[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 26713-26735]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            EXPEDITED CARD REFORM FOR CONSUMERS ACT OF 2009

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 884 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3639.

                              {time}  1201


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3639) to amend the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and 
Disclosure Act of 2009 to establish an earlier effective date for 
various consumer protections, and for other purposes, with Mr. Pastor 
of Arizona in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling) each will control 30 minutes.

[[Page 26714]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I recognize for 4 minutes 
the prime mover of this bill, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3639, the Expedited 
CARD Reform for Consumers Act of 2009. I thank the chairman of the 
Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, for his leadership on this 
issue and so many others, and Senator Dodd for championing this issue 
in the Senate.
  This bill would simply move up the effective date of the remaining 
provisions of the Credit Card Reform Act, which we passed earlier this 
year, from February 2010 to December 1, 2009, just in time for the 
holiday shopping season.
  It is truly unfortunate that we are on the floor today having to take 
this step, but the credit card companies brought it on themselves. 
Rather than use the months after the date that it was signed into law 
in May to update their systems to get ready for the new reforms, they 
have used this time to raise interest rates unfairly at any time and 
for any reason on consumers retroactively on their balances, capturing 
many of them in never-ending cycles of debt. They are practicing the 
double-cycle billing, charging rates on interest that has already been 
paid and raising rates for unrelated reasons. Consumers are justly 
outraged, and they have come to their Congress Members and to this 
Congress asking for relief.
  Just last week, the Pew Foundation issued a report that showed that 
interest rates have shot up by 20 percent--the average interest rate is 
20 percent--and 90 percent of all credit card debt that is out there 
has had an interest rate increase since the President signed the bill 
into law.
  The Pew report also found that 100 percent of bank cards were using 
practices that the Federal Reserve has called unfair, deceptive, and 
anticompetitive. This troubling information followed report after 
report from other not-for-profits, from other Members of Congress, from 
our constituents, and from the news media that have showed that 
interest rates have climbed 18 percent--in some cases 30 percent--for 
absolutely no reason for customers that are paying on time and not 
going over their limit.
  The original implementation date for the bill that I proposed was 90 
days after enactment, but many Members of this body wanted to give the 
credit card companies more time to implement the reforms to get their 
systems in place, yet they have used this time to gouge consumers and 
to raise rates. We had ended up, in deliberations with the bill, with a 
staged implementation rate, that in August of 2009 a notice would go in 
of 45 days of any rate increases, but the bulk of these reforms would 
go into place in February of 2010. What we are doing is moving this 
date up by 5 months, giving relief and protection to consumers and 
working to help them.
  The extraordinary breadth and depth of the interest rate hikes that 
consumers are suffering from speak to the importance of passing this 
important bill. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that 
have been supportive, and especially to the chairman.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not believe there is ever a good time to enact a 
bad law. And unfortunately, although there are some good provisions in 
the underlying credit card legislation, ultimately many of us predicted 
that if it passed, credit would become more expensive and less 
available to millions of Americans, and that's exactly what we see.
  Now, the good part of the bill is, clearly, there have been 
misleading and deceptive practices by some credit card companies. We 
need to have better disclosure, more effective disclosure so people 
understand the credit relationships in which they enter. But, Mr. 
Chairman, we are in the midst of a huge credit contraction that's 
taking place today; jobs are being lost and people are having trouble 
accessing credit for their personal lives and for small businesses. 
Unfortunately, ultimately this underlying legislation on which one of 
three effective dates is moved up--or two of the three effective dates 
are moved up by the bill that is before us--will essentially exacerbate 
that trend. In many respects, Mr. Chairman, I hate to say I told you 
so, but we told you so. And so, again, all we're going to do is make a 
bad situation worse.
  Already we have seen, for example, a recent article in USA Today, let 
me quote from it, October 23, ``Curtis Arnold, founder of 
creditratings.com, said he expected credit card issuers to raise annual 
fees after the legislation was enacted.'' Sure enough, Mr. Chairman, 
that's exactly what we see.
  Let me quote from The Wall Street Journal. ``Other issuers, such as 
Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase Card Services, and Discover, recently 
converted customer fixed rates to variable ones.''
  New York Times, ``Now Congress is moving to limit the penalties on 
riskier borrowers''--which is exactly what the underlying legislation 
did, Mr. Chairman. Let me continue on--``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.''
  So now we also find out--again, from USA Today--that starting next 
year Bank of America will charge a number of customers an annual fee 
ranging from $29 to $99. We see that, in the same article from USA 
Today, Citigroup has started charging annual fees to cardholders.
  And so, again, Mr. Chairman, we have the testimony. Many of us 
predicted this. As I said way back in March, make no mistake about it, 
if this bill passes, it's going to be a lot harder for people to access 
the credit they need to pay their bills, cover medical emergencies, or 
finance large purchases.
  And so all over America people are getting these notices in the 
mail--including the Hensarling family of Dallas, Texas, where all of a 
sudden I've seen our own interest rates skyrocket from 15 percent to 23 
percent. And with very few exceptions, my wife and I pay our balance in 
full at the end of the month. It's the half of America that pays their 
bills on time, in full that are now having to subsidize those who don't 
through an act of Congress.
  So I think we all agree, nobody likes what's happening in America, 
but the question is, who's responsible? I believe this underlying piece 
of legislation is exacerbating a huge credit contraction that's already 
taking place in the economy.
  And, Mr. Chairman, it just couldn't come at a worse time. I mean, as 
we know, apparently on Friday or Saturday this body will vote on a huge 
government takeover of our health care bill which could cost easily, 
even according to CBO, over $1 trillion that ultimately has to be paid 
for by the American people.
  We've seen estimates again that premiums will rise, particularly for 
young, healthy people, young, healthy people who may be getting these 
notices in the mail today that all of a sudden maybe their credit cards 
have been yanked and maybe their interest rates have gone up. At the 
same time when we are staring in the face of an over $1 trillion health 
care bill, a bill that could impose a 2.5 percent penalty, again, on 
young people who may not be able to afford insurance, but they could be 
penalized 2.5 percent. Well, if you take away their credit cards, how 
are they going to be able to pay the 2.5 percent tax if they don't buy 
the government improved health insurance?
  Mr. Chairman, how about small businesses? If small businesses find 
that their credit cards have their interest rates skyrocket or taken 
away, how are they going to be able to pay the 8 percent pay-or-play 
tax which is in the Pelosi government takeover of health care bill?

[[Page 26715]]

  How about the other surcharge that would go to a number of small 
businesses, supposedly raising half a trillion dollars? Again, we know 
a lot of small businesses access credit through credit cards. So if we 
take an underlying bad bill that's exacerbating a credit crunch and all 
we do is accelerate the effective date, I mean, how, again, are tens of 
thousands of small businesses going to be able to pay the 8 percent new 
pay-or-play tax in the Pelosi takeover of our health care system bill?
  How about the 2.5 percent medical device tax, or the 2.5 percent what 
some are calling the ``wheelchair tax''? Again, a number of our seniors 
rely on credit cards. Now they have Medigap policies. They need those 
credit cards for medical expenses, especially if the majority is about 
to impose a 2.5 percent wheelchair tax upon the American people.
  Why are we going to pass a bill, again, in the middle of a huge 
credit contraction that is only going to exacerbate the matter, make 
matters worse, take away credit cards, make interest rates go up, make 
credit less available and more expensive at a time when we are 
threatened with this $1 trillion government takeover of health care 
legislation?

                              {time}  1215

  Again, I want to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that there is at least one 
good part of the legislation, which is that we do need effective 
disclosure and that we need competitive markets. But when you start 
taking away the ability of companies to price for risk, the people who 
do it right end up bailing out a number of people who don't, and those 
who don't--and for some of whom it may not be through any fault of 
their own--find that they no longer have credit opportunities at a time 
when many are facing a 2\1/2\ percent tax if they don't buy the 
government-improved health insurance. They are facing a 2\1/2\ percent 
tax if they need a wheeled chair, maybe even a replacement hip. I 
suppose that's also defined as a ``medical device'' under the Pelosi 
government takeover of our health care system legislation. Small 
businesses face the 8 percent pay-or-play tax.
  Again, even if you thought that the underlying legislation was good, 
how could the timing not be worse?
  If you were to ask the American people, number one, if those who pay 
their bills on time shouldn't be punished for those who don't, and of 
those who don't, if they had a choice of paying a higher interest rate 
or of having their credit cards taken away from them, my guess is a 
number of them would choose the higher interest rate.
  But Congress has taken that decision away from them by enacting the 
underlying bill, if we choose to enact this bill, which will simply 
hasten what is already a bad process which is making credit less 
available and more expensive to thousands of small businesses and to 
millions of Americans as we're facing a government takeover of our 
health care system.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, demonstrating that we bear 
no ill will to those who have deserted us, I yield 2 minutes to a 
former member of the committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. Let me thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
will say I do miss you and miss serving on your committee, but I want 
to thank you for your leadership and for everything you're doing to try 
to help shepherd our economic recovery.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say how pleased I am to support H.R. 3639, 
the Expedited CARD Reform for Consumers Act.
  I have to thank Congresswoman Maloney and you for following through 
on the promise that you made. I don't know if you remember this, Mr. 
Chairman, but on the floor, you made a promise to Congressman Watt and 
to me on April 30, which is when the House passed these critical 
protections for credit card holders. I had gone to the Rules Committee 
to actually put this 90-day deadline back into the CARD legislation via 
an amendment, but I did withdraw my amendment based on the assurances 
of the chairman that, in his words, if banks are using the time--and 
this is what you said, Mr. Chairman--to take advantage of consumers and 
if they're trying to get in some last licks before the rule goes into 
effect, we would speed up the date. The banks are certainly getting in 
some last licks.
  I just want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for following up on your 
promise and on your commitment, because the situation is really 
desperate for so many people.
  We all have constituents who have been really shocked by their banks 
or by their credit card companies which have suddenly raised their 
rates on already existing balances without notice and without any 
negative activity on a consumer's credit report. We have all read the 
news reports about the initiation of all sorts of new fees on 
transactions: charging consumers who are paying their bills on time and 
these inactivity fees. I guess they charge you for doing nothing at 
all.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional 
minute.
  Ms. LEE of California. Clearly, the banks pleaded for just a little 
extra time to fully implement these new reforms. They're using that 
time to pad their profits at the expense of American families. This is 
unconscionable. It really is immoral. We should be totally outraged 
about this practice.
  So I have to thank you again, Chairman Frank, Congresswoman Maloney 
and Mr. Watt, for your commitment to consumer rights and for your hard 
work on this very vital reform. Hopefully, consumers now will get the 
justice that they deserve.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, in order to help equalize the time, I 
continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 3 minutes to an active Member, 
who also filed a very good piece of legislation to this bill, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. I rise in strong support of the bill, and I want to thank 
Chairman Frank for bringing this very important bill to the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, deceptive credit card practices allow one hidden fee to 
snowball into ballooning interest rates and into $1,000 balances that 
many families, which are struggling to get by, cannot afford. When the 
President signed the Credit CARD Act into law, some companies tried to 
beat the clock by imposing predatory finance charges on consumers. 
That's why I am so pleased that, in working with Chairman Frank and 
with Congresswoman Maloney, I introduced legislation accelerating the 
implementation date.
  The enactment of this bill will protect our constituents who cannot 
afford to be hit with abusive new fees or interest rate hikes. It will 
also accelerate other consumer protections, including a provision I 
cosponsored to require additional disclosure on the dangers of making 
only minimum payments.
  So I really do want to commend the chairman and the gentlewoman from 
New York for their important work. I urge their support. As far as my 
constituents are concerned, this bill can't be passed soon enough.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume 
to the ranking member, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  I rise today in opposition to this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, let me start by saying that this bill moves up the 
effective date on the underlying credit card bill, and that credit card 
bill is not a major bill. Unlike the health care bill, unlike the 
climate control bill, or the cap-and-tax bill, and unlike the systemic 
regulation bill, this bill addressed one thing and one thing only, and 
that was credit cards. We passed it 5 months ago. When we passed it, 
there were all these prophecies of wonderful things that were going to 
happen to consumers.
  We Republicans stood on the floor of this House, and we said there 
needed to

[[Page 26716]]

be changes in this bill. We said, if this bill passed in its present 
form, which it did, that the cost of credit would increase for 
consumers. We said there would be limits placed on their credit lines.
  Sure enough--and I take no pleasure in saying this--5 months later, 
after President Obama signed this legislation, the so-called Credit 
CARD Act, into law, credit tightened. Consumers every day are facing 
notices in the mail that their credit rates are going up from 6 and 8 
percent to 20-something percent. American Express and others have said 
they're going to start charging $100 fees. These are so-called 
unintended consequences. As a result of this legislation, we're seeing 
many consumers facing the cancellation of their credit cards, millions 
in fact. Regrettably, those warnings have come true.
  Small businesses, which rely heavily on consumer credit, are also 
feeling the credit crunch. They're the main creators of jobs in our 
country--small businesses. They need credit. According to the National 
Small Business Association, 79 percent of those small businesses which 
were surveyed just recently said that credit card lending standards 
have tightened dramatically in the last few months and that their 
credit lines are being decreased materially.
  The new credit card restrictions are exacerbating the economic crisis 
and the loss of jobs, and they are causing the shutdown of a key source 
of financing for small businesses and, therefore, job creation.
  Small businesses are the engine of our economy. They're the number 
one job creators. Of all businesses, they rely the most on credit cards 
and on credit lines from those credit cards. We shouldn't have 
restricted their ability to obtain credit. They need it to expand and 
to create jobs.
  This original bill came at just the wrong time. We could have stopped 
the abusive practices; but at the same time, we went beyond that and 
restricted the ability of credit card companies to protect themselves 
from people who didn't pay their credit card bills. That's really the 
essence of why this bill is not working, because we protected those who 
didn't pay their credit card payments. They're who are protected. We 
did some other good things, but we did that; and that was a mistake.
  Now, don't take my word for it as to the fact that this present 
legislation--and let me say this: it's very unlikely. This is sort of a 
charade because, I think, most of us realize that this legislation is 
not going to be enacted into law. It's December 1 now. I mean, it takes 
effect December 1. The Senate, I don't think, will even pick it up by 
December 1. Maybe they will. Maybe they will.
  If they do, I think the warning of Chairman Bernanke is appropriate. 
When asked about the feasibility of enacting the provisions of the bill 
we're now considering, here is what Chairman Bernanke said--and 
Chairman Bernanke is often quoted by the Members on the other side of 
the aisle:
  The board continues to believe that, given the breadth of changes 
required by the Credit CARD Act and its regulation, card issuers must 
be afforded sufficient time for implementation to allow for an orderly 
transition and to avoid unintended consequences, compliance 
difficulties, and potential liabilities.
  Well, we've seen those unintended consequences: no credit cards where 
people had credit cards and a country in which we had the most ability 
to have credit cards and the choices in credit cards at the lowest 
interest rates. That is beginning to change before our eyes.
  All of us share the goal of protecting consumers from unfair and 
deceptive credit card practices and of ensuring that cardholders 
receive useful and complete disclosures so that they have sufficient 
time to pay their cards and so that they aren't subjected to double-
cycle billing, but we must be careful. Let this bill be a lesson to us, 
in trying to protect consumers or the government's intervening into 
these practices, that we do not impose new costs on them or on the U.S. 
economy as a whole. Just like the Speaker Pelosi health care plan we 
may consider later this week, this bill limits choice; it rations 
credit; it decreases costs; and it strangles innovation.
  According to recent studies, as many as 114 million Americans will 
lose their current health insurance coverage under the Democrats' 
health plan. Now, that's even more serious than the few million who 
have lost their credit cards under this legislation. Likewise, several 
million consumers will lose their credit cards or will see their credit 
lines severely restricted by this legislation.
  If there is one common denominator in Congress this year, it's the 
substitution of the government for the individual: with the stimulus, 
with the multiple bailouts, with the climate change legislation, with 
this credit card bill, with financial reform, and now, later this week, 
with health care. Instead of you making the choice, the government is 
making the choice for you.
  The United States of America is the world's largest economy. It's 
three times larger than our closest competitor, Japan; and it's larger 
than the economies of Japan, China, Germany, and of Great Britain 
combined. We got there through innovation. We got there through choice. 
We got there through competition. We got there through individual 
initiative and responsibility, not through government control and 
management.
  As we've seen time after time, when you substitute a government-
controlled and -run program for individual choice, the cost goes up and 
the quality goes down. When it comes to health care, there is nothing 
more important than quality and choice. Given the choice, I'll always 
place my faith in the individual, not in the government; and this time 
is no different. It is no different with the credit card legislation. 
It is no different with the health care legislation.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying many of my colleagues in this 
body, both Republicans and Democrats, are going to come in and they are 
going to vote for this legislation today. They are going to do so 
really, many of them, because of the underlying legislation and the 
animosity and the bad feelings it has created with the American people, 
who are seeing their credit lines limited and their interest rates 
raised. The American people are upset, and this bill is an attempt, I 
think, almost to cloud why those interest rates are going up.
  We need to help families, we need to help businesses that are 
struggling in this economic recession, and we need to create jobs. And, 
as we said 5 months ago, that was exactly the wrong time to saddle them 
with additional fees, higher interest rates, limit their credit lines 
and add significant new compliance burdens to our community banks. That 
was true 5 months ago on credit cards. We have seen the unintended 
results.
  We are going to vote on health care. Those results will be even more 
serious and more drastic. You will see a greater cost of health care. 
You will see a diminished quality. You will see rationing of care. We 
warned about unintended consequences 5 months ago. Those warnings 
weren't heeded. We are warning again, but this time we are dealing with 
a far more serious issue, and that is the quality of health care in 
America, the affordability of health care, and the ability to get 
services in this country that are not offered in other countries.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I intend to close and I 
have no further speakers, so I reserve my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I assume the chairman of the full 
committee has the right to close?
  The CHAIR. Yes, he does.
  Mr. HENSARLING. The chairman having said he has no other speakers, in 
that case, I will close for our side.
  Again, we have no great pleasure in saying ``I told you so,'' but I 
think it is important before this body decides to accelerate a problem 
that is exacerbated by this body, they should take

[[Page 26717]]

full import of their actions and the consequences.
  As I said back in June, we must remember that every restriction, 
every limit, every regulation, has a high probability of making credit 
less accessible, less affordable and more costly, and, unfortunately, 
Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what we see today.
  In a recent article in The Wall Street Journal, we read, In the past 
2 years, credit card lines have been cut by over $1.25 trillion. During 
the same time, 10 percent of all credit card accounts have been 
canceled.
  Again, we know, Mr. Chairman, that our constituents are feeling this 
pain as they get these notices in the mail. Let me go back to the 
article: According to the most recent Federal Reserve data, small 
business lending is down 3 percent, or $113 million, from fourth 
quarter 2008.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman would yield, someone on 
our side who said she wanted to speak has since come on the floor. I 
just wanted to alert the gentleman that I will not be the final 
speaker. I will be yielding one more time before I close.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the chairman keeping 
me informed.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, what we have seen is what I believe to be a 
number of unintended consequences that have taken place in this 
legislation. We were warned about this.
  We heard from, for example, the ABA, who testified at the committee 
back in March, Restrictions on repricing higher risk accounts means two 
things. Number one, that higher risk customers will likely see less 
credit available to them; and, two, since the higher risk customers do 
not bear the full cost of the risk they pose, lower risk customers will 
bear some of the added cost.
  We heard back in December of 2008 from Oliver Ireland of the Morrison 
and Forester law firm: The effects of this are going to be pretty 
severe. People are going to see either some combination of rising 
prices or a reduction in the availability of credit by either cutting 
lines or simply not making credit available.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, we have been warned. Julie Williams, chief 
counsel for the OCC, who testified before our committee back in April 
of 2008: The risk mitigation tools used by credit card lenders to 
address changes in the credit risk profile of customers may include 
freezing or reducing credit lines, closing accounts, shortening account 
expiration dates and repricing for outstanding balances on the account. 
I could go on and on.
  We have been warned, Mr. Chairman. We see it happening. We hear the 
anecdotal evidence. We see the statistical evidence. Again, I fear that 
although there are some good aspects of the legislation, that 
ultimately, ultimately, in the midst of a huge credit contraction, that 
what we will see is credit become even less available and more 
expensive, at a time when many of our constituents need it most.
  Again, this has to be put into the context of the larger legislation 
that this body will consider this week, according to the Speaker of the 
House, and that is the government takeover of our health care system.
  We know that on page 297, section 501 of that bill, there is a 2.5 
percent tax imposed on all individuals who do not purchase the 
government-approved health insurance, which clearly applies to people 
making less than a quarter million dollars a year, which seems to 
contravene a campaign commitment that was made by our President.
  We also see that there are new taxes on medical devices, a 2.5 
percent excise tax. Again, many call this the wheelchair tax. But as 
our constituents are finding it more and more difficult to access 
credit cards, when they are having their credit cards cancelled, when 
they are seeing their interest rates rise, how are they going to be 
able to pay the 2.5 percent medical device tax in this $1 trillion 
piece of legislation?
  Mr. Chairman, I hear from my constituents. I hear from the Farmer 
family of Athens who wrote to me once, Dear Congressman, more than once 
we have put medical bills on our credit cards. Two years ago, my middle 
son had to have cervical surgery. I split the cost of the surgery, 
doctors and hospital. It took my husband and me about a year to pay off 
that particular debt, but we did it at a low rate of interest since our 
credit is good. I am just thankful for having the means to help my son.
  Now, what do I go back and tell the Farmer family of Athens? Well, 
Congress decided to pass a piece of legislation; that although your 
credit is good, you are going to have to start paying more for people 
whose credit isn't good. The next time you have a medical emergency or 
challenge in your family, I don't know if that credit card will be 
there for you.
  That is a tragedy, Mr. Chairman, as, again, we continue to have this 
huge credit contraction. And, again, when we are looking at this $1 
trillion government takeover of our health care legislation that on 
page 336, section 551, imposes a half a trillion dollar surcharge, 
supposedly just on the wealthy, but if you read the fine print what you 
figure out is that half of that is going to be paid by small 
businesses. So you could have a $534 billion surtax imposed in this 
government takeover of health care legislation, and as you impose this, 
again, how is small business going to be able to afford to pay this 
surcharge if on their credit cards their interest rates continue to 
rise and their availability to access credit continues to erode? I 
don't understand it.
  Then the more visible tax on small business, page 313, section 512 of 
the government takeover of health care bill imposes an 8 percent tax on 
employers who can't afford to purchase the government-approved health 
insurance. Now, according to the National Federation of Independent 
Business, such a mandate could cost 1.6 million jobs in the next 5 
years. So, if you lose your job and we are making credit more expensive 
and less available, Mr. Chairman, I just ask the question, how is this 
supposed to improve the Nation's health care?
  So we have to take a look at the underlying credit card legislation 
and how it is going to impact our constituents as we go forward, 
perhaps on Friday or Saturday, to vote on this other legislation.
  We also know, Mr. Chairman, that in the government takeover of our 
health care bill, that there are at least 43 new entitlement programs 
that are either created, expanded or extended in the bill.
  Now, is somebody going to tell me that doesn't make health care more 
expensive? And if it makes health care more expensive, how are 
Americans who are losing their credit cards supposed to pay for the $1 
trillion takeover of our health care system?
  In addition, there are 111 new offices, bureaus, commissions, 
programs and bureaucracies that the bill will put between Americans and 
their doctors. Are you going to tell me, besides rationing health care, 
that somehow that is going to make health care less expensive? I don't 
believe so.
  If it doesn't make health care less expensive, and I haven't found 
anybody to come to this floor to tell me that this 1,990-page bill 
costing the American people over $1 trillion is somehow going to make 
their health care less expensive, so if it doesn't make their health 
care less expensive, why would we want to support legislation that, 
again, has the impact and effect of taking away millions of Americans' 
credit cards or artificially raising their interest rates? I don't get 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, in this $1 trillion government takeover of our health 
care system bill, we have 3,425 uses of the word ``shall'' representing 
new duties, new obligations, new mandates on individuals, businesses 
and States, which, oh, by the way, is double the number that we saw in 
the last iteration of the government takeover of our health care system 
bill.
  Okay. So if we have 3,425 different mandates in this bill, is that 
somehow going to make our health care less expensive? I don't believe 
that. I don't believe the American people believe that. And, again, Mr. 
Chairman, if it doesn't make our health care less expensive at a time 
when our Nation has just achieved its first $1 trillion deficit in our 
history, when this Congress has enacted a spending plan that will 
triple,

[[Page 26718]]

triple the national debt in the next 10 years, that is even before the 
$1 trillion government takeover of our health care bill comes to the 
floor, how can we pass a piece of legislation making credit less 
available and more expensive?
  I urge rejection of the bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. How much time remains on the other side?
  The CHAIR. All of the time has expired of the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, that is nice.
  As I told the gentleman, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) 
is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the chairman of the Financial 
Services Committee and my dear friend from New York, Congresswoman 
Maloney.
  It is interesting, listening to my good friend on the other side, but 
what I would offer to say is we are now debating a bill that most 
Americans are crying out for. As we go into the season of giving, and 
many, many holidays, where Americans all over the Nation and all over 
the world, frankly, will be looking to share their generosity, if you 
will, but they are facing a steep mountain to climb. So the Expedited 
CARD Reform for Consumers Act allows us to push back on many credit 
card companies that have availed themselves of the opportunity to raise 
interest rates by hearing about the potential implementation of this 
bill in 2010, August 2010, and decrease the credit limits on their 
consumers before the effective date.
  Mr. Chairman, we didn't do this. Credit card companies who saw the 
writing on the wall, rather than working with consumers in a way that 
would encourage purchasing in a responsible manner, they did the 
complete opposite.
  So I am very glad to be a cosponsor of this legislation that 
expedites good things, providing increased written notice to consumers 
of any increases in interest rates or otherwise makes a significant 
change in the terms of the credit card account. That is simple 
fairness.
  I am glad to be on the side of informing consumers of their right to 
cancel the card before the rate hike goes into effect. I am glad to be 
on the side of the consumer that prohibits arbitrary interest rate 
increases and universal default on existing balances. I am glad that 
college students will not be, if you will, caught in the crosshairs of 
paying for their college tuition while paying high interest rates on 
credit cards that they use.
  Finally, let me say we are being fair to the credit card companies. 
We require penalty fees to be reasonable and proportional to these same 
credit companies. Let me just say, this is a good bill for America.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a 
very important member of our committee, the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. I thank the chairman and Congresswoman Maloney, who have 
been champions for consumers.
  I rise today to strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 
3639, the Expedited CARD Reform for Consumers Act of 2009.
  Earlier this year, the Congress voted overwhelmingly to pass 
comprehensive credit card reform legislation that was subsequently 
signed into law by President Obama. Unfortunately, the credit card 
companies have used the past few months to push through last-minute 
rate hikes and other unfair practices before the law kicks into gear. 
To address this problem, this bill simply moves up the effective date 
for the remaining credit card reforms from February 22, 2010, to 
December 1 of this year.
  I want to thank Congresswoman Maloney and Chairman Frank for their 
leadership in expeditiously bringing this bill to the floor.
  The actions of the credit card companies over the past few months 
have amply demonstrated that the American consumer needs quick relief 
from punitive and unfair credit card practices. The time to act on 
these important reforms is now. For too long, the credit card industry 
has been subject to too few regulations and far too little oversight.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume to close.
  I want to begin by addressing the role of small business. The 
gentleman from Texas said this would be unfair to small business. The 
gentleman from Alabama said this credit card bill, the underlying bill 
and the speedup, would be a problem for small business.
  On April 30 of this year when we voted on the underlying bill, we 
received the following letter from the National Federation of 
Independent Business, generally considered to be the most 
representative and forceful advocate for small businesses:
  ``On behalf of the NFIB, the Nation's leading small business advocacy 
organization, I urge you to support H.R. 627, the Credit Cardholders' 
Bill of Rights. While credit cards provide an important source of 
credit for many small business owners, our members are troubled by some 
of the business practices utilized by card companies.''
  ``H.R. 627 ends unfair penalties on cardholders who pay on time, 
requires 45 days' notice of interest rate increases, prohibits 
arbitrary interest rate increases, and establishes industrywide 
definitions for common terms to deter deceptive marketing advertising. 
These provisions can protect small business owners' credit by giving 
them enough notice to pay off debt and shop for competitive credit.''
  ``While our members favor the credit card reforms in H.R. 627, we are 
mindful that credit cards pay for approximately $1 of every $6 of sales 
small businesses make. We believe this legislation does not unduly 
punish credit card companies in these tough economic times but limits 
business practices that harm small business credit cardholders.''
  I wonder how we could be told how bad this is for small business when 
the National Federation for Independent Business says it would, in 
fact, do exactly the opposite and protect credit cardholders.
  We also heard, of course, some debate on other issues such as health 
care, and the gentleman from Alabama in particular blamed the Obama 
administration for bailouts. I don't want to dwell too much on things 
not before this bill, but let me reiterate a point that I do not think 
can be even debated, certainly not refuted. Every single activity of 
the Federal Government now being carried on that some people have 
characterized as a bailout was initiated by the administration of 
President George Bush. President Bush's Secretary of the Treasury and 
his chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, his appointees, and 
the President himself were the ones who initiated the funding of AIG by 
the Federal Reserve. They came to us and asked for the TARP program. 
They were the ones who first gave money to General Motors and to 
Chrysler. There is literally nothing now going on called a bailout that 
the Obama administration did not inherit from George Bush.
  Now, I suppose the Obama administration could have just pulled the 
plug on all these ongoing operations and caused chaos and blamed the 
previous administration. It did not do that. But literally everything 
going on now that is called a bailout is an inheritance from the Bush 
administration.
  Now, the gentleman from Alabama also quoted the Federal Reserve in 
saying don't speed it up. And he said, well, people sometimes quote Mr. 
Bernanke one way or another. Well, he just did it. In the first place, 
the gentleman from Alabama and the gentleman from Texas have their 
major quarrel with the Federal Reserve because the Federal Reserve, on 
its own, under its regulatory power, promulgated regulations very 
similar to this bill. The sequence is interesting. The gentlewoman from 
New York, as she often is, was the first one out of the box on the 
consumer protection here, but after the gentlewoman from New York began 
discussions on this bill in our committee, the Federal Reserve moved.
  So it seems odd to cite the Federal Reserve and say you believe them 
when they say there are difficulties in speeding it up when you are 
fundamentally

[[Page 26719]]

opposed to the Federal Reserve's basic action here. The Federal Reserve 
agreed with this House that regulations were needed to protect 
consumers. It is a set of regulations promulgated by the Federal 
Reserve that are as strongly opposed by the other side as are our 
regulations.
  By the way, in quoting the Federal Reserve even on the speedup, they 
did express some concerns. They also said, however, the board cannot 
predict how an effective date of December 1 would affect credit card 
interest rates and credit availability. However, moving the CARD Act's 
effective date to December 1, 2009, would mean that consumers would 
receive important benefits and protections earlier. So they invoke the 
Federal Reserve and they invoke small business despite the 
protestations of both of these organizations that they disagree 
fundamentally with the Republican position.
  Now let's talk about substance. The single biggest piece of this--and 
they say it prevents the poor credit card companies, the poor 
beleaguered banks. They warned us that if we tried to stop them from 
behaving irresponsibly, they would speed irresponsible behavior. Yes, 
they did. But that should not be allowed to be a deterrent against 
stopping them from doing things.
  And what this fundamentally does, the single best, biggest thing, is 
it says this: If you have used your credit card to buy things at a rate 
that you were told was binding and you have made all your payments on 
time for years and you have been running a credit card balance, as the 
credit card companies want you to do--I know if you have a credit card 
and you pay it off every month, they don't like that because they're 
not getting the interest. But at any rate, if you have fully complied 
with all the terms of the credit card and you have made purchases and 
incurred debt at a given interest rate and you have made every payment 
you were supposed to make on time, they have retained the right 
unilaterally and retroactively to raise the interest rate on what you 
already owe them. It is the single unfairest economic transaction I can 
think of that doesn't involve a pistol. The fact is that they decide 
they can make more money that way.
  We're told they have to deal with risk management. What's the risk on 
debt already incurred on the part of someone who's always made the 
payments? This isn't risk management. This is hostage taking. This is 
raising money after the fact.
  Now, it's true they told you that when they sent you the contract. It 
is true that if you have very good vision and a very high boredom 
threshold and nothing else to do but read pages and pages of small 
print, you might have figured that out if you spoke lawyerese. But for 
most people, the notion that you take your credit, you were told that 
this is the interest rate, you buy things at that interest rate, you 
incur debt, and they then say, oh, by the way, you know that rate that 
was at 8 percent, retroactively it's now 12 percent.
  This bill doesn't prevent them from going forward with appropriate 
notice for raising rates. It absolutely does not. It says they can't do 
it retroactively and they have to give you some notice so they cannot 
trap you.
  It also says that if you mail the bill at a certain time, you are not 
subject to their saying, oh, by the way, something happened to your 
payment, we don't know what, and you're going to have to pay extra. All 
the burden of any misplaced bill falls on you, the payer, not them, the 
payee.
  Let me last say here's a problem. We have had a pattern of abuse. The 
National Federation of Independent Business and the Federal Reserve 
agreed with us that there was a pattern of abuse. Members on the other 
side said, oh, no, these credit card companies, wonderful people. 
They're just trying to help you out and they are simply trying to give 
you credit, and if they raise your rates retroactively, that's in your 
own best interest. Trust us. That's so you don't have to pay higher 
rates down the road.
  So we said we're going to stop these practices. They then said you 
can't do it right away, it's very complicated, give us some time. So we 
gave them time, more than I wanted to at the time. They then used that 
time not to calibrate so they would be ready for the effective date but 
to start to jack up the rates.
  But I reject the notion, first of all, that people who are engaging 
in abusive practices, as the credit card companies were, according to 
us, according to the National Federal of Independent Business, 
according to Federal Reserve, hardly radical Obamaistic organizations, 
they should not be allowed to stop it by saying but if you try to make 
things better, we're going to blow things up in advance. We should not 
give into those kinds of facts. In fact, I reject the notion that we 
caused any of this. Nothing they have done couldn't have been done 
without the bill, and they were doing it. All they did was to use this 
bill as an excuse for doing what they were trying to do anyway.
  So we have here a reasonable bill that will prevent them from 
imposing things retroactively, that will require some notice going 
forward, that will fairly allocate the risk of a late payment, and 
that's what we are talking about. And we are talking about speeding up 
the date. They have many months to get ready for this.
  And let me say this: They tell us, oh, my goodness, it's so hard to 
recalibrate. But you know what? They have very odd computers over 
there. Maybe they've got great software. They've got software that 
works perfectly when they want to raise rates, but if they want to hold 
rates constant, the software goes berserk. Maybe we can implore the 
software makers to give them some software that works both ways, 
because they are able to raise people's rates retroactively in 
violation of what people thought were their contractual rights, very 
quickly, but they aren't able to get ready to be giving people a 45-day 
notice before they raise their rates going forward. And the 45-day 
notice is so that you can say, okay, I will go through one more billing 
cycle and I don't want them anymore. I will go to shop. What we have 
here is what we had in April.
  By the way, I don't want to be unfair to the entire Republican Party. 
Individual Members--it's okay, but not to the entire party. Many 
Republicans voted for this bill. Those who were speaking in opposition 
to it clearly were not representative of their whole party last time. 
And what we have, though, is the leadership from the Financial Services 
Committee of the Republican Party coming firmly to the defense of the 
credit card firms, telling us that what they were doing was out of 
economic necessity. They really don't want to raise these rates but 
they are just forced to do it by sound risk management.
  We believe, along with the National Federation of Independent 
Business and the Federal Reserve and every consumer group that's looked 
at it, that exactly the opposite is the case. They have abused the time 
that they asked for because they said it was for getting ready and they 
used it to do precisely the things the bill will stop them from doing. 
I, therefore, very much hope that this bill is adopted.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I extend my support to H.R. 3639, 
the Expedited CARD Reform for Consumers Act of 2009, and thank my dear 
friend from New York, Ms. Maloney, for introducing this important 
legislation, and Chairman Frank for expediting it out of committee.
  On May 22, 2009, President Obama signed into law the Credit Card 
Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act to protect consumers 
from the most egregious abuses that were being committed by credit card 
companies. Today, the important legislation before us readdresses this 
issue and proposes to move up the effective date of certain provisions 
of the Credit CARD Act to December 1, 2009. I would like to take this 
time now to express my support for the passage of this legislation.
  Today, levels of consumer debt are at an all time high. The most 
recent data from the 2007 Survey of Consumer Finances shows that half 
of American families carried a balance on their credit cards and the 
average balance was $7,300. Add to this amount the debt secured by a 
primary residence or other consumer and

[[Page 26720]]

installment loans, and the average American family is hard-pressed to 
meet these financial obligations.
  Many of my colleagues here in Congress and I are concerned about how 
the current state of the economy is affecting the ability of ordinary 
Americans to service these high levels of debt. In September, the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics reported the American economy lost 260,000 
jobs. Without work, most families could not afford to service these 
loans.
  The days of easy and exotic credit are over. American families must 
work themselves out of debt and back into the black. We, as lawmakers, 
have been tasked with the job of enacting laws and enforcing fair rules 
that allow people to use credit cards and other financial services made 
available to them in a safe and responsible way. We are about to do 
just that today.
  The Expedited CARD Reform for Consumers Act of 2009 is good policy 
for Americans everywhere. It fulfills our promise of establishing 
protections against abusive practices in the financial services 
industry and reaffirms our commitment to helping ordinary consumers 
responsibly manage their finances by ensuring that the choices 
available to them are fair and safe. I am proud to support H.R. 3639 
and urge my colleagues to assure its passage.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of the Expedited 
CARD Reform for Consumers Act of 2009, which would establish earlier 
effective dates for various consumer protections established by the 
Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act, Credit 
CARD Act, enacted earlier this year. I commend Chairman Frank and Ms. 
Maloney for their leadership in bringing this bill to the floor today.
  To be clear, my strong support does not stem from any concern that 
the implementation deadlines set forth in the Credit CARD Act as 
enacted were ill-conceived or too lax. Indeed, I assume we all thought 
they were reasonable, and most of us probably still do. What was 
unreasonable was the punitive, abusive, and--frankly--shameful behavior 
of some credit card issuers in the wake of enactment of the Credit CARD 
Act. I have been besieged with letters from outraged constituents, and 
I'd like to share some of those with you:

       Chase Bank . . . [just increased my interest rate] from 
     9.99% to 16.24% a 62.5% increase. They are making it harder 
     and harder for Americans to pay-back our loans during this 
     economic downturn. I have never missed a payment! . . . 
     Please help!!!
       I just received a letter from my Citi Bank Master Card 
     (which my husband and I always pay on time) stating that my 
     interest rate is being raised to 29.99%. My research shows 
     that Citi Bank is slipping this rate increase in before the 
     new Credit Card Act takes effect. This is an outrage to so 
     many people like myself.
       Most of the major banks have hiked interest rates on 
     customers' balances, increased penalty fees or doubled 
     minimum payments since the bill was passed in May. . . . The 
     banks are using this lag time before the implementation date 
     to sneak in as many rate hikes and new fees as possible, and 
     countless good customers who pay on time each month are 
     suffering.

  I think a reality check is in order. The reality is that many credit 
card issuers have been abusing their customers. Had they been treating 
them fairly, there would have been no need for, and no call for, 
legislation to reign in and prohibit those abusive practices. Another 
reality is that many of those same credit card issuers behaved 
recklessly and imprudently, as a result of which they put their own 
survival in jeopardy and had to come to the American taxpayers hat in 
hand just to stay afloat. Had those financial institutions managed 
their own affairs responsibly, they wouldn't have had to rely on the 
good graces of hard working Americans to stay in business. So where 
does that leave us? They abused their customers, they compromised their 
own financial stability, they took their customers' charity to regain 
that stability, then they retaliated against their customers when the 
government stepped in told them they had to stop abusing their 
customers. The whole situation is just plain astounding.
  Even so, it is always important to tailor one's response carefully to 
the actual facts and circumstances. For example, not all credit card 
issuers abused their customers in the first place. And not all credit 
card issuers retaliated against them in the wake of enactment of the 
Credit CARD Act. And as I noted previously, the original implementation 
deadlines for the bill were reasonable--we would not have passed it 
that way if they weren't.
  Therefore, although I heartily support this bill and urge my 
colleagues to do the same, I also offered an amendment to make it 
stronger, and to fine-tune its application. My amendment would have 
given credit card issuers the ability to opt out of the expedited 
implementation schedule set forth in this bill, and win back the right 
to comply with the bill in accordance with the reasonable schedule we 
set forth originally, under one of two circumstances.
  Any creditor that could have demonstrated that it did not implement 
detrimental account changes against its customers on or after the date 
the Credit CARD Act was enacted would have been entitled to implement 
the bill in accordance with its original implementation schedule. This 
would insulate the well-behaved credit card issuers from the penalty 
this bill imposes, because the penalty is only being imposed in 
response to the bad behavior of other credit card issuers. This is not 
only fair, it is better for the economy. Expediting application of the 
implementation deadlines is going to cause disruptions in service and 
interruptions in the extension of credit, at precisely the same moment 
we go into the busiest shopping period in the annual cycle. Therefore, 
any credit card issuers that can justifiably be spared the requirement 
that they comply with the Credit CARD Act much more rapidly than 
originally intended, should have been spared.
  With respect to credit card issuers that already penalized their 
customers, preventing them from penalizing any others does not do 
anything to help the ones they already penalized. Therefore, my 
amendment would have allowed those institutions to ``buy back'' the 
right to implement the bill in accordance with its original deadlines 
if they could demonstrate that they reversed all of the penalties they 
imposed in the wake of enactment of the Credit CARD Act. Because they 
will have a fresh record of the interest rates, minimum payments, and 
penalty fees they just got through increasing, they should 
expeditiously have been able to reverse those and restore their 
customers to their pre-Credit CARD Act terms and conditions. Only an 
actual roll-back can help the consumers whose terms and conditions were 
already detrimentally changed, and only a strong incentive such as re-
applying the original deadline structure would have incentivized any 
bank to agree to it. But to the extent they would have, this too would 
have been a boon to the economy, because all customers whose minimum 
monthly payments go back down would have that much more to spend as we 
go into the holiday season.
  My amendment simply created options. Any institution that fits one of 
the foregoing descriptions could have availed itself of the option. If 
they did, well-behaved banks would have been protected, injured 
consumers would have been restored to their pre-injury terms and 
conditions, and in each case the economy would have been stimulated. In 
addition, in each case, my amendment would have provided that 
implementing any detrimental changes to customer accounts after the 
exemption was awarded but before the bill is fully implemented would 
result in immediate revocation of the exemption. I believe the 
amendment would have made the bill stronger, and applied it more deftly 
and equitably to the circumstances. But without it, the banks will 
implement the bill as of December 1, and consumers will be provided the 
protections we enacted for them last spring that much sooner.
  I commend Chairman Frank and my colleague Mrs. Maloney again for 
offering this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chair, I rise today in full support of the 
Expedited CARD Reform for Consumers Act of 2009. When the CARD Act came 
to the floor in April, I rose in support of the bill but was frustrated 
by the delay in its implementation. I am pleased that this bill makes 
that correction and puts the CARD Act into effect before the winter 
holidays, when so many consumers will need the protections that the act 
creates.
  My Statement for the Record in April on the CARD Act discussed the 
need to bring immediate relief to consumers. While expediting the 
implementation of the CARD Act is a strong first step, I believe we 
must continue to do more. Consumers desperately need legislation that 
will allow them to make informed financial decisions and protect them 
from unfair lending and banking practices. Despite, or perhaps because 
of the impending enactment of the CARD Act, banks are continuing to 
charge substantial penalty rates and fees, and raking in over $19 
billion from these fees.
  With the average American's credit card debt reaching nearly $10,000 
in 2007, consumers are in real need of not only protection from unfair 
fee impositions, but in need of information as well. I am supportive of 
the CARD Act because it requires consumers to opt-in to over-limit fees 
at one time for each credit card they have. I believe this is the first 
step in helping consumers make more informed financial decisions.
  Our next step should be to put in place a mechanism to inform 
consumers at the point that a debit transaction to their checking or

[[Page 26721]]

savings accounts will result in an overdraft and attendant fees. 
Consumers should be able to make financial decisions with real-time 
information at their fingertips. By giving consumers the ability to 
elect whether or not to perform a transaction that will result in 
overdraft and the attendant fee on any given transaction, they are 
given the power to make responsible decisions and many won't have to 
worry about starting in the red at the beginning of every month.
  Consumers should be financially empowered, not defenseless against 
the whims of credit card issuers. I am pleased to support this bill 
which works to do that by halting these unfair fee practices and 
allowing individuals to set their own credit limits, so they don't 
unwittingly accumulate debt they can't possibly get out of. It also 
protects those who do make their payments on time, preventing them from 
being charged interest on debts paid during the grace period. And it 
gives consumers real information about the financial consequences of 
their decisions, by showing them the interest they are paying and have 
paid, and the length of time it will take to pay off the debt at the 
minimum monthly payment rate.
  Consumers are being hit on all sides, with unfair credit card fees, 
overdraft banking fees and rising costs of goods and services. We must 
continue to work to protect consumers as financial institutions look to 
them to make up money lost in the economic downturn. I know I will 
continue to work hard on my legislation to bring financial relief to 
millions of Americans through bank abuse protections, and other efforts 
Chairwoman Maloney makes to protect consumers and small businesses from 
unfair lending.
  I support the Expedited CARD Reform for Consumers Act of 2009 and 
urge its final passage.
  Ms. McCOLLUM Mr. Chair, I rise today to express my strong support for 
the Expedited CARD Reform for Consumers Act, H.R. 3639, which will 
accelerate the effective date for recently enacted credit card reforms 
to December 1, 2009.
  Millions of American families have become trapped in a never-ending 
cycle of debt due to ``double-billing'' and other dubious credit card 
industry practices. On May 22, 2009, President Obama signed into law 
the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act, the 
CARD Act, P.L. 111-24, to end unfair and anticompetitive practices.
  In the months following enactment of this law, many credit card 
companies have attempted to circumvent reforms by raising interest 
rates and decreasing credit limits on their customers before the 
reforms take effect in early 2010. According to the Pew Charitable 
Trusts, interest rates on over 90 percent of all outstanding credit 
card balances in the United States increased during the first 6 months 
of this year. This is totally inexcusable and evidence of why strong 
consumer protections in the credit card industry are needed.
  H.R. 3639 accelerates the effective date of the CARD Act reforms 
while making sensible exceptions for small credit card issuers and 
prepaid gift cards. I am a co-sponsor of H.R. 3639 and I voted in 
support of the rule to allow its consideration on the House floor. 
Unfortunately, I was unavoidably detained when the final vote was 
taken. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of passage.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, I have been dismayed for many years now 
about the performance of some of our financial institutions in the way 
they treat our citizens. There are too many examples of recent banking 
history that reveal too many tales of abuse and greed.
  Americans pay around $15 billion in penalty fees every year. Credit 
card contracts seem to be drafted not to inform, but to confuse. 
Mysterious fees appear on statements. Payment deadlines shift. Terms 
change and interest rates rise arbitrarily.
  In May, the President signed the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights 
Act into law, shielding credit cardholders from these widespread 
abusive practices. That law allowed the credit card companies a grace 
period to adjust their business practices to the new law. Rather than 
use this time to prepare for the new consumer protections and 
procedures, many credit card companies accelerated their aggressively 
targeted tactics to vulnerable consumers.
  In a comprehensive survey of credit card practices, the Pew 
Charitable Trusts found that in the first half of 2009, credit card 
rate increases ranged from 13 to 23 percent; that 100 percent of credit 
cards used practices labeled ``unfair or deceptive'' by the Federal 
Reserve and none of these cards would meet the standards of the new 
laws; and that even while the Federal Reserve is promulgating new 
consumer-oriented standards for penalties, credit card companies are 
charging substantially higher penalties.
  The Expedited CARD Reform for Consumers Act marks a step forward in 
bringing consumers badly needed relief by moving up the effective date 
for nearly all of the credit card reforms to December 1, 2009.
  Too many Oregonians, like students and families across the country, 
are heavily burdened by credit card debt. I support this bill because 
it requires fair terms and it levels the playing field by increasing 
consumer protections. Not a moment too soon.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3639, the 
Expedited Card Reform for Consumers Act. I am proud to be a cosponsor 
of this measure, which would move the effective date of the remaining 
provisions of the Credit CARD Act of 2009 up to December 1, 2009. This 
law provides tough new protections for consumers by banning unfair rate 
increases, abusive fees and penalties, and strengthening enforcement.
  So far this year, I have hosted three telephone town halls. During 
every call, I have received numerous inquiries from constituents asking 
when Congress is going to put an end to outrageous interest rates, 
hidden fees, and other deceptive practices by credit card companies 
that have gone on for far too long.
  While credit card companies argued that they needed several months to 
implement certain provisions included in the Credit CARD Act, many of 
them have instead taken advantage of this lag time, and their 
customers, by raising minimum payment amounts and interest rates, 
decreasing limits, and closing accounts without proper notification. 
The Pew Charitable Trusts' Safe Credit Cards Project recently reported 
that every one of the 12 largest bank issuers that control ninety 
percent of credit card outstanding balances nationwide had at least one 
provision that is labeled ``unfair or deceptive'' by the Federal 
Reserve, and they would not meet the tough provisions of the Credit 
CARD Act.
  The actions of these companies highlight the need for the consumer 
protections we passed into law to take effect as soon as possible. I 
have heard from too many of my constituents that have experienced these 
deceptive practices to let this go on any longer. A longstanding 
cardholder who makes payments on time each month and who is struggling 
in this economic downturn should not be subjected to a company's 
attempts to rake in some last-minute revenue before they are forced to 
abide by the new laws.
  Mr. Chair, we must continue our work to put an end to the tricks and 
traps used by credit card companies to undermine a competitive market. 
I encourage all my colleagues to vote for H.R. 3639. I would also like 
to thank Congresswoman Maloney and Chairman Frank for their hard work 
on this issue and bringing this measure to the floor.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 3639, the Expedited 
CARD Reform for Consumers Act. I would like to thank Chairman Frank and 
my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee for bringing us this 
consumer protection bill. I would also like to acknowledge and thank my 
friend from New York, Representative Maloney, for introducing this 
legislation and her continued dedication to protecting consumers and 
ensuring the availability of credit.
  Earlier this year in response to outrageous abuses of customers, both 
the Senate and the House passed H.R. 627, the Credit Card 
Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act or the CARD Act. The 
reforms that we passed and were signed by the President were carefully 
designed with input from consumer advocacy groups and the financial 
services industry. We established an implementation date of February 22 
to give the entire industry--and particularly credit unions and 
community banks--ample time to make the necessary adjustments to comply 
with the new regulations. This additional time was designed to ensure 
that these institutions, which have been on the side of their 
consumers, would be able to continue to offer credit cards.
  Community Banks and Credit Unions were not responsible for the 
egregious consumer abuse that required the CARD Act, nor are they the 
reason that we must pass H.R. 3639 today. Rather, it was the larger 
institutions, many of whom are receiving public assistance, who took 
this grace period as an opportunity to double down on the very 
unconscionable behavior that prompted the action of this body. Their 
actions were made worse as they occurred in the context of a national 
recession, when many people found themselves resorting to credit to 
make ends meet, with salaries and work hours increasingly cut back.
  Mr. Chair, my constituents are tired. They see the joblessness caused 
as the house of cards built by Wall Street collapsed on to Main Street. 
They have grown impatient with an industry that required unprecedented 
taxpayer assistance, only to have the very institutions

[[Page 26722]]

return the generosity of the public with unfair and unannounced 
interest rate hikes. This behavior is beyond unprofessional, it is 
beyond irresponsible, and it can only be defined in one way: un-
American.
  Let me be clear, I do not think the resources of this body are best 
used by micro-managing any industry. I have consistently supported--and 
even introduced--legislation that moves private business out of public 
stewardship as quickly as possible.
  But Mr. Chair, when credit card issuers prove they cannot honor their 
obligation to their customers and fellow Americans, then it is 
incumbent upon this Congress to act.
  The bill we have before us today is simple. By moving the 
implementation date of the policies we have already supported to 
December 1st, we say in clear language that the days of credit card 
companies financing their excess and recklessness on the dime of 
taxpayers and their customers are over.
  To my colleagues, I offer that in joining me in support of this 
measure, we also speak to our constituents. We tell them that we agree 
that the bailouts and capricious interest rate hikes are akin to a 
double taxation, and that this will no longer be tolerated.
  Finally Mr. Chair, as we approach the holiday season and Americans 
prepare to travel and buy gifts for their loved ones--giving themselves 
a well deserved break from what has been a trying year economically--
moving the enforcement of the fair credit reforms we have agreed upon 
to December 1st will result in increased consumer confidence. Our 
nation's retailers will benefit from the public being able to shop with 
the security that a present for a loved one in December won't result in 
an unwelcome and expensive surprise in January.
  Mr. Chair, today we have an opportunity to accelerate the economic 
and social benefits of the CARD Act. Today we have an opportunity to 
expedite a return of a decent level of consumer confidence. I ask my 
colleagues to join me in seizing this opportunity by voting for H.R. 
3639.
  I would once again acknowledge and thank Chairman Frank, 
Representative Maloney, the members of the Committee on Financial 
Services, and their staffs for their continued efforts on the issue of 
fair consumer credit and for this bill. I ask for the quick passage of 
this bill.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, last Spring, I stood before this body to 
speak in support of the Credit Card Act of 2009. The bill outlawed 
predatory and exploitative behavior such as targeting college students 
regardless of their ability to make payments, shifting due dates so as 
to trigger penalties and other deceptive practices. I was proud to be a 
cosponsor of the bill. Even then, however, I argued that the bill 
should take effect immediately.
  Today, I rise in support of H.R. 3639, the Expedited CARD Reform for 
Consumers Act which moves up the Credit Card Act's implementation date. 
Accelerating the implementation of this bill is necessary because too 
many card issuers are taking advantage of the act's February 
implementation date and increasing fees and the interest rates of their 
customers.
  As the Credit Card Act of 2009 was taking shape, many banks expressed 
concern that, without time to make the logistical and accounting 
adjustments necessary to accommodate such a dramatic policy shift, 
consumers would end up shouldering an increased financial burden in the 
form of higher fees and diminished access to credit. In light of this 
concern, we established February 2010 as the date the bill would go 
into effect. But, to our disappointment, many banks used the time 
between the President's signing the bill in May and its scheduled 
implantation in February to increase the exploitative practices the 
bill was intended to prevent.
  According to a recently released report by the Pew Charitable Trust, 
in which they studied credit card activity in the wake of the Credit 
Card Act, not only have many credit cards companies continued to use 
practices deemed ``unfair and deceptive'' under Federal Reserve 
guidelines, in some cases these practices increased.
  I have personally received reports from my constituents that, despite 
having solid credit histories and long relationships with their card 
issuers, they were contacted by banks after the Act passed and 
approached with the Hobbesian choice of accepting either a reduced 
credit line or an increase in front end interest rates. When they 
called the companies to complain, they were told that there was nothing 
they could do and that they should call their Member of Congress. Well, 
they did call their Members of Congress and this is our response.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3639.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 3639--the 
Expedited CARD Act of 2009. This important piece of legislation will 
continue the great work that this Congress and the President completed 
earlier this year, by moving up the remaining dates on the original 
Credit CARD Act.
  Since signing the CARD Act into law, credit card companies have 
engaged in last-ditch predatory practices, seeking to gain as much 
money as possible from the American consumer. Many of the same 
practices that the Federal Reserve labeled ``unfair or deceptive'' and 
were prohibited in the original CARD Act, have increased in past 
months. In fact, since last May, credit card companies have raised 
interest rates by an average of 20 percent.
  When this law was passed, this body warned credit card companies that 
swift action would be taken if these companies took advantage of the 
staggered implementation of the bill. It is clear these companies have 
done just that, and we are now prepared to follow through on our 
promise.
  I want to thank Mrs. Maloney and Chairman Frank for their hard work 
on this issue and I am proud to be a cosponsor on this important piece 
of legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in part A of 
House report 111-326, is adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
considered as an original bill for the purpose of further amendment 
under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 3639

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Expedited CARD Reform for 
     Consumers Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. EARLIER EFFECTIVE DATE FOR THE CREDIT CARD PROVISIONS 
                   OF THE CREDIT CARD ACT OF 2009.

       Section 3 of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility 
     and Disclosure Act of 2009 (15 U.S.C. 1602 nt.) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``This Act'' and inserting ``(a) In 
     General.--This Act''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       (b) Certain Credit Card Provisions.--Except as otherwise 
     specifically provided in this Act, titles I, II, and III, and 
     the amendments made by such titles, shall take effect on 
     December 1, 2009.
       (c) Certain Credit Card Issuers.--Except as otherwise 
     specifically provided in this Act and notwithstanding 
     subsection (b), the effective date established under 
     subsection (a) shall apply with respect to the application of 
     titles I, II, and III, and the amendments made by such 
     titles, to any credit card issuer which is a depository 
     institution (as defined in section 19(b)(1)(A) of the Federal 
     Reserve Act) with fewer than 2,000,000 credit cards in 
     circulation as of the date of the enactment of this Act.''.

     SEC. 3. EARLIER EFFECTIVE DATES FOR SPECIFIC PROVISIONS TO 
                   PREVENT FURTHER ABUSES.

       (a) Review of Past Consumer Interest Rate Increases.--
     Section 148(d) of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 
     1665c(d)) (as added by section 101(c) of the Credit Card 
     Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``9 months after the date of enactment of 
     this section'' and inserting ``December 1, 2009, except that 
     for a depository institution, as defined in section 
     19(b)(1)(A) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 
     461(b)(1)(A)), with fewer than 2 million credit cards in 
     circulation on the date of the enactment of the Expedited 
     CARD Reform for Consumers Act of 2009, the effective date 
     shall be February 22, 2010,''; and
       (2) by striking ``become effective 15 months after that 
     date of enactment'' and inserting ``take effect on December 
     1, 2009, except that for a depository institution, as defined 
     in section 19(b)(1)(A) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 
     461(b)(1)(A)), with fewer than 2 million credit cards in 
     circulation on the date of the enactment of the Expedited 
     CARD Reform for Consumers Act of 2009, the effective date 
     shall be August 22, 2010''.
       (b) Requirement That Penalty Fees Be Reasonable and 
     Proportional to the Violation.--Section 149(b) of the Truth 
     in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1665d(b)) (as added by section 
     102(b) of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and 
     Disclosure Act of 2009) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``9 months after the date of enactment of 
     this section,'' and inserting ``December 1, 2009, except that 
     for a depository institution, as defined in section 
     19(b)(1)(A) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 
     461(b)(1)(A)), with fewer than 2 million credit cards in 
     circulation on the date of the enactment of the Expedited 
     CARD Reform for Consumers Act of 2009, the effective date 
     shall be February 22, 2010,''; and
       (2) by striking ``become effective 15 months after the date 
     of enactment of the section'' and inserting ``take effect on 
     December 1, 2009, except that for a depository institution, 
     as defined

[[Page 26723]]

     in section 19(b)(1)(A) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 
     461(b)(1)(A)), with fewer than 2 million credit cards in 
     circulation on the date of the enactment of the Expedited 
     CARD Reform for Consumers Act of 2009, the effective date 
     shall be August 22, 2010''.

  The CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, is in order 
except those printed in part B of the report. Each further amendment 
may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable 
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.

                              {time}  1300


               Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part B of House Report 111-326.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Hensarling:
       Page 7, after line 18, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 4. CLARIFICATION THAT 45-DAY DELAY DOES NOT APPLY TO 
                   REDUCTIONS IN INTEREST RATES AND FEES.

       Subsection (i) of section 127 of the Truth in Lending Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 1637) (as added by section 101(a)(1) of the Credit 
     CARD Act of 2009) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Clarification.--No provision of this subsection shall 
     be construed as preventing any creditor from putting any 
     reduction in an annual percentage rate, any decrease or 
     elimination of any fee imposed on any consumer, or any 
     significant change in terms solely or primarily for the 
     benefit of the consumer into effect immediately.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 884, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Hensarling) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, certainly we had a spirited debate on 
the underlying legislation. I do want to thank the chairman for his 
efforts for allowing this particular amendment to be made in order. I 
have always feared that on a number of pieces of legislation that 
Congress enacts that it is always fraught with unintended consequences. 
I believe I stumbled across one of those unintended consequences.
  I believe it was last week, perhaps the week before, that I was 
contacted by one of my constituents who had received a credit card 
offer in the mail that offered him a better interest rate than the 
interest rate his current credit card offered; but because of a number 
of other provisions, he wanted to keep his current credit card.
  So he called his credit card company and said, Would you match this 
other deal on the interest rate? I want to stay with you, but will you 
match this interest rate? He was told by whatever voice was on the 
other end of the 1-800 number, We would like to match your interest 
rate, and we will match your interest rate, but we cannot do it for 45 
days under a law recently enacted by Congress.
  Now, I certainly don't believe that was the intent of the majority, 
but clearly the language in the underlying bill is being interpreted by 
some credit card companies to prevent them from lowering rates or 
lowering fees without a 45-day notice. Again, I do not believe that was 
the intention of the majority, and they may have written their bill 
thinking they had taken care of that. But, clearly, the language is 
sufficiently ambiguous for some companies that they do not feel that 
they can actually lower interest rates or lower fees or cancel fees or 
do something that almost every single individual in this body would 
interpret as only, only benefiting the consumer.
  So, Mr. Chairman, my simple amendment would provide a clarification 
that no provision in the subsection shall be construed as preventing 
any creditor from putting any reduction in an annual percentage rate, 
any decrease or elimination of any fee imposed on any consumer or any 
significant change in terms solely or primarily for the benefit of the 
consumer into effect immediately.
  So, again, what I believe the majority was trying to do would be 
preserved, and I think what they were trying not to do and, that is, 
certainly I do not believe it is their intent to have consumers wait 
for 45 days for lower interest rates. Again, I grant you, in this 
economic environment, it is not a common occurrence, but apparently it 
does occur or this constituent wouldn't have called me in the first 
place.
  So I believe it is a simple amendment. Again, I hope it takes care of 
an unintended consequence. I fear there are many other unintended 
consequences, but this is one that it would take care of, and I would 
certainly urge all Members of the body to adopt the amendment.
  Again, I thank the chairman for making sure that this particular 
amendment was made in order.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if there is anybody opposed 
to this amendment, I would yield. But in the absence of anybody who is 
opposed, I will take the time.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I support the amendment. The gentleman 
from Texas is a very careful legislator. We disagree a lot. And there 
were times when I had wished he wasn't as careful as he is, but he is 
absolutely right in this case. Let me go a step further: this may get 
entangled, this bill and broader things. If that should happen, I would 
be prepared, if nothing else worked, to break out this particular 
amendment at a later date and do it by suspension and hopefully do it 
unanimously because it, clearly, shouldn't be that way.
  So I thank him for calling it to our attention, and I hope the 
amendment is adopted. Let me just say that I will be asking for a roll 
call. Mr. Chairman, I am intending to vote for it; but as you know, one 
doesn't always ask for roll calls simply because one has an issue on 
that amendment.
  I will yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. MALONEY. I join the chairman in congratulating our colleague on 
the other side of the aisle for this amendment. I think it's a good 
one. I support it. If credit cards want to decrease interest rates for 
their customers, there is absolutely no reason that they should have to 
wait 45 days. We certainly accept it. The problems that we are trying 
to address in our underlying bill today are the increases that are 
coming at any time, for any reason without notice. This is a good 
amendment, and I accept it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I take back my time. In fact, in the 
spirit of conciliation, let me extend to my friends, if I have any left 
in that industry, a willingness to even allow them to decrease it 
retroactively for 45 days, not just waive it prospectively.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.


          Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. McCarthy of New York

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part B of House Report 111-326.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I have an amendment at the desk made in 
order under the rule.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B amendment No. 2 offered by Mrs. McCarthy of New 
     York:
       Page 7, after line 18, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 4. MORATORIUM ON INCREASES IN RATES AND FEES AND CHANGES 
                   IN TERMS TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE CONSUMER.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or any 
     amendment made by this

[[Page 26724]]

     Act, subsection (b) of section 164 of the Truth in Lending 
     Act (as added by section 104(4) of the Credit Card 
     Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 
     (Public Law 111-24)) shall not take effect until February 22, 
     2010 for any creditor with respect to an existing credit card 
     account under an open end credit plan, or such a plan issued 
     on or after the date of enactment, as long as the creditor 
     does not--
       (1) increase any annual percentage rate, fee, or finance 
     charge applicable to any existing or future balance, except 
     as permitted under subsection 171(b) of the Truth in Lending 
     Act (as added by Public Law 111-24); or
       (2) change the terms to the detriment of a consumer, 
     including terms governing the repayment of any outstanding 
     balance, except as provided in section 171(c) of the Truth in 
     Lending Act (as added by Public Law 111-24).

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 884, the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. McCarthy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Frank and 
his committee staff for working with me and Congresswoman Markey on 
this amendment. It has not gone unnoticed that some credit card issuers 
have used this time before the pending effective date of the Credit 
Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 to raise 
interest rates and reduce credit for some consumers.
  Let me say, though, that I think there needs to be a reminder here on 
why we're even standing here. We have seen the economy just about 
collapse because there has been no oversight. We saw trillions of 
dollars being lost by our constituents because there was no oversight. 
So when I say that I'm not alone when I have heard from many in my 
district who are frustrated with credit card issuers who continue to 
raise rates during this small window of time before the Credit Card 
Reform Act is enacted, in these very difficult economic times, when 
many people are worried about being able to put food on the table or 
being able to pay their bills, credit card companies choose to push 
their consumers deeper in debt by raising the interest rates.
  Many of us are outraged by this practice and agree with my colleague 
Congresswoman Markey that something has to be and should be done. Our 
amendment would seek to modify H.R. 3639, the Expedited CARD Reform for 
Consumers Act of 2009, to allow credit card issuers to choose to impose 
a freeze on increases to interest rates, fees and the terms of the 
conditions of the contract. In return for imposing a rate freeze, 
issuers would be given flexibility to comply with a provision in the 
act regarding payment allotments until the credit card reform law 
becomes enacted in February 2010.
  Payment options and many of the system changes issues must be made in 
order to comply with the pending enactment date of the credit card 
reform law. These changes should be carefully executed so that there is 
little room for error and confusion to the consumer. I believe our 
amendment will stop the unfair rate increases and will allow the 
companies that are doing the right thing to remain on the path of 
compliance for the pending enactment dates of the provisions, many of 
which do not have final regulations issued yet by the Federal Reserve.
  If the real reason behind this bill is to make issuers stop raising 
interest rates and other abusive practices, merely moving up the 
implementation dates on provisions will not address the interest rate 
problem. My amendment will address the problem by letting the issuer 
make the decision to do the right thing.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, 
although as I seek to understand the amendment, I am not completely 
certain that I am in opposition.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I will yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  It appears that if a credit card issuer does not increase an annual 
percentage rate fee or finance charge applicable to any existing or 
future balance, it need not comply. With the bill's requirements, 
payments above the minimum will be allocated first to that balance 
until February of 2010. So I guess there is a carve-out for credit card 
issuers who do not increase annual percentage rates. I suppose at the 
margins it is good to give more choices instead of fewer choices. 
Whether or not this results, again, in some people having to pay even 
more in fees, maybe an annual fee, I don't know the answer to that 
question. I suppose I will urge my colleagues to adopt this.
  But again, all of this legislation, Mr. Chairman, has to be put in 
the context of the legislation that this body will consider this Friday 
or Saturday and that is the 1,990-page government takeover of our 
health care system bill. And I think that on every single piece of 
legislation that we consider in this body prior to that time, we have 
to ask the question, If our constituents are going to be looking at 
having to pay for a trillion-dollar government takeover of health care 
legislation, is any particular amendment going to make our constituents 
have a greater ability or a lesser ability to pay for that?
  I am thinking specifically right now of all the seniors across 
America, particularly those in the Fifth Congressional District of 
Texas that I have the honor and privilege of representing, who will see 
their Medicare Advantage plans cut by $150 billion under the 
government-takeover-of-health-care plan. Now, if so, on the health care 
benefits they're receiving under their Medicare Advantage plan that my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle will cut $150 billion from 
Medicare Advantage, will the seniors in the Fifth Congressional 
District, will they still have access to credit cards, for example, 
that help them fill the gap to, number one, help pay for the trillion-
dollar health care bill and, on the other hand, as $150 billion is 
taken away from those who receive Medicare Advantage, particularly 
those in rural areas?
  In representing the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, I 
represent a lot of rural America. So it's a little unclear to me 
whether the underlying amendment is going to make it easier for seniors 
to keep those credit cards or not. I believe perhaps at the margin it 
does; and because of that, I will urge my colleagues to adopt this.
  Again, all of this has to be put in context of the trillion-dollar 
government takeover of our health care system. And I hope the 
gentlelady's amendment helps ease the pain of that legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I would like to say thank you to the 
gentlelady, Ms. Markey, for working on this legislation. Certainly her 
voice has been a strong voice for the consumers. I will say again, 
we're in this particular position mainly because there had been no 
oversight. If you want to talk about health care also, there has been 
no oversight on giving our constituents the care that they need.
  I yield the remainder of my time to Ms. Markey.
  Ms. MARKEY of Colorado. I thank Congresswoman McCarthy for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the 
McCarthy-Markey amendment to H.R. 3639. I have received an alarming 
number of complaints from my constituents regarding unreasonable credit 
card rate increases prior to the enactment of the Credit CARD Act 
reforms. Two of my constituents from Walsh, Colorado, Fred and Kay Lynn 
Hefley, recently received a notice from Citibank that their interest 
rate is jumping to 29.99 percent. The Hefleys have had this credit card 
since 1971 and have been responsible customers.

                              {time}  1315

  Sadly, they are not alone. Taylor Grant from Fort Collins is a small 
business owner. He has been a responsible Citibank cardholder since 
2001 and is now facing similar interest rate increases.
  Penalizing customers for maintaining responsible credit practices is 
unconscionable. This uncertainty in the credit market makes it 
especially difficult for families who are facing tough economic times 
at the start of the holiday season.

[[Page 26725]]

  Our amendment offers credit card companies a choice: obey the spirit 
of the law and freeze increases to interest rates, fees on any existing 
or future balances, or changes to account terms to the detriment of a 
customer. In return, credit card issuers will be given until February 
22 to comply with the provision of the Credit CARD Act that requires 
creditors to apply excess payments to the credit card balance with the 
highest interest rate.
  The effective date of the original Credit CARD Act legislation was 
set for February of 2010 to give credit card companies enough time to 
comply with these new regulations--not additional time to violate the 
spirit of the law by hiking interest rates on consumers.
  While I am disappointed that credit card companies have continued to 
raise interest rates in advance of the effective date of the Credit 
CARD Act, I believe this amendment provides an opportunity and an 
incentive for issuers to demonstrate some goodwill towards American 
consumers.
  I urge my colleagues to support the McCarthy/Markey amendment, 
because it gives credit card issuers the chance to do the right thing, 
while still providing a benefit to consumers.
  I would like to thank Congresswoman McCarthy, Chairman Frank and the 
Financial Services Committee staff for their collaborative efforts on 
this amendment.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Maffei

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
part B of House Report 111-326.
  Mr. MAFFEI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in 
order under the rule.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Maffei:
       In section 2 of the bill, strike ``December 1, 2009'' and 
     insert ``the date of the enactment of the Expedited CARD 
     Reform for Consumers Act of 2009''.
       Page 6, beginning on line 2, strike ``December 1, 2009'' 
     and insert ``the date of the enactment of the Expedited CARD 
     Reform for Consumers Act of 2009''.
       Page 6, line 12, strike ``December 1, 2009'' and insert 
     ``the date of the enactment of the Expedited CARD Reform for 
     Consumers Act of 2009''.
       Page 7, beginning on line 2, strike ``December 1, 2009'' 
     and insert ``the date of the enactment of the Expedited CARD 
     Reform for Consumers Act of 2009''.
       Page 7, line 12, strike ``December 1, 2009'' and insert 
     ``the date of the enactment of the Expedited CARD Reform for 
     Consumers Act of 2009''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 884, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Maffei) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. MAFFEI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank Chairman Frank and Representative Maloney for all 
their work on this pressing issue.
  Today I am offering a simple amendment to make all provisions of the 
Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights effective immediately upon enactment 
instead of waiting until December 1.
  Now why should we care about enacting the bill a matter of just a 
couple of weeks earlier? Well, earlier this year we worked diligently 
to pass the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights. It was a necessary 
piece of legislation to protect consumers from the abusive practices 
that many banks had made standard practice.
  While we were working on that legislation, I heard from banks that 
they could not possibly enact all of the changes by the deadlines we 
proposed. The banks claimed that to ensure quality customer services 
they would need months or even years to make the proper changes. Well, 
that was just last May; and I am frankly disappointed to have to 
address this situation again today.
  Since we passed and enacted the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights, 
credit card companies attempt to fleece customers and hope that 
Congress didn't notice or have time to act. The same companies that 
were in my office that claimed that they needed months at least to make 
changes to their systems apparently only needed in some cases days to 
find ways to raise interest rates and decrease credit limits on 
customers across the country.
  One caseworker in my Syracuse office watched her card go from 6.9 
percent last year to 13.9 earlier this year to a whopping and punitive 
29.9 percent in the past few weeks. She carries a balance on that card. 
But with an interest rate that is suffocating her finances, she almost 
certainly will not be able to pay that off, so she can't even close the 
card.
  She is not alone. Every day I hear from more and more constituents 
who tell me they have good credit, that they pay their bills on time, 
but that the credit card issuers have found a way to raise the rates to 
extraordinarily high levels. That is why I want to make all provisions 
of the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights effective immediately.
  Customers, especially in this economy, cannot wait any longer for 
these protections. The credit card companies apparently are able to 
make any changes in interest rates and procedures instantaneously, so 
why not demand that of them today? If we give them a week or two, they 
will slam our constituents with even higher rates, trying to squeeze 
more blood from a stone in the middle of a recession.
  We are not allowed to pass legislation retroactively, even though the 
card companies have retroactively raised rates on consumer balances. 
What we can do, Mr. Chairman, is make sure that we enact this 
legislation immediately.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, as I have said before, there is never a 
good time to enact a bad bill. Here we are again in the midst of a huge 
credit contraction. Every single day people are waking up, they're 
losing credit cards. Their interest rates are increasing. We have had 
at least 3.5 million of our fellow citizens lose their jobs since this 
administration has taken office. We have the highest unemployment rate 
in a quarter of a century. And yet in the midst of this credit 
contraction, when people are having trouble expanding their business, 
creating jobs, paying their bills, we are going to enact legislation 
that simply is procyclical and makes the whole matter worse.
  I heard the gentleman say we can't enact this retroactively. I would 
say, at least in the years I have been in the House, we have certainly 
tried. I suppose that might be the next amendment. Maybe we can make 
this retroactive to 1974 or some other fairly arbitrary date.
  Again, this particular legislation has to be put in the context of 
the trillion-dollar legislation, the government takeover of our health 
care system, that this House is due to vote on, apparently, according 
to the Speaker, either Friday or Saturday. And I question each and 
every amendment.
  Will our constituents be less able or more able to afford to pay for 
this $1.3 trillion government takeover of our health care system if we 
pass this amendment? My guess is that the gentleman from New York's 
amendment fails that test.
  And so I would urge that we reject that amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MAFFEI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York, the sponsor of the bill and the chair of the 
Joint Economic Committee, Mrs. Maloney.
  Mrs. MALONEY. I rise in support of my colleague from the great State 
of New York and applaud his work to protect consumers.
  The banks and credit card companies have earned this regulation and 
earned this amendment because they did not

[[Page 26726]]

use the time allocated to them to upgrade their systems. They used the 
time to raise rates unfairly, any time, any reason, retroactively on 
existing balances.
  The bill that I proposed would go into effect in 5 weeks, the 
gentleman moves it up immediately, but I think consumers deserve relief 
as soon as possible, and I support his amendment.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is 
remaining on each side?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 3 minutes remaining, and the 
gentleman from New York has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Again, I fear that this amendment is simply going to take a bad 
situation and make it worse. How will all of our constituents be able, 
again, to pay for this monstrosity of a government takeover of our 
health care system, one that will directly tax a number of our 
constituents? Page 297, section 501, imposes a 2.5 percent tax on all 
individuals who do not purchase the government-approved health 
insurance; 2.5 percent.
  Now, again, a number of our constituents use credit cards to help pay 
for their medical expenses, to pay for their groceries, to pay for 
everything else. And now a number of them are going to be subject to a 
2.5 percent tax. How will this amendment help them?
  New taxes on medical devices, a 2.5 percent excise tax, which many 
call the wheelchair tax, particularly I assume a number of seniors will 
be subject to this tax. I know a number of them rely upon credit cards. 
Will their credit cards ultimately be taken away from them under this 
legislation?
  The underlying legislation takes away the ability, erodes the ability 
to do risk-based pricing and takes us back to an era where a third 
fewer people had access to credit cards and everybody paid annual fees 
and everybody paid one universal high interest rate.
  The underlying legislation takes us down that road, and the gentleman 
from New York's amendment gets us there tomorrow. And then later in 
this week we're going to tell our constituents, Congratulations, we 
just passed a $1.3 trillion government takeover of your health care 
system that you have to pay for through new taxes on individuals, new 
taxes on medical devices, new taxes on small businesses, at a time 
where this Congress and this administration has brought us the first 
trillion-dollar deficit in our Nation's history, tripling the national 
debt--tripling the national debt--in the next 10 years. The least you 
can do is at least allow your constituents to have a credit card to 
help pay for this mammoth takeover of our government health care 
system.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MAFFEI. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I admire the gentleman from 
Texas, because to try to defend what the credit card companies are 
doing is essentially indefensible, so he very artfully tries to change 
the subject. But I truly believe that this bill just addresses the 
abusive practices. It would actually make it a lot easier for people 
who have credit. They would understand exactly what they are getting 
and exactly what they are paying for.
  Now in terms of the effective date of this particular amendment, some 
say it would be unreasonable to impose this effective date immediately, 
but not as unreasonable as the credit card issuers have been with their 
own customers.
  Mr. Chairman, the time for delays is over. We gave the credit card 
companies a chance and they took advantage of our constituents. We 
can't take the chance of giving them even a week or a day to do it 
again.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Maffei).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MAFFEI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Sutton

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
part B of House Report 111-326.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B amendment No. 4 offered by Ms. Sutton:
       Page 7, after line 18, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL LIMITATIONS ESTABLISHED.

       Section 127 of the Truth in Lending Act (U.S.C. 1637) is 
     amended by inserting after subsection (r) (as added by the 
     Credit CARD Act of 2009) the following new subsection:
       ``(s) Cancellation of Account Without Detrimental Effect.--
     If, in the case of a credit card account under an open end 
     consumer credit plan, the consumer receives notice of the 
     imposition of a new fee, and within the 45-day period 
     beginning on receipt of such notice, pays off any outstanding 
     balance on the account, no creditor and no consumer reporting 
     agency (as defined in section 603) may use such pay off or 
     closure of the consumer credit account to negatively impact 
     the consumer's credit score or consumer report (as such terms 
     are defined in section 609 and 603, respectively).''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 884, the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Sutton) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. SUTTON. I thank you, and I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would like to thank both Congresswoman Maloney and Chairman Frank 
for bringing this bill to protect consumers from the egregious 
practices being engaged in by credit card companies to the floor and 
for their support of this amendment.
  In May, Congress overwhelmingly passed major credit card reform 
legislation to end the many unfair and deceptive practices that credit 
card companies have been legally perpetrating for some time. But many 
of these protective provisions do not go into effect until February 
2010 or later. So what are credit card companies doing?
  Rather than preparing to implement these new consumer protections, 
the credit card industry saw this as a window of opportunity to squeeze 
more money out of consumers. They are raising interest rates and 
minimum payments while lowering credit limits. They are instituting 
fees of all shapes and sizes. I am sure that every Member of Congress 
has heard from constituents who have suffered under these practices. I 
know I have.
  The bill before us today, H.R. 3639, will move up the effective date 
for credit card reforms to December 1, 2009. I am proud to be an 
original cosponsor of this bill, and I urge its final passage.
  The amendment I am offering tackles the dilemma faced by consumers 
who receive notice of new fees on their credit card accounts. As credit 
card companies search for new ways to make money, they are looking to 
charge fees where there were none before: new annual fees, inactivity 
fees, fees for failure to carry a monthly balance. Yes, now some credit 
card companies are indicating they will be charging a fee to consumers 
who pay off their balances every month. Can you imagine?
  I find it outrageous, but the credit card companies argue that if the 
consumers don't like it, they can close their account. The choice is, 
pay the fee or close your account. The problem is that closing your 
account can hurt your credit score, and credit scores and credit 
reports play a large role in our society and can really impact people's 
lives. They are used by mortgage lenders, employers, landlords and 
insurance providers. This amendment is about leveling the playing 
field.

                              {time}  1330

  This amendment protects consumers by preventing the closure of a 
credit card account because of new fees from negatively impacting a 
consumer's credit report or credit score. It will allow consumers to 
cancel their card or shop around for another card with terms without 
taking a hit on their credit score. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

[[Page 26727]]

  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, there are aspects of the legislation I 
am not sure that I completely understand, and if the gentlelady from 
Ohio would be willing to explain her amendment, I will be happy to 
yield her time.
  On line 9 of the amendment, it speaks of the notice of the imposition 
of a new fee, and I am curious whether a new fee, does that include 
increasing the amount of a fee that is already in existence?
  I yield to the gentlelady for a clarification.
  Ms. SUTTON. I appreciate the inquiry, and I believe it would.
  Mr. HENSARLING. That it would, okay.
  So an altogether new fee that had not previously been imposed, that 
would be included in the language and any increase in an existing fee 
would come within your definition of new fee, correct?
  I yield to the gentlelady.
  Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And yes, that would 
be the understanding because that fee is a new fee to the consumer. 
They would then have the opportunity to either continue to engage in 
using that account with that new fee imposed, or they would have a 
chance to shop around in the free market to find an account that would 
be more compatible with their interests. They should not be penalized 
on their credit report for doing so.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentlelady for her explanation.
  The next question I had, on line 14 there is the phrase ``to 
negatively impact.'' I am curious whether or not certain creditors feel 
they are getting accurate data, whether or not this could cause them to 
drop the consumer's credit card in total, but I suppose the language 
you use is to negatively impact the consumer's credit score or credit 
report. So if the impact of your amendment, because incomplete or 
inaccurate data was given by a credit bureau to a creditor and they 
chose instead not to take the risk, that the negative impact of losing 
their credit card, that is not assumed in your amendment?
  I yield to the gentlelady.
  Ms. SUTTON. That is not a problem that would result from what this 
amendment is striving to do. This would just protect the imposition of 
a negative credit score because when you cancel a card, it will limit 
the amount of credit you have available, and then that is used by 
credit scorers.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlelady for her 
explanation. I fear for, frankly, a number of creditors it might just 
have that impact.
  So again, I would oppose the underlying amendment because I think, 
again, under the purpose of attempting to help the consumer, you might 
actually hurt the consumer. And I think what we want is to make sure 
that creditors receive the most accurate information possible because 
it has helped allow more Americans to receive credit than otherwise 
would be possible.
  Now I don't know, there may be some credit bureau out there who 
believe that people like me who wear red ties are a greater credit 
risk, I don't know, I am not an expert in it, and I feel quite certain 
that my colleagues are not experts on what constitutes a greater or 
lesser credit risk, and except for the prohibited classes of race, 
creed, and color which have been clearly delineated in our civil rights 
laws, why do we want to start dictating to credit bureaus about what 
constitutes a greater risk and what constitutes a lesser risk.
  Again, it might make us feel better. It may have good optics; but at 
the end of the day, I fear the result is if you start restricting, if 
you go down the road of beginning to restrict the information that is 
available to creditors, with less information, they are either going to 
make credit less available or they are going to increase the cost of it 
because it becomes a greater risk.
  Listen, on its face the gentlelady's amendment strikes me as fair; 
but I don't believe Congress has expertise in this. Again, when we are 
facing the imposition of a trillion dollar government takeover of our 
health care bill, I believe this will make credit less available and 
more costly.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire how much time we have 
remaining.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio has 2\1/2\ minutes. The 
gentleman from Texas has 15 seconds.
  Ms. SUTTON. At this time I yield 90 seconds to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
gentlelady's amendment. It merely gives more responsibility and control 
to consumers to better manage their own credit. FICO scores should not 
go down if consumers are trying to do the right thing by getting out of 
debt. What I hear from my consumers and friends and people who write my 
office is that they want to cancel a card because of unfair fees and 
interest rate increases, yet if they cancel their card, then their 
credit score suffers. This is absolutely wrong when they are doing the 
right thing of trying to get out of debt, to better control their own 
finances, to stop unfair fees and unfair interest rates retroactively 
on their balances.
  This is a good amendment. I support it. It would be an important step 
to take even in a stand-alone bill. It is a very important step and a 
responsible step to help consumers better manage their own finances and 
level the playing field between consumers and credit card issuers.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time to close.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman from New 
York's remarks. I do indeed feel better when we protect consumers. This 
amendment is all about leveling the playing field, giving the consumer 
a fair shake, an opportunity to evaluate whether or not they want to 
continue with an account that imposes whatever fee has been dreamed up. 
In this case, the one that really struck a chord was imposing a new fee 
on credit card users who pay down their balance every month. So we have 
to think about that. First, they impose all kinds of interest rate 
increases. Then they impose all kinds of other new fees, and now they 
are going to actually impose a fee on people who pay down their 
balances every month.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Would the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SUTTON. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I very much appreciate the gentlewoman's 
amendment. The notion that people should be penalized for being prudent 
is outrageous. What this says is if you close out a credit card 
account, which is an act of prudence, you shouldn't be penalized for 
it. It is one of these things that I am embarrassed that we ever had to 
deal with in the first place because that situation should have never 
been allowed to have existed. The gentlewoman has a very good 
amendment.
  Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I would agree with the chairman of the 
full committee, people who do it right shouldn't be penalized, and that 
is exactly what is happening in the underlying legislation.
  This particular amendment is simply tantamount to a gag order to tell 
credit bureaus that they can't report accurate information that 
creditors want in order to give credit. It is going to take credit 
away, make it more expensive and less available as we try to finance 
the trillion dollar government takeover of health care.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio will be postponed.

[[Page 26728]]




                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Sutton

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in 
part B of House Report 111-326.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Mr. Stupak, I have an 
amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B amendment No. 5 offered by Ms. Sutton:
       Page 7, after line 18, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 4. MORATORIUM ON RATE INCREASES.

       (a) In General.--During the period beginning on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act and ending 9 months after the date 
     of the enactment of the Credit Card Accountability 
     Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009, in the case of any 
     credit card account under an open end consumer credit plan--
       (1) no creditor may increase any annual percentage rate, 
     fee, or finance charge applicable to any outstanding balance, 
     except as permitted under subsection 171(b) of the Truth in 
     Lending Act (as added by Public Law 111-24); and
       (2) no creditor may change the terms governing the 
     repayment of any outstanding balance, except as set forth in 
     section 171(c) of the Truth in Lending Act (as added by 
     Public Law 111-24).
       (b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the 
     following definitions shall apply:
       (1) Annual percentage rate.--The term ``annual percentage 
     rate'' means an annual percentage rate, as determined under 
     section 107 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1606).
       (2) Finance charge.--The term ``finance charge'' means a 
     finance charge, as determined under section 106 of the Truth 
     in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1605).
       (3) Outstanding balance.--The term ``outstanding balance'' 
     has the same meaning as in section 171(d) of the Truth in 
     Lending Act (as added by Public Law 111-24).
       (4) Other terms.--Any term used in this section that is 
     defined in section 103 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 
     1602) and is not otherwise defined in this section shall have 
     the same meanings as in section 103 of the Truth in Lending 
     Act.
       (c) Regulatory Authority.--
       (1) In general.--The Board of Governors of the Federal 
     Reserve System may prescribe such regulations as may be 
     necessary to carry out this section.
       (2) Effective date.--The provisions of this section shall 
     take effect upon the date of the enactment of this title, 
     regardless of whether rules are issued under subsection (a).

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 884, the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Sutton) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Mr. Stupak, I am calling up this 
amendment on behalf of my good friend, the Congressman from Michigan, 
Mr. Stupak, who is unable to be here with us today due to a death in 
his family.
  Many of our Nation's largest banks received assistance through the 
Troubled Assets Relief Program, TARP, and these same banks are some of 
the largest issuers of credit cards. While executives on Wall Street 
are paid millions of dollars in executive bonuses on the government's 
credit line, they continue to engage in deceptive and misleading 
practices that take advantage of consumers and force them to accumulate 
more debt.
  I and 356 of my colleagues supported the Credit Cardholders' Bill of 
Rights, H.R. 627, passed by Congress earlier this year. Unfortunately, 
the reforms put into place by this law are being circumvented, as we 
heard here today, by credit card companies. Card issuers are raising 
interest rates, raising minimum payment amounts, and charging extra 
fees before the bill takes effect.
  In this economic crisis, far too many families are forced to rely on 
short term, high interest credit card debt to pay for food, for 
housing, and other basic necessities. In Congressman Stupak's district 
in northern Michigan, unemployment ranges from 6 to 28 percent. In 
Ohio, the unemployment rate is 10.1 percent. Families are falling 
behind on their payments and have fallen victim to the predatory 
practices of the Nation's credit card companies. Moving the enforcement 
date forward is critical to helping families across this country.
  This amendment will immediately freeze interest rates on existing 
credit card balances until the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights goes 
into effect. For too long, the credit card industry has preyed upon 
consumers through omission of honest billing practices and through 
loopholes in credit regulation that are common among banking 
institutions.
  On behalf of Congressman Stupak, I urge my colleagues to support my 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. While I am somewhat unclear why this amendment was 
made in order, it seems to do precisely the opposite of what the 
Expedited CARD Reform for Consumers Act was supposedly designed to do. 
This freezes prices. And yet we have had so many Members on the other 
side of the aisle tell us the bill doesn't do that.
  I see that the chairman of the full committee has come back to the 
floor. Just in September, on September 23, the chairman was quoted as 
saying on the House floor, When it comes to rate setting, this bill, to 
the disappointment of some, doesn't limit future rates. As far as the 
future is concerned, if proper notice is given, this bill is not 
restricted.
  Well, the adoption of this amendment would seem to fly in the face of 
that. The chairman, I assume, was correct when he said it. But if the 
House adopts this amendment, it will no longer be true.
  The chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Gutierrez), There is no limit in this bill on the interest rate that 
you can charge. None whatsoever. That was spoken on the House floor on 
April 29. Again, if the amendment is adopted, that will no longer be 
true.
  This bill aims to bring back some balance in the playing field. 
Unlike other proposals out there, this bill does not set price controls 
or rate caps or limit the size of fees. That would be the gentlelady 
from New York who spoke those words in subcommittee in March of 2008. 
Again, if the underlying amendment is adopted, it seems to change the 
nature of the underlying bill.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HENSARLING. I would be happy to yield to the chairman.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The bill does not impose any restrictions 
other than those in the underlying bill. What it says is, section 4(a) 
in general, during this period and ending 9 months after the date, it 
says no creditor may increase any annual percentage rate fee or finance 
charge except as permitted under subsection 171(b) of the Truth in 
Lending Act, the CARD Act. So it does have restrictions, but it only 
reaffirms those that were already in there with the 9-month date. It 
does not do any new restriction on the ability to raise rates.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. HENSARLING. Well, I thank the chairman.
  Reclaiming my time, During the period beginning on the date of the 
enactment of this act and ending 9 months after the date, no creditor 
may increase annual percentage rate fee finance charge. Again, under 
the subsection it appears again ``for at least a 9-month period.''
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HENSARLING. Yes, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. He stops reading inexplicably. He's got 
to work on his attention span because it goes on to say, Except----
  Mr. HENSARLING. Well, reclaiming my time, I was still reading as I 
yielded to the chairman. So I can either read or I can yield to the 
chairman. I would be happy to yield to the chairman.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I apologize, because the part that we 
were probably both going to read--and we will work on doing it in 
unison--says, Except as permitted under subsection 171(b). That is, it 
imposes no new restrictions. It does revert back to those that are 
already enacted into law.

[[Page 26729]]


  Mr. HENSARLING. Well, reclaiming my time, then I would question the 
body on what particular purpose the amendment then serves.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Would the gentleman yield? That's not a 
bad question. I don't have as good an answer to that question as I had 
to the one before.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas controls the time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. At this point, I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SUTTON. This amendment gives immediate protection to the consumer 
and will end any manipulation of existing credit card contracts by 
companies prior to the December 1 date. It's as simple as that.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is 
remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Well, one thing of interest, I suppose, is that if we 
adopt the earlier amendment of the gentleman from New York, this all 
becomes irrelevant anyway since the effective date would be immediate. 
So I believe that----
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HENSARLING. I have only 60 seconds, but yes, I will yield a short 
time to the chairman.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The point is this: Given the context of 
all these amendments, this one doesn't have great effect. But as 
Members filed amendments, it wasn't clear all the amendments that were 
there. I think if the gentleman knew everything else that was going to 
be done, it might not have appeared.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the chairman for his clarification.
  Again, I believe that ultimately this is an amendment that would 
simply impose price controls for a limited duration of time, contrary 
to what some of us were led to believe.
  But again, the most important aspect of this legislation has to be 
put into the context of the $1 trillion government takeover of our 
health care plan to be voted on Friday or Saturday. This will make 
credit more expensive and less available. It should be defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio will be postponed.


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 111-326 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Hensarling of Texas;
  Amendment No. 2 by Mrs. McCarthy of New York;
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Maffei of New York;
  Amendment No. 4 by Ms. Sutton of Ohio;
  Amendment No. 5 by Ms. Sutton of Ohio.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


               Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 427, 
noes 0, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 845]

                               AYES--427

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Childers
     Christensen
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     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
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon (TN)
     Granger
     Graves
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NY)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olson
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Quigley
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sablan
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz

[[Page 26730]]


     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Braley (IA)
     Coffman (CO)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     Gerlach
     Murphy, Patrick
     Norton
     Nunes
     Pierluisi
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Stupak

                              {time}  1414

  Messrs. WITTMAN, DINGELL and PALLONE changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


          Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. McCarthy of New York

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
McCarthy) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 427, 
noes 0, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 846]

                               AYES--427

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Childers
     Christensen
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     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
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon (TN)
     Granger
     Graves
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NY)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olson
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pierluisi
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Quigley
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sablan
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Braley (IA)
     Coffman (CO)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     Gerlach
     Murphy, Patrick
     Norton
     Nunes
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Slaughter
     Stupak


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1422

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Maffei

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Maffei) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 251, 
noes 174, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 847]

                               AYES--251

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boccieri
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Christensen
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin

[[Page 26731]]


     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pierluisi
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sablan
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--174

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Himes
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Akin
     Braley (IA)
     Coffman (CO)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     Gerlach
     Murphy, Patrick
     Norton
     Nunes
     Rothman (NJ)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Stupak
     Wexler


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1430

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Chair, on rollcall Nos. 845, 846, and 
847 I was unavoidably detained.
  Had I been present, I would have voted on rollcall 845--``aye,'' on 
rollcall 846--``aye,'' and on rollcall 847--``no.''


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Sutton

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 353, 
noes 71, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 848]

                               AYES--353

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

                                NOES--71

     Akin
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Boehner
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Cantor
     Carter
     Castle
     Cole
     Conaway
     Davis (KY)
     Dreier

[[Page 26732]]


     Flake
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Himes
     Inglis
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Mack
     Marchant
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Neugebauer
     Olson
     Paul
     Pence
     Poe (TX)
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sessions
     Smith (TX)
     Sullivan
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Westmoreland

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Becerra
     Braley (IA)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     Gerlach
     Hastings (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Norton
     Nunes
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Stupak
     Wasserman Schultz
     Yarmuth


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in this 
vote.

                              {time}  1436

  Messrs. HIMES and ROHRABACHER changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Sutton

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 249, 
noes 173, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 849]

                               AYES--249

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

                               NOES--173

     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (KY)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Himes
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy (NY)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Baca
     Boucher
     Braley (IA)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     Gerlach
     Gonzalez
     Griffith
     Gutierrez
     Kind
     Murphy, Patrick
     Norton
     Nunes
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Stupak
     Waters


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in this 
vote.

                              {time}  1444

  Mr. CHILDERS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 849, had I been present, I would 
have voted ``aye.''
  The CHAIR. There being no further amendments, under the rule, the 
Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. 
DeGette) having assumed the chair, Mr. Pastor of Arizona, Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3639) to 
amend the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act 
of 2009 to establish an earlier effective date for various consumer 
protections, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 884, 
he reported the bill, as amended pursuant to that resolution, back to 
the House with sundry further amendments adopted by the Committee of 
the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 884, the question of adoption of the 
further amendments will be put en gros.
  The question is on the amendments.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

[[Page 26733]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. CASTLE. In its current form, I am, yes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Castle moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3639 to the 
     Committee on Financial Services with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with an amendment as 
     follows:
       Page 7, after 18, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 4. FEDERAL RESERVE CERTIFICATION.

       Not later than the end of the 1-week period beginning on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Board of Governors 
     of the Federal Reserve System shall submit a report to the 
     Congress certifying whether or not the implementation of 
     necessary regulations under those provisions affected by the 
     amendments made by section 2 and section 3 of this Act is 
     feasible by December 1, 2009. Unless such certification 
     states that such implementation is feasible by December 1, 
     2009, section 2 and section 3 of this Act shall have no force 
     or effect.

                              {time}  1445

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Delaware is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, let me just give a little background on 
all of this. This is not a very complex motion to recommit. This 
legislation, which I supported, by the way, in its original form, the 
Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009, 
was negotiated, I think fairly, by the chairman of the committee and 
various members. It was on a parallel track with what the Federal 
Reserve was doing as a way of protecting consumers as well.
  The legislation took precedence. It was considered in committee, and 
there was some negotiation about the date on which it would go into 
effect because of the time it would take for the various credit card 
companies and others involved in this process to be able to manage all 
of this. The date that was negotiated was February 22 of next year, 
2010. That would have been about 3 or 4 months sooner than what the 
Federal Reserve had been considering, which I believe was in July of 
2010.
  In the interim period of time, there has been a lot of work by 
various people trying to put this into place, and a lot of things have 
happened in arguments which we've heard on the floor, that is, that 
some small businesses are being impacted by this, some people have lost 
credit or whatever, for better or for worse.
  But the bottom line is that the various credit card companies have a 
lot of work to do to implement this, to put their plans into place, and 
some probably have done it better than others, if I had to guess. The 
bottom line is that I don't know, I can't judge this. I don't know if 
they are ready to do this by the date of December 1 or not.
  So the motion to recommit is relatively simple. It basically 
indicates that the governors of the Federal Reserve System within no 
more than a 1-week period of time should submit a report to us in 
Congress about whether these provisions under the sections of this bill 
that would implement it, sections 2 and 3, should go into effect or 
because of the mechanics of doing this, it should wait until the 
February 22 date.
  That is simply what it does. It doesn't change it. It doesn't alter 
it. It just speaks to the date of all this going into place. There is a 
certain fairness issue in this, Madam Speaker, that we have to deal 
with. Even for those of us who supported this legislation, it seems to 
me that we're going back on these negotiations.
  We're basically telling all the issuers out there, except for the 
smaller issuers--and I thank the chairman and others who worked on the 
rule change to eliminate some of the smaller issuers--but having said 
that, some of the others have to deal with this. They have to deal with 
their implementation. They have to deal with the question of whether 
they can do it in that kind of time or not.
  As I have indicated, I don't know if any of us here can really stand 
in judgment of that, and we believe that the Federal Reserve is the 
best to do that. As a matter of fact, Saundra Bernstein, who is the 
Fed's own director of consumer affairs, testified at one of our 
hearings that the reason for this timeline is because card issuers 
would need to rethink their entire business models to reprogram their 
systems and redesign their marketing materials, solicitations, periodic 
statements, and contracts. It's all well and good for us to stand here 
as Members of Congress and say, Gee, we'll make this change that would 
benefit consumers or whatever, but it may not be practical.
  I would encourage both sides of the aisle to listen to this. Indeed, 
if the Federal Reserve makes a decision--and I have no idea how they 
would judge it--but they make a decision that it could be done by 
December 1, we'll move ahead in that time. If they don't, it will be 
kept at the original time that was in the bill to begin with. In States 
like mine, which has a good deal of banking activity, and in States 
like Connecticut, New York, South Dakota, Nebraska, Rhode Island, the 
other States that have a lot of banking activity, this has been a very 
significant issue. They have already lost jobs in the banking world. 
They continue to.
  My judgment is that we do need to give them the time to properly 
implement acts such as this. My sense is that we should at least review 
this before that determination is made that we can move it from 
February 22 to the December 1 date, which is in this legislation.
  So I would encourage everybody here to look at this and to support 
it. It doesn't alter the fact that we are going to have this change. It 
just takes this date and allows it to be reviewed by people who have 
some expertise to determine if they should move forward at this point 
or not. So I would hope that this is a motion which could be considered 
by both sides of the aisle.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to 
the recommit motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, first, I will 
acknowledge--and the gentleman from Delaware was quite civil--I will 
acknowledge that this is a moderate approach. I only hope, given the 
current situation, he is not in political trouble for taking a moderate 
approach in his party, but that's a matter for another day.
  The issue for me here is the extent to which many of my colleagues on 
the other side are engaged in an on-again/off-again love affair with 
the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve has often been the object of 
their scorn, but when it comes to consumer protection, the Federal 
Reserve is sometimes a convenient bulwark against that. For example, 
when the committee passed the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act, 
which transfers more power from the Federal Reserve than any other 
group of Federal entities, many of my Republican colleagues ran to the 
defense of the Federal Reserve by quoting the Chairman of the Federal 
Reserve as saying, Don't take this away from us. We have this on-again/
off-again.
  What this bill does is really quite remarkable. It empowers the 
Federal Reserve to cancel an act of Congress. We are hoping to get this 
bill passed, and there was some concern in the Senate from the Senate 
chairman. And thanks to the amendment that was offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) and the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Ms. Markey), we have accommodated his concerns. We think we 
have a workable proposal here.
  What the recommit says is, if the bill passes the House and passes 
the Senate and is signed by the President, we will then wait for the 
permission of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors to implement it; 
and if they say it's not feasible, then the bill dies. In fact, they 
did write us, however, and say that if they had to do it by December 
1--we wrote to them a couple of weeks ago--here is this problem that 
they wouldn't be able to get full comments in.
  But they also note the Administrative Procedures Act does provide a 
good clause exception when the notice

[[Page 26734]]

and comment period would be impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to 
the public interest.
  So what they say is, if the effective date for these provisions were 
moved to December 1, the board would have to issue final regulations 
without waiting for comments. But the point is that they've had a lot 
of time for comments. The Federal Reserve proposed this earlier after 
the gentlewoman from New York initiated it. The President signed the 
bill, the underlying bill, the effective date of what we're trying to 
do in advance, on May 22. They've had--what is that, 5\1/2\ months to 
study it. This is not the most complicated thing in the world.
  And by the way, if this was so complicated to figure out, how did the 
banks manage to be able to increase so quickly? Apparently, the banks 
have this problem: when it comes to implementing the law, they're 
working with typewriters. When it comes to raising your rates 
retroactively--remember, the biggest single part of this bill is that 
it says, if you've got a credit card and are abiding by the terms of 
that credit card, you bought things and you are charging them at the 
interest rate you were told would apply, and you make every payment you 
were obligated to make, they can retroactively raise your rates.
  That is the biggest single thing we stopped. I don't see why it is 
going to take them 8 or 9 or 10 months or a year to figure it out. I 
thought February was too much time in the first place.
  But here is the basic point: several of us said, okay, we will 
reluctantly agree to February for a bill that is passed in May, to do 
something that's not that complicated. But if you abuse it, if you use 
the time to raise rates and then blame us for it, adding insult to 
injury, then we are going to speed it up. So I think our credibility is 
at issue here. We in good faith said, take some time to implement it. 
May 22 until February. Many of you have heard what they did was to 
speed this up. There is an element of fairness here. And, yes, the 
Federal Reserve will have to forgo some public comments. I think I 
would say to people, You know, we have until December 1. If you are out 
there and you think the Federal Reserve is going to listen to you--
Madam Speaker, let me violate the rule, please, and address people who 
aren't here. If you're listening, and you really need to talk to the 
Federal Reserve, write them a letter, send them an email, call them up. 
You don't have to wait. So we can get your comments in now, and we can 
go into effect by December 1.
  We should certainly never set the precedent that any agency, and 
certainly not the Federal Reserve, which has become so controversial, 
should be given the power to suspend an act of Congress before it goes 
into effect. That is what this does. It says that we will pass this 
law; but unless it is certified as feasible by the Federal Reserve, it 
doesn't go into effect. I have a lot of respect for the Federal 
Reserve, but they're not in charge of what we think is feasible. 
They're not in charge of telling us that we have to wait more for 
public comments when our constituents, we believe, are being 
mistreated.
  So I hope the motion to recommit is defeated.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171, 
noes 253, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 850]

                               AYES--171

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Olson
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--253

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

[[Page 26735]]



                             NOT VOTING--8

     Braley (IA)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     Gerlach
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nunes
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Stupak


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1517

  Ms. WATERS, Messrs. VISCLOSKY, QUIGLEY, and Ms. SLAUGHTER changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 331, 
noes 92, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 851]

                               AYES--331

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     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
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Bright
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cao
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     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
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Graves
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     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 (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     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, 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)
     Platts
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     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--92

     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Burton (IN)
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Carter
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Inglis
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Olson
     Paul
     Pence
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Smith (NE)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Westmoreland

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Braley (IA)
     Chandler
     Deal (GA)
     Gerlach
     McCollum
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nunes
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Stupak


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1525

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. CHANDLER. Madam Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 851 on H.R. 
3639, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________