Providing for consideration of 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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for extending me the time.

I rise in opposition to this new, record-breaking 62nd closed rule being offered by this Democrat-led Congress, and I object to the timing of bringing this underlying legislation to the floor at a particularly fragile and vulnerable time for American consumers, for American small businesses, and for the entire American economy.

As every Member of this House, in fact, probably every single person on this planet with a working television already understands and they're very acutely aware, the United States capital markets for commercial credit have been frozen. And later this week, this Congress is going to be asked to vote on a massive and currently unfinished proposal to try to stem this enormous threat to our economy and to prevent it from spilling over into everyday Americans' lives who are simply trying to make ends meet.

The enormity and complexity of this crisis and its corresponding legislative solutions makes me question why, Mr. Speaker, why, with all the other problems in our financial markets that require our immediate, fixed and unwavering attention, this House leadership would bring this bill to the floor under a closed rule, instead of focusing on the much larger problem that economists and editorial boards across this country believe has the potential to do catastrophic damage to global financial systems.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, I'm confused as to why this Congress is choosing this path because, despite whether the House considers this Democrat majority's 62nd closed rule, or this legislation today, it makes no difference, absolutely no difference as to whether the issues contained in this legislation to protect consumers from unfair or deceptive practices will even be addressed in a timely fashion.

To protect consumers from questionable practices, the Federal Reserve has already proposed broad new rules. But rather than allowing the Fed to finish its job, this Congress thought it was important enough to pass a new law to give to them, and this Congress is passing a bill that preempts all of the work that Congress has asked these regulators to do, while doing nothing to strengthen the Federal Reserve's already existing consumer protection mandate.

Like every other Member of this House, I am concerned about the crushing economic impact that rising food and fuel prices are having on American families. I'm even more concerned that passing legislation like this will discourage investment in credit card lending to fewer consumers and smaller businesses getting access to the credit that they need to stay afloat.

Unlike the Democrat leadership bringing this bill to the House floor, I do not believe that it is wise policy to create a consumer credit crunch at the same time that our economy is already experiencing a massive commercial credit crunch. And I'm greatly concerned that current market conditions have the potential to greatly amplify the unintended consequences of this legislation at a time when families and small business need it the most. The ``it'' is credit.

Limiting the ability of consumer credit issuers to base their prices according to risk, as this legislation proposes to do, will only increase rates and fees for everyone, while also severely constricting the availability of credit to higher risk consumers altogether.

So, at a time when our constituents most need the flexibilities of these products, i.e., credit, this Democrat Congress is trying to preempt the focused efforts of three different regulators and restricting the access to credit card credit that is made available to American families and to small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I believe a far more reasonable course of action would have been the one that was suggested by 14 members of the Financial Services Committee, a bipartisan group of seven Democrats and seven Republicans, when they asked the chairman of the committee to hold hearings on the Federal Reserve proposed rules before deciding whether passing legislation limiting consumer credit was necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a copy of this bipartisan letter to Chairman Frank, as well as a copy of the administration's statement of administrative policy on this bill, which makes their concerns about unfair and deceptive practices as clear as their opposition to this underlying legislation that would ``result in less access to credit and higher interest rates for consumers.''

That is what the White House has said, and I will once again quote: This legislation will ``result in less access to credit and higher interest rates for consumers.''

Mr. Speaker, this comes at a particularly bad time, when consumers in our economy already have had enough stress to deal with without having to worry about unintended consequences of legislation passed by Congress that would make it even more difficult for families and small businesses to make ends meet.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, September 22, 2008.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 5244--Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2008

The Administration is concerned about unfair and deceptive

credit card practices and supports efforts to protect

consumers. Credit card plans have become more complex, and it

is important that disclosures are transparent and clear so

that consumers can understand their contracts and compare

products. Transparency alone is insufficient to protect

consumers from all unfair credit card practices, and

legislation likely to result in higher interest rates for

consumers is not the answer; deceptive practices must also be

prohibited.

The Federal Reserve, Office of Thrift Supervision, and

National Credit Union Administration are currently finalizing

regulations to prohibit unfair and deceptive credit card

practices and make disclosures more transparent. The proposed

regulations, which are expected to be finalized in December,

address a number of goals of this bill. Those proposed

regulations eliminate universal default, prohibit double-

cycle billing, require advance notice of rate increases, and

rein in over-the-limit fees. Regulations are better suited to

addressing these problems than legislation because they can

be adapted more readily to changes in market conditions. The

proposed regulations are the result of extensive research and

consumer input, have received extensive public comment, and

should be finalized without legislation.

The Administration opposes H.R. 5244, particularly section

2 of the bill, because it would broadly constrain the ability

of financial institutions to price risk, likely resulting in

less access to credit and in higher interest rates for

consumers. For the credit market to operate efficiently,

creditors must have the flexibility to react to changes in

customer risk and market conditions. Section 2 would restrict

when lenders may change terms of the credit agreement,

significantly constraining the ability of financial

institutions to adapt to changing credit risks and market

conditions.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I would like to yield the gentleman an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of my colleague, the gentleman, Mr. Welch, if he has additional speakers. I, at this time, do not appear to have any additional speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we reserve our time.

Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that the gentleman from Vermont is through with his speakers at this time, if I could confirm that.

I thank the gentleman.

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

Mr. Speaker, since taking control of this House, this Democrat Congress has totally neglected its responsibility to address the domestic supply issues that have created the skyrocketing gas, diesel and energy costs that Americans are facing today, and no doubt, part of the credit crunch that we are facing today and credit card costs that Americans are facing today is as a result of the high cost of gasoline right now that all Americans are paying.

By going on vacation for 5 weeks over August, while I and 138 others of my Republican colleagues stayed in Washington to talk about real solutions for American families, this Democrat majority has proven that they do not believe that the energy crisis facing American families and business was important enough to cancel their summer beach plans or book tours to get the job done.

So, again, today, the Republicans are here on the floor of the House of Representatives asking each of our colleagues to vote with me to defeat the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow this House to take up a measure that will allow Members to be able to vote for a pro-energy bill and

prevent Members from going home to campaign for reelection without actually passing a bill which will pass and have meaningful reform so that we can lower the price of gasoline at the pump.

This legislation that I will be proposing that can be voted on today and that would turn into law would allow States to expand the exploration and extraction of natural resources along the Outer Continental Shelf. Not allowed in the Democrat bill that passed one week ago.

It would open the arctic energy slope and oil shale reserves to environmentally prudent exploration and extraction. Not included in the Democrats' bill of a week ago.

It would extend expiring renewable energy incentives. It would encourage the streamlining approval of new refining capacity and nuclear power facilities. Not included in the Democrat bill of a week ago.

It would encourage advanced research and development of clean coal, coal-to-liquid, and carbon sequestration technologies, which was not included in the Democrat bill a week ago.

Perhaps most of all, it would minimize drawn out legal challenges that unreasonably delay or prevent actual domestic energy production. Not included in the Democrats' bill of a week ago.

Mr. Speaker, this requirement would finally force the Democrat leadership to take positive, meaningful action to increase the supply of American energy. It would reduce the price at the pump for American families and use, what we term in the Republican Party, an all-of-the- above strategy combining increased supply of American-made energy, improved conservation and efficiency, and provide for new and expanding energy technologies to achieve American energy independence.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, we're here on the floor debating a bill today that may have unintended consequences of drying up the ability that families have and people have and small businesses have for getting credit.

I do acknowledge, I think every Member of this House acknowledges, that gasoline prices, energy prices are way too high. Food prices are way too high. But people who are trying to live their lives need the opportunity to have credit, the opportunity to be able to have a credit card, and to be able to place those expenses on their credit card, and then manage their own ability to pay back. That is the essence of what we should be about is trying to help people do that today.

Not about creating another credit card crunch. Not about creating credit cards where people don't know whether they're going to be able to get credit or not, and perhaps, more importantly, the opportunity for us to give this marketplace for American consumers stability where they know what they can count on and move forward to take care of their families and their small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say also that we believe that the provisions that were put in the rule specifically addressing the earmark reform or earmarks is unacceptable. It's unacceptable to say that this House will quite likely be voting on a massive bill only to find out weeks later we'll find out what was in the bill and those earmarks that accompany that.

As the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) noted, that is disappointing. It's disappointing because this House was advised over 2 years ago that this would be the most honest, open, and ethical Congress in history.

Mr. Speaker, I have seen very little to no action on behalf of this new Democrat majority that is open about what they do, that is transparent in what they do. And once again, today, with a record shattering breaking new closed rule, we find that they aren't even willing to take ideas from people in their own party, and I think that's disappointing.

As we wind down this last week that we're here before the election, we find that there are new tricks of the trade that take place in this Rules Committee. I'm disappointed that this new Democrat majority continues that. I support the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and what he said; and, Mr. Speaker, I would say that that's why I'm asking Members of this body not to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

I yield back my time, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1476 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 1476.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1476 provides for consideration of H.R. 5244, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2008 sponsored by Congresswoman Maloney. This rule provides for 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Financial Services. It also provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, it is entirely appropriate that today, with the extraordinary spectacle of Wall Street titans coming to Congress hat in hand asking taxpayers for $700 billion, that we take up consideration of a bill of rights for Americans who hold credit cards. It is impossible for any of us who care to observe not to see the connection between the need for stronger consumer protections in the credit card industry today and the careless, reckless dismantling of consumer protections in the housing and financial markets in the past 30 years now known by the infamous term of ``deregulation.''

Mr. Speaker, as we know, credit serves a vital function in our economy. You cannot have a functioning capitalist economy without a functioning credit system. But the question that we face as elected representatives of the people who sent us here is whether or not we will act to provide a critical consumer protection to the credit markets and the protection to consumers who depend on them, or will we continue to leave this laissez-faire to the rules made up as they go along by the people in charge on Wall Street.

If this Congress had insisted on upholding consumer protections on Wall Street, if it had not simply stood aside to the proponents of the wild west, anything-goes markets that eviscerated the regulations, and instead kept consumers safe and the markets stable and strong, then we may well have averted the crisis that this House is now considering.

Maybe we would not be facing this extraordinary threat to the strength of the middle class who is working hard, paying their bills, but hanging on by their fingernails.

The challenge our economy faces now is largely a result of Wall Street abusing the credit system that we all need. And now ballooning credit card debt presents a similar threat to American consumers and possibly the markets.

Today, the House of Representatives will have the opportunity to adopt legislation sponsored by Congresswoman Maloney that would prevent the reoccurrence of a crisis in credit cards that is happening in our housing industry.

Let's just look at the situation of consumer credit as it exists today. In 2007, Mr. Speaker, 5.2 billion credit card solicitations were put in the mail, 36 solicitations per household. There are 1.22 billion credit cards in the United States. Outstanding consumer credit in the United States is approaching $1 trillion, $969.9 billion, to be precise, and the average credit card debt per household that carries a balance as opposed to those who simply use the credit card as a convenience to pay bills, that average balance is $17,103.

Does that sound sustainable and does this sound familiar?

Congresswoman Maloney's bill, H.R. 5244, institutes essential and overdue protections for the market and for the consumer by guarding against growing unmanageable debt and provides critical safeguards for consumers who have been relentlessly taken advantage of by credit card companies.

Specifically, the bill, among other things, ends unfair and arbitrary interest rate increases. Credit card companies raise interest rates at will, bait and switch, ends unfair penalties for cardholders who pay on time, requires fair allocation of consumer payments so that the payments are attributed to the highest interest rate first, protects cardholders from due date gimmicks, prevents companies from using misleading terms and damaging consumer credit ratings, protects vulnerable consumers from high fee subprime credit cards, and bars issuing credit cards to vulnerable minors.

The bill is the beginning of important reform in credit cards; the beginning of increased protection for consumers of credit card companies. H.R. 5244 is one side of the consumer protection coin.

The other side of the coin, which we're not taking up today but will hopefully get to, is for merchants who pay fees to credit card companies for every single credit card transaction, the so-called ``interchange fees.''

Mr. Speaker, in the United States, our credit card interchange fees are the highest in the entire world, accounting for as much as 2 percent of the cost of every credit card transaction, in some cases, a good deal more. By comparison, those interchange fees in the United States are almost three times what they are in Australia, four times what consumers and businesses pay in the United Kingdom.

These bloated interchange fees are passed on to the consumer. The average American family, in fact, pays an extra $300 a year on items they purchase as a result of credit cards. For example, interchange fees can add more than 8 cents to the price of a gallon of gas every time you fill up.

I and others have introduced legislation that may be considered at some future time, H.R. 6248, the Credit Card Interchange Fees Act, which would require credit card companies to disclose their interchange rates, terms and conditions to consumers, businesses and the public. In addition, the bill would empower the Federal Trade Commission to review these rates and rules and prohibit any practices that violate consumer protection and anti-competitive laws.

Mr. Speaker, Chairman Conyers on the Judiciary Committee also has important legislation being considered, the Credit Card Fair Fee Act. In the next Congress we'll have an opportunity to take up the Conyers bill and perhaps the Welch bill.

But today we have the opportunity to take up the first step, the work of Congresswoman Maloney, where she has scores of cosponsors, where she's worked tirelessly to bring this legislation to the consideration of the floor. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support this underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York, the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, and the sponsor of the bill, Mrs. Maloney.

I thank the gentleman from Arizona.

Here is my understanding. The gentleman raises, I think, a good point.

The Armed Services Committee is working, as I understand it, on a bipartisan Department of Defense authorization bill. My understanding is the conclusion of the people who are most responsible on both sides of the aisle for that, on our side, expect that the Senate will not participate in a conference, so it will be a single bill that would be presented to this body under suspension.

So my understanding is that the folks who represent us, both sides of the aisle on the Armed Services Committee, have come to the conclusion that given the way the other body is going to handle this, that this is the most practical and effective way to proceed.

Since it's coming up under suspension, it's going to take a two- thirds vote, obviously. So whatever the reasons are that Members may want to reject that, they're going to have an opportunity to do it.

I will go on if you want, but I don't want to take too much of your time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).

I have at least two speakers at this point.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I will yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota, a member of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Ellison.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

That is correct.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make three points.

First, in response to the concerns expressed by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), I want to assure him, as well as my colleagues, that the Armed Services Committee intends today to file their explanatory statement. This is on the, incidentally, Duncan Hunter defense authorization bill. They want to file their explanatory statement before the bipartisan DOD authorization is considered on the floor. So Members are going to have an opportunity to read in the Congressional Record all the information that they want, including anything related to so-called ``earmarks.''

Second, I want to speak to the energy concerns that were discussed by the gentleman from Texas. I understand the argument he's making. It's been made by him and his colleagues, and in fact, many of the arguments that were made were incorporated into the energy legislation that did pass this House for an all-of-the-above approach to energy, and I can appreciate that some Members here do believe that drilling is the way to go and almost the only way to go. And I can understand the political appeal that has been embraced by my friends on the other side to use every occasion to speak, whether it is on a credit card bill, whether it's on a veterans bill, doesn't matter the nature of the bill that they want to give their pitch about oil. And they've done it. We've listened, and we've passed legislation that does incorporate all of the above.

But the third point I want to make is this: this legislation that has been brought to the floor by Congresswoman Maloney raises a fundamentally, profoundly important question for this Congress. Are we going to stand by hands off while the credit industry, most recently exhibited by Wall Street, basically plunders our economy, picks the pockets of consumers, has their way, tramples on the rights of individuals and families, disregards the needs of the middle class, all in the name of whatever it is in and however much money it is they can make? Or is Congress going to assert its role as the representatives of the people and establish a level playing field so that people can have access to the credit that they need in a way that companies are going to make a fair profit, the old, the elderly, the people on the margin aren't going to be ripped off?

It's really that simple, and we can debate about what the fine points are in any kind of consumer protection legislation, and reasonable people can disagree on both sides of the aisle. But the fundamental question for this Congress is, are we going to do anything or not? And the whole reason we have this extraordinary spectacle of these Wall Street titans, billionaires, now coming in to Congress saying they're going broke and give us $700 billion, and oh, it's not for us, it's because we want the economy to work for the people who are on the dead- end side of these mortgages, why did that happen?

It happened because in many ways the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Reserve, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the executive branch of government abdicated any responsibility that it had to stand up for people who needed an active government on their side.

What Congresswoman Maloney's legislation says very simply is, Enough. Enough. Enough abuse. It's over; the free ride is over. We're going to have some fair rules, consumer protections. You get notice of what your bill is going to be. You can't change the interest rate arbitrarily. A contract is a contract both ways, and if there's an obligation to pay your credit card, which there is, there's an obligation on the part of the credit card company to abide by explicit terms and conditions in a contract.

So this legislation is a first step, in my view long overdue, for Congress to stand up and say that there are going to be some basic rules of fairness, some

basic rules of the road that are going to protect everyday citizens. Credit is essential to our economy, and that's a point my friend from Texas made and he's right, and it's a useful and important tool for individuals and families.

But there have to be fair rules, and one family up against a monolith of the credit card industry, there's got to be somebody on the side of that family, and that's got to be the United States Congress.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

To my great friend, Ike Skelton, and all my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, it is an undeserved honor, but I want to thank you for the wonderful job that you have all done in putting this bill together.

This bill would not be, with all of the exigencies that we have had, and all of the difficulties in the other body to get their bill up, this bill would not be before this body now if it wasn't for the leadership of Ike Skelton.

There are a lot of military institutions in Missouri and around this country which teach members of the uniformed services leadership, but there is another institution which exhibits leadership every day, as chairman of this committee, and that's our chairman, Ike Skelton.

Ike worked this thing through a difficult period of time, with the emergencies that are emanating right now in the Capitol and the major economic emergency which is distracting lots of folks who otherwise could be working on this bill. Time schedules have been extremely difficult, and Ike Skelton, in his quiet way with his quiet leadership and his corporate understanding, he is the main body of history for the Armed Services Committee. He is the guy who remembers not only what happened in this committee 10 and 20 and 30 and 40 years ago, but also what happened in the wars that this Nation fought and what happened in that institution across the river known as the Pentagon. And being able to recall that history at important times in our deliberative processes is a great, great asset to this Nation. Ike, I want to congratulate you. This is your bill. It may have my name on it, but this is your bill. You brought this thing through to the House floor in the most difficult circumstances. Not only that, it is a wonderful bill.

The chairman has talked a lot about the details of the bill. This is an authorization of $531.4 billion. It does authorize a $68.6 billion bridge fund; a bridge fund, I might add, that was an initiative of the Armed Services Committee several years ago.

We looked at our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and said they are going to have to have the equipment and the resources during the later months in the calendar year before that spring supplemental arrives, and we came up with the bridge fund. The President followed our lead. The appropriators have followed our lead, and it has been an excellent vehicle allowing us to maintain in these warfighting theaters while we are waiting for the next funding vehicle. My congratulations to Ike for that.

We do have a good pay raise for the members of the armed services, a 3.9 percent pay raise. You know, this bill does several other things, and I will speak generally about them. It leverages American strengths. It leverages American strengths by continuing to keep the line warm, for example, on F-22 which is a key weapon system because it is a weapon system with the capability to penetrate air defenses that are here today and which may be here tomorrow. It leverages two great American innovations: stealth and precision weapons.

I would urge all of my colleagues as we go into this very difficult, very dangerous era for the United States, to continue to put pressure on and to produce American leverage. And stealth and precision technology are two of those items of technology, as is undersea technology. And we are moving toward an acceleration of the submarine program in this bill. That is very critical.

One disappointment I have is we are not doing enough in space. I would just say to my colleagues that the shooting down of a satellite by China this last year heralded a new era of military competition in space with China whether we like it or not. When you are in a military competition, there is only one alternative and that is to win. So I would urge this committee to continue in the years ahead to build a capability in space to make sure that we maintain all of the institutions and the apparatus that we need there to make sure that our military operates effectively here and that our economy operates effectively here.

Also in the area of missile defense, we are moving ahead to try to establish a missile defense capability in Europe that would handle through that throat of approach out of an Iranian missile launch that might take place 5 years or 10 years or 15 years from now, or perhaps even earlier. That is an important item because that brings the partnership, the NATO-plus partnership of the newly freed captive nations, but also the NATO membership, along with us in what is sometimes a difficult path, an expensive path, but nonetheless a necessary path to defend the world in this new era of missiles.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of excellent items in this bill. In the end they all go down to and reflect on and focus on the most important warfighting leverage that the United States have, and that is the men and women of this country who wear the uniform of the United States.

I just want to commend my colleagues for the wonderful job that they have done in making sure that the men and women of the United States have the right equipment and the right incentives and good pay and good quality of life for their families such that when I was in a recruiting office the other day, and no I wasn't signing up, but when I was in one of the old Army recruiting offices in good old San Diego, the one shortage that they had, the one specialty, military occupational specialty that they had which was not available because too many people had subscribed for it and too many people had signed up for it was infantry.

And I thought in these dangerous theaters of Iraq and Afghanistan, the idea that we have more people than we need signing up for the United States infantry is a reflection largely on this committee.

We have two Members who are retiring, the great Mr. Everett of Alabama and the great Mr. Saxton of New Jersey. Mr. Udall is moving on to another race, and we wish him well in his endeavors. But those two gentlemen are retiring.

Terry Everett has done more good for this country behind closed doors than a lot of folks have done with lots of press conferences and lots of pronouncements. The quiet man. I know that Mrs. Tauscher held a nice going-away party for Mr. Everett that I thought was well-deserved. He is a quiet man who has done so much for

this country behind closed doors and is such a valuable asset to the United States.

And Mr. Saxton, who years before the war against terror started was the chairman of the Task Force on Terrorism here in the House who did lots of research and did lots of prediction that this would be the conflict and the challenge of this new era.

Jimmy Saxton is owed a debt of gratitude by everybody who wears those special forces uniforms around the world. Whether they are Seals or Army Rangers or Green Berets, Jimmy Saxton has devoted many years to making sure that they have gotten what they need. What a wonderful member of this committee he has been.

It is with a little touch of sadness that I am here on this last bill that I am going to be involved in with this undeserved honor of having my name on this bill, which is a case of more generosity than was deserved by the chairman and the members, but it has been an honor to serve on this committee. It is a wonderful bipartisan committee, probably the most bipartisan in the House of Representatives, always with our focus on the security of the United States, even in difficult economic times like these. This committee has a very excellent focus on what is important to keep that number one requirement, that number one Constitutional mandate on government, and that is our first obligation is to protect our people. This committee does a great job.

I reserve the balance of my time.

If the gentleman would yield.

I thank the gentleman. I remember being with him when the 82nd Airborne jumped into Honduras, when the Sandinistas came across the border, and I remember the press conference that was held after that. The gentleman's statements were so inspiring, I have never forgotten them. We have been in many parts of the world, the last time up on the DMZ watching the North Koreans. The gentleman has been a real leader in this committee, and I really appreciate it.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama, a very distinguished gentleman, Mr. Everett.

I would yield to Mr. Thornberry, the distinguished gentleman from Texas, 2 minutes.

I would yield to Mr. Bartlett, the gentleman from Maryland, a very distinguished gentleman and one of our great leaders on the Armed Services Committee, 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would yield to Mr. Akin, the very distinguished gentleman from Missouri, 1 minute.

I want to commend my seatmate from San Diego for her very hard work on this bill and her leadership.

I yield 1 minute to Mr. McHugh, who over the many years has been one of the great leaders in this country for what I call, when we used to call the subcommittee the total force, which is the Guard, the Reserve, the active duty, those 2\1/2\ million men and women who serve this country so effectively, and to this guy who knows probably more about them than just about anybody I've ever met and knows more about policy, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh).

Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude by again reflecting on the great leadership of Ike Skelton that brought this bill to the floor under such difficult circumstances. It's a great bill.

And lastly, to just reinforce a point that's been made by a number of speakers, you know, this is a city which really, whether you have a military crisis or an economic crisis, needs honest brokers, and those are people that can look at interested parties and make a decision that is made for the right reasons and made on the merits. This committee could not function, this Congress couldn't function, if we didn't have incredible, professional staff who can look right through a dozen conflicting interests and see one interest that should dominate the scene, and that's the American interest, the right thing to do.

And our professional staff members have that capability, and they have great character, and they have a lot of character, and in many cases, they are characters. Erin Conaton and Bob Simmons are the former staff director and the staff director, and their team have done such a great job of bringing this bill together, and only people in whom you could vest enormous amounts of trust could accomplish what they've accomplished.

I just want to commend them for this incredible undertaking that's been the last couple of weeks. They are all so sleepy right now they really just want to finish this thing and get off the floor. But let's thank them for what they've done for this country. We appreciate you.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.

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.