment.
       Sec. 2.  If either portion of the divided question fails of 
     adoption, then the House shall be considered to have made no 
     disposition of the Senate amendment.
       Sec. 3.  House Resolution 450 is laid on the table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during 
consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members 
be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
on House Resolution 456.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Maine?

[[Page 13061]]

  There was no objection.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 456 provides for 
consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 627, the Credit 
Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2009. The rule makes in order a 
motion by the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services to concur 
in the Senate amendment. The rule waives all points of order against 
consideration of the motion except clause 10 of rule XXI and provides 
that the Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. 
The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion controlled by the 
Committee on Financial Services. The rule provides that the question of 
adoption of the motion shall be divided for a separate vote on 
concurring in section 512 of the Senate amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about the deceptive practices of 
credit card companies over the last 2 weeks here in Washington. My 
friends here in the House of Representatives have highlighted the 
nearly $1 trillion credit card debt in the United States.
  President Obama has stressed the need for ``credit card forms and 
statements that have plain language in plain sight.'' My colleagues in 
the Senate have equated the deceptive practices used by credit card 
companies to loan sharking. Small business groups have drawn attention 
to the one in three businesses where credit card debt accounts for at 
least 25 percent of the company's overall debt.

                              {time}  1030

  Family and consumer groups have highlighted the more than 91 million 
United States families who are subject to unfair interest rate hikes 
and being taken advantage of by hidden penalties and fees. These 
statistics are certainly shocking, and meaningful legislation is 
necessary. However, this is not a new issue to the American people. 
This is a problem that they understand all too well and deal with each 
and every day.
  Credit cards have gone from being a luxury to being a convenience to 
being a necessity. Whether it is paying for your gas at the pump or 
placing an order online, our modern economy almost requires you to have 
a credit card. Unfortunately, the tough economic times we are in mean 
that more and more Americans are turning to credit cards to pay for 
basic necessities or to make ends meet when something unexpected comes 
along.
  Last weekend in Maine, I was talking with one of my constituents who 
told me something I hear frequently, that a credit card is the only way 
she can pay her medical bills. And last winter, with skyrocketing 
heating oil prices, a credit card was the only way many people in my 
State were able to stay warm.
  But while credit cards have gone from luxury to necessity, credit 
card companies have undergone a transition too. There was a time when a 
credit card agreement was reasonably straightforward and fair. It was 
an agreement to provide a basic service for a reasonable fee. But all 
that has changed. Credit card agreements are a tangle of fine print 
with complicated provisions that almost seem designed to keep the 
cardholder in debt forever. Everywhere you turn, it seems the credit 
card companies have dreamed up a new fee or another clever scheme to 
raise your interest rate. Basic fairness has been replaced by deception 
and greed.
  These days using a credit card is like going to a Las Vegas casino. 
No matter how clever or responsible you are, nine times out of ten, you 
are going to lose, and the company is going to win. Managing your 
finances shouldn't be a gamble. The deck shouldn't be stacked against 
you.
  Americans have a lot to worry about these days: a weak economy, a 
broken health care system and rising energy prices. And that is on top 
of all the responsibilities we face on a daily basis like raising a 
family and going to work. The last thing people need to worry about is 
whether or not their credit card company is going to suddenly double 
their interest rate or surprise them with an unexpected fee they can't 
afford.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill will bring back basic fairness to the credit 
card industry and level the playing field for Americans to take 
responsibility for their finances. Credit card companies have been 
getting away with too much for too long.
  I urge my colleagues to join me today in passing this important bill 
and sending it directly to the President.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding the appropriate time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and to the 
underlying legislation. This closed rule does not call for the open and 
honest debate that has been promised time and time again by my Democrat 
colleagues. Today's action by my friends on the other side of the aisle 
is yet another example of the Federal Government overstepping its 
boundaries into the private marketplace.
  Mr. Speaker, today I will inform you of the parliamentary games that 
my Democratic colleagues are playing on this bill with a gun provision 
adopted by the Senate. We will discuss why Congress is pushing a bill 
that already exists in Federal statute, which not only limits credit 
and raises interest rates to responsible borrowers today. Small 
business will feel the impact also; and, finally, to review Congress' 
need to regulate every sector of the economy while they refuse to 
manage their own gross spending habits of the taxpayer dollar.
  The Senate managed to add a provision in this legislation that would 
allow visitors of national parks and refuges to legally carry licensed 
firearms by a large bipartisan majority of 67-29. While this does not 
add power to the overregulated credit bill, it does provide an 
important legislative victory for Second Amendment rights. Yet my 
Democratic colleagues have separated the vote on this bill in two 
separate sections, one vote on the gun provision and one vote on the 
credit card bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why is this? Why is this that we 
take a piece of legislation from the Senate and because it is not liked 
by the Democratic leadership here, we separate that bill? Have my 
friends on the other side of the aisle split this vote to increase 
government regulation while voting against constitutional rights?
  Not even 6 months ago, the Federal Reserve passed new credit card 
rules that would protect consumers and provide for more transparency 
and accountability in our credit market. These new regulations are set 
to take effect in July of 2010, an agreed-upon date to ensure the 
necessary time for banks and credit card companies to make the crucial 
adjustments to their business practices without adversely hurting 
consumers. With the growing Federal deficit, the current economic 
crisis and the growing number of unemployed, why is Congress now 
passing legislation that already exists in Federal statute?
  This legislation allows for the Federal Government to micromanage the 
way the credit card and the banking industry does its business. If 
enacted into law, it is not credit card companies that will suffer. It 
will be everyone that has a credit card and, I might add, those who 
would like to have a credit card in the future. Every American will see 
an increase in their interest rates. And some of the current benefits 
that encourage responsible lending will most likely disappear, for 
example, cash advances and over-the-limit protection.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle not only remove any 
incentive for using credit cards responsibly, but they punish those who 
manage their credit responsibly to subsidize the irresponsible.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democrats also want to limit the amount of credit 
available to middle and low-income individuals, the very Americans who 
need to take most advantage of credit. A Politico article written last 
Friday discusses that the changes in this bill ``will dramatically 
raise the costs of extending loans to cardholders and cause the 
riskiest cardholders to be dropped altogether.'' It goes on to mention 
how bad this bill is in regard to the current economic downturn and how 
restricted access to credit cards

[[Page 13062]]

will make it increasingly harder to purchase the essential family 
staples while dealing with job layoffs and temporary unemployment.
  Additionally, the strain of this legislation could have a direct and 
adverse impact on small business. Small businesses are critical to this 
economy in making sure that we have economic and job growth in this 
country. For individuals starting a small business, this legislation 
will increase their interest rates, reduce benefits and shrink the 
availability of credit, potentially limiting their options even to 
succeed in the marketplace.
  Meredith Whitney, a prominent banking analyst, predicts, in a Wall 
Street Journal article from March, a $2.7 trillion decrease in credit 
will be available by the year 2010 out of the current $5 trillion 
credit line available in this country. That means it will almost be cut 
well in half. Mr. Speaker, with the current state of the economy, we 
urgently need to increase liquidity and lower the cost of credit to 
stimulate even more lending, not raise rates and reduce the 
availability of credit. This is not a solution for the ailing economy.
  This type of government control of private markets is all about what 
our Democratic colleagues and this administration have been exploring. 
Whether it is federalizng our banks, credit markets, health care or 
energy, the list goes on and on. That said, this administration has 
taken their power grab a step further. Now they are considering a take-
over of the financial industry. Converting preferred shares into common 
equity signals a dramatic shift towards a government strategy of long-
term ownership and involvement in some of the Nation's largest banks.
  Millions of Americans are rightfully outraged at the mismanagement of 
TARP and the reckless use of their tax dollars. And I believe that 
taxpayers are increasingly uneasy with the Federal Government's growing 
involvement in the financial markets. Bloomberg.com had an article 
yesterday which highlighted that three of our large banks have applied 
to repay $45 billion in TARP funds. That means they had to tell the 
government we would like to pay back the money, is that okay, largely 
due to these burdensome regulations that the Treasury Department 
continues to place on them. But just last week, Secretary Geithner 
announced that he is considering reusing bailout repayments for smaller 
banks. This is completely unacceptable, and why I have repeatedly 
called for a solid exit plan for American taxpayers to be repaid by 
these TARP dollars. TARP dollars were never set up to be used as a 
revolving fund for struggling banks.
  To preempt de facto nationalization of our financial system, on 
February 3, 2009, the House Republican leadership, including myself, 
sent a letter to Secretary Geithner regarding what was called the 
``range of options'' this administration was considering in managing 
the $700 billion of taxpayer moneys.
  Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record a letter that was sent to 
Secretary Geithner at that time.

                                Congress of the United States,

                                 Washington, DC, February 3, 2009.
     Hon. Timothy F. Geithner,
     Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Geithner: Recent reports indicate that the 
     Administration is considering a ``range of options'' for 
     spending the second tranche of the Troubled Asset Relief 
     Program (TARP) released last week and that the Administration 
     is considering whether to ask the Congress for new and 
     additional TARP funds beyond the $700 billion already 
     provided. We are writing to raise serious questions about the 
     efficacy of the options being considered and to ask whether 
     the Administration is developing a strategy to exit the 
     bailout business.
       Because the Administration has committed itself to 
     assisting the auto industry, satisfying commitments made by 
     the previous Administration, and devoting up to $100 billion 
     to mitigate mortgage foreclosures, it has been reported that 
     President Obama might need more than the $700 billion 
     authorized by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act 
     (``EESA'') to fund a ``bad bank'' to absorb hard-to-value 
     toxic assets. In light of these commitments--which come at a 
     time when the Federal Reserve is flooding the financial 
     system with trillions of dollars and the Congress is 
     finalizing a fiscal stimulus that is expected to cost 
     taxpayers more than $1.1 trillion--it is not surprising that 
     the American people are asking where it all ends, and whether 
     anyone in Washington is looking out for their wallets.
       Indeed, a bipartisan majority of the House--171 Republicans 
     and 99 Democrats--recently expressed the same concerns, 
     voting to disapprove releasing the final $350 billion from 
     the TARP. As we noted in our December 2, 2008 letter to then-
     Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke, we realize that 
     changing conditions require agility in developing responses. 
     However. the seemingly ad hoc implementation of TARP has led 
     many to wonder if uncertainty is being added to markets at 
     precisely the time when they are desperately seeking a sense 
     of direction. It has also intensified widespread skepticism 
     about TARP among taxpayers, and prompted misgivings even 
     among some who originally greeted the demands for the 
     program's creation with an open mind. Accordingly, we request 
     answers to the following questions:
       1. How does the Administration plan to maximize taxpayer 
     value and guarantee the most effective distribution of the 
     remaining $350 billion of TARP funds?
       2. How is the Administration lending, assessing risk, 
     selecting institutions for assessing, and determining 
     expectations for repayment?
       3. Will the Administration opt for a complex ``bad bank'' 
     rescue plan? How can the ``bad bank'' efficiently price 
     assets and minimize taxpayer risk? Will financial 
     institutions be required to give substantial ownership stakes 
     to the Federal government to participate in the program?
       4. Is a ``bad bank'' plan an intermediate step that leads 
     to nationalizing America's banks?
       5. Can you elaborate on your plans for the use of an 
     insurance program for toxic assets? Specifically, will you 
     seek to price insurance programs to ensure that taxpayer 
     interests are protected? If so, how will you do so?
       6. What is the exit strategy for the government's sweeping 
     involvement in the financial markets?
       Thank you for your consideration of these important 
     questions.
           Sincerely,
         John Boehner; Mike Pence; Cathy McMorris Rodgers; Roy 
           Blunt; Eric Cantor; Thaddeus McCotter; Pete Sessions; 
           David Dreier; Kevin McCarthy; Spencer Bachus.

  This letter outlined a host of questions that deal with ensuring that 
the taxpayers would be paid back and also having an exit strategy for 
the government's sweeping involvement in the financial markets. Today 
is May 20, and over 3 months later, there has been no response by 
Secretary Geithner to the Republican leadership letter.
  A couple of weeks ago, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled 
Asset Relief Program, TARP, published a report that reveals at least 20 
criminal cases of fraud in the bailout program and determined that new 
action by President Obama's administration are ``greatly increasing 
taxpayer exposure to losses with no corresponding increase in potential 
profits.'' This is why you see the Republican leadership asking 
questions. This administration has not responded to our letter.
  This administration is not above oversight and accountability. The 
American people deserve answers for their use of tax dollars and an 
exit strategy from taxpayer-funded bailouts, including how their 
investment in TARP will be returned. That is why I sent another letter 
to Secretary Geithner on April 23 of this year expressing grave concern 
to the recent reports of the Treasury moving taxpayer dollars into 
riskier investments in banks' capital structures.
  Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Congressional Record a copy of 
this letter dated April 23 to Secretary Geithner.

                                     House of Representatives,

                                   Washington, DC, April 23, 2009.
     Hon. Timothy Geithner,
     Secretary, Department of the Treasury,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Geithner: I am greatly concerned by recent 
     news reports that the Administration is considering 
     converting the government's preferred stock in some of our 
     nation's largest banks--investments acquired through the TARP 
     program--into common equity shares in these publicly-held 
     companies.
       As you are aware, these investments were originally made to 
     their recipients at fixed rates for a fixed period of time--
     signaling that their intent was to provide these banks with 
     short-term capital for the purpose of improving our financial 
     system's overall position during a time of crisis. Converting 
     these shares into common equity, however, signals a drastic 
     shift away from the Administration's original purpose for 
     these investments to a new strategy of long-term ownership of 
     and involvement in these companies.

[[Page 13063]]

       I am concerned that converting these preferred shares into 
     common equity would have two serious and negative effects. 
     First, it would bring the banks whose shares are converted 
     closer to de facto nationalization by creating the potential 
     for the government to play an increasingly activist role in 
     their day-to-day operations and management.
       Second, I am concerned that moving these investments 
     further down the bank's capital structure into a riskier 
     position puts American taxpayer dollars at increased risk of 
     being lost in the event of a recipient's insolvency.
       To date, no Administration official has provided the House 
     Republican Leadership wish any comprehensive answers to the 
     serious questions raised in our February 2, 2009 letter to 
     you about the Administration's exit strategy for the 
     government's growing involvement in the financial markets.
       In absence of the Administration's response to that letter, 
     I would appreciate your prompt assurance that converting 
     these preferred shares to common equity--thereby taking these 
     companies closer to nationalization and putting taxpayers' 
     money at increased risk--is not a part of the 
     Administration's yet-to-be-articulated strategy on getting 
     out of the bailout business.
       Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this 
     issue of critical importance to me, the residents of Texas' 
     32nd District and the entire taxpaying American public. If 
     you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel 
     free to have your staff contact my Chief of Staff Josh 
     Saltzman.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Pete Sessions,
                                               Member of Congress.

  As this Democrat Congress continues to tax, borrow, and spend 
American's hard-earned tax dollars, we move even closer to 
nationalizing our banks and credit systems, which will only deepen our 
current economic struggle. The Federal Government's interference in 
hindering our progress is apparent, while they should be there to help 
solidify making our system stronger and better. When Congress or the 
administration changes the rules, it should be in the best interest of 
the American public. But I can honestly say that this is not the case 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate to consider new ways to protect 
consumer credit and consumers from unfair and deceptive practices and 
to ensure that Americans receive useful and complete disclosures about 
terms and conditions. But in doing so, we should make sure that we do 
nothing to make credit cards more expensive for those who need this 
credit or to cut off or hinder access to credit for small business with 
those less-than-perfect histories.
  While reading the Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago, I came across 
an op-ed called ``Political Credit Cards'' discussing this very issue. 
It states: ``Our politicians spend half their time berating banks for 
offering too much credit on too easy terms, and the other half berating 
banks for handing out too little credit at a high price. The backers 
should tell the President that they'll start doing more lending when 
Washington stops changing the rules.'' This speaks to exactly what 
happened with TARP, health care, welfare, taxes, and lots of other 
legislation, including that underlying legislation today.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better from their elected 
officials. I encourage my colleagues to vote against this rule.
  And I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1045

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady.
  As I'm certain is true of all of my colleagues, my office has been 
inundated with calls and letters from constituents who are outraged by 
sudden and arbitrary increases in their credit card rates. Their hard-
earned taxpayer dollars were used to shore up financial institutions to 
prevent economic collapse and, in return, some of the very same 
financial institutions turned around and doubled the interest rates 
they charge their customers. I'm pleased we're taking strong action 
today to combat these abuses--yes, abuses--and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  However, I have serious concern about the amendment that would allow 
loaded firearms in our national parks. There is no reason for this 
provision in the bill. It is not germane. It is not relevant. It is 
poor public policy.
  Wait a minute, you say, I thought you were talking about credit 
cards. To say that this amendment about guns in the parks is out of 
left field insults the many ball players who, over the years, have held 
that position--yes, even the bumblers. It insults them.
  For the past 25 years, the regulations requiring guns in parks to be 
unloaded and stored has served the Park Service and the park public 
well. It helps keep our national parks the safest lands in the country. 
The probability of being a victim of a violent crime in a park is less 
than 1 in 700,000. These regulations also help prevent mischief and 
even poaching of endangered species that our parks help protect.
  Our national parks are national treasures, and they should be granted 
special protections. It's completely appropriate to have special 
regulations that are special to the parks. We in Congress should do 
everything we can to ensure that these invaluable resources are 
protected for future generations, and I strongly urge my colleagues to 
vote against that amendment in this bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we spoke just a minute ago about how banks 
had accepted these TARP funds and accepted them because it was 
necessary at the time to ensure the financial success of the banking 
system. And yet now here we are a few months later and the banks have 
undergone their stress tests. The banks understand more about the risk 
that is out there. And yet even as companies like JPMorgan Chase want 
to refund $45 billion or give it back to the government, the government 
is balking at them doing that.
  The reason why is, as this article in Bloomberg.com states, because 
the government has a methodology that they want to follow which would 
cause banks to be in a different position because--in other words, not 
run their business the way they want--because government wants to tell 
them what the rules and regulations would be. And it appears as though 
that that is what this Treasury Department wants to do, that they have 
delayed banks paying back the money so that they can then put rules and 
regulations industrywide on anyone that took this money.
  Mr. Speaker, what should happen is we should have a Treasury 
Department that eagerly, gleefully wants to get back money that was 
given to them on behalf of the taxpayer. And instead what happens is we 
have a Treasury Department that is delaying this. It is making it, I 
believe, more difficult, all under the guise, then, of trying to make 
sure that they get what they want, and that is exacting more rules and 
regulations on these banks.
  I think that the Treasury Department should respond back to our 
letter. They should tell us what the exit strategy is, how people 
should pay back the money, and let the free enterprise system go about 
its job of creating not only a better economy, but also creating an 
opportunity to raise stock prices and employment in this country by 
doing their job in the free enterprise system.
  I will include this article from Bloomberg.com as part of our 
testimony today.

     Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan, Goldman Said To Apply To Repay TARP

               (By Christine Harper and Elizabeth Hester)

       May 19 (Bloomberg)--Goldman Sachs Group Inc., JPMorgan 
     Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley applied to refund a combined 
     $45 billion of government funds, people familiar with the 
     matter said, a step that would mark the biggest reimbursement 
     to taxpayers since the program began in October.
       The three New York-based banks need approval from the 
     Federal Reserve, their primary supervisor, to return the 
     money, according to the people, who requested anonymity 
     because the application process isn't public. Spokesmen for 
     the three banks declined to comment, as did Calvin Mitchell, 
     a spokesman for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
       If approved, the refunds would be the most substantial 
     since Congress established the $700 billion Troubled Asset 
     Relief Program last year to quell the turmoil that followed 
     the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Banks want to 
     return the money to escape restrictions on compensation and 
     hiring that were imposed on TARP recipients in February.
       ``It really is a way for them to break from the herd,'' 
     said Peter Sorrentino, a senior

[[Page 13064]]

     portfolio manager at Huntington Asset Advisors in Cincinnati, 
     which holds Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan shares among the $13.8 
     billion it oversees. ``It's a great way to attract customers, 
     personnel, capital.''
       Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said on April 21 that 
     he would welcome firms returning TARP funds as long as their 
     regulators sign off. He added that regulators will consider 
     whether banks have enough capital to keep lending and whether 
     the financial system as a whole can supply the credit needed 
     to ensure an economic recovery.


                    Geithner's ``Broad Constraints''

       One of the people familiar with the efforts by the banks to 
     repay TARP said he anticipates that the government would 
     prefer to issue industrywide compensation guidelines before 
     allowing any major banks to repay TARP money.
       Geithner said yesterday that he would like to establish 
     ``some broad constraints'' on compensation incentives in the 
     financial industry instead of setting limits on pay. A law 
     that went into effect in February sets a cap on the bonuses 
     that can be paid to the highest-paid 25 employees at banks 
     that have more than $500 million of TARP funds. Banks are 
     awaiting guidance from the Treasury on how to implement the 
     rules, such as how to determine which people to count in the 
     top 25.
       JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley were among nine 
     banks that were persuaded in mid-October by then-Treasury 
     Secretary Henry Paulson to accept the first $125 billion of 
     capital injections from the TARP program to help restore 
     stability to the financial markets.


                          Stress-Test Results

       The refunds would be the first by the biggest banks that 
     participated in the program. As of May 15, 14 of the smaller 
     banks that received capital under the program had already 
     repaid it, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
       The 19 biggest banks were waiting for the conclusion 
     earlier this month of so-called stress tests to determine 
     whether they would require additional capital to withstand a 
     further deterioration of the economy.
       Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan, the fifth- and second-biggest 
     U.S. banks by assets, were found not to need any more money. 
     Morgan Stanley, the sixth-biggest bank, raised $4.57 billion 
     by selling stock this month, exceeding the $1.8 billion in 
     additional capital the regulators said the bank may require.


                             ``Wrong Time''

       While executives at Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan have 
     expressed a desire to repay their TARP money for months, 
     Morgan Stanley Chairman and Chief Executive Officer John Mack 
     told employees on March 30 that he thought it was ``the wrong 
     time'' to repay the money.
       Morgan Stanley, which reported a first-quarter loss, also 
     slashed its quarterly dividend 81 percent to 5 cents. On May 
     8, when the company sold stock, it also sold $4 billion of 
     debt that didn't carry a government guarantee. Selling non-
     guaranteed debt is a prerequisite for repaying TARP money.
       The banks will also have to decide whether to try to buy 
     back the warrants that the government received as part of the 
     TARP investments. The warrants, which could convert into 
     stock if not repurchased, would add to the cost of repayment.
       JPMorgan, which has $25 billion of TARP money, would need 
     to pay about $1.13 billion to buy back the warrants, 
     according to a May 14 estimate by David Trone, an analyst at 
     Fox-Pitt Kelton Cochran Caronia Waller. Morgan Stanley's 
     warrants would cost $770 million and Goldman Sachs's would 
     cost $685 million, Trone estimated, using the Black-Scholes 
     option-pricing model.


                              Bank Shares

       Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley shares have climbed since 
     Oct. 10, the last trading day before the banks were summoned 
     to a meeting by Paulson and informed of the government's 
     plans to purchase preferred stock in them. Goldman Sachs, 
     whose stock closed today at $143.15 in New York Stock 
     Exchange composite trading, is up 61 percent. Morgan Stanley, 
     which closed today at $28.28, has almost tripled from $9.68.
       JPMorgan shares, by contrast, are 11 percent lower at 
     today's $37.26 closing price than they were on Oct. 10, when 
     they closed at $41.64.
       Banks could open themselves up to lawsuits if they repay 
     the money too quickly and end up needing to ask the 
     government for help in the future, James D. Wareham, a 
     partner in the litigation department at Paul Hastings 
     Janofsky & Walker LLP said last week.
       CNBC on-air editor Charlie Gasparino reported on May 15 
     that Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan believe they have been given 
     permission to exit the TARP. He reported yesterday that 
     Morgan Stanley is seeking preliminary assurances that it can 
     exit the program.

  Mr. SESSIONS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 627 and 
in strong opposition to the Coburn amendment. This vital legislation 
was hijacked in the Senate by a dangerous amendment that would ban 
virtually all regulations of guns in national park and wildlife 
refuges--an amendment that has absolutely no place in this bill.
  The Coburn amendment overturns reasonable limits put in place by 
Ronald Reagan and goes far beyond the regulations proposed by George W. 
Bush. The House will vote on this extreme language separately, and I 
urge my colleagues to strip the Coburn amendment from the legislation.
  We need to be very clear. The rights guaranteed under the Second 
Amendment are fully protected under the current policy. The current 
rule allows guns in parks and refuges as long as they are not loaded 
and properly stored. The National Rifle Association has spent years 
trumping up claims and distorting data in order to claim a symbolic 
victory by overturning these Federal limits on guns in national parks. 
Clearly the NRA is a special group with no interest at all in 
protecting and preserving our national parks and wildlife areas.
  Claims that visitors will be safer with loaded guns goes contrary to 
the data and is not credible. The FBI states that there were less than 
two violent crimes for 100,000 national park visits in 2006. 
Nationally, the violent crime rate is 300 times that.
  It is important that we realize that our parks are special places and 
that a tradition of 100 years, law that has been in place and 
regulations since the Ronald Reagan era have protected and enhanced 
those parks. The Coburn language will have devastating consequences--
some intended, some not. It is far different from the rule proposed by 
the former Secretary Kempthorne and goes well beyond anything we have 
considered in this House under Democratic or Republican leadership.
  Our parks and refuges are America's cathedrals. They are a sanctuary 
for wildlife and visitors. Loaded guns, which can be brandished at the 
drop of the hat, are wholly inconsistent with these values. I urge 
defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I am the last speaker for this side, so until 
the gentleman has closed for his side and yielded back his time, I will 
reserve my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman letting me 
know that she has no further speakers.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we spoke about earlier was the 
letters that the Republican leadership has sent to Secretary Geithner 
asking questions about Treasury's plans now about not only the use of 
TARP funds, how they will be paid back, what that process is, and 
finally, the exit strategy from the TARP program.
  The Republican leadership in this House sent a letter to Secretary 
Geithner months ago. We have not heard anything back, certainly not in 
writing. So we have looked across the news media for releases that came 
from the Secretary, and among other things, we have seen things that 
disturb us greatly. One of those is that the Secretary has openly 
talked about the wanting to have this Federal Government change the 
investment that was made in these banks from, in essence, one type of 
instrument to another. In this case, it was from preferred stock to 
common stock.
  In other words, since they put the money in the system, in the banks, 
and they cut a deal about what they would do, they now want to change 
the rules of the game. I believe that is not only unhealthy, I think it 
would absolutely be against the spirit of the law that we passed about 
the intent.
  What happens when you do this is now the Federal Government would 
then become a common shareholder, meaning that the government would be 
investing in the stock market. The government would become a partner in 
that effort, meaning that the government, as such a large player, could 
determine the stock price up and down. I think that is a bad deal. I 
think that's a bad deal not just for the free enterprise system, but I 
think that's a bad

[[Page 13065]]

deal for this government. It puts them into a position where the 
government helps control the stock market and the stock price.
  We've asked Secretary Geithner what he thinks about that. Secretary 
Geithner has not responded except to say that that is reserved as an 
option. And now on May 13, we see that Secretary Geithner announces 
that the bailout repayments will be reused for smaller banks. That 
means that the money that was lent as part of the TARP program, when 
the money comes back in, Secretary Geithner is now going to reallocate 
that to smaller banks.
  It should be noted that what happened is a number of these banks have 
already received the money. But the TARP program, by the way it was set 
up, it said that when the money comes back in, it will go back into 
general funds. In other words, it was taken out of general funds. It 
was expected that it would be paid back plus interest and would come 
back to us.
  Despite what Secretary Geithner says, there are some Members of this 
body who are very clear about what they think about that. And as this 
ABC News, off their Web site, dated May 13 article said, Despite the 
warm welcome Geithner's announcement received from the assembled 
bankers, some Capitol Hill lawmakers are none too happy with the plan 
to repay taxpayer money back out to smaller banks.
  And it talks about Representative Brad Sherman, who is a Member of 
this body and a Democrat from California, ``blasted Geithner on the 
House floor today, citing part of the original TARP bill--Section 
106D--that he said meant that these plans were `illegal.'
  ``It is being widely accepted in the press and on Wall Street and in 
Washington that whatever the Secretary gets back from the banks will 
instead be part of some revolving fund from which the Secretary of the 
Treasury may make additional bailouts in addition to the first $700 
billion of expenditures.''
  It says, ``Sherman went on, `Well, the statute is very clear to the 
contrary, whatever is returned to the Treasury,' '' it is returned to 
the Treasury. It goes into the general fund.
  Mr. Speaker, what we're talking about is the Secretary of the 
Treasury has the authority and the responsibility to manage these 
funds. I do recognize that as these funds were given, there was a 
change of administration. I believe, and I think this Congress 
believes, that Secretary Geithner was a part of that transition. But 
now that the Secretary has been in office and he has assembled his 
team, it's time that the Secretary be very plain and write back at 
least those people who are writing letters, including the Republican 
leadership, asking what the plan is.
  Seeing press releases as they come out one at a time as the Secretary 
chooses to do this is not a plan. We're after a thoughtful idea and 
process now that we've been through the stress test about how the 
American taxpayer can be paid back. And I think the $700 billion plus 
interest is what needs to come back to the Treasury and go into the 
general fund.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Roswell, Georgia, Dr. Price.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend 
from Texas for his leadership on this and so many issues, and he talks 
about economic responsibility, which is what this is all about.
  The context of this legislation that we're considering, the Credit 
Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act--and I'm oftentimes struck in 
Washington that the title of the bill doesn't bear any resemblance to 
what is in the substance of the bill, and this is again true with this 
``Bill of Rights Act.''
  But the context in which we're talking about this legislation is an 
economic backdrop that this country has never experienced before. I 
hear from constituents every single day from my district who are unable 
to get loans or new lines of credit. I hear from banks in my district 
who are suffering under mark-to-market accounting rules and getting 
mixed messages from the regulators and still wanting to lend.

                              {time}  1100

  In that light, this legislation is simply the wrong thing at the 
wrong time. This bill, this ``credit cardholders' bill of rights act,'' 
will decrease the availability of credit and increase the cost of 
credit.
  Consumers should receive key information about credit card products 
in a more concise and simple manner. Yes, we agree with that. 
Information will empower consumers to determine which credit card 
product is right for them. But this bill will decrease the availability 
of credit and increase its cost. It will impose significant 
restrictions and price controls on creditors, and individuals will have 
fewer options, not more, Mr. Speaker, fewer options from which to 
choose.
  This bill will, by law, prevent issuers from being able to price for 
risk. That means they can't look at an individual's credit history to 
determine what price that issuance of credit will cost. It will dictate 
how they must treat the payment of multiple balances. It will implement 
price controls. We'll only see restricted access to credit for those 
with less than perfect credit histories and, again, increase the cost 
of credit for everyone.
  So I ask my colleagues to join me in protecting the American consumer 
by voting against this rule and by voting against this legislation. 
Let's foster competition in the marketplace by providing consumers with 
timely, clear, and conspicuous information about credit cards. Let's 
ensure that the key terms of a credit card account are disclosed on a 
clear and timely basis when shopping for credit and throughout the 
account relationship.
  Let's preserve the ability of card issuers to provide the benefits 
and the flexibility cardholders have come to expect from their credit 
card accounts. A recognition that cardholders have different needs and 
preferences and, therefore, a one-size-fits-all approach to card 
practices is not the preference of the American people. This bill will 
increase the cost of credit and decrease its availability.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman for his thoughtful comments.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'd like to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Lubbock, Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, I thank the gentleman, and we are here today 
debating a very familiar issue in terms of credit cards, but this time 
things are a little bit different.
  I do not strongly support the underlying provisions of H.R. 627, but 
I strongly support the Second Amendment protections offered by our 
colleague across the Capitol, Senator Coburn, and approved by the 
Senate. Anytime that Congress can back Americans' Second Amendment 
rights, we should certainly do so.
  We've heard from our constituents and people across the country that 
they are upset about some of the credit card policies that are coming 
in place. Some people are seeing their interest rates increased, and 
some are seeing their credit lines reduced. I understand their 
concerns, particularly those who have been playing by the rules, using 
their credit cards responsibly. They feel like now they are being 
penalized for doing the right thing, and I don't disagree with them.
  One of the things that people think is that somehow this credit card 
bill is going to help the people that have been doing and playing by 
the rules. In fact, this bill I believe hurts people that have been 
playing by the rules. Those who have been using their credit cards 
responsibly now can expect some extra fees and maybe now annual fees, 
where previously they were paying no annual fees.
  We've talked a lot about what the Federal Reserve has been trying to 
do, and they have already issued new rules on credit card activities, 
and in fact, we've not even given the time for these new rules to be 
implemented, and we're going to bring legislation.
  Now, the problem that I have with that is that anytime you put a new 
policy in place, sometimes there are unintended consequences. One of 
the things

[[Page 13066]]

about making this law, as opposed to letting the Federal Reserve make 
that rule, is if the Federal Reserve were to discover that in some 
cases, some of these credit card rules were in fact being punitive to 
credit card users, they would have the ability to amend their rules.
  If we put this into law, the problem is that if we find out there's 
some unintended consequences, then we have got to come back and go 
through a legislative process to undo that. Now, how many people 
believe that Congress has a history of undoing legislation that is 
found to be onerous? The record is not very good, and that's the reason 
many of us believe that we need to let these new Federal Reserve rules 
go into place, let the marketplace determine what are the best 
policies, and the best way to adjust to this.
  If you look at the history of credit cards, what you learn is that 
many years ago credit cards were only available to the very best 
customers in the bank. Many people were not able to get credit cards. 
But as States changed their usury laws and more flexibility was given 
to these credit card companies on pricing of credit cards, they became 
available to many more Americans, and now almost every American 
probably has some form of credit card or the other.
  What is going to happen now is that what these banks did, they were 
able to, if you were a little bit riskier customer, you paid a little 
bit higher rate. If you were a little less risky customer, you paid a 
lower rate. If you were paying your balances on time, you were being 
rewarded for that. If you were being late, you were being penalized for 
that. That makes sense. You know, good behavior, reward good behavior; 
bad behavior, punish bad behavior.
  But what this bill wants to do is say, you know what, we're going to 
wrap everybody up into one little package and say everybody is the 
same. It doesn't matter whether you're chronically late on your credit 
card or if you're paying out the balance in full each month, we are 
going to restrict the ability to--
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Salazar). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. So why would Congress do that to credit cardholders 
that are actually being responsible about that. Well, they shouldn't do 
that, and that's the reason we should defeat this rule and defeat the 
underlying bill.
  Now, interestingly enough, there was a New York Times article I 
believe yesterday--and not always do I agree with some of the things 
that are in the New York Times--but I thought it was interesting that 
this particular article basically said that same thing, that we're 
going to just allow banks to be able to do risk-based pricing and, to 
quote, ``Banks used to give credit cards only to the best consumers and 
charge them a flat interest rate of about 20 percent and an annual fee. 
But with the relaxing of usury laws,'' as I told you earlier, they are 
able to do risk-based pricing.
  It goes on to say that there will be one-size-fits-all pricing. What 
does that mean for those of us that maybe haven't been paying an annual 
fee on our credit card? We're going to be paying an annual fee. Those 
of us that have been enjoying a grace period, that grace period 
probably is going to get shorter. Those of us that maybe have reward 
credit cards where we're getting airline miles and something like that, 
what does that mean? Those probably are going to be restricted or could 
go away.
  That's what happens when we get the Federal Government trying to tell 
Americans what kind of credit card they ought to have, what kind of 
mortgage they ought to have, what kind of car they ought to drive, what 
products their banks should be able to provide for them. What made this 
country great is innovation, and when the Federal Government starts 
getting involved in these businesses we destroy innovation, we destroy 
American people's choices, and that's not what the American people I 
believe sent Members of Congress here to do, to take away their 
choices. I believe they sent Members of Congress here to enhance their 
choices and enhance their opportunities.
  And so with that, Mr. Speaker, I encourage Members to vote against 
the rule and vote against the underlying legislation, and I appreciate 
the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman for not only coming to the floor 
but for his thoughtful ideas.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I'd like to stress that while my friends on 
the other side of the aisle claim to be protecting consumers with this 
legislation, in reality, they're going to limit credit, reduce 
benefits, and raise interest rates for every single consumer, whether 
they were a good consumer or a risky consumer.
  I think the American taxpayer, really, the American public, including 
small businessmen and -women, really deserve the same accountability 
and transparency with their dollars to be used in a way that they see 
fit.
  Mr. Speaker, we as a Nation have a real problem, and we need real 
solutions, and passing this legislation today when we already have a 
statute that will take place is simply a waste of time.
  We need to protect jobs. We need to provide more jobs. We need to 
encourage economic growth. And we need to restore the American public's 
faith in their Members of Congress.
  And I believe today you have heard very succinctly the Republican 
Party come down and talk about how this bill is a big overreach that 
will impact and cause problems to a system rather than making it 
better.
  With that, I encourage a ``no'' vote on this closed rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, in spite of all the debate this 
morning on the TARP, on Secretary Geithner, on guns in the national 
parks, I just want to remind my colleagues that we're here today to 
talk about the rule on H.R. 627, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of 
Rights.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an opportunity for us to prove to nearly 175 
million Americans with credit cards that we understand their 
frustration and we recognize that they are the target of unfair, 
unreasonable, and deceptive practices. Late fees, over-the-limit fees, 
arbitrary increases in interest rates, the credit card companies have 
gotten away with far too much for far too long. It's time we level the 
playing field now for small businesses, for families and for 
individuals across this country.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in
  In these unpredictable economic times, as American families struggle 
to pay their bills, the last thing they need is to find an unwelcome 
surprise on their monthly credit card statement. Since the start of the 
financial crisis, my office has been inundated with complaints about 
unexpected interest hikes, mysteriously shifting due dates and 
indecipherable new charges on their credit card bills. These tricks and 
traps are unfair and can lead to devastating financial consequences for 
families already teetering on the edge.
  The Credit Card Holders Bill of Rights protects consumers from these 
abuses with strong, forward looking protections. The bill ends unfair, 
retroactive interest rate increases; prohibits excessive ``over-the-
limit'' fees; protects cardholders who pay on time; forbids a card 
company from unfairly allocating consumer payments or using due date 
gimmicks; enhances restrictions on card issuance to young consumers; 
and prevents deceptive marketing practices.
  Similar protections have been finalized in the rule making of the 
Federal Reserve and other agencies. But they do not take effect until 
July of 2010. By codifying many of those proposals into law now, the 
Credit Card Holders Bill of Rights helps to protect consumers more 
quickly and when they need it most.
  President Obama asked Congress to deliver for his signature, in time 
for the Memorial Day Recess, a strong bill that protects consumers from 
abusive practices. This is that bill. I encourage my colleagues to join 
me in supporting it.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the passage of the 
Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act. This legislation will help to 
create a fairer consumer credit market by curbing some of the most 
egregious and

[[Page 13067]]

arbitrary credit card lending practices. Current industry practice can 
trap consumers in a vicious cycle of debt--this legislation will assist 
in breaking that cycle.
  Americans now carry roughly $850 billion in credit card debt, roughly 
$17,000 for each household that does not pay their balance in full each 
month. A recent Sallie Mae survey indicated that 84% of undergraduates 
had at least one credit card and that, on average, students have 4.6 
credit cards.
  The legislation bars the practice of ``universal default.'' Credit 
card issuers will not be able to increase a cardholder's interest rate 
on existing balances based on adverse information unrelated to card 
behavior.
  The legislation also bars so-called ``double-cycle billing'' and 
similar practices, where credit card companies bill consumers for 
balances already paid by the borrower.
  The legislation requires that consumer payments be directed at the 
highest interest portions of a credit card balance, allowing consumers 
to more quickly pay down their balances.
  The legislation also requires that fees be reasonable and 
proportional to the consumer's late or over-limit violation. Penalty 
clauses are generally unenforceable in the realm of contracts. Why 
should consumers be unfairly burdened? Congress should ensure that 
consumers will not be terrorized into performance.
  Oregon students and families, like students and families across the 
country, are heavily burdened by credit card debt. I support this bill 
because it requires fair terms for this burden and it levels the 
playing field for consumers by increasing consumer protections.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
the Coburn Amendment to the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights that 
will allow for loaded, concealed weapons to be carried in National 
Parks, ending a long-standing prohibition against the practice. This 
amendment is not germane to the underlying bill, makes our parks and 
historic sites less safe, and increases the opportunity for illegal 
poaching of protected wildlife.
  Last year, the Bush Administration tried to push through similar 
regulations as contained in this amendment, undoing Reagan-era 
restrictions on the possession of loaded, concealed weapons in National 
Parks. During the public comment period 140,000 people voiced their 
opinion, 73 percent of which opposed the new regulations. Despite this 
public rejection, the Bush administration finalized the regulations. 
Earlier this year, a U.S. District Court ruled against the 
implementation of the regulations because the process was 
``astoundingly flawed'' and because officials ignored substantial 
evidence regarding the impact the new regulations would have on the 
environment.
  Today, Congress is trying to surreptitiously enact ill-conceived and 
dangerous policy as an attachment to an entirely separate piece of 
legislation. Allowing loaded, concealed weapons in National Parks will 
endanger National Park Service employees, National Park visitors, and 
wildlife. While the NRA may support this wrong-headed policy change, 
the amendment is opposed by the Association of National Park Rangers, 
the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge--Fraternal Order of Police, the National 
Parks Conservation Association, and the Coalition of Park Service 
Retirees. Quite simply, those who would be directly impacted by this 
action believe it is unwise and will endanger the lives of both humans 
and wildlife.
  The need for this change, according to proponents, is to allow 
National Park visitors the ability to protect themselves from potential 
violence. But National Parks are exceedingly safe places, experiencing 
much lower rates of crime than in the general public. In fact, National 
Parks experience 1.6 violent crimes per 100,000 visitors, much lower 
than the over 170 violent crimes per 100,000 individuals recorded among 
the general public. The more likely result of this provision is an 
increase in gun accidents and poaching activity. This amendment will 
make National Park visitors less safe, not more.
  Proponents also insist this amendment is about restoring Second 
Amendment rights to citizens. Yet, even in the Supreme Court's Heller 
v. D.C. ruling, the Court was clear that the Second Amendment is not 
absolute and that certain restrictions could be established to protect 
public safety. I believe prohibiting concealed weapons in National 
Parks is one such allowable restriction.
  National Parks are natural cathedrals. They are places where 
Americans can go to escape their everyday lives and experience the 
beauty of the natural world. Current regulations requiring weapons to 
be unloaded or disassembled, regulations first imposed by the Reagan 
Administration, have served the public interest for the past 25 years. 
The Coburn amendment is unnecessary, non-germane, and dangerous. I 
strongly urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 627, 
the ``Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2009,'' a bill of which 
I am a proud co-sponsor. My friend and colleague, Representative 
Carolyn Maloney, who is the bill's author, has been a tireless advocate 
for protecting consumers from the abuses of the credit card industry. 
This legislation will mandate meaningful reform for an industry that 
has been permitted to run wild for far too long.
  We hear daily of countless Americans, who are struggling to pay their 
bills. My home state of Michigan has an unemployment rate of around 13 
percent, the highest in the nation. Compounding this lamentable state 
of affairs is the fact that workers in this country have suffered a 
decline in real wages over the past decade. As a result of being 
stretched to their financial breaking point, many families have had to 
resort to using credit cards to pay for unforeseen costs, such as car 
repairs or emergency room bills. Far too often, these families are 
subjected to arbitrary interest rate increases and also forced to pay 
iniquitous late fees.
  The Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights will help put an end to these 
shameful practices and require credit card companies to treat consumers 
fairly. Importantly, this legislation will restrict the practice known 
as ``universal default,'' whereby a credit card company uses 
information about a cardholder's financial status, such a change in his 
or her credit rating, to raise the cardholder's interest rate, even if 
the cardholder has not defaulted on payments or made them late. 
Moreover, H.R. 627 will also ban what is known as ``double cycle 
billing,'' which is the collection of interest on amounts already paid 
by consumers to credit card companies.
  In this time of severe recession, I feel it imperative that consumers 
be afforded fair protection from unfair credit card industry practices. 
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this common-sense legislation, 
which will help stem the tide of unscrupulous and predatory lending, 
interest rate increases, and other deceitful practices that have 
brought our nation to an economic precipice of gargantuan proportions.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank Representative 
Maloney, who sponsored the House companion of this bill, and who has a 
tireless advocate of credit card reform.
  If this recession has brought home to us one important truth, it is 
the danger of debt. Americans from homeowners to bankers took on risks 
and debts they could not afford, and the result was a crisis that 
touched every one of us. I don't think the lesson is one we will soon 
forget. But nearly as harmful are those who take advantage of our 
debt--and in that category, unfortunately, go many of America's credit 
card companies. No one doubts that credit cards have become an 
essential part of our consumer economy; no one doubts that millions of 
Americans use their credit cards responsibly every day, and pay their 
bills every month. But even for those responsible cardholders, credit 
card policies have often been incomprehensible and exploitative.
  The Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act 
takes important steps to bring those harmful policies under control, 
ensuring that responsible cardholders are treated fairly. Among its 
provisions, this bill prevents arbitrary and unfair rate increases, 
which, under current policies, can kick in even for cardholders who pay 
their balances in full. It bans exorbitant and unnecessary fees, 
including fees charged just for paying your bill. It prohibits card 
companies from charging interest on debt that is paid on time, a 
practice known as double-cycle billing. And it insists that card 
companies disclose their policies clearly and openly to cardholders, 
and notify them when those policies have changed.
  This bill goes a long way toward removing a persistent source of 
unfairness in the lives of many Americans. Debt is a part of any 
economy--but it must be treated responsibly, and it must be guarded 
from exploitation. That is what this bill accomplishes, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move 
the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  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.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

[[Page 13068]]



                          ____________________