Filipino Veterans Equity Act of 2008

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1476, I call up the bill (H.R. 5244) to amend the Truth in Lending Act to establish fair and transparent practices relating to the extension of credit under an open end consumer credit plan, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that

all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 5244 and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5244, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights. I introduced this bill, together with Chairman Frank. This important legislation has 155 cosponsors. A dozen national consumer groups have not only endorsed this legislation, but have made it one of their top priorities. The AFL-CIO and especially the SEIU have strongly supported the bill. Major civil rights groups saw this bill as necessary to stop abuses to their constituents.

Over 50 newspapers from all over the Nation published editorials and op-eds in support of credit card reform, from California to Florida and even my own hometown paper, The New York Times.

The Federal Reserve, whose first priority is protecting the safety and soundness of our financial institutions and our economy, has called the credit card practices addressed in this bill ``anticompetitive for markets and unfair and deceptive to consumers.'' Some 56,000 Americans wrote in in support of the proposed Federal rule, more than any in the history of the Fed, commenting in support of this bill.

Rarely do we get an opportunity to vote for legislation with such deep and widespread support. In the midst of the financial turmoil in our markets, Congress has been asked to provide $700 billion for Wall Street. Now we have a chance with this bill to do something for Main Street.

Credit cards are an essential part of our economy, but for too long card issuers have been allowed to do whatever they want, any time, for any reason. A deal is a deal, but what sort of a deal is it when one side gets to make all the decisions? This bill will get credit card practices back to basic principles of contractual fairness.

No other industry is allowed to raise the price of a product after the consumer has bought it.

Also, the credit card bill of rights bans ``any time any reason'' rate increases on existing card balances. It bans double cycle billing which charges interest on debt already paid.

It gives consumers 45 days notice of any rate increases so cardholders can decide whether to pay off their balances and shop for another card. The bill makes sure that consumers who borrow high rate balances such as emergency cash advances can pay them off by requiring issuers to credit some part of the payments to the high rate balances.

The bill stops due date gimmicks that trick cardholders into paying late and racking up unjustified fees. It prevents subprime cards from trapping the most vulnerable cardholders in a cycle of debt, and it prohibits issuing cards to vulnerable minors.

The bill will demonstrate, once and for all, that Congress is protecting working Americans, as well as large institutions, from the current financial storm. Unfair credit card debt is as toxic to ordinary citizens as subprime debt obligations are to investment banks.

This is an issue that cuts across social and economic groups. Everyone has a credit card, and too many have a credit card story of getting hit with an unfair or deceptive practice.

I expect opponents of reform will argue that we should wait for the Federal Reserve to act or, as they put it, Congress should defer to the Fed; but this Congress and this majority cannot abdicate our responsibilities. This country cannot afford to wait for this administration and its regulators any longer. We need to take action now on this critical issue.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Enough is enough. It is time to help consumers.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I would say to my good friend on the other side of the aisle, doing nothing and hoping that the Fed will act is an abdication of our responsibility, and that is not the way of this Congress. The Fed has called it unfair and deceptive practices, they have called it anticompetitive, and we should act to correct these abuses.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, Keith Ellison, the gentleman from Minnesota, who is cochair of the Consumer Justice Caucus and has had a leadership role in passing this bill.

I yield such time as he may consume to the Chair of the Committee on Financial Services, Barney Frank, and congratulate him on his hard work on this piece of legislation and so many other areas.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, but I introduced my bill in February after many legislative hearings and meetings that involved Members on the other side of the aisle, stakeholders, consumers, and everyone concerned about this problem. We drafted and put in our bill in February. In May, the Federal Reserve came back with recommendations that mirrored our bill almost completely.

I would like to point out to him that the Federal Reserve is not in the Constitution, and we didn't leave it up to the regulators in the foreclosure crisis. We passed a bill to help homeowners stay in their homes. As we have seen Wall Street under attack, we are not leaving things up to the regulators. We passed legislation giving new direction to the Treasury to help the GSEs, investment banks, and insurers. So you are very selective on your comments that we should step back and let the Fed do everything.

I now recognize an outstanding member of our committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) who is co-chair of the Literacy Caucus on the Financial Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Walter Jones, for 1 minute, an outstanding member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Madam Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) for 3 minutes.

I thank the gentleman for his comments. I have been a supporter of transparency and fairness for consumers in the financial services area since I came to Congress. I believe consumers should have complete information so they can decide how to manage their money more efficiently and better.

I commend the gentleman from North Carolina for his efforts to provide consumers with robust information, and I would be happy to work with him on including these provisions.

Madam Speaker, in response to my good friend's comments, the bill is very close to the rule, and opponents of the bill also oppose the rule. Industry opposes my bill and has filed arguments opposing the rule. The OCC opposes the bill and also opposes the Fed rule. The Federal Reserve and two other regulators support the substance of the bill. The administration opposes provisions of my bill that are identical to the Fed rule.

So it would be one thing if you supported the regulations you so passionately argue we should be waiting for; it is another thing to argue that we should wait for something that those who oppose protecting consumers, giving them information and providing fairness in the contractual agreement between credit card issuers and consumers.

I now yield 2 minutes to my good friend from the great State of Colorado, Mark Udall, who has been a leader in this debate and has had constituents who have come before the committee to testify. We thank him for his leadership.

(Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Loretta Sanchez, who has been involved in the drafting and the movement of this bill. I congratulate her on her leadership.

May I inquire as to how much time remains.

I yield 1 minute to Keith Ellison, Congressman Ellison from Minnesota.

In response to my good friend and colleague, there is no evidence to support that claim. The argument that this will raise the cost of credit and restrict access to credit is an assertion that has absolutely no basis in fact. We asked the industry, at our six hearings, for some evidence to support this claim, and they had none.

The Federal Reserve and the General Accounting Office have said in reports that there is no evidence to support the argument that these abuses have lowered rates or increased access to credit. And these reports are on my Web site and also on the industry's Web site.

Getting rid of anticompetitive practices will increase access to credit. The Federal Reserve has called these practices anticompetitive. Getting rid of them will not hurt the market. Getting rid of these practices will help competition and increase, not decrease, access to credit.

As I mentioned earlier, we had a roundtable where many of the issuers participated, and some of them voluntarily started following the proposals, voluntarily. And they tried to move to the higher goal standards, and they were turning their backs on these unfair and deceptive practices. But they found that they were losing profit and market share. So we need to level the playing field not only for consumers, but for the industry itself.

I would now like to yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Connecticut, Christopher Shays, who is a member of the Financial Services Committee.

I yield 1 minute to my colleague, Congressman Ellison.

In response to my good friend on the other side of the aisle, this has not been a rush to judgment. Democrats have been working on this bill for well over 2 years. My subcommittee has held 6 hearings, numerous meetings, roundtable discussions with consumers and issuers. The gentlelady claims that Reg Z is the bill. Reg Z is not at all the same as this bill. Reg Z from the Federal Reserve deals just with disclosure, and the Federal Reserve has said disclosure is not enough. They have called the practices unfair, deceptive, and anti-competitive, and have come forward with recommendations that, in many ways, resemble the bill that is before us today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers. Does the gentleman from California have any further speakers?

Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to my good friend and colleague on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Castle, for whom I have great respect, and we have worked together productively in many ways. If you support these reforms, as you have so stated, then you should vote for them, and you should not vote for delay and weakening by waiting for some action that may happen in the future. If you support these reforms that have been called unfair and deceptive, then I hope you will join us in a bipartisan effort to correct the system.

Now many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said that we should not act. But how in the world can we not act now? We are providing a $700 billion rescue for banks. How can we not provide basic fairness to consumers and some help and rescue to Main Street?

These practices have been called by the Fed unfair and deceptive and anticompetitive. We are helping consumers and the market by getting rid of them. The current situation makes it more urgent that we do so, not less.

Many, many people worked long and hard on this bill, and I would like to first and foremost thank the chairman of this committee, Barney Frank, for his consistent support and input; the 155 cosponsors of this legislation; other members of the Financial Services Committee that took a leadership role, Keith Ellison, Emanuel Cleaver, Lincoln Davis; also Mark Udall, Peter Welch, and Louise Slaughter for their leadership on the issue; Walter Jones and Chris Shays who were supportive from the beginning; the many consumer groups without whom we could not have gotten the broad base of support for this legislation; the labor unions, the AFL-CIO, especially the SCIU, which made this a top priority, civil rights groups; and certainly, the staff: my own staff, Eleni Constantine and Edward Mills, who have poured their heart and intelligence into this effort for 2 years; and the staff of the full committee, Michael Beresik, Patience Singleton, Charles Yi and Rick Maurano. Thank you for your efforts.

I urge very, very strong support for this long overdue reform.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman on the other side of the aisle if he would be open to a UC change to change the term ``promptly'' in the bill to ``forthwith.'' If this UC is agreed to, I would support it and accept the motion.

I yield to the gentleman from Delaware.

Then regretfully I oppose your motion to recommit because it would effectively kill the bill because we are in the last week of session, and it is yet another delay tactic. If this was a serious concern, you would have raised this in the committee, and it is obviously just another effort to kill the bill.

We are being called upon to help Wall Street. We should also help Main Street, and I would urge my colleagues to understand that this bill has been supported not only by 155 of their colleagues but over 52 major publications across this country in editorials or op-eds, every single consumer organization in this country, and three of the regulators, including the Federal Reserve.

Rarely are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle given an opportunity to vote against stopping unfair, deceptive, and anticompetitive practices that have been endorsed and called upon by many in this country to stop.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this motion to recommit. It is an effort to kill the bill. It is an effort not to help consumers, and it is an effort that would roll us backwards. They say they're for it. Well, we're giving them an opportunity to vote for consumers with this bill.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit. It kills the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

There is already existing law on this subject. This is clearly a critical subject. There has been discussion about unfair and deceptive practices, and I don't think there is any disagreement that unfair and deceptive practices exist in the credit card industry. The question is, how do we deal with it and what do we do with it?

Right now there is existing law. The existing law says that the Federal Reserve is supposed to crack down through regulation on ``unfair and deceptive acts or practices.''

To that end, the Federal Reserve in May issued proposed regulations to do exactly that, to try to stop those things that they determined were, at that time, unfair and deceptive. As the lady from New York correctly pointed out, there have been tens of thousands of responses and input to the Federal Reserve on their proposed regulations. The Federal Reserve has said that they will make those regulations final prior to the end of the year, which by the way, is more likely to be sooner than this legislation could possibly pass both Houses and perhaps be signed by the President.

I don't know why at this point we would want to interfere with this process, which appears to be working well. Clearly it is working well because the proposed bill is pretty much identical to the proposed regulations that the Fed put out in May.

Now the Fed may make some changes to those regulations based on the tens of thousands of responses that they got, which is how that process works. For us to come in and intercede in that process and overrule that process is, first of all, wrong; and, second of all, sets a bad precedent.

The reason that we often, in this situation and other situations in Congress, allow the definitions of these sorts of things to be done by regulators is that things change quickly. Congress doesn't act quickly.

Next year, there could be new deceptive practices. There could be some things out there this year that are in the proposed regulations that have been determined to actually not be deceptive or perhaps to interfere with the marketplace. By doing this, we are stepping in, and we are defining what these things are, and that is not something I believe we should be doing when the existing law is in process and appears to be functioning correctly.

Second of all, it is well known the major issue that we will be dealing with this week is the financial crisis in which the country finds itself gripped. This is clearly a very, very serious financial crisis and a very serious issue.

What are the ramifications? What are the manifestations of this financial crisis? Right now, credit is contracting. Currently, it is happening in the corporate and business markets, but it is also already extending, and has been, to home loans, car loans and, yes, credit cards.

We are in a financial crisis in which the availability of credit to Americans everywhere, in all forms, is becoming more difficult to get and more expensive. Clearly, the solutions to this crisis go way beyond the scope of this bill that we have before us today. But one thing we don't want to do is to further constrict credit markets that are already constricting and further increase the interest rates to consumers that are already going up.

This bill, by stepping in directly in this way and interfering with the process that the Federal Reserve has in place, has the potential to do that. I would say that before people vote on this bill, I think they need to consider carefully that if it becomes more difficult for people to get credit in the future, if in the next weeks or months it becomes harder to even get a credit card or the interest rates thereon go up, do you want to be a part of pushing that credit out and pushing those rates up, or do you want to be a part of looking at the solution to those issues?

Let's remember that many of the credit card issuing companies are those companies that are on Wall Street and that are in trouble. They are not making any money right now.

Now we are not here, and the purpose of credit cards is not to ensure that they make money through their credit cards, that is not where I am going. That is the market at work. That is their problem; that is their issue. But the fact is that when companies don't make money on something, they do less of it or they charge more for it, and that is where we appear to be headed now.

I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and suggest that you consider that if this bill does not pass, that still unfair and deceptive practices will be reined in by the Federal Reserve's regulations before the end of the year in a rational manner and hopefully we will then proceed to deal with, later this week, the issue of trying to make sure that credit and credit cards will be available.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I would say, if the Fed is so unable to deal with this problem, then why does this bill basically parrot exactly what the Fed did in May?

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to my friend and colleague, and a member of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

How much time remains?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to respond to the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

I would argue that this bill already defers to the Federal Reserve because it basically parroted the proposed regulations that the Federal Reserve put out in May. So this bill basically says okay, we are going to take what you guys proposed and we are going to make it law, not regulation which can be changed, not making any changes based on the 50,000 or 40,000, we are going to make it law.

Second, on this side we are not deferring to the Federal Reserve; we are deferring to existing law. And the will of the people based on existing law was that it is best that these sorts of determinations and definitions, which is what is unfair and what is deceptive, be handled on a regulatory basis, than that it is that Congress come back every year or 2 years or 6 years or whatever and try and determine what is new out there in the marketplace that is now determined to be unfair.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes just for a brief response.

In listening to the arguments on the other side, it sounds as though they are debating for changing certain things in credit cards as though we are debating against that. We are not.

What we are here saying is simply that this kind of thing is better done by regulation than it is by proscriptive statute, which is what this bill would do. And actually, it would be more effective in protecting the consumers if there is a regular regulatory process and review and so forth, not just this year but ongoing forward, than if Congress keeps stepping in and interfering with and, in fact, probably slowing down that particular regulatory review and process.

That is what we are talking about here, in addition to the fact that the other very important thing to keep in mind is that we have the availability of this credit going forward given the current crisis in which we find ourselves.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Yes. What I said was that they may. And it would not be a retaliatory basis. It would be because the credit markets are currently in great turmoil. And because they are in great turmoil already, credit is restricting and the rates are going up. That is happening not just with credit card debt, but with car loan debt.

No. What I am saying is that we should, as I've said----

Madam Speaker, I yield myself a minute just to respond to that, that what we have here is that the unfair and deceptive practices should stop. The Federal Reserve is probably going to do that. But by stepping in now, they will be considering all of the responses they got, and by the way, the lady from New York mentioned about the credit card companies are against the Federal Reserve proposal. I'm sure they are. But the Federal Reserve will make the decision they believe is right based on the statute which says they are supposed to crack down on those unfair and deceptive practices. And they will do that.

But what we don't want to do is send more messages to the marketplace now that we are stepping in to do things that may include some things that aren't unfair and deceptive, or that may mess with the financial markets because they are very, very fragile at the moment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that Fed Governor Randy Kroszner, in testimony, said that he did believe that the regulations promulgated by the Fed would, in fact, raise interest rates for some and restrict credit for some, talking about his own proposed regulations. So there is at least some authoritative belief that that will happen.

I would now like to yield 4 minutes to a member of the Financial Services Committee, the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

I would like to yield the lady 1 more minute.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides?

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), also a member of the Financial Services Committee.

I yield the gentleman 1 more minute.

I have one more speaker, a repeat speaker, and then I am prepared to close after that.

I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Madam Speaker, for the reasons we have articulated, this is not the way to do this, nor is it the time to do it. This bill is very well intentioned, and I applaud my colleague from New York for her commitment to this issue and, frankly, for her tenacity with this issue.

But this bill, make no mistake, will not help consumers. It will hurt consumers. Unfair and deceptive practices will be dealt with on a regulatory basis as they should be by the Federal Reserve. And then hopefully this Congress will act this week in a bipartisan and reasoned manner to try and deal with the financial crisis so that credit availability for people is continued and assured. And then we can deal with this continuing issue, and it will be a continuing issue without the current environment of the potential shutdown of credit to availability. It is not the way. It is not the time to do this.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.

Let me first pay a compliment to the sponsor of the legislation. I worked with her through a number of the hearings on this situation with credit card companies. I think she heightened the awareness to do something about this. Maybe that's, in part, why the Federal Reserve has started to move forward. I think she deserves a great deal of credit for that.

Madam Speaker, I do not, however, support this legislation at this time for a lot of the reasons that have already been stated.

The Federal Reserve, as we all know, regulates in this area. This is not one of those unregulated banking areas. They have issued a rule on unfair and deceptive practices. They have received, as the gentlewoman has properly pointed out, over 50,000 comments concerning that. Those comments have come both in opposition to their rule and in support of it, and they are now going through all of that.

We anticipate that by the end of the year they will issue their final, what is known as UDAP, rules on this particular subject, dealing with these deceptive practices, which will guide the consumers, which will guide the credit card companies, in which a great deal of expertise and time has been put in. I am certain that a number of provisions that are in this legislation will be included in whatever the Fed people issue, but there also may be different ways of looking at problems, there may be different nuances. Frankly, I trust their expertise to be able to do that.

Plus, we have the ability as Congress, or at least the next Congress does, to come back and incorporate into law anything we feel should happen. I think by doing what we are doing now by trying to pass legislation at this point, regardless of whether it could pass in the Senate or not in the next few days, we are, indeed, taking the responsibility of doing something that the Fed is well prepared to handle. I think we should leave it to them to do that.

For that reason, I believe that this legislation should not have come up. I prefer not to oppose it, but in the circumstances that we are dealing with, I feel that we need to oppose it.

There are a few points here. There is a lot of competition out there and people can go from one credit card company to another. I do not necessarily think that we are abrogating our responsibility, as has been stated on the floor here, by not supporting this legislation at this time. As a matter of fact, I think we are doing the right thing as far as consumers, credit card companies and the economy is concerned.

I am also concerned about who is going to pay all of this. If some of these steps are taken and all of a sudden there are losses as far as the credit card industry is concerned, does that mean fees go up? Other people who were paying lower interest rates are going to pay higher interest rates? Will they charge more at the beginning? Various steps that I don't know if I have the economic sophistication to explain, but I have a gut reaction that the bottom line is that somebody is going to pay for it. They always do in some way or another, and that could be many consumers who are presently being responsible in terms of how they are handling their debt circumstances.

So for all of these reasons, it is my judgment that this is legislation better not done at this time. Could it come back in the spring in the form of incorporating what the Fed has done or incorporating and polishing what the Federal Reserve issues in their rules, yes, that would be something that we should do. I think we all agree there should be steps taken in this situation.

But I trust those who have received all of these comments and looked at all of this and have all of the expertise to make the decisions. I would hope that Members of Congress would withhold voting for this at this time and see what the Federal Reserve is going to issue.

I would just add, the statement was made by the sponsor, I believe, that hoping that the Fed will act is an abrogation of our responsibility. The Fed has acted. They have issued a rule. They are getting comments. They are going to issue a final rule. I don't think there is any doubt in anyone's mind that the Fed has acted in this circumstance, so I urge defeat of this legislation if it is going to move forward.

I again thank the gentleman from California for yielding.

I would like to take up a couple of points that the sponsor of the bill raised.

One is the credit card companies in general oppose what is happening at the Federal Reserve and thereby also oppose her legislation which is here. That may be accurate to a degree, but there are a couple of factors in this. One is that many of the better credit card companies-- ``better'' being the ones that are paying attention to the practices-- have already made a number of the changes proposed both by the Federal Reserve and what is in this legislation.

Secondly, I certainly support the concepts of this legislation as well as support what has been recommended in the unfair and deceptive practices rule which hopefully will get even better with the 50,000- plus comments that will come out here again in the fall. I think that's a matter of good consumer adjustment that needed to be made.

I also hope that consumers in general will understand the significance of understanding what they're dealing with. What bothers me sometimes is people don't understand all of their practices, but we need to make sure it's clear before them. And so I, and I think many others on this side and even some of the better credit card companies, would be very supportive of a lot of these changes which are being made.

The other thing that concerns me somewhat is the statement that there is no evidence that this legislation may raise the cost of credit. That may be a correct statement. But I think it is also correct to say there is no evidence that it will not raise the cost of credit. I think that's a logical conclusion. If

you take away money in one way or another, they're going to have to make up for it, and they're probably going to do that by looking at fees charged, interest rates, or whatever it may be.

My bottom line is you are probably going to see increases if indeed the changes as proposed in this legislation are made.

Again, I would urge the bill to be withdrawn. I don't expect it today, but I would urge the bill to be withdrawn so we can allow the Federal Reserve to make its opinions known and then proceed from there.

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

Yes, in its current form, I am.

Madam Speaker, I hope that we listened to the motion carefully. It pertains to the issue that's been raised a couple times in the discussion, the matter of credit.

And what we are simply trying to do in this is to make sure that there is not a reduction in the availability of credit covered by this act to certain groups, small businesses, veterans or minorities. There is a concern that as you start to make some of these shifts that you could have a credit increase, and even though the committee held several hearings on the bill before us today, not a single witness could reassure the committee that this bill would not result in a reduction of credit.

Given the current state of our financial system with available credit staying locked up on the sidelines, credit cards are becoming increasingly important to make ends meet for seniors, small businesses, and average Americans.

Should this bill be signed into law without an appropriate effort to evaluate the impacts, Congress will have been an accomplice to the reduction in credit.

This motion to recommit simply asks the Federal Reserve to study the effects of the bill, and if the conclusion is that this will damage our economy and reduce credit, then we would not enact these sweeping provisions.

There are more than 4 million minority-owned small businesses in America. SBA data shows that some 15 percent of the capital used to open a minority-owned small business comes from the use of credit cards. There are nearly 10.4 million firms owned by women employing 12.8 million people. However, these women-owned businesses had to make an average of four attempts to obtain bank loans or lines of credit and 22 attempts to obtain equity capital. So clearly the need is there.

Eleven percent of the capital for women-owned businesses comes from the use of credit cards. What if that number is reduced or eliminated due to a provision in the bill? The economy obviously would take a direct hit.

I would also point out in closing, Madam Speaker, that this hopefully is a motion to recommit that could be supported by everybody, even those in favor of the legislation, on the basis that we need to establish whether or not there's going to be a credit hit with respect to all this before such legislation would go into place.

I would encourage support from all the Members of the House for the motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

At this time, we will not accept the suggestion. I appreciate the kind offer, however, of the sponsor.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6897) to authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make certain payments to eligible persons who served in the Philippines during World War II, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this bill, rights a wrong that has existed for more than 60 years. Filipino servicemembers played a critical role in the United States' victory in the Pacific during World War II.

They exhibited great courage, as we all know, in the epic battles of Bataan and Corregidor. Many died in the famous Bataan Death March. Those who survived, and others who escaped, continued to harass the Japanese as guerilla units. When MacArthur returned, they joined in the victory of the retaking of the Philippines.

This bill would provide a one-time payment to the courageous Filipino soldiers who fought side-by-side with American GIs. There is no disputing the valiant service that these men provided in the Pacific.

Unfortunately, during a less-than-noble moment in our history, Congress passed the Rescission Acts of 1946, which stripped them of their veteran status and denied them the right of any benefit. While some veteran benefits have been restored for a few soldiers on a limited and piecemeal basis, for the large majority, they have never received a dime for their service. This is wrong.

When these men were called up to service by President Roosevelt, they were still considered Americans who were under territorial rule. Even if decades later, we must recognize the service of our Filipino soldiers and demonstrate the gratitude all of our soldiers deserve for doing what they were asked to do nobly and without complaint.

Let me remind you what President Truman said when he signed the so- called Rescission Acts, even though he disagreed with part of it. Truman said the passage and approval of this legislation ``does not release the United States from its moral obligation to provide for the heroic Filipino veterans who sacrificed so much. Philippine Army veterans fought as American nationals under the American flag and under the direction of our military leaders.''

H.R. 6897, as amended, will give a long overdue one-time payment of $15,000 for U.S. citizens and $9,000 for those who were citizens. By doing this, we will provide a small, yet meaningful, measure of recognition and thanks to these brave men who deserve far, far more.

It is time that this Congress and our Nation recognize their contributions to the successful outcome of World War II, recognize the injustice visited upon them and act to correct this injustice. To those who ask if we can afford to redeem this debt, I say we can't afford not to. The historical record remains blotted until we recognize these veterans.

I hope all my colleagues will join me in supporting these veterans and would reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), who has been a strong fighter on behalf of these Filipino veterans in her career in Congress.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6897, as amended.

Madam Speaker, let me say this is an important bill for our Nation, for our moral standing, and for our historical standing. There has been a blot on our record for the last 62 years. We now have a chance to remove it.

I am surprised to hear from my friend, Mr. Stearns, that he wants to play off one veteran against another and say there are higher priorities. That is what he and his ranking member objected to in our pay-for in S. 1315.

As we deal with the very real problems of our veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, we have 24 million other veterans to care for, whether they be from the Persian Gulf War I, Korea, Vietnam or World War II. We have injustices. I don't think the gentleman from Florida would have any problem dealing with the injustices from Vietnam where we have not honored our Agent Orange claims, and we will try to take care of that. I don't think he would have any problem honoring the atomic veterans of World War II who, involved in the testing of atomic weapons, were not told of the dangers and risks, and they have cancers today that they cannot get compensation for. We have to correct that.

So, yes, we are involved with the current veterans, but we also have to correct injustices of the past as we are trying to do here in this bill on Filipino veterans.

Madam Speaker, I misspoke when I said I didn't have any further speakers, and if Mr. Stearns wants more time, he can take from us before Ms. Richardson takes the floor.

Would the gentleman yield?

What you ask, I think, has already taken place. We do, in fact, compensate those who were our allies, whether from Laos or Cambodia or Thailand.

But more importantly, in World War II, Mr. Stearns, there were nationalities of 67 countries who fought in the war to help us. We have compensated the nationals who were not our citizens of 66 of those countries. Only one has not been, and that is the Philippines. It

is true that they got their independence after the war in 1946, and the $200 million that you referred to was given to that new government. But they simply have not received the compensation and benefits that we granted to other nationals of World War II, to other nationals in Korea and Vietnam. There is a real historical precedent for all of that.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Stearns, if you were a Filipino veteran at the time, that money was awarded to the Government of the Philippines. I am not sure what they ended up giving back. But we are 62 years later. That would never have accomplished the analogous benefits that our brave veterans of World War II have received.

I would yield such time as she may consume to Ms. Richardson from California, and thank her for being here.

Madam Speaker, I see my friend would like some additional time, and so I yield to Mr. Stearns.

I yield to Ms. Richardson.

I want to end the debate now. Mr. Stearns, I appreciate it. You pointed out, by the way, the discrepancy in the funds between this one and my H.R. 760, which I think was about $900 million. You are right, this is not my first choice. This is a second choice brought about by the actions of those who opposed it and would not allow it to pass.

Mr. Stearns, You spent a lot of time on the $200 million from 1946. By my quick calculations, each of the quarter million veterans at the time would have received less than $1,000 at that moment.

Madam Speaker, I think we have a historical record to correct. I strongly urge my colleagues to correct it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the chairwoman for yielding me time, and I rise in strong support of this legislation. The bill's purpose is to require more fair play for people with credit cards.

For many Americans, consumer credit is more than a convenience. They rely on it for everyday needs. And for them it's a necessity. But they aren't always treated fairly by the companies that issue the credit cards that they use.

As the chairwoman pointed out, I've heard from many people in my State of Colorado asking me to help level the playing field. They work to do the right thing and pay their bills on time, and they deserve to be treated in good faith by the credit card companies.

That's the reason I've been working to make some commonsense changes in the rules for credit cards over these last two Congresses. I introduced a bill in 2006, and then reintroduced it again this year. And I'm proud that it won the support of an array of consumer groups, as well as 39 cosponsors from congressional districts across the country.

Most of the provisions in my bill have been included in this bill, H.R. 5244, the Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights. This is a good, solid bill that will bring real reform without arbitrary rate caps or price controls that could backfire and make credit less available.

Now later this week we'll be debating on how to respond to the problems in the credit markets. This debate will focus on a financial market crisis that's brought on, in part, by the reckless practices of lenders who thought the use of complicated financial engineering would make risky loans safe.

Across the country, people worry that we will be too concerned about rescuing the reckless and not concerned enough about fairness for hard working Americans who may be called upon to pay the tab. So it's appropriate, as we prepare for that debate, that we start by acting and bringing greater fairness to the millions of Americans who need and use credit cards.

I urge passage of the bill. I thank the chairwoman again for her leadership on this important measure.

Madam Speaker, as a proud cosponsor of this legislation, I rise in strong support of it as a way to add some common-sense rules to the laws governing issuance of credit cards.

Later this week, we will be debating how to respond to problems in the credit markets. As we all know, that debate will focus on a financial-market crisis brought on, in large part, by reckless practices of lenders who thought the use of complicated financial ``engineering'' would make risky loans safe.

Understandably, many in Colorado and across the country are concerned that Congress may be too concerned about rescuing those who took excessive risks and not concerned enough about fairness for hard- working American taxpayers who will be called on to pay the tab.

So it is appropriate, as we prepare for that debate, that we start by acting to bring greater fairness to the millions of Americans who need and use credit cards. I have heard from constituents across Colorado, asking me to help even the playing field on this issue.

They benefit from the widespread availability of consumer credit, and their use of that credit has been important to our economy. In fact, for many Americans, consumer credit is more than a convenience. It is something that many people need to use to pay for their everyday needs. For them, it is a necessity.

Of course, another word for credit is debt--and credit card debt has increased considerably in recent years. Overall, during the last decade, total credit-card debt rose by about 70 percent, and this clearly has an effect on consumers.

Some polls have reported that about 70 percent of surveyed families said the quality of their lives is adversely affected by the extent of their debts, and young people are more worried about going deeply into debt than about a terrorist attack.

Some have argued that much of this debt was caused by recklessness and an erosion

of financial responsibility. That was one of the main arguments advanced in support of the recent changes in the bankruptcy laws.

But while there was something to that argument, it was not the whole story and it put too much emphasis on borrowers alone. Instead of just focusing on borrowers, Congress should also do more to promote responsibility by those who provide the credit--and one place to start is with credit card companies.

That's the reason I have been working to make some common-sense changes in the rules for credit card companies.

I first introduced a bill to do that back in 2006, and reintroduced it again last year with our colleague, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver. I'm proud it won the support of an array of consumer groups as well as 39 cosponsors from Congressional Districts across the country.

Now, I have joined as an original cosponsor of H.R. 5244, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights, which includes many provisions based on my bill.

It includes protection against arbitrary interest rate increases. It will prevent cardholders who pay on time from being unfairly penalized. It will bar excessive fees and will require more fairness in the way payments are handled. And it would prohibit the use of ``universal default'' clauses--provisions that allow card issuers to impose a new, higher interest rate on a credit card account if there has been any change for the worse in the cardholder's credit score--even if the change is unrelated to the credit card account.

In short, H.R. 5244 is a good, solid bill that will bring real reform without arbitrary rate caps or price controls that could backfire and make credit less available.

It deserves passage today and prompt enactment into law.