[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13076-13096]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  CREDIT CARD ACCOUNTABILITY RESPONSIBILITY AND DISCLOSURE ACT OF 2009

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 
456, I 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 I 
have a motion at the desk.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the Senate 
amendment.
  The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:

       Senate amendment:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Credit 
     Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 
     2009'' or the ``Credit CARD Act of 2009''.

[[Page 13077]]

       (b) Table of Contents.--
       The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Regulatory authority.
Sec. 3. Effective date.

                      TITLE I--CONSUMER PROTECTION

Sec. 101. Protection of credit cardholders.
Sec. 102. Limits on fees and interest charges.
Sec. 103. Use of terms clarified.
Sec. 104. Application of card payments.
Sec. 105. Standards applicable to initial issuance of subprime or ``fee 
              harvester'' cards.
Sec. 106. Rules regarding periodic statements.
Sec. 107. Enhanced penalties.
Sec. 108. Clerical amendments.
Sec. 109. Consideration of Ability to repay.

                TITLE II--ENHANCED CONSUMER DISCLOSURES

Sec. 201. Payoff timing disclosures.
Sec. 202. Requirements relating to late payment deadlines and 
              penalties.
Sec. 203. Renewal disclosures.
Sec. 204. Internet posting of credit card agreements.
Sec. 205. Prevention of deceptive marketing of credit reports.

                TITLE III--PROTECTION OF YOUNG CONSUMERS

Sec. 301. Extensions of credit to underage consumers.
Sec. 302. Protection of young consumers from prescreened credit offers.
Sec. 303. Issuance of credit cards to certain college students.
Sec. 304. Privacy Protections for college students.
Sec. 305. College Credit Card Agreements.

                          TITLE IV--GIFT CARDS

Sec. 401. General-use prepaid cards, gift certificates, and store gift 
              cards.
Sec. 402. Relation to State laws.
Sec. 403. Effective date.

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. Study and report on interchange fees.
Sec. 502. Board review of consumer credit plans and regulations.
Sec. 503. Stored value.
Sec. 504 Procedure for timely settlement of estates of decedent 
              obligors.
Sec. 505. Report to Congress on reductions of consumer credit card 
              limits based on certain information as to experience or 
              transactions of the consumer.
Sec. 506. Board review of small business credit plans and 
              recommendations.
Sec. 507. Small business information security task force.
Sec. 508. Study and report on emergency pin technology.
Sec. 509. Study and report on the marketing of products with credit 
              offers.
Sec. 510. Financial and economic literacy.
Sec. 511. Federal trade commission rulemaking on mortgage lending.
Sec. 512. Protecting Americans from violent crime.
Sec. 513. GAO study and report on fluency in the English language and 
              financial literacy.

     SEC. 2. REGULATORY AUTHORITY.

       The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (in 
     this Act referred to as the ``Board'') may issue such rules 
     and publish such model forms as it considers necessary to 
     carry out this Act and the amendments made by this Act.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall become 
     effective 9 months after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     except as otherwise specifically provided in this Act.

                      TITLE I--CONSUMER PROTECTION

     SEC. 101. PROTECTION OF CREDIT CARDHOLDERS.

       (a) Advance Notice of Rate Increase and Other Changes 
     Required.--
       (1) Amendment to tila.--Section 127 of the Truth in Lending 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 1637) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(i) Advance Notice of Rate Increase and Other Changes 
     Required.--
       ``(1) Advance notice of increase in interest rate 
     required.--In the case of any credit card account under an 
     open end consumer credit plan, a creditor shall provide a 
     written notice of an increase in an annual percentage rate 
     (except in the case of an increase described in paragraph 
     (1), (2), or (3) of section 171(b)) not later than 45 days 
     prior to the effective date of the increase.
       ``(2) Advance notice of other significant changes 
     required.--In the case of any credit card account under an 
     open end consumer credit plan, a creditor shall provide a 
     written notice of any significant change, as determined by 
     rule of the Board, in the terms (including an increase in any 
     fee or finance charge, other than as provided in paragraph 
     (1)) of the cardholder agreement between the creditor and the 
     obligor, not later than 45 days prior to the effective date 
     of the change.
       ``(3) Notice of right to cancel.--Each notice required by 
     paragraph (1) or (2) shall be made in a clear and conspicuous 
     manner, and shall contain a brief statement of the right of 
     the obligor to cancel the account pursuant to rules 
     established by the Board before the effective date of the 
     subject rate increase or other change.
       ``(4) Rule of construction.--Closure or cancellation of an 
     account by the obligor shall not constitute a default under 
     an existing cardholder agreement, and shall not trigger an 
     obligation to immediately repay the obligation in full or 
     through a method that is less beneficial to the obligor than 
     one of the methods described in section 171(c)(2), or the 
     imposition of any other penalty or fee.''.
       (2) Effective date.--Notwithstanding section 3, section 
     127(i) of the Truth in Lending Act, as added by this 
     subsection, shall become effective 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Retroactive Increase and Universal Default 
     Prohibited.--Chapter 4 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 
     1666 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 171 as section 173; and
       (2) by inserting after section 170 the following:

     ``SEC. 171. LIMITS ON INTEREST RATE, FEE, AND FINANCE CHARGE 
                   INCREASES APPLICABLE TO OUTSTANDING BALANCES.

       ``(a) In General.--In the case of any credit card account 
     under an open end consumer credit plan, no creditor may 
     increase any annual percentage rate, fee, or finance charge 
     applicable to any outstanding balance, except as permitted 
     under subsection (b).
       ``(b) Exceptions.--The prohibition under subsection (a) 
     shall not apply to--
       ``(1) an increase in an annual percentage rate upon the 
     expiration of a specified period of time, provided that--
       ``(A) prior to commencement of that period, the creditor 
     disclosed to the consumer, in a clear and conspicuous manner, 
     the length of the period and the annual percentage rate that 
     would apply after expiration of the period;
       ``(B) the increased annual percentage rate does not exceed 
     the rate disclosed pursuant to subparagraph (A); and
       ``(C) the increased annual percentage rate is not applied 
     to transactions that occurred prior to commencement of the 
     period;
       ``(2) an increase in a variable annual percentage rate in 
     accordance with a credit card agreement that provides for 
     changes in the rate according to operation of an index that 
     is not under the control of the creditor and is available to 
     the general public;
       ``(3) an increase due to the completion of a workout or 
     temporary hardship arrangement by the obligor or the failure 
     of the obligor to comply with the terms of a workout or 
     temporary hardship arrangement, provided that--
       ``(A) the annual percentage rate, fee, or finance charge 
     applicable to a category of transactions following any such 
     increase does not exceed the rate, fee, or finance charge 
     that applied to that category of transactions prior to 
     commencement of the arrangement; and
       ``(B) the creditor has provided the obligor, prior to the 
     commencement of such arrangement, with clear and conspicuous 
     disclosure of the terms of the arrangement (including any 
     increases due to such completion or failure); or
       ``(4) an increase due solely to the fact that a minimum 
     payment by the obligor has not been received by the creditor 
     within 60 days after the due date for such payment, provided 
     that the creditor shall--
       ``(A) include, together with the notice of such increase 
     required under section 127(i), a clear and conspicuous 
     written statement of the reason for the increase and that the 
     increase will terminate not later than 6 months after the 
     date on which it is imposed, if the creditor receives the 
     required minimum payments on time from the obligor during 
     that period; and
       ``(B) terminate such increase not later than 6 months after 
     the date on which it is imposed, if the creditor receives the 
     required minimum payments on time during that period.
       ``(c) Repayment of Outstanding Balance.--
       ``(1) In general.--The creditor shall not change the terms 
     governing the repayment of any outstanding balance, except 
     that the creditor may provide the obligor with one of the 
     methods described in paragraph (2) of repaying any 
     outstanding balance, or a method that is no less beneficial 
     to the obligor than one of those methods.
       ``(2) Methods.--The methods described in this paragraph 
     are--
       ``(A) an amortization period of not less than 5 years, 
     beginning on the effective date of the increase set forth in 
     the notice required under section 127(i); or
       ``(B) a required minimum periodic payment that includes a 
     percentage of the outstanding balance that is equal to not 
     more than twice the percentage required before the effective 
     date of the increase set forth in the notice required under 
     section 127(i).
       ``(d) Outstanding Balance Defined.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `outstanding balance' means the amount owed 
     on a credit card account under an open end consumer credit 
     plan as of the end of the 14th day after the date on which 
     the creditor provides notice of an increase in the annual 
     percentage rate, fee, or finance charge in accordance with 
     section 127(i).''.
       (c) Interest Rate Reduction on Open End Consumer Credit 
     Plans.--Chapter 3 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1661 
     et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 148. INTEREST RATE REDUCTION ON OPEN END CONSUMER 
                   CREDIT PLANS.

       ``(a) In General.--If a creditor increases the annual 
     percentage rate applicable to a credit card account under an 
     open end consumer credit plan, based on factors including the 
     credit risk of the obligor, market conditions, or other 
     factors, the creditor shall consider changes in such factors 
     in subsequently determining whether to reduce the annual 
     percentage rate for such obligor.

[[Page 13078]]

       ``(b) Requirements.--With respect to any credit card 
     account under an open end consumer credit plan, the creditor 
     shall--
       ``(1) maintain reasonable methodologies for assessing the 
     factors described in subsection (a);
       ``(2) not less frequently than once every 6 months, review 
     accounts as to which the annual percentage rate has been 
     increased since January 1, 2009, to assess whether such 
     factors have changed (including whether any risk has 
     declined);
       ``(3) reduce the annual percentage rate previously 
     increased when a reduction is indicated by the review; and
       ``(4) in the event of an increase in the annual percentage 
     rate, provide in the written notice required under section 
     127(i) a statement of the reasons for the increase.
       ``(c) Rule of Construction.--This section shall not be 
     construed to require a reduction in any specific amount.
       ``(d) Rulemaking.--The Board shall issue final rules not 
     later than 9 months after the date of enactment of this 
     section to implement the requirements of and evaluate 
     compliance with this section, and subsections (a), (b), and 
     (c) shall become effective 15 months after that date of 
     enactment.''.
       (d) Introductory and Promotional Rates.--Chapter 4 of the 
     Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1666 et seq.) is amended by 
     inserting after section 171, as amended by this Act, the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 172. ADDITIONAL LIMITS ON INTEREST RATE INCREASES.

       ``(a) Limitation on Increases Within First Year.--Except in 
     the case of an increase described in paragraph (1), (2), (3), 
     or (4) of section 171(b), no increase in any annual 
     percentage rate, fee, or finance charge on any credit card 
     account under an open end consumer credit plan shall be 
     effective before the end of the 1-year period beginning on 
     the date on which the account is opened.
       ``(b) Promotional Rate Minimum Term.--No increase in any 
     annual percentage rate applicable to a credit card account 
     under an open end consumer credit plan that is a promotional 
     rate (as that term is defined by the Board) shall be 
     effective before the end of the 6-month period beginning on 
     the date on which the promotional rate takes effect, subject 
     to such reasonable exceptions as the Board may establish, by 
     rule.''.
       (e) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     4 of the Truth in Lending Act is amended by striking the item 
     relating to section 171 and inserting the following:

``171. Limits on interest rate, fee, and finance charge increases 
              applicable to outstanding balances.
``172. Additional limits on interest rate increases.
``173. Applicability of State laws.''.

     SEC. 102. LIMITS ON FEES AND INTEREST CHARGES.

       (a) In General.--Section 127 of the Truth in Lending Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 1637) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(j) Prohibition on Penalties for On-Time Payments.--
       ``(1) Prohibition on double-cycle billing and penalties for 
     on-time payments.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a 
     creditor may not impose any finance charge on a credit card 
     account under an open end consumer credit plan as a result of 
     the loss of any time period provided by the creditor within 
     which the obligor may repay any portion of the credit 
     extended without incurring a finance charge, with respect 
     to--
       ``(A) any balances for days in billing cycles that precede 
     the most recent billing cycle; or
       ``(B) any balances or portions thereof in the current 
     billing cycle that were repaid within such time period.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to--
       ``(A) any adjustment to a finance charge as a result of the 
     resolution of a dispute; or
       ``(B) any adjustment to a finance charge as a result of the 
     return of a payment for insufficient funds.
       ``(k) Opt-in Required for Over-the-Limit Transactions if 
     Fees Are Imposed.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of any credit card account 
     under an open end consumer credit plan under which an over-
     the-limit fee may be imposed by the creditor for any 
     extension of credit in excess of the amount of credit 
     authorized to be extended under such account, no such fee 
     shall be charged, unless the consumer has expressly elected 
     to permit the creditor, with respect to such account, to 
     complete transactions involving the extension of credit under 
     such account in excess of the amount of credit authorized.
       ``(2) Disclosure by creditor.--No election by a consumer 
     under paragraph (1) shall take effect unless the consumer, 
     before making such election, received a notice from the 
     creditor of any over-the-limit fee in the form and manner, 
     and at the time, determined by the Board. If the consumer 
     makes the election referred to in paragraph (1), the creditor 
     shall provide notice to the consumer of the right to revoke 
     the election, in the form prescribed by the Board, in any 
     periodic statement that includes notice of the imposition of 
     an over-the-limit fee during the period covered by the 
     statement.
       ``(3) Form of election.--A consumer may make or revoke the 
     election referred to in paragraph (1) orally, electronically, 
     or in writing, pursuant to regulations prescribed by the 
     Board. The Board shall prescribe regulations to ensure that 
     the same options are available for both making and revoking 
     such election.
       ``(4) Time of election.--A consumer may make the election 
     referred to in paragraph (1) at any time, and such election 
     shall be effective until the election is revoked in the 
     manner prescribed under paragraph (3).
       ``(5) Regulations.--The Board shall prescribe regulations--
       ``(A) governing disclosures under this subsection; and
       ``(B) that prevent unfair or deceptive acts or practices in 
     connection with the manipulation of credit limits designed to 
     increase over-the-limit fees or other penalty fees.
       ``(6) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall be construed to prohibit a creditor from completing an 
     over-the-limit transaction, provided that a consumer who has 
     not made a valid election under paragraph (1) is not charged 
     an over-the-limit fee for such transaction.
       ``(7) Restriction on fees charged for an over-the-limit 
     transaction.--With respect to a credit card account under an 
     open end consumer credit plan, an over-the-limit fee may be 
     imposed only once during a billing cycle if the credit limit 
     on the account is exceeded, and an over-the-limit fee, with 
     respect to such excess credit, may be imposed only once in 
     each of the 2 subsequent billing cycles, unless the consumer 
     has obtained an additional extension of credit in excess of 
     such credit limit during any such subsequent cycle or the 
     consumer reduces the outstanding balance below the credit 
     limit as of the end of such billing cycle.
       ``(l) Limit on Fees Related to Method of Payment.--With 
     respect to a credit card account under an open end consumer 
     credit plan, the creditor may not impose a separate fee to 
     allow the obligor to repay an extension of credit or finance 
     charge, whether such repayment is made by mail, electronic 
     transfer, telephone authorization, or other means, unless 
     such payment involves an expedited service by a service 
     representative of the creditor.''.
       (b) Reasonable Penalty Fees.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 3 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 
     U.S.C. 1661 et seq.), as amended by this Act, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 149. REASONABLE PENALTY FEES ON OPEN END CONSUMER 
                   CREDIT PLANS.

       ``(a) In General.--The amount of any penalty fee or charge 
     that a card issuer may impose with respect to a credit card 
     account under an open end consumer credit plan in connection 
     with any omission with respect to, or violation of, the 
     cardholder agreement, including any late payment fee, over-
     the-limit fee, or any other penalty fee or charge, shall be 
     reasonable and proportional to such omission or violation.
       ``(b) Rulemaking Required.--The Board, in consultation with 
     the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Directors of 
     the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Director of 
     the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the National Credit 
     Union Administration Board, shall issue final rules not later 
     than 9 months after the date of enactment of this section, to 
     establish standards for assessing whether the amount of any 
     penalty fee or charge described under subsection (a) is 
     reasonable and proportional to the omission or violation to 
     which the fee or charge relates. Subsection (a) shall become 
     effective 15 months after the date of enactment of this 
     section.
       ``(c) Considerations.--In issuing rules required by this 
     section, the Board shall consider--
       ``(1) the cost incurred by the creditor from such omission 
     or violation;
       ``(2) the deterrence of such omission or violation by the 
     cardholder;
       ``(3) the conduct of the cardholder; and
       ``(4) such other factors as the Board may deem necessary or 
     appropriate.
       ``(d) Differentiation Permitted.--In issuing rules required 
     by this subsection, the Board may establish different 
     standards for different types of fees and charges, as 
     appropriate.
       ``(e) Safe Harbor Rule Authorized.--The Board, in 
     consultation with the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board 
     of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 
     the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the 
     National Credit Union Administration Board, may issue rules 
     to provide an amount for any penalty fee or charge described 
     under subsection (a) that is presumed to be reasonable and 
     proportional to the omission or violation to which the fee or 
     charge relates.''.
       (2) Clerical amendments.--Chapter 3 of the Truth in Lending 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 1661 et seq.) is amended--
       (A) in the chapter heading, by inserting ``AND LIMITS ON 
     CREDIT CARD FEES'' after ``ADVERTISING''; and
       (B) in the table of sections for the chapter, by adding at 
     the end the following:

``148. Interest rate reduction on open end consumer credit plans.
``149. Reasonable penalty fees on open end consumer credit plans.''.

     SEC. 103. USE OF TERMS CLARIFIED.

       Section 127 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1637) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(m) Use of Term `Fixed Rate'.--With respect to the terms 
     of any credit card account under an open end consumer credit 
     plan, the term `fixed', when appearing in conjunction with a 
     reference to the annual percentage rate or interest rate 
     applicable with respect to such account, may only be used to 
     refer to an annual percentage rate or interest rate that will 
     not change or vary for any reason over the period specified 
     clearly and conspicuously in the terms of the account.''.

     SEC. 104. APPLICATION OF CARD PAYMENTS.

       Section 164 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1666c) 
     is amended--

[[Page 13079]]

       (1) by striking the section heading and all that follows 
     through ``Payments'' and inserting the following:

     ``Sec. 164. Prompt and fair crediting of payments

       ``(a) In General.--Payments'';
       (2) by inserting ``, by 5:00 p.m. on the date on which such 
     payment is due,'' after ``in readily identifiable form'';
       (3) by striking ``manner, location, and time'' and 
     inserting ``manner, and location''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Application of Payments.--
       ``(1) In general.--Upon receipt of a payment from a 
     cardholder, the card issuer shall apply amounts in excess of 
     the minimum payment amount first to the card balance bearing 
     the highest rate of interest, and then to each successive 
     balance bearing the next highest rate of interest, until the 
     payment is exhausted.
       ``(2) Clarification relating to certain deferred interest 
     arrangements.--A creditor shall allocate the entire amount 
     paid by the consumer in excess of the minimum payment amount 
     to a balance on which interest is deferred during the last 2 
     billing cycles immediately preceding the expiration of the 
     period during which interest is deferred.
       ``(c) Changes by Card Issuer.--If a card issuer makes a 
     material change in the mailing address, office, or procedures 
     for handling cardholder payments, and such change causes a 
     material delay in the crediting of a cardholder payment made 
     during the 60-day period following the date on which such 
     change took effect, the card issuer may not impose any late 
     fee or finance charge for a late payment on the credit card 
     account to which such payment was credited.''.

     SEC. 105. STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO INITIAL ISSUANCE OF 
                   SUBPRIME OR ``FEE HARVESTER'' CARDS.

       Section 127 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1637), 
     as amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(n) Standards Applicable to Initial Issuance of Subprime 
     or `Fee Harvester' Cards.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the terms of a credit card account 
     under an open end consumer credit plan require the payment of 
     any fees (other than any late fee, over-the-limit fee, or fee 
     for a payment returned for insufficient funds) by the 
     consumer in the first year during which the account is opened 
     in an aggregate amount in excess of 25 percent of the total 
     amount of credit authorized under the account when the 
     account is opened, no payment of any fees (other than any 
     late fee, over-the-limit fee, or fee for a payment returned 
     for insufficient funds) may be made from the credit made 
     available under the terms of the account.
       ``(2) Rule of construction.--No provision of this 
     subsection may be construed as authorizing any imposition or 
     payment of advance fees otherwise prohibited by any provision 
     of law.''.

     SEC. 106. RULES REGARDING PERIODIC STATEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 127 of the Truth in Lending Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 1637) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(o) Due Dates for Credit Card Accounts.--
       ``(1) In general.--The payment due date for a credit card 
     account under an open end consumer credit plan shall be the 
     same day each month.
       ``(2) Weekend or holiday due dates.--If the payment due 
     date for a credit card account under an open end consumer 
     credit plan is a day on which the creditor does not receive 
     or accept payments by mail (including weekends and holidays), 
     the creditor may not treat a payment received on the next 
     business day as late for any purpose.''.
       (b) Length of Billing Period.--
       (1) In general.--Section 163 of the Truth in Lending Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 1666b) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 163. TIMING OF PAYMENTS.

       ``(a) Time To Make Payments.--A creditor may not treat a 
     payment on an open end consumer credit plan as late for any 
     purpose, unless the creditor has adopted reasonable 
     procedures designed to ensure that each periodic statement 
     including the information required by section 127(b) is 
     mailed or delivered to the consumer not later than 21 days 
     before the payment due date.
       ``(b) Grace Period.--If an open end consumer credit plan 
     provides a time period within which an obligor may repay any 
     portion of the credit extended without incurring an 
     additional finance charge, such additional finance charge may 
     not be imposed with respect to such portion of the credit 
     extended for the billing cycle of which such period is a 
     part, unless a statement which includes the amount upon which 
     the finance charge for the period is based was mailed or 
     delivered to the consumer not later than 21 days before the 
     date specified in the statement by which payment must be made 
     in order to avoid imposition of that finance charge.''.
       (2) Effective date.--Notwithstanding section 3, section 163 
     of the Truth in Lending Act, as amended by this subsection, 
     shall become effective 90 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (c) Clerical Amendments.--The table of sections for chapter 
     4 of the Truth in Lending Act is amended--
       (1) by striking the item relating to section 163 and 
     inserting the following:

``163. Timing of payments.''; and
       (2) by striking the item relating to section 171 and 
     inserting the following:

``171. Universal defaults prohibited.
``172. Unilateral changes in credit card agreement prohibited.
``173. Applicability of State laws.''.

     SEC. 107. ENHANCED PENALTIES.

       Section 130(a)(2)(A) of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 
     1640(a)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ``or (iii) in the'' and 
     inserting the following: ``(iii) in the case of an individual 
     action relating to an open end consumer credit plan that is 
     not secured by real property or a dwelling, twice the amount 
     of any finance charge in connection with the transaction, 
     with a minimum of $500 and a maximum of $5,000, or such 
     higher amount as may be appropriate in the case of an 
     established pattern or practice of such failures; or (iv) in 
     the''.

     SEC. 108. CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.

       Section 103(i) of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 
     1602(i)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``term'' and all that follows through 
     ``means'' and inserting the following: ``terms `open end 
     credit plan' and `open end consumer credit plan' mean''; and
       (2) in the second sentence, by inserting ``or open end 
     consumer credit plan'' after ``credit plan'' each place that 
     term appears.

     SEC. 109. CONSIDERATION OF ABILITY TO REPAY.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 3 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 
     U.S.C. 1666 et seq.), as amended by this title, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 150. CONSIDERATION OF ABILITY TO REPAY.

       ``A card issuer may not open any credit card account for 
     any consumer under an open end consumer credit plan, or 
     increase any credit limit applicable to such account, unless 
     the card issuer considers the ability of the consumer to make 
     the required payments under the terms of such account.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--Chapter 3 of the Truth in Lending 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 1661 et seq.) is amended in the table of 
     sections for the chapter, by adding at the end the following:

``150. Consideration of ability to repay.''.

                TITLE II--ENHANCED CONSUMER DISCLOSURES

     SEC. 201. PAYOFF TIMING DISCLOSURES.

       (a) In General.--Section 127(b)(11) of the Truth in Lending 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 1637(b)(11)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(11)(A) A written statement in the following form: 
     `Minimum Payment Warning: Making only the minimum payment 
     will increase the amount of interest you pay and the time it 
     takes to repay your balance.', or such similar statement as 
     is established by the Board pursuant to consumer testing.
       ``(B) Repayment information that would apply to the 
     outstanding balance of the consumer under the credit plan, 
     including--
       ``(i) the number of months (rounded to the nearest month) 
     that it would take to pay the entire amount of that balance, 
     if the consumer pays only the required minimum monthly 
     payments and if no further advances are made;
       ``(ii) the total cost to the consumer, including interest 
     and principal payments, of paying that balance in full, if 
     the consumer pays only the required minimum monthly payments 
     and if no further advances are made;
       ``(iii) the monthly payment amount that would be required 
     for the consumer to eliminate the outstanding balance in 36 
     months, if no further advances are made, and the total cost 
     to the consumer, including interest and principal payments, 
     of paying that balance in full if the consumer pays the 
     balance over 36 months; and
       ``(iv) a toll-free telephone number at which the consumer 
     may receive information about accessing credit counseling and 
     debt management services.
       ``(C)(i) Subject to clause (ii), in making the disclosures 
     under subparagraph (B), the creditor shall apply the interest 
     rate or rates in effect on the date on which the disclosure 
     is made until the date on which the balance would be paid in 
     full.
       ``(ii) If the interest rate in effect on the date on which 
     the disclosure is made is a temporary rate that will change 
     under a contractual provision applying an index or formula 
     for subsequent interest rate adjustment, the creditor shall 
     apply the interest rate in effect on the date on which the 
     disclosure is made for as long as that interest rate will 
     apply under that contractual provision, and then apply an 
     interest rate based on the index or formula in effect on the 
     applicable billing date.
       ``(D) All of the information described in subparagraph (B) 
     shall--
       ``(i) be disclosed in the form and manner which the Board 
     shall prescribe, by regulation, and in a manner that avoids 
     duplication; and
       ``(ii) be placed in a conspicuous and prominent location on 
     the billing statement.
       ``(E) In the regulations prescribed under subparagraph (D), 
     the Board shall require that the disclosure of such 
     information shall be in the form of a table that--
       ``(i) contains clear and concise headings for each item of 
     such information; and
       ``(ii) provides a clear and concise form stating each item 
     of information required to be disclosed under each such 
     heading.
       ``(F) In prescribing the form of the table under 
     subparagraph (E), the Board shall require that--
       ``(i) all of the information in the table, and not just a 
     reference to the table, be placed on the billing statement, 
     as required by this paragraph; and
       ``(ii) the items required to be included in the table shall 
     be listed in the order in which such items are set forth in 
     subparagraph (B).

[[Page 13080]]

       ``(G) In prescribing the form of the table under 
     subparagraph (D), the Board shall employ terminology which is 
     different than the terminology which is employed in 
     subparagraph (B), if such terminology is more easily 
     understood and conveys substantially the same meaning.''.
       (b) Civil Liability.--Section 130(a) of the Truth in 
     Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1640(a)) is amended, in the 
     undesignated paragraph following paragraph (4), by striking 
     the second sentence and inserting the following: ``In 
     connection with the disclosures referred to in subsections 
     (a) and (b) of section 127, a creditor shall have a liability 
     determined under paragraph (2) only for failing to comply 
     with the requirements of section 125, 127(a), or any of 
     paragraphs (4) through (13) of section 127(b), or for failing 
     to comply with disclosure requirements under State law for 
     any term or item that the Board has determined to be 
     substantially the same in meaning under section 111(a)(2) as 
     any of the terms or items referred to in section 127(a), or 
     any of paragraphs (4) through (13) of section 127(b).''.
       (c) Guidelines Required.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Board shall issue guidelines, by 
     rule, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, for 
     the establishment and maintenance by creditors of a toll-free 
     telephone number for purposes of providing information about 
     accessing credit counseling and debt management services, as 
     required under section 127(b)(11)(B)(iv) of the Truth in 
     Lending Act, as added by this section.
       (2) Approved agencies.--Guidelines issued under this 
     subsection shall ensure that referrals provided by the toll-
     free number referred to in paragraph (1) include only those 
     nonprofit budget and credit counseling agencies approved by a 
     United States bankruptcy trustee pursuant to section 111(a) 
     of title 11, United States Code.

     SEC. 202. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO LATE PAYMENT DEADLINES AND 
                   PENALTIES.

       Section 127(b)(12) of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 
     1637(b)(12)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(12) Requirements relating to late payment deadlines and 
     penalties.--
       ``(A) Late payment deadline required to be disclosed.--In 
     the case of a credit card account under an open end consumer 
     credit plan under which a late fee or charge may be imposed 
     due to the failure of the obligor to make payment on or 
     before the due date for such payment, the periodic statement 
     required under subsection (b) with respect to the account 
     shall include, in a conspicuous location on the billing 
     statement, the date on which the payment is due or, if 
     different, the date on which a late payment fee will be 
     charged, together with the amount of the fee or charge to be 
     imposed if payment is made after that date.
       ``(B) Disclosure of increase in interest rates for late 
     payments.--If 1 or more late payments under an open end 
     consumer credit plan may result in an increase in the annual 
     percentage rate applicable to the account, the statement 
     required under subsection (b) with respect to the account 
     shall include conspicuous notice of such fact, together with 
     the applicable penalty annual percentage rate, in close 
     proximity to the disclosure required under subparagraph (A) 
     of the date on which payment is due under the terms of the 
     account.
       ``(C) Payments at local branches.--If the creditor, in the 
     case of a credit card account referred to in subparagraph 
     (A), is a financial institution which maintains branches or 
     offices at which payments on any such account are accepted 
     from the obligor in person, the date on which the obligor 
     makes a payment on the account at such branch or office shall 
     be considered to be the date on which the payment is made for 
     purposes of determining whether a late fee or charge may be 
     imposed due to the failure of the obligor to make payment on 
     or before the due date for such payment.''.

     SEC. 203. RENEWAL DISCLOSURES.

       Section 127(d) of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 
     1637(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (2);
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2); and
       (3) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Except as provided in 
     paragraph (2), a card issuer'' and inserting the following: 
     ``A card issuer that has changed or amended any term of the 
     account since the last renewal that has not been previously 
     disclosed or''.

     SEC. 204. INTERNET POSTING OF CREDIT CARD AGREEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 122 of the Truth and Lending Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 1632) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(d) Additional Electronic Disclosures.--
       ``(1) Posting agreements.--Each creditor shall establish 
     and maintain an Internet site on which the creditor shall 
     post the written agreement between the creditor and the 
     consumer for each credit card account under an open-end 
     consumer credit plan.
       ``(2) Creditor to provide contracts to the board.--Each 
     creditor shall provide to the Board, in electronic format, 
     the consumer credit card agreements that it publishes on its 
     Internet site.
       ``(3) Record repository.--The Board shall establish and 
     maintain on its publicly available Internet site a central 
     repository of the consumer credit card agreements received 
     from creditors pursuant to this subsection, and such 
     agreements shall be easily accessible and retrievable by the 
     public.
       ``(4) Exception.--This subsection shall not apply to 
     individually negotiated changes to contractual terms, such as 
     individually modified workouts or renegotiations of amounts 
     owed by a consumer under an open end consumer credit plan.
       ``(5) Regulations.--The Board, in consultation with the 
     other Federal banking agencies (as that term is defined in 
     section 603) and the Federal Trade Commission, may promulgate 
     regulations to implement this subsection, including 
     specifying the format for posting the agreements on the 
     Internet sites of creditors and establishing exceptions to 
     paragraphs (1) and (2), in any case in which the 
     administrative burden outweighs the benefit of increased 
     transparency, such as where a credit card plan has a de 
     minimis number of consumer account holders.''.

     SEC. 205. PREVENTION OF DECEPTIVE MARKETING OF CREDIT 
                   REPORTS.

       (a) Preventing Deceptive Marketing.--Section 612 of the 
     Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681j) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Prevention of Deceptive Marketing of Credit 
     Reports.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to rulemaking pursuant to 
     section 205(b) of the Credit CARD Act of 2009, any 
     advertisement for a free credit report in any medium shall 
     prominently disclose in such advertisement that free credit 
     reports are available under Federal law at: 
     `AnnualCreditReport.com' (or such other source as may be 
     authorized under Federal law).
       ``(2) Television and radio advertisement.--In the case of 
     an advertisement broadcast by television, the disclosures 
     required under paragraph (1) shall be included in the audio 
     and visual part of such advertisement. In the case of an 
     advertisement broadcast by televison or radio, the disclosure 
     required under paragraph (1) shall consist only of the 
     following: `This is not the free credit report provided for 
     by Federal law'.''.
       (b) Rulemaking.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 9 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Federal Trade Commission shall 
     issue a final rule to carry out this section.
       (2) Content.--The rule required by this subsection--
       (A) shall include specific wording to be used in 
     advertisements in accordance with this section; and
       (B) for advertisements on the Internet, shall include 
     whether the disclosure required under section 612(g)(1) of 
     the Fair Credit Reporting Act (as added by this section) 
     shall appear on the advertisement or the website on which the 
     free credit report is made available.
       (3) Interim disclosures.--If an advertisement subject to 
     section 612(g) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, as added by 
     this section, is made public after the 9-month deadline 
     specified in paragraph (1), but before the rule required by 
     paragraph (1) is finalized, such advertisement shall include 
     the disclosure: ``Free credit reports are available under 
     Federal law at: `AnnualCreditReport.com'.''.

                TITLE III--PROTECTION OF YOUNG CONSUMERS

     SEC. 301. EXTENSIONS OF CREDIT TO UNDERAGE CONSUMERS.

       Section 127(c) of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 
     1637(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Applications from underage consumers.--
       ``(A) Prohibition on issuance.--No credit card may be 
     issued to, or open end consumer credit plan established by or 
     on behalf of, a consumer who has not attained the age of 21, 
     unless the consumer has submitted a written application to 
     the card issuer that meets the requirements of subparagraph 
     (B).
       ``(B) Application requirements.--An application to open a 
     credit card account by a consumer who has not attained the 
     age of 21 as of the date of submission of the application 
     shall require--
       ``(i) the signature of a cosigner, including the parent, 
     legal guardian, spouse, or any other individual who has 
     attained the age of 21 having a means to repay debts incurred 
     by the consumer in connection with the account, indicating 
     joint liability for debts incurred by the consumer in 
     connection with the account before the consumer has attained 
     the age of 21; or
       ``(ii) submission by the consumer of financial information, 
     including through an application, indicating an independent 
     means of repaying any obligation arising from the proposed 
     extension of credit in connection with the account.
       ``(C) Safe harbor.--The Board shall promulgate regulations 
     providing standards that, if met, would satisfy the 
     requirements of subparagraph (B)(ii).''.

     SEC. 302. PROTECTION OF YOUNG CONSUMERS FROM PRESCREENED 
                   CREDIT OFFERS.

       Section 604(c)(1)(B) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 
     U.S.C. 1681b(c)(1)(B)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (ii), by striking ``and'' at the end; and
       (2) in clause (iii), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting the following: ``; and
       ``(iv) the consumer report does not contain a date of birth 
     that shows that the consumer has not attained the age of 21, 
     or, if the date of birth on the consumer report shows that 
     the consumer has not attained the age of 21, such consumer 
     consents to the consumer reporting agency to such 
     furnishing.''.

     SEC. 303. ISSUANCE OF CREDIT CARDS TO CERTAIN COLLEGE 
                   STUDENTS.

       Section 127 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1637) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

[[Page 13081]]

       ``(p) Parental Approval Required To Increase Credit Lines 
     for Accounts for Which Parent Is Jointly Liable.--No increase 
     may be made in the amount of credit authorized to be extended 
     under a credit card account for which a parent, legal 
     guardian, or spouse of the consumer, or any other individual 
     has assumed joint liability for debts incurred by the 
     consumer in connection with the account before the consumer 
     attains the age of 21, unless that parent, guardian, or 
     spouse approves in writing, and assumes joint liability for, 
     such increase.''.

     SEC. 304. PRIVACY PROTECTIONS FOR COLLEGE STUDENTS.

       Section 140 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1650) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Credit Card Protections for College Students.--
       ``(1) Disclosure required.--An institution of higher 
     education shall publicly disclose any contract or other 
     agreement made with a card issuer or creditor for the purpose 
     of marketing a credit card.
       ``(2) Inducements prohibited.--No card issuer or creditor 
     may offer to a student at an institution of higher education 
     any tangible item to induce such student to apply for or 
     participate in an open end consumer credit plan offered by 
     such card issuer or creditor, if such offer is made--
       ``(A) on the campus of an institution of higher education;
       ``(B) near the campus of an institution of higher 
     education, as determined by rule of the Board; or
       ``(C) at an event sponsored by or related to an institution 
     of higher education.
       ``(3) Sense of the congress.--It is the sense of the 
     Congress that each institution of higher education should 
     consider adopting the following policies relating to credit 
     cards:
       ``(A) That any card issuer that markets a credit card on 
     the campus of such institution notify the institution of the 
     location at which such marketing will take place.
       ``(B) That the number of locations on the campus of such 
     institution at which the marketing of credit cards takes 
     place be limited.
       ``(C) That credit card and debt education and counseling 
     sessions be offered as a regular part of any orientation 
     program for new students of such institution.''.

     SEC. 305. COLLEGE CREDIT CARD AGREEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 127 of the Truth in Lending Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 1637), as otherwise amended by this Act, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(r) College Card Agreements.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     following definitions shall apply:
       ``(A) College affinity card.--The term `college affinity 
     card' means a credit card issued by a credit card issuer 
     under an open end consumer credit plan in conjunction with an 
     agreement between the issuer and an institution of higher 
     education, or an alumni organization or foundation affiliated 
     with or related to such institution, under which such cards 
     are issued to college students who have an affinity with such 
     institution, organization and--
       ``(i) the creditor has agreed to donate a portion of the 
     proceeds of the credit card to the institution, organization, 
     or foundation (including a lump sum or 1-time payment of 
     money for access);
       ``(ii) the creditor has agreed to offer discounted terms to 
     the consumer; or
       ``(iii) the credit card bears the name, emblem, mascot, or 
     logo of such institution, organization, or foundation, or 
     other words, pictures, or symbols readily identified with 
     such institution, organization, or foundation.
       ``(B) College student credit card account.--The term 
     `college student credit card account' means a credit card 
     account under an open end consumer credit plan established or 
     maintained for or on behalf of any college student.
       ``(C) College student.--The term `college student' means an 
     individual who is a full-time or a part-time student 
     attending an institution of higher education.
       ``(D) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     `institution of higher education' has the same meaning as in 
     section 101 and 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1001 and 1002).
       ``(2) Reports by creditors.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each creditor shall submit an annual 
     report to the Board containing the terms and conditions of 
     all business, marketing, and promotional agreements and 
     college affinity card agreements with an institution of 
     higher education, or an alumni organization or foundation 
     affiliated with or related to such institution, with respect 
     to any college student credit card issued to a college 
     student at such institution.
       ``(B) Details of report.--The information required to be 
     reported under subparagraph (A) includes--
       ``(i) any memorandum of understanding between or among a 
     creditor, an institution of higher education, an alumni 
     association, or foundation that directly or indirectly 
     relates to any aspect of any agreement referred to in such 
     subparagraph or controls or directs any obligations or 
     distribution of benefits between or among any such entities;
       ``(ii) the amount of any payments from the creditor to the 
     institution, organization, or foundation during the period 
     covered by the report, and the precise terms of any agreement 
     under which such amounts are determined; and
       ``(iii) the number of credit card accounts covered by any 
     such agreement that were opened during the period covered by 
     the report, and the total number of credit card accounts 
     covered by the agreement that were outstanding at the end of 
     such period.
       ``(C) Aggregation by institution.--The information required 
     to be reported under subparagraph (A) shall be aggregated 
     with respect to each institution of higher education or 
     alumni organization or foundation affiliated with or related 
     to such institution.
       ``(D) Initial report.--The initial report required under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be submitted to the Board before the 
     end of the 9-month period beginning on the date of enactment 
     of this subsection.
       ``(3) Reports by board.--The Board shall submit to the 
     Congress, and make available to the public, an annual report 
     that lists the information concerning credit card agreements 
     submitted to the Board under paragraph (2) by each 
     institution of higher education, alumni organization, or 
     foundation.''.
       (b) Study and Report by the Comptroller General.--
       (1) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall, from time to time, review the reports submitted by 
     creditors under section 127(r) of the Truth in Lending Act, 
     as added by this section, and the marketing practices of 
     creditors to determine the impact that college affinity card 
     agreements and college student card agreements have on credit 
     card debt.
       (2) Report.--Upon completion of any study under paragraph 
     (1), the Comptroller General shall periodically submit a 
     report to the Congress on the findings and conclusions of the 
     study, together with such recommendations for administrative 
     or legislative action as the Comptroller General determines 
     to be appropriate.

                          TITLE IV--GIFT CARDS

     SEC. 401. GENERAL-USE PREPAID CARDS, GIFT CERTIFICATES, AND 
                   STORE GIFT CARDS.

       The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq.) 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating sections 915 through 921 as sections 
     916 through 922, respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after section 914 the following:

     ``SEC. 915. GENERAL-USE PREPAID CARDS, GIFT CERTIFICATES, AND 
                   STORE GIFT CARDS.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions shall apply:
       ``(1) Dormancy fee; inactivity charge or fee.--The terms 
     `dormancy fee' and `inactivity charge or fee' mean a fee, 
     charge, or penalty for non-use or inactivity of a gift 
     certificate, store gift card, or general-use prepaid card.
       ``(2) General use prepaid card, gift certificate, and store 
     gift card.--
       ``(A) General-use prepaid card.--The term `general-use 
     prepaid card' means a card or other payment code or device 
     issued by any person that is--
       ``(i) redeemable at multiple, unaffiliated merchants or 
     service providers, or automated teller machines;
       ``(ii) issued in a requested amount, whether or not that 
     amount may, at the option of the issuer, be increased in 
     value or reloaded if requested by the holder;
       ``(iii) purchased or loaded on a prepaid basis; and
       ``(iv) honored, upon presentation, by merchants for goods 
     or services, or at automated teller machines.
       ``(B) Gift certificate.--The term `gift certificate' means 
     an electronic promise that is--
       ``(i) redeemable at a single merchant or an affiliated 
     group of merchants that share the same name, mark, or logo;
       ``(ii) issued in a specified amount that may not be 
     increased or reloaded;
       ``(iii) purchased on a prepaid basis in exchange for 
     payment; and
       ``(iv) honored upon presentation by such single merchant or 
     affiliated group of merchants for goods or services.
       ``(C) Store gift card.--The term `store gift card' means an 
     electronic promise, plastic card, or other payment code or 
     device that is--
       ``(i) redeemable at a single merchant or an affiliated 
     group of merchants that share the same name, mark, or logo;
       ``(ii) issued in a specified amount, whether or not that 
     amount may be increased in value or reloaded at the request 
     of the holder;
       ``(iii) purchased on a prepaid basis in exchange for 
     payment; and
       ``(iv) honored upon presentation by such single merchant or 
     affiliated group of merchants for goods or services.
       ``(D) Exclusions.--The terms `general-use prepaid card', 
     `gift certificate', and `store gift card' do not include an 
     electronic promise, plastic card, or payment code or device 
     that is--
       ``(i) used solely for telephone services;
       ``(ii) reloadable and not marketed or labeled as a gift 
     card or gift certificate;
       ``(iii) a loyalty, award, or promotional gift card, as 
     defined by the Board;
       ``(iv) not marketed to the general public;
       ``(v) issued in paper form only (including for tickets and 
     events); or
       ``(vi) redeemable solely for admission to events or venues 
     at a particular location or group of affiliated locations, 
     which may also include services or goods obtainable--

       ``(I) at the event or venue after admission; or
       ``(II) in conjunction with admission to such events or 
     venues, at specific locations affiliated with and in 
     geographic proximity to the event or venue.

[[Page 13082]]

       ``(3) Service fee.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `service fee' means a periodic 
     fee, charge, or penalty for holding or use of a gift 
     certificate, store gift card, or general-use prepaid card.
       ``(B) Exclusion.--With respect to a general-use prepaid 
     card, the term `service fee' does not include a one-time 
     initial issuance fee.
       ``(b) Prohibition on Imposition of Fees or Charges.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided under paragraphs (2) 
     through (4), it shall be unlawful for any person to impose a 
     dormancy fee, an inactivity charge or fee, or a service fee 
     with respect to a gift certificate, store gift card, or 
     general-use prepaid card.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--A dormancy fee, inactivity charge or 
     fee, or service fee may be charged with respect to a gift 
     certificate, store gift card, or general-use prepaid card, 
     if--
       ``(A) there has been no activity with respect to the 
     certificate or card in the 12-month period ending on the date 
     on which the charge or fee is imposed;
       ``(B) the disclosure requirements of paragraph (3) have 
     been met;
       ``(C) not more than one fee may be charged in any given 
     month; and
       ``(D) any additional requirements that the Board may 
     establish through rulemaking under subsection (d) have been 
     met.
       ``(3) Disclosure requirements.--The disclosure requirements 
     of this paragraph are met if--
       ``(A) the gift certificate, store gift card, or general-use 
     prepaid card clearly and conspicuously states--
       ``(i) that a dormancy fee, inactivity charge or fee, or 
     service fee may be charged;
       ``(ii) the amount of such fee or charge;
       ``(iii) how often such fee or charge may be assessed; and
       ``(iv) that such fee or charge may be assessed for 
     inactivity; and
       ``(B) the issuer or vendor of such certificate or card 
     informs the purchaser of such charge or fee before such 
     certificate or card is purchased, regardless of whether the 
     certificate or card is purchased in person, over the 
     Internet, or by telephone.
       ``(4) Exclusion.--The prohibition under paragraph (1) shall 
     not apply to any gift certificate--
       ``(A) that is distributed pursuant to an award, loyalty, or 
     promotional program, as defined by the Board; and
       ``(B) with respect to which, there is no money or other 
     value exchanged.
       ``(c) Prohibition on Sale of Gift Cards With Expiration 
     Dates.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided under paragraph (2), 
     it shall be unlawful for any person to sell or issue a gift 
     certificate, store gift card, or general-use prepaid card 
     that is subject to an expiration date.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--A gift certificate, store gift card, or 
     general-use prepaid card may contain an expiration date if--
       ``(A) the expiration date is not earlier than 5 years after 
     the date on which the gift certificate was issued, or the 
     date on which card funds were last loaded to a store gift 
     card or general-use prepaid card; and
       ``(B) the terms of expiration are clearly and conspicuously 
     stated.
       ``(d) Additional Rulemaking.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Board shall--
       ``(A) prescribe regulations to carry out this section, in 
     addition to any other rules or regulations required by this 
     title, including such additional requirements as appropriate 
     relating to the amount of dormancy fees, inactivity charges 
     or fees, or service fees that may be assessed and the amount 
     of remaining value of a gift certificate, store gift card, or 
     general-use prepaid card below which such charges or fees may 
     be assessed; and
       ``(B) shall determine the extent to which the individual 
     definitions and provisions of the Electronic Fund Transfer 
     Act or Regulation E should apply to general-use prepaid 
     cards, gift certificates, and store gift cards.
       ``(2) Consultation.--In prescribing regulations under this 
     subsection, the Board shall consult with the Federal Trade 
     Commission.
       ``(3) Timing; effective date.--The regulations required by 
     this subsection shall be issued in final form not later than 
     9 months after the date of enactment of the Credit CARD Act 
     of 2009.''.

     SEC. 402. RELATION TO STATE LAWS.

       Section 920 of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (as 
     redesignated by this title) is amended by inserting 
     ``dormancy fees, inactivity charges or fees, service fees, or 
     expiration dates of gift certificates, store gift cards, or 
     general-use prepaid cards,'' after ``electronic fund 
     transfers,''.

     SEC. 403. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title and the amendments made by this title shall 
     become effective 15 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 501. STUDY AND REPORT ON INTERCHANGE FEES.

       (a) Study Required.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States (in this section referred to as the ``Comptroller'') 
     shall conduct a study on use of credit by consumers, 
     interchange fees, and their effects on consumers and 
     merchants.
       (b) Subjects for Review.--In conducting the study required 
     by this section, the Comptroller shall review--
       (1) the extent to which interchange fees are required to be 
     disclosed to consumers and merchants, whether merchants are 
     restricted from disclosing interchange or merchant discount 
     fees, and how such fees are overseen by the Federal banking 
     agencies or other regulators;
       (2) the ways in which the interchange system affects the 
     ability of merchants of varying size to negotiate pricing 
     with card associations and banks;
       (3) the costs and factors incorporated into interchange 
     fees, such as advertising, bonus miles, and rewards, how such 
     costs and factors vary among cards;
       (4) the consequences of the undisclosed nature of 
     interchange fees on merchants and consumers with regard to 
     prices charged for goods and services;
       (5) how merchant discount fees compare to the credit losses 
     and other costs that merchants incur to operate their own 
     credit networks or store cards;
       (6) the extent to which the rules of payment card networks 
     and their policies regarding interchange fees are accessible 
     to merchants;
       (7) other jurisdictions where the central bank has 
     regulated interchange fees and the impact on retail prices to 
     consumers in such jurisdictions;
       (8) whether and to what extent merchants are permitted to 
     discount for cash; and
       (9) the extent to which interchange fees allow smaller 
     financial institutions and credit unions to offer payment 
     cards and compete against larger financial institutions.
       (c) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller shall submit a 
     report to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
     Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Financial Services 
     of the House of Representatives containing a detailed summary 
     of the findings and conclusions of the study required by this 
     section, together with such recommendations for legislative 
     or administrative actions as may be appropriate.

     SEC. 502. BOARD REVIEW OF CONSUMER CREDIT PLANS AND 
                   REGULATIONS.

       (a) Required Review.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     effective date of this Act and every 2 years thereafter, 
     except as provided in subsection (c)(2), the Board shall 
     conduct a review, within the limits of its existing resources 
     available for reporting purposes, of the consumer credit card 
     market, including--
       (1) the terms of credit card agreements and the practices 
     of credit card issuers;
       (2) the effectiveness of disclosure of terms, fees, and 
     other expenses of credit card plans;
       (3) the adequacy of protections against unfair or deceptive 
     acts or practices relating to credit card plans; and
       (4) whether or not, and to what extent, the implementation 
     of this Act and the amendments made by this Act has 
     affected--
       (A) cost and availability of credit, particularly with 
     respect to non-prime borrowers;
       (B) the safety and soundness of credit card issuers;
       (C) the use of risk-based pricing; or
       (D) credit card product innovation.
       (b) Solicitation of Public Comment.--In connection with 
     conducting the review required by subsection (a), the Board 
     shall solicit comment from consumers, credit card issuers, 
     and other interested parties, such as through hearings or 
     written comments.
       (c) Regulations.--
       (1) Notice.--Following the review required by subsection 
     (a), the Board shall publish a notice in the Federal Register 
     that--
       (A) summarizes the review, the comments received from the 
     public solicitation, and other evidence gathered by the 
     Board, such as through consumer testing or other research; 
     and
       (B) either--
       (i) proposes new or revised regulations or interpretations 
     to update or revise disclosures and protections for consumer 
     credit cards, as appropriate; or
       (ii) states the reason for the determination of the Board 
     that new or revised regulations are not necessary.
       (2) Revision of review period following material revision 
     of regulations.--In the event that the Board materially 
     revises regulations on consumer credit card plans, a review 
     need not be conducted until 2 years after the effective date 
     of the revised regulations, which thereafter shall be treated 
     as the new date for the biennial review required by 
     subsection (a).
       (d) Board Report to the Congress.--The Board shall report 
     to Congress not less frequently than every 2 years, except as 
     provided in subsection (c)(2), on the status of its most 
     recent review, its efforts to address any issues identified 
     from the review, and any recommendations for legislation.
       (e) Additional Reporting.--The Federal banking agencies (as 
     that term is defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Act) and the Federal Trade Commission shall provide 
     annually to the Board, and the Board shall include in its 
     annual report to Congress under section 10 of the Federal 
     Reserve Act, information about the supervisory and 
     enforcement activities of the agencies with respect to 
     compliance by credit card issuers with applicable Federal 
     consumer protection statutes and regulations, including--
       (1) this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and 
     regulations prescribed under this Act and such amendments; 
     and
       (2) section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and 
     regulations prescribed under the Federal Trade Commission 
     Act, including part 227 of title 12 of the Code of Federal 
     Regulations, as prescribed by the Board (referred to as 
     ``Regulation AA'').

[[Page 13083]]



     SEC. 503. STORED VALUE.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 270 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall 
     issue regulations in final form implementing the Bank Secrecy 
     Act, regarding the sale, issuance, redemption, or 
     international transport of stored value, including stored 
     value cards.
       (b) Consideration of International Transport.--Regulations 
     under this section regarding international transport of 
     stored value may include reporting requirements pursuant to 
     section 5316 of title 31, United States Code.
       (c) Emerging Methods for Transmittal and Storage in 
     Electronic Form.--Regulations under this section shall take 
     into consideration current and future needs and methodologies 
     for transmitting and storing value in electronic form.

     SEC. 504. PROCEDURE FOR TIMELY SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES OF 
                   DECEDENT OBLIGORS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 2 of the Truth in Lending Act ( 
     U.S.C. 1631 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 140A Procedure for timely settlement of estates of 
       decedent obligors

       ``The Board, in consultation with the Federal Trade 
     Commission and each other agency referred to in section 
     108(a), shall prescribe regulations to require any creditor, 
     with respect to any credit card account under an open end 
     consumer credit plan, to establish procedures to ensure that 
     any administrator of an estate of any deceased obligor with 
     respect to such account can resolve outstanding credit 
     balances in a timely manner.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     2 of the Truth in Lending Act is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to section 140 the following new item:

``140A. Procedure for timely settlement of estates of decedent 
              obligors'.''.

     SEC. 505. REPORT TO CONGRESS ON REDUCTIONS OF CONSUMER CREDIT 
                   CARD LIMITS BASED ON CERTAIN INFORMATION AS TO 
                   EXPERIENCE OR TRANSACTIONS OF THE CONSUMER.

       (a) Report on Creditor Practices Required.--Before the end 
     of the 1-year period beginning on the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Board, in consultation with the Comptroller of 
     the Currency, the Director of the Office of Thrift 
     Supervision, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the 
     National Credit Union Administration Board, and the Federal 
     Trade Commission, shall submit a report to the Committee on 
     Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the 
     Senate on the extent to which, during the 3-year period 
     ending on such date of enactment, creditors have reduced 
     credit limits or raised interest rates applicable to credit 
     card accounts under open end consumer credit plans based on--
       (1) the geographic location where a credit transaction with 
     the consumer took place, or the identity of the merchant 
     involved in the transaction;
       (2) the credit transactions of the consumer, including the 
     type of credit transaction, the type of items purchased in 
     such transaction, the price of items purchased in such 
     transaction, any change in the type or price of items 
     purchased in such transactions, and other data pertaining to 
     the use of such credit card account by the consumer; and
       (3) the identity of the mortgage creditor which extended or 
     holds the mortgage loan secured by the primary residence of 
     the consumer.
       (b) Other Information.--The report required under 
     subsection (a) shall also include--
       (1) the number of creditors that have engaged in the 
     practices described in subsection (a);
       (2) the extent to which the practices described in 
     subsection (a) have an adverse impact on minority or low-
     income consumers;
       (3) any other relevant information regarding such 
     practices; and
       (4) recommendations to the Congress on any regulatory or 
     statutory changes that may be needed to restrict or prevent 
     such practices.

     SEC. 506. BOARD REVIEW OF SMALL BUSINESS CREDIT PLANS AND 
                   RECOMMENDATIONS.

       (a) Required Review.--Not later than 9 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Board shall conduct a 
     review of the use of credit cards by businesses with not more 
     than 50 employees (in this section referred to as ``small 
     businesses'') and the credit card market for small 
     businesses, including--
       (1) the terms of credit card agreements for small 
     businesses and the practices of credit card issuers relating 
     to small businesses;
       (2) the adequacy of disclosures of terms, fees, and other 
     expenses of credit card plans for small businesses;
       (3) the adequacy of protections against unfair or deceptive 
     acts or practices relating to credit card plans for small 
     businesses;
       (4) the cost and availability of credit for small 
     businesses, particularly with respect to non-prime borrowers;
       (5) the use of risk-based pricing for small businesses;
       (6) credit card product innovation relating to small 
     businesses; and
       (7) the extent to which small business owners use personal 
     credit cards to fund their business operations.
       (b) Recommendations.--Following the review required by 
     subsection (a), the Board shall, not later than 12 months 
     after the date of enactment of this Act--
       (1) provide a report to Congress that summarizes the review 
     and other evidence gathered by the Board, such as through 
     consumer testing or other research, and
       (2) make recommendations for administrative or legislative 
     initiatives to provide protections for credit card plans for 
     small businesses, as appropriate.

     SEC. 507. SMALL BUSINESS INFORMATION SECURITY TASK FORCE.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the terms ``Administration'' and ``Administrator'' mean 
     the Small Business Administration and the Administrator 
     thereof, respectively;
       (2) the term ``small business concern'' has the same 
     meaning as in section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     632); and
       (3) the term ``task force'' means the task force 
     established under subsection (b).
       (b) Establishment.--The Administrator shall, in conjunction 
     with the Secretary of Homeland Security, establish a task 
     force, to be known as the ``Small Business Information 
     Security Task Force'', to address the information technology 
     security needs of small business concerns and to help small 
     business concerns prevent the loss of credit card data.
       (c) Duties.--The task force shall--
       (1) identify--
       (A) the information technology security needs of small 
     business concerns; and
       (B) the programs and services provided by the Federal 
     Government, State Governments, and nongovernment 
     organizations that serve those needs;
       (2) assess the extent to which the programs and services 
     identified under paragraph (1)(B) serve the needs identified 
     under paragraph (1)(A);
       (3) make recommendations to the Administrator on how to 
     more effectively serve the needs identified under paragraph 
     (1)(A) through--
       (A) programs and services identified under paragraph 
     (1)(B); and
       (B) new programs and services promoted by the task force;
       (4) make recommendations on how the Administrator may 
     promote--
       (A) new programs and services that the task force 
     recommends under paragraph (3)(B); and
       (B) programs and services identified under paragraph 
     (1)(B);
       (5) make recommendations on how the Administrator may 
     inform and educate with respect to--
       (A) the needs identified under paragraph (1)(A);
       (B) new programs and services that the task force 
     recommends under paragraph (3)(B); and
       (C) programs and services identified under paragraph 
     (1)(B);
       (6) make recommendations on how the Administrator may more 
     effectively work with public and private interests to address 
     the information technology security needs of small business 
     concerns; and
       (7) make recommendations on the creation of a permanent 
     advisory board that would make recommendations to the 
     Administrator on how to address the information technology 
     security needs of small business concerns.
       (d) Internet Website Recommendations.--The task force shall 
     make recommendations to the Administrator relating to the 
     establishment of an Internet website to be used by the 
     Administration to receive and dispense information and 
     resources with respect to the needs identified under 
     subsection (c)(1)(A) and the programs and services identified 
     under subsection (c)(1)(B). As part of the recommendations, 
     the task force shall identify the Internet sites of 
     appropriate programs, services, and organizations, both 
     public and private, to which the Internet website should 
     link.
       (e) Education Programs.--The task force shall make 
     recommendations to the Administrator relating to developing 
     additional education materials and programs with respect to 
     the needs identified under subsection (c)(1)(A).
       (f) Existing Materials.--The task force shall organize and 
     distribute existing materials that inform and educate with 
     respect to the needs identified under subsection (c)(1)(A) 
     and the programs and services identified under subsection 
     (c)(1)(B).
       (g) Coordination With Public and Private Sector.--In 
     carrying out its responsibilities under this section, the 
     task force shall coordinate with, and may accept materials 
     and assistance as it determines appropriate from, public and 
     private entities, including--
       (1) any subordinate officer of the Administrator;
       (2) any organization authorized by the Small Business Act 
     to provide assistance and advice to small business concerns;
       (3) other Federal agencies, their officers, or employees; 
     and
       (4) any other organization, entity, or person not described 
     in paragraph (1), (2), or (3).
       (h) Appointment of Members.--
       (1) Chairperson and vice-chairperson.--The task force shall 
     have--
       (A) a Chairperson, appointed by the Administrator; and
       (B) a Vice-Chairperson, appointed by the Administrator, in 
     consultation with appropriate nongovernmental organizations, 
     entities, or persons.
       (2) Members.--
       (A) Chairperson and vice-chairperson.--The Chairperson and 
     the Vice-Chairperson shall serve as members of the task 
     force.
       (B) Additional members.--
       (i) In general.--The task force shall have additional 
     members, each of whom shall be appointed by the Chairperson, 
     with the approval of the Administrator.

[[Page 13084]]

       (ii) Number of members.--The number of additional members 
     shall be determined by the Chairperson, in consultation with 
     the Administrator, except that--

       (I) the additional members shall include, for each of the 
     groups specified in paragraph (3), at least 1 member 
     appointed from within that group; and
       (II) the number of additional members shall not exceed 13.

       (3) Groups represented.--The groups specified in this 
     paragraph are--
       (A) subject matter experts;
       (B) users of information technologies within small business 
     concerns;
       (C) vendors of information technologies to small business 
     concerns;
       (D) academics with expertise in the use of information 
     technologies to support business;
       (E) small business trade associations;
       (F) Federal, State, or local agencies, including the 
     Department of Homeland Security, engaged in securing 
     cyberspace; and
       (G) information technology training providers with 
     expertise in the use of information technologies to support 
     business.
       (4) Political affiliation.--The appointments under this 
     subsection shall be made without regard to political 
     affiliation.
       (i) Meetings.--
       (1) Frequency.--The task force shall meet at least 2 times 
     per year, and more frequently if necessary to perform its 
     duties.
       (2) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the task force 
     shall constitute a quorum.
       (3) Location.--The Administrator shall designate, and make 
     available to the task force, a location at a facility under 
     the control of the Administrator for use by the task force 
     for its meetings.
       (4) Minutes.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     each meeting, the task force shall publish the minutes of the 
     meeting in the Federal Register and shall submit to the 
     Administrator any findings or recommendations approved at the 
     meeting.
       (B) Submission to congress.--Not later than 60 days after 
     the date that the Administrator receives minutes under 
     subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall submit to the 
     Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Small Business of the House of 
     Representatives such minutes, together with any comments the 
     Administrator considers appropriate.
       (5) Findings.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than the date on which the task 
     force terminates under subsection (m), the task force shall 
     submit to the Administrator a final report on any findings 
     and recommendations of the task force approved at a meeting 
     of the task force.
       (B) Submission to congress.--Not later than 90 days after 
     the date on which the Administrator receives the report under 
     subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall submit to the 
     Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Small Business of the House of 
     Representatives the full text of the report submitted under 
     subparagraph (A), together with any comments the 
     Administrator considers appropriate.
       (j) Personnel Matters.--
       (1) Compensation of members.--Each member of the task force 
     shall serve without pay for their service on the task force.
       (2) Travel expenses.--Each member of the task force shall 
     receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, in accordance with applicable provisions under 
     subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code.
       (3) Detail of sba employees.--The Administrator may detail, 
     without reimbursement, any of the personnel of the 
     Administration to the task force to assist it in carrying out 
     the duties of the task force. Such a detail shall be without 
     interruption or loss of civil status or privilege.
       (4) SBA support of the task force.--Upon the request of the 
     task force, the Administrator shall provide to the task force 
     the administrative support services that the Administrator 
     and the Chairperson jointly determine to be necessary for the 
     task force to carry out its duties.
       (k) Not Subject to Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not 
     apply to the task force.
       (l) Startup Deadlines.--The initial appointment of the 
     members of the task force shall be completed not later than 
     90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, and the 
     first meeting of the task force shall be not later than 180 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (m) Termination.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     task force shall terminate at the end of fiscal year 2013.
       (2) Exception.--If, as of the termination date under 
     paragraph (1), the task force has not complied with 
     subsection (i)(4) with respect to 1 or more meetings, then 
     the task force shall continue after the termination date for 
     the sole purpose of achieving compliance with subsection 
     (i)(4) with respect to those meetings.
       (n) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $300,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2010 through 2013.

     SEC. 508. STUDY AND REPORT ON EMERGENCY PIN TECHNOLOGY.

       (a) In General.--The Federal Trade Commission, in 
     consultation with the Attorney General of the United States 
     and the United States Secret Service, shall conduct a study 
     on the cost-effectiveness of making available at automated 
     teller machines technology that enables a consumer that is 
     under duress to electronically alert a local law enforcement 
     agency that an incident is taking place at such automated 
     teller machine, including--
       (1) an emergency personal identification number that would 
     summon a local law enforcement officer to an automated teller 
     machine when entered into such automated teller machine; and
       (2) a mechanism on the exterior of an automated teller 
     machine that, when pressed, would summon a local law 
     enforcement to such automated teller machine.
       (b) Contents of Study.--The study required under subsection 
     (a) shall include--
       (1) an analysis of any technology described in subsection 
     (a) that is currently available or under development;
       (2) an estimate of the number and severity of any crimes 
     that could be prevented by the availability of such 
     technology;
       (3) the estimated costs of implementing such technology; 
     and
       (4) a comparison of the costs and benefits of not fewer 
     than 3 types of such technology.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 9 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Federal Trade Commission shall 
     submit to Congress a report on the findings of the study 
     required under this section that includes such 
     recommendations for legislative action as the Commission 
     determines appropriate.

     SEC. 509. STUDY AND REPORT ON THE MARKETING OF PRODUCTS WITH 
                   CREDIT OFFERS.

       (a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a study on the terms, conditions, marketing, 
     and value to consumers of products marketed in conjunction 
     with credit card offers, including--
       (1) debt suspension agreements;
       (2) debt cancellation agreements; and
       (3) credit insurance products.
       (b) Areas of Concern.--The study conducted under this 
     section shall evaluate--
       (1) the suitability of the offer of products described in 
     subsection (a) for target customers;
       (2) the predatory nature of such offers; and
       (3) specifically for debt cancellation or suspension 
     agreements and credit insurance products, loss rates compared 
     to more traditional insurance products.
       (c) Report to Congress.--The Comptroller shall submit a 
     report to Congress on the results of the study required by 
     this section not later than December 31, 2010.

     SEC. 510. FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC LITERACY.

       (a) Report on Federal Financial and Economic Literacy 
     Education Programs.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 9 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Education and the 
     Director of the Office of Financial Education of the 
     Department of the Treasury shall coordinate with the 
     President's Advisory Council on Financial Literacy--
       (A) to evaluate and compile a comprehensive summary of all 
     existing Federal financial and economic literacy education 
     programs, as of the time of the report; and
       (B) to prepare and submit a report to Congress on the 
     findings of the evaluations.
       (2) Contents.--The report required by this subsection shall 
     address, at a minimum--
       (A) the 2008 recommendations of the President's Advisory 
     Council on Financial Literacy;
       (B) existing Federal financial and economic literacy 
     education programs for grades kindergarten through grade 12, 
     and annual funding to support these programs;
       (C) existing Federal postsecondary financial and economic 
     literacy education programs and annual funding to support 
     these programs;
       (D) the current financial and economic literacy education 
     needs of adults, and in particular, low- and moderate-income 
     adults;
       (E) ways to incorporate and disseminate best practices and 
     high quality curricula in financial and economic literacy 
     education; and
       (F) specific recommendations on sources of revenue to 
     support financial and economic literacy education activities 
     with a specific analysis of the potential use of credit card 
     transaction fees.
       (b) Strategic Plan.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Education and the 
     Director of the Office of Financial Education of the 
     Department of the Treasury shall coordinate with the 
     President's Advisory Council on Financial Literacy to develop 
     a strategic plan to improve and expand financial and economic 
     literacy education.
       (2) Contents.--The plan developed under this subsection 
     shall--
       (A) incorporate findings from the report and evaluations of 
     existing Federal financial and economic literacy education 
     programs under subsection (a); and
       (B) include proposals to improve, expand, and support 
     financial and economic literacy education based on the 
     findings of the report and evaluations.
       (3) Presentation to congress.--The plan developed under 
     this subsection shall be presented to Congress not later than 
     6 months after the date on which the report under subsection 
     (a) is submitted to Congress.
       (c) Effective Date.--Notwithstanding section 3, this 
     section shall become effective on the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 511. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION RULEMAKING ON MORTGAGE 
                   LENDING.

       (a) In General.--Section 626 of division D of the Omnibus 
     Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-8) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``Within'' and inserting ``(1) Within'';

[[Page 13085]]

       (B) in paragraph (1), as designated by subparagraph (A), by 
     inserting after the first sentence the following: ``Such 
     rulemaking shall relate to unfair or deceptive acts or 
     practices regarding mortgage loans, which may include unfair 
     or deceptive acts or practices involving loan modification 
     and foreclosure rescue services.''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not be construed to authorize the 
     Federal Trade Commission to promulgate a rule with respect to 
     an entity that is not subject to enforcement of the Federal 
     Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) by the 
     Commission.
       ``(3) Before issuing a final rule pursuant to the 
     proceeding initiated under paragraph (1), the Federal Trade 
     Commission shall consult with the Federal Reserve Board 
     concerning any portion of the proposed rule applicable to 
     acts or practices to which the provisions of the Truth in 
     Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) may apply.
       ``(4) The Federal Trade Commission shall enforce the rules 
     issued under paragraph (1) in the same manner, by the same 
     means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as 
     though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal 
     Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated 
     into and made part of this section.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking so much as precedes paragraph (2) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (6), in any case 
     in which the attorney general of a State has reason to 
     believe that an interest of the residents of that State has 
     been or is threatened or adversely affected by the engagement 
     of any person subject to a rule prescribed under subsection 
     (a) in a practice that violates such rule, the State, as 
     parens patriae, may bring a civil action on behalf of the 
     residents of the State in an appropriate district court of 
     the United States or other court of competent jurisdiction--
       ``(A) to enjoin that practice;
       ``(B) to enforce compliance with the rule;
       ``(C) to obtain damages, restitution, or other compensation 
     on behalf of residents of the State; or
       ``(D) to obtain penalties and relief provided by the 
     Federal Trade Commission Act and such other relief as the 
     court considers appropriate.''; and
       (B) in paragraphs (2), (3), and (6), by striking 
     ``Commission'' each place it appears and inserting ``primary 
     Federal regulator''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on March 12, 2009.

     SEC. 512. 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.

     SEC. 513. GAO STUDY AND REPORT ON FLUENCY IN THE ENGLISH 
                   LANGUAGE AND FINANCIAL LITERACY.

       (a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a study examining--
       (1) the relationship between fluency in the English 
     language and financial literacy; and
       (2) the extent, if any, to which individuals whose native 
     language is a language other than English are impeded in 
     their conduct of their financial affairs.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit a report to the Committee on Banking, 
     Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Financial Services of the House of Representatives that 
     contains a detailed summary of the findings and conclusions 
     of the study required under subsection (a).

              Motion Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Frank of Massachusetts moves that the House concur in 
     the Senate amendment to H.R. 627.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 456, the motion 
shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the 
Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial 
Services.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, to begin the debate, I 
recognize the major author and chief advocate for the credit card bill, 
dating back several years, and it is her diligent effort that is paying 
off today for the American consumer, the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney) for 4 minutes.
  Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his 
leadership on this and so many other issues.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress is on the verge of passing landmark credit card 
reform. This bill will make the lives of hardworking, responsible 
Americans better. It will make their economic futures more predictable 
and their families more secure. It will level the playing field and 
restore balance to credit card contracts. It will end what the Fed has 
characterized as anti-competitive, unfair and deceptive practices.
  I am very proud of the work that went into this bill by so many 
people, especially Chairman Frank and Chairman Dodd. It will have a 
positive impact everywhere and on anyone in this country who uses a 
credit card.
  Over the past 3 years as I have labored on this bill with my 
colleagues, the need to stop credit card industry abuses has become 
ever more apparent with every passing billing cycle. Today, our 
families are being hard-hit in this economy, and some credit card 
companies are hurting our families by arbitrarily raising interest 
rates and changing the rules to increase their profits. This bill will 
put an end to these practices.
  Many small businesses rely on personal credit cards, but we are 
seeing increased numbers of small business owners hit with increased 
penalties and interest rates and canceled credit for absolutely no 
reason, which is killing small businesses and hurting our economy. NFIB 
has endorsed this bill.
  With these reforms, consumers will have more money to invest in the 
economy instead of paying off debt. A study by the Joint Economic 
Committee found that these abusive practices are slowing our recovery 
by effectively raising prices for consumers.
  This bill is a reaffirmation of the principle of ``a deal is a deal'' 
and is the result of years of advocacy for this change by many of my 
colleagues, national consumer groups, civil rights organizations, labor 
unions, and business organizations. Americans want this bill. More than 
50 editorial boards across this country have endorsed it.

[[Page 13086]]

  In this Congress, under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, Majority 
Leader Hoyer, Subcommittee Chair Gutierrez and Chairman Frank, we 
passed it with an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 357-70. Just 
yesterday the Senate passed it with a vote of 90-5 and maintained the 
core principles of the bill with many important additions.
  My only regret with the Senate's action is that they voted to include 
a completely unrelated provision allowing guns in our national parks, 
rolling back a rule that was put into place by President Reagan that 
has absolutely no purpose on this bill and should be removed in a 
separate vote. And while I will vote against this provision later 
today, I do not think we should stop these important consumer 
protections for credit cardholders.
  The President has asked us to send him this bill by Memorial Day. We 
have our chance to do that today. This is one credit card bill that the 
American people cannot afford to become past due.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  First, I observe this may be the seventh or eighth time we've had an 
opportunity to essentially debate the same bill. So I first want to 
congratulate the chairman of the full committee for a very open and 
deliberative process.
  I also want to congratulate the gentlelady from New York. Although I 
very much disagree with the ultimate consequences of the legislation, 
certainly she has brought passion and tenacity to an issue and has seen 
it through the process. And to the extent that I can count votes in the 
minority where you have the luxury of being right about 99 percent of 
the time when you count votes, I'm sure her side is on the verge of 
victory.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I just would say before my friends on the other 
side of the aisle high-five each other, they may want to do a high one 
or high two, but I'm not sure it's a high five.
  I agree with the gentlelady from New York that there have been 
deceptive trade practices and misleading advertising by a number of 
credit card companies. This has to stop. There are a number of 
disclosure provisions that the Federal Reserve has presented after 3 
years of a very careful study, a number of those provisions are 
mirrored in this particular legislation. I think the whole House agrees 
with those. Clearly, there needs to be consequences for companies that 
engage in this kind of behavior.
  And in addition, we need to ensure that the laws that we have on the 
books, Mr. Speaker, are enforced: the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 
the Truth in Lending Act, and other laws that we have on the books.
  But, Mr. Speaker, just like when you hear in a tax debate that 
Congress is getting ready to tax the rich, somehow the middle income 
have to hold on to their wallet; when you hear there's a piece of 
legislation that is aimed at reining in the credit card companies, 
well, John Q. Citizen had better watch out as well.
  I'm afraid my friends on the other side of the aisle have been very 
effective through bailout legislation, stimulus legislation, omnibus 
legislation, a budget that creates more debt in the next 10 years than 
in the previous 220, they've been very adept at taking the cash out of 
Americans' wallets, and now with this legislation, many will have their 
credit cards removed by the Congress as well.
  People know that Congress excels at one thing, and that is unintended 
consequences, and I fear, Mr. Speaker, there will be a number of 
unintended consequences through this particular legislation.
  This legislation ultimately restricts economic opportunities. It has 
a version of price controls for late fees. It restricts the ability of 
credit card companies to engage in facets of what is called risk-based 
pricing, and ultimately what that means is, this legislation, 
notwithstanding the good portions of the bill which will create better 
and effective disclosure for consumers, but what it will ultimately do 
is a couple of things.
  Number one, Mr. Speaker, this will force the good customers to yet, 
again, bail out the not-so-good customers. And it's interesting, Mr. 
Speaker, having debated this a number of times, there was an article 
that came out I believe in yesterday's New York Times, and this is 
isn't National Review or The Weekly Standard or Rush Limbaugh. It's the 
New York Times. I'd like to quote from portions of that article.
  ``Credit cards have been a very good deal for people who pay their 
bills on time and in full. Now Congress is moving to limit the 
penalties on riskier borrowers who have become a prime source of 
billions of dollars in fee revenue for the industry, and to make up for 
the lost income, the card companies are going after those people with 
sterling credit.''
  Again, the observation of the New York Times.
  Banks are expected to look at reviving annual fees, curtailing cash 
back and other rewards programs, and charging interest immediately on a 
purchase instead of allowing a grace period of weeks, according to bank 
officials and trade groups.
  From the head of the American Bankers Association, those that manage 
their credit well will in some degree subsidize those that have credit 
problems.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit to you this is yet another 
piece of bailout legislation. Over 50 percent of Americans who have 
credit cards pay their bills in full and on time. There's another huge 
percentage who at least make the minimum payment on time. Why, why are 
we going to punish those----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I yield myself 1 additional minute.
  Why, Mr. Speaker, do we want to punish those people on behalf of 
those who don't do it right?
  Now, some don't do it right because of circumstances beyond their 
control, but the way to address that is not to take away the rights and 
opportunities of others. That can be addressed through social safety 
net legislation. But others don't pay their bills simply because 
they're irresponsible. Why do the responsible have to bail out the 
irresponsible?
  And we already see that we are in the midst of a huge credit 
contraction, Mr. Speaker. At a time when Americans are struggling to 
pay their mortgages, to pay for their groceries, to pay their health 
care costs, why, why would we want to make credit more expensive and 
less available? It is the completely wrong policy.
  Now, again, I want to agree with the disclosure provisions. I also 
want to agree with the provisions in the bill that say that consumers 
ought to have a reasonable amount of time to close out their accounts 
under their old provisions and old interest rates, but otherwise, we 
need to reject this legislation.
  I reserve my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The gentleman referred to money added to the budget. He talked about 
the bailout, et cetera.

                              {time}  1300

  I would remind Members that the $700 billion was asked for by the 
Bush administration, and it passed with Democratic support and the 
support of a significant minority on the Republican side, including the 
Republican leadership and a very heavy majority of Republican Senators. 
So, yes, that $700 billion was voted at the request of the Bush 
administration, with substantial bipartisan support.
  There was, of course, also the matter of another $700 billion-or-so 
in the war in Iraq which I voted against. So I do regret some of these 
extra expenditures, but the responsibility is hardly that of one party.
  And now I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
627, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2009, introduced in 
the House by Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney from New York.
  H.R. 627 will help consumers, especially Latinos, by eliminating 
harmful

[[Page 13087]]

credit card industry policies and practices that have resulted in a 
dangerous accumulation in the Latino community of unsecured debt. It 
will empower Hispanics to reduce their reliance and dependence on 
credit cards, and help them build the assets and wealth they need for 
long-term economic stability, and to eventually attain the American 
Dream of homeownership.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Higher Education, I strongly 
support the provisions in the bill that increase protections for 
students against aggressive credit card marketing and increased 
transparency of affinity arrangements between credit card companies and 
universities.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is long overdue. It's imperative that 
we pass this bill and that the President sign it into law as soon as 
possible to begin the journey toward credit card reform.
  Congresswoman Maloney's legislation will help all individuals 
residing in the U.S. and will improve financial literacy of Americans 
across the board, which is the goal of the Financial and Economic 
Literacy Caucus I co-founded and currently co-chair with Congresswoman 
Judy Biggert of Illinois.
  I strongly encourage all my colleagues to support this very important 
and timely piece of legislation.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, since January, House 
Republicans have simply asked the Democrat majority in the House for a 
chance to debate an amendment on Second Amendment rights and to have a 
vote to allow citizens to carry firearms in national parks and wildlife 
refuges in accordance with State law.
  Unfortunately, Democrat leaders have spent the last 5 months using 
every legislative trick in the book to obstruct a fair and open 
process. However, after Senator Coburn managed to force consideration 
of his amendment in the other body, Democrat leaders have finally cried 
uncle and decided to hold a debate and a vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I applaud their capitulation.
  During today's debate, you'll hear gun control advocates falsely 
claim that this amendment will increase poaching because American gun 
owners won't be able to resist the temptation to shoot wildlife 
encountered in national parks.
  Mr. Speaker, their liberal base might believe this, but I doubt if 
the American people will. In fact, the fact is that American gun owners 
are simply citizens who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights 
without running into confusing red tape.
  Opponents of this amendment will also call it unprecedented, far 
reaching and radical. But the fact is, it merely puts national parks 
and refuges in line with current regulations of national forest lands 
and Bureau of Land Management lands. Let me reiterate this. The Second 
Amendment rights are already in place in national forests and on Bureau 
of Land Management property.
  The current policy is outdated, unnecessary, inconsistent and 
confusing to those who visit the checker board of public lands, and the 
policy needs to be changed, and this amendment does just that.
  Finally, let me remind my colleagues that the current prohibition is 
only in place because of a lone activist Federal judge in Washington, 
D.C. who somehow rationalized that the Second Amendment should be 
subjected to environmental review and red tape bureaucracy--Second 
Amendment subjected to environmental review--and decided to 
singlehandedly throw out the previous policy. She did this, despite the 
fact that the previous administration had conducted months of review in 
a thorough public comment process.
  Now, today, on this vote the House has the opportunity to right that 
wrong.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to join me in restoring Americans' Second Amendment rights on Federal 
lands.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I thank my chairman for allowing me to 
have these 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to raise my voice in opposition to the 
Coburn amendment to H.R. 627, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights.
  Our economy is in trouble, and millions of consumers are hurting 
under the pressure of staggering credit card debt.
  I am proud to support the hard work of my colleague, Congresswoman 
Carolyn Maloney, who has championed the Credit Cardholders' Bill of 
Rights, which will make the practice of credit card companies fairer, 
help dig consumers out of debt, and get our economy going.
  But I am incredibly disappointed that this well-meaning bill has been 
hijacked and used as a political tool to ram a provision down the 
throats of Americans when they need our help to address more pressing 
issues.
  Adding an amendment that will allow loaded guns into our national 
parks to a bill that is designed to help American families during an 
economic crisis shows an ignorance of the seriousness of our Nation's 
economic crisis and a disregard for the needs of its consumers. This 
amendment should not be part of this bill.
  Our national parks are among our greatest treasures. We are blessed 
as a Nation with some of the most pristine and beautiful landscapes and 
open spaces in the world, and every year millions and millions of 
families from all walks of life travel from far and near to enjoy these 
amazing resources. When families are out experiencing the wonders of 
our lands, the last thing they should have to worry about is a threat 
or the possible threat of gun violence.
  With the Coburn amendment, we are putting families at risk, which is 
wrong. And the method being used to push the bill is equally troubling. 
Are we going to have all of our bills coming over from the Senate with 
gun legislation on them?
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Coburn amendment and vote 
for H.R. 627.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be here to speak on 
this particular amendment.
  There are, indeed, some in government who are very uncomfortable with 
the concept of an armed citizenry. That is nothing that is new.
  Mr. Speaker, 234 years ago, on a spring day that's very similar to 
this one, a British commander in Boston sent out a detachment to 
Lexington and Concord for what he thought was a perfectly reasonable 
gun control measure. I mean, why would any rational person want to 
possess a gun on park-like greens and commons in those pleasant New 
England towns?
  Unfortunately for General Howe, the patriots disagreed. And those 
same patriots were the ones who wrote our Constitution and gave the 
protection in the Second Amendment to gun rights.
  The issue today is whether Congress will insist that the National 
Park Service live under the same rules that the national forests and 
the Bureau of Land Management areas have been under all the time.
  There's nothing unique or new about this. It is simply a matter of 
conformity. The real winners in this amendment are law-abiding 
Americans who will no longer be treated as criminals, even though 
they're good people.
  I give, for example, Damon Gettier, who was convicted of the heinous 
crime of driving through the Blue Ridge Parkway, which bisects his 
community towards his home one afternoon when he had a legally owned 
firearm in his car, which was legal in the State of Virginia, but not 
in the Park Service land a couple of blocks away.
  Even the Federal judge admitted he, himself, had no idea it was 
unlawful to carry a firearm in a car in National Park Service land, 
though it was lawful in the State of Virginia. This man, nonetheless, 
was still penalized.

[[Page 13088]]

  It is wrong. This rights that wrong. This brings continuity and it 
brings the National Park Service in line with every other public lands 
proposal that we have in this Nation. And I urge its adoption.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  It's unfortunate, Mr. Speaker and Members, that we have to deal with 
this misplaced Coburn amendment in what is a very good bill. The 
American taxpayers ought to be incensed.
  We are trying to protect consumers against the practices of these 
credit card companies that have been ripping them off for so long, and 
here we have, placed in this bill, this irrelevant amendment that is 
dealing with guns and guns in parks.
  It's a good bill. I support the bill. And I would like to thank 
Financial Institutions Chairman Luis Gutierrez and Congresswoman 
Maloney for their continued dedication and leadership on this issue. 
And I am a proud sponsor of H.R. 627.
  I had no idea on the Senate side they would inject this amendment 
into the bill. It's about time that we reined in the abusive practices 
of credit card companies. For too long, credit card companies have 
squeezed consumers through every scheme imaginable, including double-
cycle billing and universal default. This bill will finally give 
consumers the rights they deserve.
  H.R. 627 bans double billing, double cycle billing. It bans universal 
default, and it flat out prohibits arbitrary interest rate increases. 
It even prohibits credit cards from raising rates during the first year 
that a credit card account is open, thereby eliminating the old bait-
and-switch policies.
  I am especially pleased that now credit card companies will have to 
allow consumers to opt in to overdraft plans, so that the $3 cup of 
coffee does not turn into a $35 overdraft charge.
  Even with this bill, we know that credit card companies will still 
try to put the squeeze on the consumers. Already they are lowering the 
credit lines of borrowers in good standing, based on where the borrower 
shops. This is why this bill, H.R. 627, includes an amendment that I 
offered to require the Federal Reserve to report to Congress on the 
extent of these practices. With this study, we will have the 
information we need to further end these abusive practices.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 627, and I am hopeful that we 
can separate this bad Coburn amendment out of the bill.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I think, for the moment, I do wish to return to the 
credit card debate.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I fear that the legislation before us is going to 
be riddled with unintended consequences. Again, there are portions of 
the bill to which I think almost every Member of this body would agree. 
Consumers have been taken advantage of by misleading claims, by 
deceptive disclosures, and we must have effective disclosure written in 
legalese not voluminous disclosure. Rather, we need effective 
disclosure written in English, as opposed to voluminous disclosure 
written in legalese.
  But we don't need to take away consumer's credit opportunities at a 
time when the market is already contracting from the economic 
recession. I mean, these credit cards are needed.
  And again, Mr. Speaker, I fear that this legislation will take us 
back to a bygone era, an era that most of us, frankly, don't want to 
revisit.
  Now, in my earlier remarks I alluded to this New York Times piece, 
again, not exactly known as a bastion of conservative thought, but it 
is certainly a third-party validation to what many of us have been 
saying in this debate. But I allude to this New York Times article of 
May 19. And it talks about this bygone era, and in part of this article 
it says: ``Banks used to give credit cards only to the best customers 
and charge them a flat interest rate of about 20 percent, and an annual 
fee.'' Well, once certain usury laws have been relaxed, once there were 
technological innovations allowing this thing called risk-based 
pricing, something happened, Mr. Speaker, and that was, people who 
previously had no access to credit finally got access to credit.

                              {time}  1315

  Something else happened, Mr. Speaker. That is that those debtors who 
paid their bills on time, who were less risky, managed to pay a lower 
interest rate and managed to get rid of the dreaded annual fees. This 
is a piece of legislation that will take us back to a bygone era that 
most of us want to leave bygone. It is a step into the past.
  The article in the New York Times goes on to say, ``The industry says 
that the proposals will force banks to issue fewer credit cards at 
greater cost to the current cardholders.''
  Now, some may view that to be a good thing. Well, it's not 
necessarily the struggling families of the Fifth Congressional District 
of Texas. They want their credit cards. They want choices to be had. 
They want there to be honest disclosure that they understand, but they 
want choices in the marketplace.
  Now, I may view this legislation differently, Mr. Speaker, if I 
thought there weren't competition in the marketplace, but we've heard 
testimony throughout this debate that there are over 10,000 different 
issuers of credit cards--10,000. We've seen contraction in the market 
due to the economic recession, and all this legislation is going to do 
is exacerbate that phenomenon.
  So, again, this is a bailout bill. It's asking those who pay their 
bills on time and in full to bail out those who don't. So, again, we'll 
hear all of the rhetoric that we're slapping around the big credit card 
companies. Frankly, there are a number of their practices that deserve 
slapping around, but somebody else is going to get slapped around, and 
that is the borrower who pays his bill in full and on time. He is going 
to be punished. He is going to get slapped around by this legislation 
at a time when they can ill, ill afford it.
  We've seen this before. We've heard testimony from, for example, 
community banks that tell us, if this legislation is passed--and I've 
heard this from banks in my own district--that ultimately the credit 
card portfolios of the smaller institutions are going to be ended or 
that they're going to be sold to the larger institutions. Less 
competition. Less opportunities.
  We've heard from academics in this debate, like Professor Todd 
Zywicki from George Mason University. The increased use of credit cards 
has been a substitution for other types of consumer credit. If these 
individuals are unable to get access to credit cards, experience and 
empirical evidence indicates that they will turn elsewhere for credit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional minute.
  They will turn elsewhere for credit, such as to pawnshops, to payday 
lenders, to rent-to-own or even to loan sharks. In some respects, maybe 
we ought to call this the Payday Lenders and Pawnshop Relief Act, 
because that will be the consequence. Now, I'm not trying to cast 
aspersions on their business models. Many consumers turn to them. 
That's not the point.
  The point is this legislation is going to constrict consumer choice. 
We've seen similar legislation in the United Kingdom. They passed a law 
that capped default fees. What happened? Well, two of the three largest 
issuers promptly imposed annual fees on their cardholders. Nineteen of 
the largest raised interest rates, and by one independent study, 60 
percent of new applicants were rejected. That's what happened in the 
U.K.
  These are the unintended consequences of this legislation, and that 
is why I believe this conference report should be rejected at this 
time. There is a better way of doing this, Mr. Speaker, and it is with 
disclosure and with effective enforcement of any fraud laws.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to a 
member of the committee who is one of the coauthors of this important 
bill, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Maffei).
  Mr. MAFFEI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of sending this 
critical

[[Page 13089]]

bill to the President for his signature. Enactment will stop deceptive 
and unfair practices by credit card issuers that have taken advantage 
of honest consumers.
  I thank the chairman for his leadership, and I want to especially 
thank Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney.
  When she started in this effort, the odds were dead set against her, 
and it was likely her efforts would run into stiff partisan opposition. 
Thanks to her leadership and hard work, this bill has very bipartisan 
support, passing this House this year by 357-70 and, yesterday, being 
approved by the Senate with an overwhelmingly bipartisan 90-5 vote.
  Each time I am at home in my district, without fail, people share 
stories about their times with credit cards. One woman, Diana Lynn, 
from Baldwinsville, near Syracuse, recently noted that, in the fine 
print of her credit card, her interest rate had been raised from 14.25 
to 21.5 percent for no reason, which was applied to her already 
existing balance. Diana runs an animal protection nonprofit and is 
taking care of her mother, who is in intensive care. Now, she is 
confident that she will eventually pay off this balance and will still 
maintain her good credit, but she is worried about those less well off, 
who are at the mercy of the credit card companies.
  Hers is just one of the hundreds of stories that my office has heard. 
Today, we take action on their behalf. Under this legislation before 
us, Diana would have been protected. For too long, the credit card 
issuers have taken advantage of American families, of small businesses 
and even of churches that are too responsible to run away but are too 
poor to pay off their balances.
  The Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights means that credit card 
companies will no longer be allowed to act as loan sharks. The 
enactment of this bill is just the beginning. Just as the Bill of 
Rights in the Constitution provides a foundation for all of our laws 
that protect citizens' liberties, this bill will create a solid 
foundation for Congress to build upon in order to provide a needed 
floor for the industry to improve their practices and to highlight the 
need for consumer responsibility. This bipartisan coalition will 
continue to push for more transparency and fairness for consumers in 
upstate New York and throughout the country.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield to 
the distinguished ranking member of the Financial Services Committee 
for as much time as he may consume, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I think all of us in this body have had 
constituents call and complain that what they saw were unfair and 
deceptive credit card practices, and in many cases, these practices 
were not fair.
  As a result of that, the Financial Services Committee, working with 
the Federal Reserve, proposed--and the Federal Reserve has now 
adopted--changes. The things that have been talked about by Members of 
this body in the debate last week and in the debate today are taken 
care of in the Federal Reserve's requirements. In fact, they went 
through a long public process. They had over 60,000 public comments 
about the issues, and they issued, actually, 1,200 pages of changes in 
our credit card regulations. This included going up on balance fees. 
This included double-cycle billing. This included giving people a 
longer period of time from the time their statement was mailed to the 
time they had to get a payment in--all of the things, I think, that 
most of us have received calls on.
  One matter that we raised when this bill was before us--and I want to 
commend the Senate, and I want to commend the Democratic majority in 
the House--was this idea in the original legislation that you could 
apply for a number of credit cards, but it would not go on your credit 
report until you activated that card. I think, as a result of the 
debate 2 weeks ago, we took a closer look at that, and we did pass an 
amendment by Aaron Schock, which, I think, will close the door to a lot 
of fraud in that regard. I appreciate the majority's support on that. I 
think the Senate further closed that loophole, and I think we've struck 
the right balance there.
  As for the supporters of this bill, I don't question their sincerity, 
and I don't question their motivation. They and the American people 
want credit card reform. What we had said is there is tremendous reform 
in the Fed's proposals, in the Federal Reserve's proposals, and we felt 
like those ought to have a chance. We expressed why we were for those 
reforms which were going into effect next July and not for this bill.
  One of our concerns--and I think that this bill will do this, and I 
hope I'm wrong--is that this legislation, I believe, will restrict 
credit for those who don't have the best credit reports. They're really 
the people who probably need credit the most. In fact, the subcommittee 
ranking member, Mr. Hensarling, referred to a New York Times article. 
Now, that article and an article that appeared in today's Washington 
Post really express some of the same concerns that the gentleman from 
Texas and I expressed 2 weeks ago, which is that we are going to have 
several things happen as a result of this bill.
  One is we're going to have a restriction of credit. The Washington 
Post article does quote from the Financial Services Roundtable, but 
they say that they believe that credit could be reduced by as much as 
$2 billion. That's not very good timing if that's done, ladies and 
gentlemen of the House.
  As I have said and as I said yesterday in the Rules Committee, I fear 
that many Americans will not be able to renew their credit cards or I 
fear that their credit card lines will be reduced. Sometimes maybe this 
is good, but I think, in a time of economic crisis, it's going to be 
somewhat ill-timed.
  The New York Times and The Washington Post both mention that they 
believe, as a result of this legislation, you are not going to see any 
offers to transfer balances at zero percent. They also say the most 
creditworthy customers, those who pay every month and who haven't had 
to pay interest, will probably have to as a result of these changes. 
They probably will be charged interest. There are predictions in here 
that there will be the return of higher fees. I hope these predictions 
don't pan out.

                [From the New York Times, May 19, 2009]

        Credit Card Industry Aims To Profit From Sterling Payers

                           (By Andrew Martin)

       Credit cards have long been a very good deal for people who 
     pay their bills on time and in full. Even as card companies 
     imposed punitive fees and penalties on those late with their 
     payments, the best customers racked up cash-back rewards, 
     frequent-flier miles and other perks in recent years.
       Now Congress is moving to limit the penalties on riskier 
     borrowers, who have become a prime source of billions of 
     dollars in fee revenue for the industry. And to make up for 
     lost income, the card companies are going after those people 
     with sterling credit.
       Banks are expected to look at reviving annual fees, 
     curtailing cash-back and other rewards programs and charging 
     interest immediately on a purchase instead of allowing a 
     grace period of weeks, according to bank officials and trade 
     groups.
       ``It will be a different business,'' said Edward L. 
     Yingling, the chief executive of the American Bankers 
     Association, which has been lobbying Congress for more 
     lenient legislation on behalf of the nation's biggest banks. 
     ``Those that manage their credit well will in some degree 
     subsidize those that have credit problems.''
       As they thin their ranks of risky cardholders to deal with 
     an economic downturn, major banks including American Express, 
     Citigroup, Bank of America and a long list of others have 
     already begun to raise interest rates, and some have set 
     their sights on consumers who pay their bills on time. The 
     legislation scheduled for a Senate vote on Tuesday does not 
     cap interest rates, so banks can continue to lift them, 
     albeit at a slower pace and with greater disclosure.
       ``There will be one-size-fits-all pricing, and as a result, 
     you'll see the industry will be more egalitarian in terms of 
     its revenue base,'' said David Robertson, publisher of the 
     Nilson Report, which tracks the credit card business.
       People who routinely pay off their credit card balances 
     have been enjoying the equivalent of a free ride, he said, 
     because many have not had to pay an annual fee even as they 
     collect points for air travel and other perks.

[[Page 13090]]

       ``Despite all the terrible things that have been said, 
     you're making out like a bandit,'' he said. ``That's a third 
     of credit card customers, 50 million people who have gotten a 
     great deal.''
       Robert Hammer, an industry consultant, said the legislation 
     might have the broad effect of encouraging card issuers to 
     become ever more reliant on fees from marginal customers as 
     well as creditworthy cardholders--``deadbeats'' in industry 
     parlance, because they generate scant fee revenue.
       ``They aren't charities. They have shareholders to report 
     to,'' he said, referring to banks and credit card companies. 
     ``Whatever is left in the model to work from, they will start 
     to maneuver.''
       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 in some 
     states, and the ready availability of credit scores in the 
     late 1980s, banks began offering cards with a variety of 
     different interest rates and fees, tying the pricing to the 
     credit risk of the cardholder.
       That helped push interest rates down for many consumers, 
     but they soared for riskier cardholders, who became a 
     significant source of revenue for the industry. The recent 
     economic downturn challenged that formula, and banks started 
     dumping the riskiest customers and lowering their credit 
     limits in earnest as the recession accelerated. Now, 
     consumers who pay their bills off every month are issuing a 
     rising chorus of complaints about shortened grace periods, 
     new hidden fees and higher interest rates.
       The industry says that the proposals will force banks to 
     issue fewer credit cards at greater cost to the current 
     cardholders.
       Citigroup and Capital One referred comments to the A.B.A. 
     Discover and American Express declined to comment. Bank of 
     America intends to ``provide credit to the largest number of 
     creditworthy customers possible, while also remaining prudent 
     in our lending practices,'' said Betty Riess, a spokeswoman. 
     Together with JPMorgan Chase, which has said the changes will 
     force it to limit credit availability and raise fees, these 
     banks account for 80 percent of the credit card industry.
       Banks are not required to publicly reveal how much money 
     they make from penalty interest rates and fees, though 
     government officials and industry consultants estimate they 
     constitute a growing portion of revenue.
       For instance, Mr. Hammer said the amount of money generated 
     by penalty fees like late charges and exceeding credit limits 
     had increased by about $1 billion annually in recent years, 
     and should top $20 billion this year.
       Regulations passed by the Federal Reserve in December to 
     curb unexpected interest charges would cost issuers about $12 
     billion a year in lost fees and income, according to industry 
     calculations. The legislation before Congress would build on 
     the Fed rules and would further squeeze banks' revenue when 
     they are being hit with a high rate of credit card charge-
     offs. The government's stress tests showed that the nation's 
     19 biggest banks will take on $82 billion in credit card 
     losses in the next two years.
       A 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office 
     estimated that 70 percent of card issuers' revenue came from 
     interest charges, and the portion from penalty rates appeared 
     to be growing. The remainder came from fees on cardholders as 
     well as retailers for processing transactions. Many retailers 
     are angry at the high fees and plan to pass them on to 
     shoppers once the Congressional legislation takes effect.
       Consumer advocates say they have little sympathy for credit 
     card issuers, arguing that they have made billions in recent 
     years with unfair and sometimes deceptive practices.
       ``The business model will change because the business model 
     doesn't work for the public,'' said Gail Hillebrand, a senior 
     lawyer at Consumers Union.
       ``In order to do business under the new rules, they'll 
     actually have to tell you how much it's going to cost,'' she 
     said.
       With many consumers mired in debt and angry at what they 
     consider gouging by credit card companies, the issue of 
     credit card reform has broad populist appeal. Members of 
     Congress and the Obama administration have seized on the 
     discontent to push reforms that the industry succeeded in 
     tamping down when the economy was flying high.
       Austan Goolsbee, an economic adviser to President Obama, 
     said that while the credit card industry had the right to 
     make a reasonable profit as long as its contracts were in 
     plain language and rule-breakers were held accountable, its 
     current practices were akin to ``a series of carjackings.''
       ``The card industry is giving the argument that if you 
     didn't want to be carjacked, why weren't you locking your 
     doors or taking a different road?'' Mr. Goolsbee said.
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, May 20, 2009]

              Credit Card Restrictions Close to Enactment

                           (By Nancy Trejos)

       Landmark credit card legislation, poised to reach President 
     Obama's desk by Memorial Day, will force the card industry to 
     reinvent itself and consumers to rethink the way they use 
     plastic.
       The Senate cleared a hurdle yesterday, voting 90 to 5 to 
     pass a bill that would sharply curtail credit card issuers' 
     ability to raise interest rates and charge fees. Lawmakers 
     will now turn to reconciling differences with a similar bill 
     approved by the House last month. Swift passage was expected 
     given that the Senate version received so much bipartisan 
     support and that the White House has pressed for action.
       When Obama signs the bill into law as expected, the $960 
     billion credit card industry will go through a restructuring 
     that could have broad implications for consumers.
       The bill prohibits card companies from raising interest 
     rates on existing balances unless a borrower is at least 60 
     days late. If the cardholder pays on time for the following 
     six months, the company would have to restore the original 
     rate. On cards with more than one interest rate, issuers will 
     have to apply payments first to the debts with the highest 
     rates, which would help borrowers pay off their cards more 
     quickly.
       Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said the bill ``will 
     help create a more fair, transparent and simple consumer 
     credit market.''
       Card executives said the changes will force them to charge 
     higher rates and annual fees to delinquent customers and 
     those in good standing.
       ``This bill fundamentally changes the entire business model 
     of credit cards by restricting the ability to price credit 
     for risk,'' said Edward L. Yingling, the chief executive of 
     the American Bankers Association. He said that lending would 
     become more risky and that, ``It is a fundamental rule of 
     lending that an increase in risk means that less credit will 
     be available and that the credit that is available will often 
     have a higher interest rate.''
       Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs 
     for the Financial Services Roundtable, an industry group, 
     said available credit could be reduced by as much as $2 
     billion.
       When credit cards were introduced about 50 years ago, 
     issuers practiced a one-size-fits-all approach of charging an 
     annual fee and roughly the same interest rate of about 18 
     percent to everyone. As the industry became more deregulated 
     in the 1980s, around the time that credit scores were 
     introduced, issuers were able to separate the risky from the 
     not-so-risky borrower and tailor the terms of card contracts.
       The money they made from customers who did not pay their 
     bills in full each month became an important revenue source. 
     The industry makes $15 billion annually from penalty fees, 
     and one-fifth of consumers carrying credit card debt pay an 
     interest rate above 20 percent, according to figures cited by 
     the White House and compiled from the Government 
     Accountability Office and the Federal Reserve.
       To make up for the lost revenue, card issuers will turn to 
     those customers who pay what they owe in full and on time 
     every month, analysts said. Gone will be the days when 
     creditworthy customers enjoyed the benefits of low interest 
     rates and cards that offer rewards such as frequent flier 
     miles and cash back, they said. Annual fees, which had been 
     banished to cards with rewards programs, are likely to 
     return. Offers for zero percent balance transfers are likely 
     to become more rare.
       ``This industry will start looking more like a one-size-
     fits-all pricing approach which dominated in the '80s--18 
     percent interest and $20 annual fees,'' said David Robertson, 
     publisher of the Nilson Report, which covers the industry. 
     Customers who pay in full each month will have ``to start 
     picking up the slack, to start pulling their weight.''
       Consumer advocates and legislators pointed out that the 
     legislation still allows issuers to raise interest rates for 
     future purchases as long as they give 45 days' notice. It 
     also does not set any interest rate caps, allowing issuers to 
     charge new customers any rate they want.
       ``This ominous we're-going-back-in-time threat doesn't make 
     a whole lot of sense,'' said Travis B. Plunkett, legislative 
     affairs director at the Consumer Federation of America.
       Bruised by a rise in delinquencies and a record percentage 
     of debts they have had to write off, some of the biggest 
     players in the card industry, including Bank of America, 
     Capital One and Chase, have already been increasing interest 
     rates and cutting credit limits even on customers who pay on 
     time.
       Credit card issuers have come under fire for such any-time, 
     for-any-reason interest rate increases at a time when 
     consumers are buckling under the weight of debt. Outraged 
     consumers have complained of mistreatment from the same 
     companies that have been receiving federal bailout money.
       The Senate bill, written by Banking Committee Chairman 
     Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), would also restrict the 
     ability of college students to get credit cards and require 
     card companies to make contracts easier to understand and 
     available online.
       The House bill, authored by Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-
     N.Y.), largely mirrors regulations passed by the Federal 
     Reserve in December that would ban many so-called unfair

[[Page 13091]]

     and deceptive practices. Both the House and the Fed's efforts 
     are considered weaker than the Senate bill. Analysts and 
     industry insiders said the fact that the Senate bill received 
     so many votes is a good indication that it will make it to 
     Obama.
       The Federal Reserve's new rules do not go into effect until 
     July 2010. The House and Senate bills seek to accelerate that 
     timeline. The Senate bill would be enacted nine months after 
     signing and the House bill 12 months after.

  I want to mention one final thing. The gentlelady from California 
said that Senator Coburn's amendment was misplaced. I want to say that 
it's well-placed, and when that comes up, I want to urge the Members to 
support it and to vote ``yes.'' I applaud the action taken by Mr. 
Coburn in the Senate. I think it's important to law-abiding citizens 
who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) pointed out that one 
Federal judge in one district in Washington arbitrarily, through a 
ruling, confused the law and changed the law--law by judge. I want to 
associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Washington. The 
Coburn amendment will provide uniformity on regulations governing the 
possession of firearms in national parks and refuges, which is of 
particular concern in carry and in right-to-carry States.
  In my own Alabama, a citizen could be exercising his State-granted, 
concealed carry right and then enter into, for example, the Cahaba 
River National Wildlife Refuge, in my district, and be subject to a 
violation of Federal regulations, requiring weapons to be unloaded and 
to be kept out of reach.
  I've cosponsored the National Parks Firearm Bill here in the House to 
address what is a patchwork of regulations. To me, it would be a 
violation of the Constitution and of our Forefathers' intent if someone 
exercising his Second Amendment right were to suddenly cross a line, go 
into a national park and find himself facing a Federal judge and a fine 
because of the uncertainty.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Coburn amendment, which 
would eliminate the conflicting Federal regulations and would allow 
honest citizens to carry firearms in national parks and in wildlife 
refuges.

                              {time}  1330

  I urge each of my colleagues--and I know that credit card companies 
are not very popular--but I urge them to look at those Federal 
proposals that are going into effect with or without this bill and 
decide whether they want to roll the dice on legislation that could 
very well in the next few months result in greater costs and fees.
  Yes, there are very many good things in this bill. I say that to the 
gentlelady from New York and the gentleman from Massachusetts, the 
chairman. Very good things. But I think that 99 percent of them are 
contained in the proposals by the Federal Reserve that will be 
implemented and have been carefully thought out.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Thank you very much for yielding. I want to speak in favor 
of the bill and very adamantly opposed to the amendment. I think people 
are just misaddressing the whole issue. National parks have the 
significance of being national. And if you think that it's okay to 
carry guns in national parks, why not carry them into the National 
Cemetery, into the national White House, into the national Capitol, 
into the National Arboretum. The list goes on and on. This is a dumb 
amendment--and Congress should be embarrassed that we have to vote on 
it.
  People go to the national parks for a specific purpose--to enjoy the 
serenity of wildlife. Now you're going to have some gun nut come in 
there and see something rustling at night and decide that maybe, Oh, 
I'm being attacked by a wild animal, or maybe something is going on out 
in the bushes.
  There are going to be problems with this. It doesn't make any sense. 
This is a credit card bill. And there's no purpose in the credit card 
bill to have a gun bill.
  We talk a lot about pork in this House. I think this is an act of 
chicken.
  Anyway, this is a bad amendment, and I hope that you'll vote ``yes'' 
on the first vote and ``no'' on the second vote.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining 
on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 4\1/2\ minutes 
and the gentleman from Massachusetts has 16\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.
  First, Mr. Speaker, I don't spend all of my time observing the 
processes and procedures and ways of the other body so I don't know how 
these two particular issues managed to get commingled. Having said 
that, I can't think of any bad time to stand up for the Second 
Amendment rights of our citizenry. Again, it appears to me that one 
lone, perhaps rogue Federal judge has tried to put a dent into the 
Second Amendment rights of our citizens.
  I was happy in the last Congress to introduce H.R. 5434, the 
Protecting Americans from Violent Crime Act, that would have taken care 
of this issue. Again, this is a bedrock principle embedded in our 
Constitution. The citizens need to have their right to keep and bear 
arms protected, even on this Federal property, particularly when 
incidences of violence at Federal parks has shown increases, upticks. 
But regardless, we cannot allow the Constitution of the United States 
to be amended in such an unconstitutional fashion. So I'm happy to 
raise my voice in support of that.
  Back to the credit card issue at hand--and I will try not to use the 
entire 4\1/2\ minutes. We have had testimony from the Congressional 
Research Service, we have had testimony from academics, we have had 
testimony from community bankers. We have seen the history. We have 
seen the history of what has happened in Great Britain.
  There are huge unintended consequences associated with this 
legislation. The people who pay their credit card bills in full, on 
time, are about to be punished. They will be forced to bail out those 
who don't. They will end up paying annual fees. They will end up paying 
higher interest rates. They will see such things as member rewards 
programs contract.
  I believe this to be patently unfair, Mr. Speaker, and it will be 
caused by this legislation. Again, I think the intentions are pure. I 
think the intentions are noble. But such will be the consequences of 
this legislation.
  In the middle of a huge credit crisis we will take credit cards away 
from people who desperately need them. We will end up taking them away 
from families like the Blanks family of Fruitdale in the Fifth District 
of Texas, who wrote to me, ``Congressman, my new business would not 
have been started if not for my credit and credit cards. My existing 
job will be gone, and it is forcing me to do what I really want to do 
anyway.'' He goes on to say, ``I couldn't have achieved the American 
Dream without credit cards.''
  I fear under this legislation that families like the Blanks family of 
Fruitdale will lose their credit cards.
  I heard from the Vehon family in Rowlett, also in the Fifth District 
of Texas. ``In the fall of 2004, my wife and I were laid off from our 
jobs at the same time. Needless to say, the layoff was quite a shock, 
and without access to our credit cards at the time, frankly, I don't 
know what we would have done.
  ``Due to the flexibility that credit cards can supply to responsible 
people in challenging times like I have described, we were able to stay 
pretty current on our bills.''
  I heard from the Juarez family in Mesquite, Texas, that I have the 
honor of representing in Congress. ``I oppose this legislation, as I 
have utilized my credit cards to pay for some costly oral surgeries. I 
do not want to get penalized by this legislation for making my payments 
on time.''
  Again, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is not fair to the Juarez 
family, it is not fair to the Vehon family, it is not fair to the 
Blanks family, it is not fair to millions of other families across our

[[Page 13092]]

land who desperately need their credit cards. And I urge that we reject 
this conference report.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume. Let me begin by responding to the gentleman from Texas' 
reference to small business. The National Federation of Independent 
Business supports this bill. So the suggestion that this will somehow 
have a negative effect on small business is repudiated by the active 
support for the bill of the organization that has generally been 
identified as the major spokes-organization for that, the National 
Federation of Independent Business.
  Secondly, there was a premise here that I find very faulty. The 
gentleman from Texas quoted the New York Times and others, and they 
have said--Mr. Speaker, I'm going to interrupt myself at this point, if 
I may. The chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior 
has come in. I assume he wanted to speak.
  I will now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong opposition to 
the Coburn amendment, which was adopted in the other body. It will make 
our parks less safe. According to the FBI, our national parks currently 
are among the safest place in the country. The current regulations were 
put in place by Ronald Reagan and James Watt, and what they want to do 
here is change that. I think it's a big mistake.
  There were only 1.65 violent crimes per 100,000 visitors in 2006. 
Compare that to nearly 470 violent crimes per 100,000 for the 
nationwide average. Clearly, the argument that these guns are needed 
for visitors to be safe is simply not true.
  The Coburn amendment would allow many everyday disturbances, 
especially if alcohol is involved, to spin out of control towards a 
possibly lethal end. The dedicated park rangers and wildlife refuge 
staff would be put at risk and their jobs would become even more 
difficult. Also, wildlife will be at risk with increased poaching if 
visitors are able to carry loaded weapons into the parks. In addition 
to more poaching, vandalism would increase, putting fragile natural 
resources at risk.
  The former rangers, the former retirees from the Park Service have 
all stated unanimously that this thing is not needed. I think that it 
would be upsetting for many visitors to the parks to know that they run 
a risk of an encounter with someone who's carrying a loaded gun.
  With the number of school groups who visit these places, it would be 
a real shame that their attendance drops due to the fear of loaded 
weapons.
  So I strongly, as chairman of the Interior and Environment 
Appropriations Subcommittee, oppose this amendment and urge it to be 
struck from this legislation, and I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I repeat, the National Federation of Independent Businesses 
says this is good for small businesses, this bill, because they have 
been victimized. It will in no way cause there to be a failure to offer 
a credit card to a business that can pay it back. Nothing in this bill 
remotely suggests that.
  There was also, as I said, a somewhat implausible argument. The New 
York Times quoted people in the credit card industry saying, If you do 
this, we won't like it, and we may raise rates.
  The notion that if we pass this bill rates will be raised on the 
great majority makes this mistake. The assumption is that there is 
money now laying on the table that the beneficent credit card companies 
voluntarily forgo. Under the principles of free enterprise, the 
business is legally entitled and motivated to charge as much as it can. 
That argument only makes sense if you think they are voluntarily 
reducing money that they could get from some of the customers. Of 
course, they're not. No one expects them to.
  But the most important thing here is the conflict that I see in my 
friend on the other side. The gentleman from Alabama repeatedly said 
what we should do is stick with the Federal Reserve's rules. The 
gentleman from Texas, as I heard him, didn't say that.
  There's a difference here. This is a case--and maybe they caught it, 
and maybe not. It may be one of those cases where the right hand 
doesn't know what the far-right hand is saying. Because to the extent 
that there is any restriction on rates, it is identical in the Federal 
Reserve's rules as in this bill.
  So there is a fundamental difference between the approach taken by 
the gentleman from Alabama and the gentleman from Texas. The gentleman 
from Alabama says, Adopt what the Fed said. The gentleman from Texas 
specifically objected to that provision in our committee. And what the 
New York Times article is aimed at--the quotes from the credit card 
people--is that provision that's in the Federal Reserve.
  By the way, it does nothing to cap interest rates going forward. That 
is a straw argument. The only restriction on rates here, on interest 
rates, is to say that you cannot raise them retroactively.
  Now the Federal Reserve also says that. So the gentleman from Alabama 
agrees. The gentleman from Texas, who's an honest believer in no 
restrictions, says ``no.'' In fact, in our committee debate he cited an 
example of when he thought a company would be justified in raising 
rates retroactively.
  He said, Suppose someone owes a company interest on debt already 
incurred and has been meeting the regular scheduled payments, but 
either goes to prison or loses his or her job. The gentleman from Texas 
said, If you have been paying the credit card company on a regular 
basis, and you lose your job, they should be legally allowed to raise 
the rates on what you already owe them.
  We disagree. So does the Federal Reserve. So, apparently, does the 
gentleman from Alabama, because he supports what the Federal Reserve 
says.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will yield to my friend from Texas.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Was that not already embedded in the legislation, in 
that one of the four opportunities for credit card companies to raise 
interest rates retroactively is when people don't meet their workout 
plans. Would that not be one of the reasons?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman is quite wrong. I said--and 
he didn't listen, as he may not have listened to the gentleman from 
Alabama, because he didn't express disagreement with him--I said, If 
people are meeting their obligation under the bill that we put forward 
and under the Federal Reserve's rules, if you're meeting your 
obligations, if you're making your payments on time, they cannot raise 
your rates retroactively.
  I see members of the staff checking it out. They will find out what 
I'm saying is accurate.
  If you are meeting your obligations, you cannot have the rate raised. 
What the gentleman from Texas said is, Suppose you lose your job. Well, 
losing your job, if you are otherwise meeting your obligations, should 
not mean that they can raise your rate retroactively. We are only 
talking about in this bill retroactive raises. There is no limitation 
going forward.
  Now the gentleman from Alabama also said, Well, if the Federal 
Reserve is right--the gentleman from Texas doesn't like what the 
Federal Reserve did--the gentleman from Alabama said, If the Federal 
Reserve is right, why don't you stop there?

                              {time}  1345

  Because we do some things the Federal Reserve doesn't do, one. Two, 
because many of us believe--and I have to say, my conservative friends 
flip-flop on the Federal Reserve issue with a speed that dazzles me. 
Sometimes the Federal Reserve is this undemocratic institution which 
people worry about. Other times we should delegate significant 
legislative authority to them.
  I'm glad they acted. By the way, the Federal Reserve only acted after 
party control of the Congress changed. In 2007 we began to move on 
this, and then they acted.
  There's another side point. Let me say this. Several of my colleagues 
said,

[[Page 13093]]

Well, this has got good stuff in it. It's got disclosure. You know, if 
the Republicans, when they were in the majority, had broken out of this 
absolute slavish assumption that no regulation is ever any good, in 
effect--they don't say it quite like that, but that is the practical 
effect--if they had, when they were in power from 1995 to 2006, passed 
something that had the good parts of this bill, we might have not been 
here today on this bill because that might have chastened the 
companies. So they now find things in this bill that they like, but 
they refuse to do them. The gentleman from New York was pushing for 
some of this.
  During their 12 years--and by the way, that's a pattern. During the 
12 years of Republican rule, there were no financial regulations. There 
was some deregulation. There was nothing about the subprime or credit 
cards. We came to power and have begun to deal with it. We are dealing 
with the negative consequences of lack of regulation.
  But to go back to the point, we go beyond the Federal Reserve. There 
is one area where, regrettably, we don't go beyond the Federal Reserve. 
The gentleman from Alabama correctly noted that our colleague from 
Illinois (Mr. Schock) had a good amendment involving your credit 
rating. Unfortunately, while we accepted that amendment, it was left 
out of the final bill because of the objections of the ranking Senate 
Republican, the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Shelby.
  I fought for the inclusion of the gentleman from Illinois' amendment. 
I spoke to him. I urged him to join in, but it was reported to me by 
the leadership of the committee that that amendment from the gentleman 
from Illinois was unfortunately rejected by the objections of Mr. 
Shelby. So we didn't get that one.
  We did get a very good amendment that the Federal Reserve didn't 
have, sponsored by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), to 
require that the estate of a decedent be correctly done. We also have 
some rules in here about not sending credit cards to people under 18.
  By the way, the notion that this market works perfectly is somewhat 
rebutted by the fact that we're told that one of the crises now coming 
is credit card debt that's going to be a problem, securitized credit 
card debt because there were some imprudent things. So if this bill 
means that there will be some credit cards that won't be issued, good. 
Because they have been imprudent in doing that. But people who pay will 
not have a problem.
  So just in summary, this bill does not restrict credit card interest 
going forward. Maybe that's what they did in the United Kingdom. It 
does not interfere with small business, in the opinion of the National 
Federation of Independent Business. It agrees with the Federal Reserve 
that you should not raise rates retroactively. On that one, it's the 
gentleman from Alabama, the Federal Reserve, and myself; the gentleman 
from Texas and some others who are on the other side, a legitimate 
difference of opinion. But we also have some consumer protections not 
in what the Federal Reserve did.
  I would also say, this notion that we should leave public policy to 
the unelected Federal Reserve and that Congress should not step in also 
and act I think is one that underestimates the role of elected 
officials and democracy in our country.
  Now I disagreed with the gun amendment. I wish it hadn't been in 
there. I don't control the rules in the Senate. I intend to vote 
against it. In my judgment, the value of the credit card bill outweighs 
the harm that I think that would do. I would say, some Members on the 
other side may have a dilemma. Many of them strongly welcomed the 
amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma. But understand that unless 
both pieces pass, nothing passes. So no matter how strongly you support 
the gentleman from Oklahoma's amendment, if Members succeed in 
defeating the credit card part of it, that fails.
  I do have to caution them that the Federal Reserve cannot come to 
their rescue, as they are prone to have it do. They may want to 
delegate legislative powers to the Federal Reserve. I don't. But I do 
not think the Federal Reserve, in the most expansive reading of section 
13(3), can mandate that you carry a gun in a national park.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the credit card part passes, that the 
gun part does not; but in any case, I hope that this bill is sent to 
the President.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of a ``gun 
free'' Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights, a bill which is intended to 
protect American consumers and requires financial institutions to work 
responsibly with their customers. This legislation will eliminate the 
most egregious billing excesses imposed on customers and protect them 
from extreme fees and penalties. I commend Congresswoman Maloney and 
Chairman Frank for their leadership to pass this important legislation.
  Unfortunately, Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights was returned to the 
U.S. House tainted by an irresponsible amendment offered by Senator Tom 
Coburn and supported by sixty-six other U.S. Senators clearly more 
interested in their National Rifle Association rating than public 
safety. Senator Coburn's amendment to allow people to carry loaded, 
concealed firearms in America's National Park System is nothing short 
of insane and a political game played at the expense of millions of 
families who will visit our national parks seeking enjoyment, 
recreation, and peace. By permitting loaded guns in national parks, the 
Coburn amendment endangers the safety of park visitors, park rangers, 
and wildlife.
  America's national parks are some of our country's most precious 
national treasures. Our national parks are not only the millions of 
acres of wild lands but also include urban parks like New York's Statue 
of Liberty and the National Mall and Lincoln Memorial in Washington, 
DC--just footsteps from the U.S. Capitol. What rationale is there for 
the need to carry a concealed weapon on the steps of the Lincoln 
Memorial? The only rationale can be for politicians to score political 
points with the NRA.
  Families and foreign visitors to our national parks should be 
worried, I am. Individuals carrying loaded, concealed weapons would be 
allowed to attend ranger-led hikes and campfire programs along with 
families. Park Rangers, who are already the most assaulted federal 
officers in the country according to the National Parks Conservation 
Association, would face even greater life threatening safety risks. And 
park visitors would no longer have the assurance that our national 
parks are safe, secure places for themselves and their families.
  I am not alone in this position. Last year, in a letter to the 
Secretary of Interior, seven former directors of the National Park 
Service voiced strong concerns with allowing loaded guns in national 
parks, citing increased risk of poaching, vandalism of historic 
resources, and risk to visitors. The Association of National Park 
Rangers and U.S. Park Rangers Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police, have 
stated that allowing visitors to carry readily-accessible, loaded 
firearms would impede both their safety and the ability to keep our 
parks safe.
  This is a shameful example of the failure of the legislative process 
and I would urge President Obama to veto the Credit Cardholders' Bill 
of Rights and send it back to Congress to take the guns out.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, though I found several provisions in this bill 
today to be good, I am afraid that in the long-run this legislation 
will hurt credit card consumers, so I reluctantly voted against it.
  Some worthwhile provisions of note include consumer protections. 
Raising interest rates without fair and timely notice is wrong, as is 
applying a penalty interest rate to your existing debt. Another good 
provision provides for adequate time to receive and pay your bill on 
time using the mail. I particularly liked the section that protects 
young people from getting in over their heads before they even start 
adult life.
  My concerns are that there will be fewer credit cards and less credit 
to individuals and businesses that need it. Fees will go up on those 
who tried to pay on time.
  I am afraid this bill in the end will extend our recession, cost 
those who currently hold cards more and deny those seeking cards access 
to the credit they need very badly.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to show my support 
for the Credit Cardholder's Bill of Rights Act of 2009.
  This bill is more important now than ever, because credit card 
practices have become a huge problem in our country.
  Americans are saving less than they borrow on credit and the 
individual debt level is the highest it's been in decades.
  Consumers should have as much information as possible when it comes 
to credit and finance policies and these policies should be easy to 
understand.
  That is why I was an original cosponsor of the Credit Cardholders' 
Bill of Rights Act,

[[Page 13094]]

which among other things, includes provisions to protect consumers 
against: arbitrary interest rate increases, early pre-payment 
penalties, due date gimmicks, and excessive fees.
  It also provides better general oversight of the credit card 
industry.
  This bill passed out of the House of Representatives on April 30, 
2009 with my support and I am pleased to see that the Senate sent this 
bill back with even stronger consumer protections and moved its 
implementation date up 3 months.
  I look forward to voting in favor of this bill, and I encourage my 
colleagues to do the same.
  This is a chance for us to protect American consumers and rein in 
abusive credit card practices.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, reasonable gun restrictions are the 
cornerstone of the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, opponents of 
sensible gun laws have taken advantage of every opportunity to 
undermine the commonsense regulations that keep our communities safe 
and uphold our Constitution.
  Earlier this year, these opponents stalled historic efforts to 
provide District of Columbia residents with a voting representative in 
Congress by including unrelated amendments legalizing semiautomatic 
assault weapons in the District. Today, while the House considers H.R. 
627, the Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights, which will grant stronger 
protections for consumers facing excessive credit card fees, arbitrary 
interest rate increases, and unfair agreements with credit card 
companies, we also are faced with an unrelated amendment allowing 
loaded firearms to be carried in parks. These gun provisions have no 
place in this bill and loaded firearms have no place in parks. I urge 
my colleagues to join me in opposing these harmful changes.
  When the Bush Administration issued its regulations allowing national 
park visitors to carry loaded, concealed, and operable guns, it was 
clear these changes were not designed to protect Americans visiting 
parks. The Bush regulations aimed to overturn reasonable restrictions 
that had existed for nearly 30 years enabling park visitors with proper 
permits to carry firearms, as long as they were rendered inoperable 
with either a trigger lock or by disassembly. Fortunately, on March 19, 
2009, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly halted the Bush 
Administration's regulations from going into effect.
  Today, with this amendment, the gun industry seeks to go beyond the 
Bush Administration's suspended regulations and put into law extreme 
rules that allow park visitors to openly carry rifles, shotguns, and 
semi-automatic weapons in national parks. This reckless and 
irresponsible policy will dramatically increase the risk of shooting 
protected wildlife, vandalizing historic monuments, gun-related 
accidents for children and families visiting these parks. We cannot 
allow this dangerous policy to be passed into law.
  Our national parks are America's sacred treasures and we must ensure 
their conservation and the safety of all who visit them. Madame 
Speaker, I fear that with this amendment, we are sacrificing our 
national parks and the safety of American families for the wishes of 
the gun industry and we will set a very dangerous precedent.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Americans are taught to work 
hard and make money and to buy a house, but we are never taught about 
financial literacy. In these tough economic times, it is imperative 
that Americans know about financial literacy; it is crucial to our 
survival. Americans need to be prepared to make informed financial 
choices. Indeed, we must learn how to effectively handle money, credit, 
debt, and risk. We must become better stewards over the things that we 
are entrusted. By becoming better stewards, Americans will become 
responsible workers, heads of households, investors, entrepreneurs, 
business leaders and citizens.
  I am reminded of how important this issue is to American society, as 
I was invited to attend a financial literacy roundtable panel at the 
New York Stock Exchange late last month. The panel was sponsored by the 
Hope Literacy Foundation. The panel was moderated by John Hope Bryant. 
I was surrounded by some of the great financial literacy experts in the 
nation. At the roundtable, I discussed the importance of financial 
literacy for college and university students. It is important that 
students be taught financial literacy. The facts about students and 
financial literacy are astounding.
  In 2008, 84 percent of undergraduates had at least one credit card. 
This figure is staggering. Young people who themselves might not even 
have a job are able to get credit cards. This is astounding because it 
begins the cycle of indebtedness.
  Recent studies have indicated that young people do not even know 
basic financial topics such as the impact of student loans on one's 
credit, how to balance a checkbook, and the impact of automobile loans 
on one's credit.
  Because of my concern that young people are not sufficiently informed 
about financial literacy, I have offered this amendment: To require 
financial literacy counseling for borrowers, and for other purposes.
  This amendment is important because approximately two-thirds of 
students borrow to pay for college according to the Center for Economic 
and Policy Research. Moreover, one in ten of student borrowers have 
loans more than $35,000. Passing this legislation will ensure that our 
nation's college students will be more prepared when incurring student 
loan debt and help them to avoid default as student loans severely 
impact one's credit score. Currently there is about $60 billion in 
defaulted student loan debt.
  Many students do not understand the reality of repaying student debt 
while taking out these loans. While most Americans have debt of some 
kind, student loan repayment is especially scary, as one cannot just 
declare bankruptcy and have their loans discharged. Due to the lack of 
financial literacy counseling for borrowers, student loan payments are 
often higher than expected. Recent grads are unable to afford the 
monthly payments resulting in them living paycheck to paycheck, 
acquiring credit card debt and in extreme cases, grads leaving the 
country in order to avoid repayment and debt collectors.
  Students and parents are not currently receiving the proper or any 
information of the burden that their student loans will have once they 
graduate. This is possibly a result of the relationship between student 
loan companies and universities, as some lenders offer universities 
incentives to steer borrowers their way.
  College campuses are one place that young Americans are introduced to 
credit and the possibility of living beyond their means. With proper 
loan and credit counseling the burden of debt incurred in college could 
be greatly reduced. Especially in this time of recession, financial 
literacy is one of the most important tools that we can give to our 
students in order to ensure their success in the future.
  This amendment will provide financial literacy training to students 
and will require a minimum of 4 hours of counseling including entrance 
and exit counseling. Counseling will include the fundamentals of basic 
checking and savings accounts, budgeting, types of credit and their 
appropriate uses, the different forms of student financial aid, 
repayment options, credit scores and ratings, as well as investing.
  I support the bill and urge my colleagues to do likewise.
  H.R. 627 prevents card companies from unfairly increasing interest 
rates on existing card balances--retroactive increases are permitted 
only if a cardholder is more than 30 days late, if a promotional rate 
expires, if the rate adjusts as part of a variable rate, or if the 
cardholder fails to comply with a workout agreement.
  The bill requires card companies to give 45 days notice of all 
interest rate increases or significant contract changes (e.g. fees).
  Requires companies to let consumers set their own fixed credit limit 
that cannot be exceeded.
  Prevents companies from charging ``over-the-limit'' fees when a 
cardholder has set a limit, or when a preauthorized credit ``hold'' 
pushes a consumer over their limit.
  Limits (to 3) the number of over-the-limit fees companies can charge 
for the same transaction--some issuers now charge virtually unlimited 
fees for a single violation.
  Ends unfair ``double cycle'' billing--card companies couldn't charge 
interest on debt consumers have already paid on time.
  If a cardholder pays on time and in full, the bill prevents card 
companies from piling additional fees on balances consisting solely of 
left-over interest.
  Prohibits card companies from charging a fee when customers pay their 
bill.
  Many companies credit payments to a cardholder's lowest interest rate 
balances first, making it impossible for the consumer to pay off high-
rate debt. The bill bans this practice, requiring payments made in 
excess of the minimum to be allocated proportionally or to the balance 
with the highest interest rate. Protects Cardholders from Due Date 
Gimmicks.
  Requires card companies to mail billing statements 21 calendar days 
before the due date (up from the current 14 days), and to credit as 
``on time'' payments made before 5 p.m. local time on the due date.
  Extends the due date to next business day for mailed payments when 
the due date falls on a day a card company does not accept or receive 
mail (i.e. Sundays and holidays).
  Establishes standard definitions of terms like ``fixed rate'' and 
``prime rate'' so companies can't mislead or deceive consumers in 
marketing and advertising.

[[Page 13095]]

  Gives consumers who are pre-approved for a card the right to reject 
that card prior to activation without negatively affecting their credit 
scores.
  Prohibits issuers of subprime cards (where total yearly fixed fees 
exceed 25 percent of the credit limit) from charging those fees to the 
card itself. These cards are generally targeted to low-income consumers 
with weak credit histories.
  Prohibits card companies from knowingly issuing cards to individuals 
under 18 who are not emancipated.
  Requires reports to Congress by the Federal Reserve on credit card 
industry practices to enhance congressional oversight.
  Requires card companies to send out 45-day notice of interest rate 
increases 90-days after the bill is signed into law; the remainder of 
the bill takes effect 12 months after enactment.


  82 percent of credit cards allowed unlimited penalty rate increases

  When credit card accounts become past due, companies frequently 
impose penalty interest rate increases on outstanding balances, on top 
of late fees averaging $39. The penalty interest rate can lead to a 
significant increase in the cardholder's level of debt, and may 
continue to apply long after the cardholder has reestablished a track 
record of responsible payment behavior.
  The Pew Health Group studied all credit cards offered online by the 
largest 12 issuers, which control nearly 90 percent of outstanding 
credit card debt in America. The study included more than 400 credit 
card products. Based on a new analysis of this data, we found that 82 
percent of credit cards allowed issuers to impose penalty interest rate 
hikes that could last indefinitely, giving responsible cardholders no 
right to return to the originally agreed interest rate.


``cure period'' provision would help curb penalties averaging $500 per 
                                  year

  The median allowable penalty interest rate was 28 percent per year, 
adding nearly 14 percentage points to the average non-penalty interest 
rate. This penalty would cost $140 annually for every $1,000 in credit 
card debt, or nearly $500 per year for a typical repriced account. In 
most cases, these added costs can continue as long as the account is 
open, regardless of the cardholder's subsequent payment behavior.
  The Federal Reserve has announced rules to help limit penalties it 
deems ``unfair and deceptive.'' But even under those rules, Americans 
will be on track to pay credit card companies more than $7 billion per 
year in penalty interest charges--unless congressional leaders adopt an 
important new Senate proposal.
  The proposal, often called a ``cure period'' or ``pathway back,'' 
enables consumers to reverse penalty interest rates by making on-time 
payments for six months. Cardholders who pay on-time during the cure 
period can reduce penalty interest charges by half or more.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation. I urge my colleagues to do 
the same.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 456, the previous question is ordered.
  The question of adoption of the motion is divided. The first portion 
of the divided question is: Will the House concur in all of the 
provisions of the Senate amendment other than section 512?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the first portion of the divided question, 
that is, concurring in all but section 512 of the Senate amendment will 
be followed by 5-minute votes on the second portion of the divided 
question, concurring in section 512 of the Senate amendment, if 
ordered; and suspending the rules and agreeing to House Resolution 297, 
if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 361, 
noes 64, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 276]

                               AYES--361

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boccieri
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Bright
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cao
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Granger
     Graves
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NY)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Quigley
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--64

     Bachus
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Burton (IN)
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Conaway
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Flake
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Goodlatte
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Inglis
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Linder
     Lucas
     Mack
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Pence
     Poe (TX)
     Price (GA)
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Smith (NE)
     Sullivan
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Westmoreland

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Braley (IA)
     Hinojosa
     Polis (CO)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Speier
     Stark

[[Page 13096]]



                              {time}  1415

  Messrs. NUNES and GARY G. MILLER of California changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. BILBRAY, MINNICK, RADANOVICH, AKIN and GINGREY of Georgia 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the first portion of the divided question was adopted.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 276, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). The second portion of the 
divided question is: Will the House concur in section 512 of the Senate 
amendment?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 279, 
nays 147, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 277]

                               YEAS--279

     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachus
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Etheridge
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gordon (TN)
     Granger
     Graves
     Grayson
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Maffei
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olson
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pomeroy
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schauer
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Titus
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Walz
     Wamp
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--147

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey (MA)
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McMahon
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Olver
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Braley (IA)
     Polis (CO)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Speier
     Stark

                              {time}  1424

  Messrs. HINOJOSA and DAVIS of Illinois changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the second portion of the divided question was adopted.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to vote ``nay'' on 
question of passage of Senate Amendment 512 of H.R. 627 (rollcall vote 
277). I cast a vote of ``aye'' in error. I strongly support regulations 
to restrict individuals from bringing concealed or loaded weapons into 
our country's national parks.

                          ____________________