Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 627) to amend the Truth in Lending Act to establish fair and transparent practices relating to the extension of credit under an open end consumer credit plan, and for other purposes.

Madam Chairman, the part of this amendment that I, perhaps, do not support is one more mandate; but on balance, I wanted to compliment the ranking member, and I wanted to compliment the gentlelady from New York because the approach of this amendment is to provide consumers with tools that they can use to better understand the provisions of their credit card agreements. To me, that's at the crux of the argument.

What we should do is not take consumer choice away. We shouldn't take credit opportunities away, particularly

in a national credit crunch, but we have got to end misleading, deceptive and confusing disclosures where consumers do not have the opportunity or the ability to understand the options that are before them.

So as I look down here, being able to notify customers as to how a credit application can adversely affect their credit rating, this is a good thing. Increasing font sizes, in certain instances where needed, is a good thing. Requiring signage in stores that offer credit cards in order to help consumers to know their terms, this is a good thing.

I have said before--and I don't know if the gentlelady from New York was on the floor--that I applaud her for that portion of her bill that helps empower consumers with greater disclosure. I think that is a huge step forward.

As she well knows, I think her bill takes several steps backwards. I think it ends up eroding risk-based pricing. I believe there are some price controls within the bill. We've had a debate on that, and I assume we will continue to have a debate.

Overall, this amendment is a very good amendment, and it will help empower consumers. I am concerned about some of the pay-to-pay fees. I don't quite understand what's being accomplished there; but otherwise, it's a good amendment, and I applaud the authors for it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chair, I want to rise in support of the Frank amendment. I appreciate the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee working with me on this.

I do believe that it is an important study to have, and again, I don't know what the results of the study will be. I'll take the chairman up on his challenge. I'll be prepared to take the pop quiz once the study comes out.

The only thing that is a little bit disappointing to me, if I recall right, is I offered a second-degree amendment to the Waters amendment in markup, which I believe was a 6-month study after implementation. This is a 2-year. I wish we didn't have to wait quite that long for the results.

Madam Chairman, one of the big debates that we're having within this body today is ultimately what will the impact be of this legislation. There are those on the other side of the aisle who have maintained that this will have no

adverse impact on credit availability or that there will be no bailout effect with those who have good credit ratings and good practices who ultimately end up bailing out others. Now, some on the other side admitted they just believe there are more benefits to be derived from the legislation than the cost. I do not feel that way.

Number one, the Congressional Research Service, in response to a question regarding this legislation, said: ``Credit card issuers could respond in a variety of ways. They may increase loan rates across the board on all borrowers, making it more expensive for both good and delinquent borrowers to use revolving credit. Issuers may also increase minimum monthly payments, reduce credit limits or reduce the number of credit cards issued to people with impaired credit.''

That was the opinion of the Congressional Research Service. Again, it may prove to be true. It may not prove to be true. I believe it will prove to be true, and I believe that the Federal Reserve study could at least be helpful in determining this.

I've heard from community bankers within my district. They believe, if this legislation is passed, that ultimately smaller banks will be driven out of the market and that only the larger banks will be left offering these cards. If so, that, again, is fewer choices for consumers and reduced credit options.

We've heard from academics on the subject, like Professor Todd Zywicki of George Mason University, who said, ``The increased use of credit cards has been a substitution from other types of consumer credit. If individuals are unable to get access to credit cards, experience and empirical evidence indicates they will turn elsewhere for credit--such as to pawn shops, payday lenders, rent-to-own or even loan sharks.''

Again, I think that, given the expertise of the Federal Reserve--and certainly, I don't agree with everything they come out with, but they are a relevant party. They do have expertise, and I think it is an important portion of the chairman's amendment that they study the phenomena. We know about the experience of the U.K. When a couple of years ago they passed legislation, they ordered that the credit card default fees had to be cut or legal action would be taken. What happened is that two of the three biggest issuers imposed annual fees on their cardholders. Nineteen of the largest raised interest rates. Sixty percent fewer applicants were being able to receive credit.

So we have, number one, historical experience. We have academic testimony. We have testimony from the Congressional Research Service. So I hope there is an acknowledgment that there is at least a chance that those of us who argue the adverse consequences of the legislation may be proven right. I don't think the Federal Reserve are the only people who should study this phenomenon. I'm happy to invite a GAO study and other independent studies.

Again, I think it's a very important point, and although I think the gentlelady from New York's legislation takes a huge step forward with respect to disclosure, with respect to fighting misleading and really deceptive practices, I also fear that those who need credit the most in a credit crunch will be denied those opportunities. I fear that those who pay their bills on time or at least pay the minimum on time, which is over half of America, will end up having to bail out the other half, and we will have more bailout legislation.

So I appreciate the chairman in working with me and at least studying the phenomenon to see if it has any validity. I'm sorry we have to wait 2 years, but it's certainly better than nothing. Again, I appreciate the chairman of the full committee working with me on this.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the intent behind the legislation, but I am fearful of what its adverse impact could be.

Like many people across this Nation, probably many people in this institution, I worked my way through undergraduate school. I worked a couple of different jobs in Texas A&M University back in the mid- seventies to get through college. To get to those jobs, I somehow had to keep an old 1965 Mustang running, and it didn't want to run.

For some reason, a credit card company sent me a solicitation, and I got a credit card. And whether I had a transmission problem that I couldn't pay for, I had a water pump go out, that credit card tided me over, made sure I had transportation to get to my job to pay for my undergraduate studies. And I hate to think about all of the college students in America who may be denied that opportunity. I used it the way it was supposed to be used. I used it for emergency purposes. I used it to tide me over until that next paycheck came in.

We're talking about folks over 18 who can vote, who can go to war, in most States can marry, own real property. We shouldn't be paternalistic towards them. We shouldn't deny them what could be an incredibly valuable tool to get them through college in the first place.

So I urge the rejection of this amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I fear that what we have here is another form of price controls being applied to credit card availability.

You know, what is going to happen here, as we attempt to protect the consumer, I think we are about to protect him right out of having any opportunity to have an introductory rate. I mean, what is going to end up happening here is, instead of, say, enjoying a 10 percent rate for 3 months and then a 15 percent rate kicks in for the next 9 months, you are going to end up with 15 percent for the whole year.

Again, the answer here is to allow the consumer to have choice. People can understand this if we will write the disclosure in the right way. Yes, there are deceptive practices, but don't hurt the consumer as you clean up deceptive practices, but let the consumer choose. Let the consumer choose. And particularly for those who pay their bill on time at the end of each month, they are going to be hurt every time you take away just a little bit and chip away at the ability for people to have their risk priced because those who are good risk are going to end up subsidizing those who aren't.

I fear, again, that this will be an amendment that has untold, unintended consequences that are going to

ultimately hurt the consumer. I mean, there are a lot of different things that I would love for Congress to do. You know, I don't like to pay extra for the cheese on a cheeseburger; maybe we can somehow pass a law that they can't charge me extra for that. But you know what's going to happen? Either, one, they are going to quit offering me the cheeseburger, or number two, everybody who doesn't offer it is going to have to pay more. If you poke in on one end of the balloon, it pokes out somewhere else.

I know the intention is good, but we are going to protect consumers out of having any opportunity to have introductory rates if they wish them. So we need to reject this amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I listened to the gentlelady from New York, who sponsored the bill, talk about this is a trick that credit card companies use.

Well, we don't want credit card companies to use tricks. But, you know what, Mr. Chairman? They can't use tricks if we will strengthen the competitive market and ensure consumer choice. They can't use tricks if we have an elective disclosure and we police it.

Again, I congratulate the gentlelady for that title in her bill, which, I believe, roughly parallels the rules that the Federal Reserve has promulgated after their 3-year study. Indeed, we need better disclosure.

It's better disclosure we need. We need greater consumer choice. We need strength in markets.

Also, tricks can't be used if consumers, who have effective disclosure, will take some, some responsibility to know the terms that they are agreeing to. By definition, if they agreed to accept a credit card, they are opting into terms.

Now, that's not effective today because we don't have effective disclosure. But ostensibly we have a title in this legislation, which I assume will soon be passed. If not, we have the regulations of the Federal Reserve that will ensure that we have effective disclosure, that we empower consumers.

But let's not take their choices away from them, especially when all the evidence we have seen, anecdotal, statistical, tells us that consumers overwhelmingly want this option. They want it.

So if we are already admitting today in some respects that the disclosure isn't there, you know, I don't want to have to tell them that, I am sorry, they wouldn't accept your credit card, but, you know, Congress passed a law that said you had to go read the fine print before you could go get this particular service. Again, I think that we are taking away consumer choice by doing this.

As the gentleman from Texas said, we are trying to micromanage the terms that ought to be managed within the framework of a competitive marketplace, with consumer choice, with informed consumers, with effective disclosure.

But quit protecting consumers from their choices. Quit protecting them from competition. You are making their lot worse, not better, when you do this.

So I would urge rejection of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a fairly simple amendment that is aimed, again, at a form of embedded price controls within this legislation.

The underlying legislation would permit interest rates to rise on existing balances under four narrow options. This amendment would say, again, within the framework that we hope to achieve of protecting the competitive marketplace, of assuring that we have effective disclosure, this amendment would say that interest rates can vary as long as, number one, the issuer has specifically reserved the right to raise rates in its contract and has communicated that to the consumer.

Number two, the issuer communicates this fact to the consumer at

least once a year, and the issuer provides the consumer clear notification 90 days in advance.

Again, this is a facet of risk-based pricing. Now, many of us believe that this has been a good thing. It has empowered consumers who previously didn't have access to credit to have access to credit.

As their circumstances change, if you do not allow risk-based pricing, you are going to take credit opportunities away from them in the middle of a credit crunch when they need it most.

Now, this gives a reasonable time period of 90 days to say, you know what? If you don't want to have this card, you have got 90 days under the old interest rate to pay off this balance and either get rid of the card, find a new card, shop for a new card, do something.

But, ultimately, if we don't pass this amendment one of three things is going to happen. Again, we are going to have a bailout, yet another bailout from Congress. And that is the 50 percent of Americans who are paying their bill on time, making at least the minimum payment at the end of each month, they are going to be punished. They are going to have to subsidize the rates for all.

Again, it's a facet of eroding risk-based pricing that takes us back to an era where interest rates were 25 percent higher, everybody had to pay the same rate. The good credit risk had to subsidize the bad credit risk and everybody had this dreaded annual fee of 20 to $50.

We don't want to go back to that era. Assuming a competitive marketplace, and, unfortunately, this legislation, I believe, in some respects will result in a less competitive marketplace, I fear that some of the smaller issuers will be driven out of the market.

But if we can have a competitive marketplace, and if we can assure effective disclosure, then let's have the full benefits of risk-based pricing. I think some people just don't want it. They want to force those who pay their bill on time to somehow subsidize those who don't.

I fear, Mr. Chairman, that there is a lot at stake here. I mean, I hear from my constituents about how important the credit cards are to their lives, their small businesses.

I hear from a group, the family, Baker family of Rowlett, who said, ``Congressman, credit cards have been my main source of financing for my small businesses for the past 13 years. Without access to this type of instant credit, I would not be able to timely meet payroll.''

I mean, we have to help the small businesses.

I heard from the Weldon family of Garland. ``I use my credit card just about everywhere. When I receive my monthly credit card bill, I pay the full balance. I feel this legislation concerning credit cards would be unfair to me and others who prefer to pay off their credit cards each month. Why should we be punished for having good credit?''

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, it is a good question. Allow risk-based pricing. Don't take credit away.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I tried to listen very closely to the gentlelady from New York, and what I think I heard was she would rather credit card companies cancel credit cards than allow my constituents to voluntarily agree to increases in their interest rate. That is not what the people of the Fifth District want to achieve. When she says, well, the credit card people are changing the deal, if it is in the agreement, that is the deal. That is the deal that allows many people to get credit in the first place and allows other people to have lower- priced credit.

Again, I believe this legislation is changing the deal on the American people, taking away their credit card options and opportunities.

I heard from the Juarez family in Mesquite. ``I oppose this legislation, as I have utilized my credit cards to pay for costly oral surgeries. I do not want to get penalized by this legislation for making my payments on time.''

Taking away risk-based pricing, which is disclosed, disclosed in the agreement, is punishing, punishing people like the Juarez family in Mesquite. I urge adoption of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the underlying legislation here again seeks to erode the ability of consumers to access credit, especially those who may have checkered pasts, especially those who may be of low income. It does it by trying to restrict risk-based pricing.

Again, there was an era in our country's history where a third fewer people had access to consumer credit through credit cards. Everybody had to pay the same universal high rate, 25 percent more than what we are seeing today. We had the dreaded annual fees. There was no such thing as airline miles, cash back, any of this.

The ability for creditors to price for what they view the risk of the consumer has opened a market for people to have credit cards who previously couldn't have them, people who might have had to turn to pawn shops or payday lenders, who, again, serve very valuable functions in our society, but people ought to have options.

The underlying bill functionally outlaws a practice called universal default and a practice called double-cycle billing. Universal default doesn't offend me. Double-cycle billing offends me. But I don't feel a need to outlaw every practice in America that offends me personally, because it may not offend somebody else.

Mr. Chairman, if there is an option out there in the marketplace with 14,000 different issuers, and through every hearing, every markup, there was not one shred of evidence that we didn't have a competitive market and that consumers had choices. Now, they may not understand their choices, and that is the disclosure issue, but they have choices.

So I don't like double-cycle billing. I don't think it is particularly fair and I wouldn't choose a credit card with it. But, Mr. Chairman, you know, out there in the marketplace, people ought to have options. Somebody ought to be able to say I prefer to have a credit card with a 10 percent interest rate that has universal default and double-cycle billing in it as opposed to paying a 13 percent interest rate that doesn't have universal default, doesn't have double-cycle billing.

Why are we taking consumer choices away from them and why do we continue to contract credit when it is already being contracted in this economic recession? I just don't understand that, Mr. Chairman. I do not think it is good practice. Now, universal default, some cards use it, some cards don't. It is a risk management tool for some.

I am not in the credit card business. I don't know what works. I just want consumers to have choices. I want there to be a competitive marketplace. I want there to be effective, fair disclosure, and I want our Federal Government to police it. And there needs to be repercussions for credit card companies that defraud, that mislead, that use deceptive practices. But for us to come in and say subjectively, well, we don't like that practice, we think it is unfair, we think it is offensive. Well, maybe it is unfair and offensive to you, but if it allows somebody a lower interest rate, shouldn't in the land of the free they have that option? They should have that option.

So my amendment is a simple one. It simply says if a credit card company has a credit card and they want to offer this credit card that features either universal default or double-cycle billing, as long as they offer a card that doesn't have these features, which many consider to be unfair, unjust, then they can offer it. As long as all of their customers are offered a card without the feature, then a consumer, if they want to, can opt in to the card with these features if they think the trade-offs benefit them and their family. That is all it says. This is a consumer choice amendment, pure and simple. I urge its adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, again what I see is we are trying to protect consumers from their choices. We are trying to protect consumers from their freedom. The consumer has the option. But I do thank my friend, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, for adding some clarity to the debate when he says the people with the good credit ratings will get the better interest rate. That pretty well makes my bailout argument.

That is what is happening. Half of America pays their bill on time at the end of each month. Another 20 to 25 percent at least make the minimum payment. Why should they be punished? Why should they be punished with higher interest rates? Why do they have to be homogenized?

We are getting away from risk-based pricing, and what will happen if we don't pass this amendment is, number one, we will achieve the bailout, and many people who would have received credit will no longer receive credit. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we have no one to claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I'm somewhat uncertain, frankly, whether I am actually opposed to the underlying amendment. I think the intention is good. I just hope there's not an unintended consequence here. And so, if my friend from Illinois, the chairman of the subcommittee, would yield for a question, my concern would be this: We all know from our constituents how much identity theft is taking place in our society. I, myself, at one time have been victimized by identity theft; and many of our constituents have.

So if there is fraudulent activity, if identity theft is suspected, it at least would appear to me, in a reading of the amendment, that the credit card issuer would have to keep the account open for at least 30 days, and so I was concerned about its impact in trying to combat identity theft. That was my reading of the amendment.

And I'd be happy to yield to the gentleman from Illinois just to see if he could help explain how this would work.

Reclaiming my time, I certainly respect the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez). We do have an excellent working relationship. I don't know that this is a problem. I fear it may be a problem. Given his commitment that we can work on this at our conference, Mr. Chairman, I no longer oppose the amendment.

And I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully to the gentleman, and I appreciate the intent of his particular amendment, but I fear, again, that this will be one more in a series of amendments that may have unintended consequences.

I heard the gentleman, as well as other speakers on the other side of the aisle, say they want to prevent tricks by the credit card companies. I think that is one of the few items, besides renaming a post office, that could receive a unanimous vote in this institution.

Out of, I believe, 1,200 pages of Federal Reserve regulations where they spent 3 years studying the issues, we will have disclosure under the Federal Reserve regulations that will prevent such tricks unless one defines the actual period of a teaser rate to be a trick. I believe a consumer can understand the difference between 1 month, 6 months, 6 years, and 12 years. Let the consumer choose.

Let me tell you what I believe the practical result of this amendment will be. Particularly those who may have a more checkered credit past, consumers, instead of having the ability to have a teaser rate--and I'm just using numbers for an example--at 8 percent for 3 months that then goes up to 15 percent for 9 months--they'll just end up having to pay 15 percent for the whole 12 months. They'll lose consumer choice. They'll lose that opportunity.

Now, some maintain that there are some concepts--and I've heard it said from friends on the other side of the aisle--certain aspects of their credit card agreements that consumers just can't understand. They're just too difficult to understand. Again, I congratulate the gentlelady from New York, yet again, for having a disclosure title, I believe, very roughly equivalent to that of the Federal Reserve's. This is a problem that can be solved with disclosure.

Empower the consumers. Don't take away their options. Empower the consumers with effective disclosure, and let them choose in a competitive marketplace. Let there be competition. Again, today, I can understand how consumers are confused. These forms are so long. They're written in legalese. It's easy to hide it. The answer is effective disclosure. The answer is not an arbitrary date on how long a teaser rate ought to be.

What you are doing is protecting the consumer out of having any opportunity of having a teaser rate. A teaser rate, when averaged with the other rate, again gives you an average of what the interest rate would be for a year. If you pass this, there is going to be a universe of consumers who are going to end up paying more, paying more on average for their credit than they otherwise would. So I urge rejection of the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, one, what I believed I said in my comment is that, for some universe of people, they would lose their teaser rates under this legislation. I listened to the chairman spend a fair amount of his time debating Internet gambling, which I do not believe is on the floor at this time; but if the chairman is so supportive of having consumer choice, I don't understand why we just spent a day and a half in markup in his committee taking away consumers' choice in the mortgage market. So we will continue to have this debate throughout.

Again, it's a simple argument. I believe that we can have effective disclosure and can allow consumers to make choices. If they're not allowed, if this type of arbitrary date is imposed, some universe of borrowers will probably lose their teaser rates and will effectively end up paying more, which will restrict their options. Again, I urge rejection of the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

No.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to who has the right to close.

In this case, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not completely certain that I actually oppose the amendment. I do have a couple of concerns.

One, I want to congratulate the gentleman for the thrust of his amendment, and indeed, we want to ensure that our consumers are empowered and that our consumers have proper disclosure.

There are a number of reasons why consumers do not understand the disclosure forms that they have today, one of which is there are misleading and deceptive practices by credit card companies. We all agree on that.

Another reason, though, is that, day after day and with the noblest of intentions, we mandate more disclosures. I'm just somewhat fearful-- and not that this is not necessarily good information--that the combined impact will turn what otherwise might be a 2- to 3-page disclosure that a consumer might actually take the time to read into a 30- to 45-page behemoth that no one will take the time to read.

Again, I congratulate the gentleman for his intent and for his thrust. I'm not going to oppose the amendment, but I do want to articulate the concern again that we really want to emphasize that the most important aspects of a consumer's relationship with his credit card company are disclosed so that we can get focused there. In the average mortgage disclosure, there is so much disclosure, that people see a dizzying array of documents and pay attention to none of them.

I have always been an advocate for the succinct, effective disclosure written in plain English, not necessarily voluminous disclosure written in legalese.

I would also say that particularly for my friends on the other side of the aisle that have been extolling the virtues of the Federal Reserve throughout this debate, that through their rule-making, I believe that they have already addressed this issue. They did spend more time studying it than we did. I personally don't know. I didn't see the evidence of how much demand there is for consumers for this information. I don't know the answer to that.

One other aspect I would bring up besides the fact that we need to ensure that we're having effective disclosure. I am not indifferent as to the increased

regulatory burden on our small community banks. Two Congresses ago, I had the opportunity to be the lead sponsor and write regulatory relief legislation for our small community banks. We have about half of what we had, I believe, 20 years ago. And so I am always a little concerned, too, in making sure that the benefits of an amendment or legislation are worth the cost. I don't want to continue to see more community banks get out of the credit card business because it's an extra cost here, it's an extra cost there. They don't have the personnel, and I just always want to be sensitive to the fact that I do not want to reduce competition down.

I don't see the distinguished chairman of the full committee on the floor today at this moment, but I know that he often jokes about that one day we may change our name to the ``bank committee'' because there will only be one bank left in America.

So, again, I just want to show sensitivity, and I don't know if there is any kind of program for our smaller banks. I know on a number of pieces of legislation there are exclusions for small businesses. I don't see that in the language here. And again, I am not going to oppose this particular amendment, but I did want to articulate concerns that I hope will be taken to heart by the majority, things that they could consider as this goes into conference.

At this moment, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?

Then I will continue to reserve.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I may be reluctantly opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

First, let me congratulate the gentleman from New Mexico. I have said other times that people had a noble purpose in their amendment. Of all amendments I have seen, this certainly has the most noble purpose, the most noble intent. No one who dons our Nation's uniform and fights for freedom, protects America's security ought to somehow be harmed because they missed a payment while they were taking on their Nation's duty. I certainly agree with the intent of the gentleman's legislation.

I have a couple of concerns, though, because I believe that this would be the first time that we are asking credit card bureaus to hide information.

I am just curious. Is there not another way to protect our brave men and women in uniform than setting the precedent of keeping accurate information away from a credit file which allows people to access credit in the first place? I am not an expert on it, but others who serve on the committee have informed me that this situation has been addressed under the Civil Relief Act. I know that military, Active Duty military, can append to their credit file that they are indeed in harm's way.

I would be happy to work with the gentleman for a program in DOD that would help ensure, again, that whatever type of resources are needed to ensure that people do not default on their

credit obligations while they are in harm's way, that's something I would want to support. I would want to go to the Appropriations Committee and ask them to appropriate funds to assure that this is done.

Clearly, we want to be sensitive to our Active Duty personnel. It's the most important thing we can do in this institution is protect the Nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

So I want to achieve the gentleman's goal, but I wonder if it might not have the unintended consequence of, perhaps, making credit even less available to our military personnel if, for some reason, the creditor community started believing that they were no longer receiving accurate information.

So I don't have a solution at my hand, and I admit that. But I do continue to be concerned that there may be unintended consequences here.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and to the underlying legislation.

This structured rule does not call for the open and honest debate that has been promised by my Democratic colleagues time after time.

Today's action by my friends on the other side of the aisle is another example of the Federal Government overstepping its boundaries into the private marketplace. And I think it's important for us to note that people who get credit cards get this as an extension of their opportunity and their credit, and they have a responsibility when they sign a contract to live up to that responsibility. It is not a right that is being extended, I believe, today for us to go into the free market and to tinker with on a Federal basis what is a right that is reserved to the States today. We disagree with what is happening today.

Not even 6 months ago, Madam Speaker, the Federal Reserve passed new credit card rules that would protect consumers and provide for more transparency and accountability in the marketplace. These new regulations are set to take effect in July 2010, an agreed-upon date to ensure the necessary time for banks and credit card companies to make crucial and critical adjustments to their business practices without making mistakes and without harming consumers.

Part of what the gentleman from Colorado just described, some of the 60,000 letters of feedback to the industry, took place in that regard. It took place to the Federal Reserve taking information, working with credit card consumer groups to try and alleviate problems or perceived problems in the marketplace. However, with the growing Federal deficit, the current economic crisis, and the growing number of unemployed people, I would simply ask why is Congress passing legislation that already exists? Let's give those statutes and those rules and regulations which are going to be in place time to work.

This legislation allows for the Federal Government to micromanage the way credit card companies and the banking industry does its business. Those hearings have already been held. Decisions have already been made by the Fed. Decisions with credit card companies and consumer groups to understand what changes needed to be made, they've already happened.

If enacted into law, it is not credit card companies that will suffer. It will be every single person that has a credit card and for those who even want to have a credit card in the future. Every American will see an increase in their interest rates, and some of the current benefits that encourage responsible lending will most likely disappear. For example, cash advances, over-the-limit protection, would be just one example.

My friends on the other side of the aisle not only remove any incentive for using credit cards responsibly, but they punish those managing their credit responsibly to subsidize those who are irresponsible. Madam Speaker, the Democrats also want to limit the amount of credit that is available to the middle class and low-income individuals. The very Americans that take the most advantage of credit will be harmed by what we're doing here today.

This legislation prevents credit history from being used to price risk, as an example, meaning that some individuals may not now be able to get a credit card, especially if they are lower-income or they have blemished credit histories or are trying to establish credit for the first time, like college students.

Additionally, the strain of this legislation could have a direct and adverse effect on small businesses which use this credit, especially in times like these where economic and job growth in this country are threatened. For individuals starting in a small business, this legislation means increased interest rates, reduced benefit, and shrinks the availability of credit, potentially limiting their options to even succeed in the marketplace.

Meredith Whitney, a prominent banking analyst, in speaking as a result of this legislation, remarked in The Wall Street Journal that she expects a $2.7 trillion decrease in credit by the end of 2010 out of the current $5 trillion credit line available in this country.

Madam Speaker, at a time when we're in economic downturns, the option of credit that is available for people--notwithstanding that they may have to pay a little bit more but will have the flexibility to have that credit--is important.

In the current state of our economy, we urgently would say we need to increase liquidity and lower the cost of credit to stimulate more lending--not raise rates and reduce the availability of credit.

This is not a solution for the ailing economy.

This type of government control of private markets is really what my Democrat colleagues and this new administration have been exploring for quite some time. Whether it is federalizing our banks, federalizing our credit market, federalizing our health care system, federalizing the energy sector, this is what this new administration and my friends in the majority party wish to do.

That said, this administration has taken their power grab a step further, first of all, in this legislation, to write contracts, to hire and fire executives, and to guarantee muffler warranties. They won't let banks pay back their loans. And now they are plotting a hostile takeover of the financial services industry, converting preferred shares into common equity shares, a drastic shift towards a government strategy of long-term ownership and involvement in some of our banks.

Millions of Americans are outraged at the mismanagement of TARP and the reckless use of their tax dollars, and I believe that taxpayers are increasingly uneasy with the Federal Government's growing involvement in financial markets that we see on the floor today.

In an effort to provide more protections to consumers and to taxpayers, I offered an amendment yesterday in the Rules Committee--a Rules Committee of which I have served for 11 years--that was defeated by a party-line vote of 7-3.

Madam Speaker, I would like to insert in the Congressional Record a copy of that amendment.

Amendment to H.R. 627, as Reported

Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas

Add at the end the following new section:

Madam Speaker, I referred to an article in The Wall Street Journal on March 10 of this year by Meredith Whitney. I would like to insert that into the Record, also.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 10, 2009]

Credit Cards Are the Next Credit Crunch

(By Meredith Whitney)

Few doubt the importance of consumer spending to the U.S.

economy and its multiplier effect on the global economy, but

what is under-appreciated is the role of credit-card

availability in that spending. Currently, there is roughly $5

trillion in credit-card lines outstanding in the U.S., and a

little more than $800 billion is currently drawn upon. While

those numbers look small relative to total mortgage debt of

over $10.5 trillion, credit-card debt is revolving and

accordingly being paid off and drawn down over and over,

creating a critical role in commerce in America.

Just six months ago, I estimated that at least $2 trillion

of available credit-card lines would be expunged from the

system by the end of 2010. However, today, that estimate now

looks optimistic, as available lines were reduced by nearly

$500 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008 alone. My revised

estimates are that over $2 trillion of credit-card lines will

be cut inside of 2009, and $2.7 trillion by the end of 2010.

Inevitably, credit lines will continue to be reduced across

the system, but the velocity at which it is already occurring

and will continue to occur will result in unintended

consequences for consumer confidence, spending and the

overall economy. Lenders, regulators and politicians need to

show thoughtful leadership now on this issue in order to

derail what I believe will be at least a 57% contraction in

credit-card lines.

There are several factors that are playing into this swift

contraction in credit well beyond the scope of the current

credit market disruption. First, the very foundation of

credit-card lending over the past 15 years has been

misguided. In order to facilitate national expansion and vast

pools of consumer loans, lenders became overly reliant on

FICO scores that have borne out to be simply unreliable.

Further, the bulk of credit lines were extended during a time

when unemployment averaged well below 6%. Overly optimistic

underwriting standards made more borrowers appear

creditworthy. As we return to more realistic underwriting

standards, certain borrowers will no longer appear worth the

risk, and therefore lines will continue to be pulled from

those borrowers.

Second, home price depreciation has been a more reliable

determinant of consumer behavior than FICO scores. Hence,

lenders have reduced credit lines based upon ``zip codes,''

or where home price depreciation has been most acute. Such a

strategy carries the obvious hazard of putting good customers

in more vulnerable liquidity positions simply because they

live in a higher risk zip code. With this, frequency of

default is increased. In other words, as lines are pulled and

borrowing capacity is reduced, paying borrowers are pushed

into vulnerable financial positions along with nonpaying

borrowers, and therefore a greater number of defaults in fact

occur.

Third, credit-card lenders are currently playing a game of

``hot potato,'' in which no one wants to be the last one

holding an open credit-card line to an individual or

business. While a mortgage loan is largely a ``monogamous''

relationship between borrower and lender, an individual has

multiple relationships with credit-card providers. Thus, as

lines are cut, risk exposure increases to the remaining

lender with the biggest line outstanding.

Here, such a negative spiral strategy necessitates

immediate action. Currently five lenders dominate two thirds

of the market. These lenders need to work together to protect

one another and preserve credit lines to able paying

borrowers by setting consortium guidelines on credit. We, as

Americans, are all in the same soup here, and desperate times

are requiring of radical and cooperative measures.

And fourth, along with many important and necessary

mandates regarding fairness to consumers, impending changes

to Unfair and Deceptive Acts or Practices (UDAP) regulations

risk the very real unintended consequence of cutting off vast

amounts of credit to consumers. Specifically, the new UDAP

provisions would restrict repricing of risk, which could in

turn restrict the availability of credit. If a lender cannot

reprice for changing risk on an unsecured loan, the lender

simply will not make the loan. This proposal is set to be

effective by mid-2010, but talk now is of accelerating its

adoption date. Politicians and regulators need to seriously

consider what unintended consequences could occur from the

implementation of this proposal in current form. Short of the

U.S. government becoming a direct credit-card lender,

invariably credit will come out of the system.

Over the past 20 years, Americans have also grown to use

their credit card as a cash-flow management tool. For

example, 90% of credit-card users revolve a balance (i.e.,

don't pay it off in full) at least once a year, and over 45%

of credit-card users revolve every month. Undeniably,

consumers look at their unused credit balances as a ``what

if' reserve. ``What if' my kid needs braces? ``What if' my

dog gets sick? ``What if' I lose one of my jobs? This unused

credit portion has grown to be relied on as a source of

liquidity and a liquidity management tool for many U.S.

consumers. In fact, a relatively small portion of U.S.

consumers have actually maxed out their credit cards, and

most currently have ample room to spare on their unused

credit lines. For example, the industry credit line

utilization rate (or percentage of total credit lines

outstanding drawn upon) was just 17% at the end of 2008.

However, this is in the process of changing dramatically.

Without doubt, credit was extended too freely over the past

15 years, and a rationalization of lending is unavoidable.

What is avoidable, however, is taking credit away from people

who have the ability to pay their bills. If credit is taken

away from what otherwise is an able borrower, that borrower's

financial position weakens considerably. With two-thirds of

the U.S. economy dependent upon consumer spending, we should

tread carefully and act collectively.

Essentially what this person is arguing, a person who looks at the markets

every day, credit in this country, and I quote from this, ``Currently, there is roughly $5 trillion in credit card lines outstanding in the United States, and a little bit more than $800 billion is currently drawn upon.''

What we are saying is that people do have the ability to utilize more of their credit with credit cards. And I believe the vast majority of consumers are carefully and thoughtfully understanding that when they sign an agreement with a credit card company, that they understand that what they need to do is pay that back, and if not, that there will be a penalty, a fee, or interest that will be charged as a result of that.

The free market today has lots of credit cards, lots of different companies, lots of different options that are available to people. But with what we are doing here today, that is going to change the way people do business for the vast majority of credit card users. It means that, today, if you follow all the rules, you pay either the first month or, properly what you're doing, that you are willing to keep that credit card because you need it without having to pay the penalty or the associated penalty to the risk that you have. Tomorrow, we are going to take risk out of the risky people and put the risk on everybody. And that is really what Meredith Whitney is trying to say here. Of the trillions of dollars that are available, credit card companies only draw down $800 billion. That is because the vast majority of people, very effectively and properly, use the credit that is available to them.

The system does and did need tinkering; but when we tinker with that system, we should make sure that what we do is to add transparency, not rules and regulations that inflict what they do, and the changes, onto a contract willingly signed by a consumer.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, one of the amendments that was talked about earlier that was denied in the Rules Committee deals with an issue that Secretary Geithner and the Treasury Department have openly talked about, and that is their decision to look at the possibility of taking that preferred stock which TARP funds were bought into and converting that to common stock. On April 21 there was an article in The Wall Street Journal that talked about this. It's entitled ``A Backdoor Nationalization.''

The bottom line is that immediately after this appeared in the press, the stock market promptly tumbled by 3.5 percent, meaning once again bad news to the marketplace, with J.P. Morgan falling 10 percent and financial stocks as a group more than 9 percent. This was on April 20.

What this is about is that it would be a wholesale conversion, which would mean that the government would own a larger portion of banks, even more and even in a different way than they would with preferred stock. The Wall Street Journal says this is a back door to nationalization. That is because it would create uncertainty, not more certainty, by offering the specter of even greater lengths of periods of Federal control over the banking system.

Perhaps even worse than that, what they would do is they would seek to transfer and force banks to do this because of the frailty of the banks at this point. It means that the government would force a change of a contract from a bank that they may have.

Madam Speaker, that amendment should have been made in order. This Congress should be out on this as a policy, and we should be speaking up about this. Even though the amendment was not made in order, I encourage the Financial Services Committee of this Congress to make sure that they hold hearings on this exact issue.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 21, 2009]

A Backdoor Nationalization--The Latest Treasury Brainstorm Will Retard

a Banking Recovery

Just when you think the political class may have learned

something in months of trying to fix the banking system, the

ghost of Hank Paulson returns to haunt the Treasury. The

latest Beltway blunder--and it would be a big one--is the

Obama Administration's weekend news leak that it may insist

on converting its preferred shares in some of the nation's

largest banks into common equity.

The stock market promptly tumbled by more than 3.5%

yesterday, with J.P. Morgan falling 10% and financial stocks

as a group off 9%, as measured by the NYSE Financials index.

Note to White House: Sneaky nationalizations aren't any more

popular with investors than the straightforward kind.

The occasion for this latest nationalization trial balloon

is the looming result of the Treasury's bank strip-tease--

a.k.a. ``stress tests.'' Treasury is worried, with cause,

that some of the largest banks lack the capital to ride out

future credit losses. Yet Secretary Timothy Geithner and the

White House have concluded that they can't risk asking

Congress for more bailout cash.

Voila, they propose a preferred-for-common swap, which can

conjure up an extra $100 billion in bank tangible common

equity, a core measure of bank capital. Not that this really

adds any new capital; it merely shifts the deck chairs on

bank balance sheets. Why Treasury thinks anyone would find

this reassuring is a mystery. The opposite is the more likely

result, since it signals that Treasury no longer believes it

can tap more public capital to support the financial system

if the losses keep building.

Worse, wholesale equity conversion would mean the

government owns a larger share of more banks and is more

entangled than ever in their operations. Giving Barney Frank

more voting power is more likely to induce panic than restore

confidence. Simply look at the reluctance of some banks--

notably J.P. Morgan Chase--to participate in Mr. Geithner's

private-public toxic asset sale plan. The plan is rigged so

taxpayers assume nearly all the downside risk, but the banks

still don't want to play lest Congress become even more

subject to political whim.

A backdoor nationalization also creates more uncertainty,

not less, by offering the specter of an even lengthier period

of federal control over the banking system. And it creates

the fear of even more intrusive government influence over

bank lending and the allocation of capital. These fears have

only been enhanced by the refusal of Treasury to let more

banks repay their Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) money.

As it stands, banks and their owners at least know how much

they owe Uncle Sam, and those preferred shares represent a

distinct and separate tier of bank capital. Once the

government is mixed in with the rest of the equity holders,

the value of its investments--and the cost to the banks of

buying out the Treasury--will fluctuate by the day.

Congress is also still trying to advance a mortgage-

cramdown bill that would hammer the value of already

distressed mortgage-backed securities, and now the

Administration is talking up legislation to curb credit-

card fees and interest. Both of these bills would damage bank

profits, but large government ownership stakes would leave

the banks helpless to oppose them. (See Citigroup, 36% owned

by the feds and now a pro-cramdown lobbyist.)

We've come to this pass in part because the Obama

Administration is afraid to ask Congress for the money for a

meaningful bank recapitalization. And it may need that money

now in part because Mr. Paulson's Treasury insisted on buying

preferred stock in all the big banks instead of looking at

each case on its merits. That decision last fall squandered

TARP money on banks that probably didn't need it and left the

Administration short of funds for banks that really do.

The sounder strategy--and the one we've recommended for two

years--is to address systemic financial problems the old-

fashioned way: bank by bank, through the Federal Deposit

Insurance Corp. and a resolution agency with the capacity to

hold troubled assets and work them off over time. If the

stress tests reveal that some of our largest institutions are

insolvent or nearly so, it's then time to seize the bank,

sell off assets and recapitalize the remainder. (Meanwhile,

the healthier institutions would get a vote of confidence and

could attract new private capital.)

Bondholders would take a haircut and shareholders may well

be wiped out. But converting preferred shares to equity does

nothing to help bondholders in the long run anyway. And

putting the taxpayer first in line for any losses alongside

equity holders offers shareholders little other than an

immediate dilution of their ownership stake. Treasury's

equity conversion proposal increases the political risks for

banks while imposing no discipline on shareholders,

bondholders or management at failed or failing institutions.

The proposal would also be one more example of how Treasury

isn't keeping its word. When he forced banks to accept public

capital whether they needed it or not, Mr. Paulson said the

deal was temporary and the terms wouldn't be onerous. To

renege on those promises now will only make a bank recovery

longer and more difficult.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Virginia coming down and setting the record straight about how the Bush administration has caused all these problems and all these tax cuts. But I would remind the gentleman that the greatest economic boom in the history of the United States and the world occurred during the time that we encouraged and incentivized investors to be a part of growing our economy.

As I recall, the facts of the case are that 3 years ago when our friends, the Democrats, became the new majority, they announced quite openly that those tax cut days were over with, and that's when the investor left. And when the investor left, that's when our economy started going downhill.

Let's tell the truth here. What we just passed just yesterday was the largest spending budget in the history of the universe that will lead to a debt that will double and triple, double and triple, in the next few years. That is a national security issue. And that's part of what we are talking about here today. The interference in the marketplace by my friends, the Democrats, that not only wiped out, took the investor out of the equation, but today are going to create an even worse circumstance for credit cardholders at a time when the extension of credit is needed more than ever.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentleman, and I would allow him to proceed as just discussed.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman and I had previously spoken that I would have a late arrival.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Madam Speaker, in closing I would like to stress that while my friends on the other side of the aisle claim to be protecting consumers with this legislation, they have refused a bill, the opportunity for an amendment in this bill, that would protect all taxpayers from de facto nationalization of our financial system. The American taxpayers deserve the same accountability and transparencies with their dollars that this bill claims to do for consumers.

As a Nation, we have real problems, Madam Speaker, and they need to be solved through real solutions. And passing legislation that already exists in Federal statute, I believe, is wasting our time.

We need to provide jobs, we need to encourage economic growth, we need to get the investor back into the game and, perhaps most of all, we need to restore America's public faith in their Members of Congress and in this Congress that we are aiming at solving the problems that face this Nation.

While I encourage each of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this structured rule, I would also advise them they need to equally understand the facts of the case, and that would drive them to a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, this has been a week for America, fighting the H1N1 virus and coming together as a Nation. But at the same time, this Congress and this administration have invested in America's going forward with passing our budget resolution and thank, thank, thank whoever you desire to thank, including the sponsors of this bill, finally a credit cardholders' bill of rights.

Last year in 2008, $19 billion in penalty fees on families with credit cards dealing with late fees, over-the-limit fees, and other penalties. This year, $20 billion. This is crashing down on the heads of hardworking families, college students. Enough is enough.

I am proud to stand up and support legislation that says to the American people you are in charge, not the abusive, under-the-table focus of credit card companies who continuously handle their business wrongheadedly, charging over-the-limit fees. And, therefore, this bill will limit to three the number of over-the-limit fees companies can charge for the same transaction. Can you imagine, they were doing it over and over and over again. It ends unfair double-cycle billing, ends the fact that you might be paying your

bill on time and yet they raise your interest rate without notice.

An amendment that I support as well is one that indicates if you were to lose your card, the credit card company should notify credit cardholders 30 days before closing their account, give the reason foreclosure, options to keep the account open, programs available to repay the balance, and the resulting impact on their credit card score.

Sometimes people are surviving on their credit card, but they're paying their bill. But yet the credit card companies have no mercy. And they don't have any mercy when they go after our children on college campuses and the parents don't even know that the children have it. Limit the credit card balance or the amount when young people are involved.

This is a great bill. Thank goodness for the credit cardholders' bill of rights for the American people.

Madam Speaker, Americans are taught to work hard and make money and to buy a house, but we are never taught about financial literacy. In these tough economic times, it is imperative that Americans know about financial literacy; it is crucial to our survival. Americans need to be prepared to make informed financial choices. Indeed, we must learn how to effectively handle money, credit, debt, and risk. We must become better stewards over the things that we are entrusted. By becoming better stewards, Americans will become responsible workers, heads of households, investors, entrepreneurs, business leaders and citizens. I add my appreciation to Carolyn Maloney and Luis Gutierrez for their hard work.

I am reminded of how important this issue is to American society, as I was invited to attend a financial literacy roundtable panel on Monday evening at the New York Stock Exchange. The panel was sponsored by the Hope Literacy Foundation. The panel was moderated by John Hope Bryant. I was surrounded by some of the great financial literacy experts in the nation. At the roundtable, I discussed the importance of financial literacy for college and university students. It is important that students be taught financial literacy. The facts about students and financial literacy are astounding.

In 2008, 84 percent of undergraduates had at least one credit card. This figure is staggering. Young people who themselves might not even have a job are able to get credit cards. This is astounding because it begins the cycle of indebtedness.

Recent studies have indicated that young people do not even know basic financial topics such as the impact of student loans on one's credit, how to balance a checkbook, and the impact of automobile loans on one's credit.

Because of my concern that young people are not sufficiently informed about financial literacy, I have offered this amendment: To require financial literacy counseling for borrowers, and for other purposes.

This amendment is important because approximately two-thirds of students borrow to pay for college according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Moreover, one in ten of student borrowers have loans more than $35,000. Passing this legislation will ensure that our nation's college students will be more prepared when incurring student loan debt and help them to avoid default as student loans severely impact one's credit score. Currently there is about $60 billion in defaulted student loan debt.

Many students do not understand the reality of repaying student debt while taking out these loans. While most Americans have debt of some kind, student loan repayment is especially scary, as one cannot just declare bankruptcy and have their loans discharged. Due to the lack of financial literacy counseling for borrowers, student loan payments are often higher than expected. Recent grads are unable to afford the monthly payments resulting in them living paycheck to paycheck, acquiring credit card debt and in extreme cases, grads leaving the country in order to avoid repayment and debt collectors.

Students and parents are not currently receiving the proper or any information of the burden that their student loans will have once they graduate. This is possibly a result of the relationship between student loan companies and universities, as some lenders offer universities incentives to steer borrowers their way.

College campuses are one place that young Americans are introduced to credit and the possibility of living beyond their means. With proper loan and credit counseling the burden of debt incurred in college could be greatly reduced. Especially in this time of recession, financial literacy is one of the most important tools that we can give to our students in order to ensure their success in the future.

This amendment will provide financial literacy training to students taking out Federal Student Loans and will require a minimum of 4 hours of counseling including entrance and exit counseling. Counseling will include the fundamentals of basic checking and savings accounts, budgeting, types of credit and their appropriate uses, the different forms of student financial aid, repayment options, credit scores and ratings, as well as investing.

I support the rule and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

The rule prevents card companies from unfairly increasing interest rates on existing card balances--retroactive increases are permitted only if a cardholder is more than 30 days late, if a promotional rate expires, if the rate adjusts as part of a variable rate, or if the cardholder fails to comply with a workout agreement.

The rule requires card companies to give 45 days notice of all interest rate increases or significant contract changes (e.g. fees).

Requires companies to let consumers set their own fixed credit limit that cannot be exceeded.

Prevents companies from charging ``over-the-limit'' fees when a cardholder has set a limit, or when a preauthorized credit ``hold'' pushes a consumer over their limit.

Limits (to 3) the number of over-the-limit fees companies can charge for the same transaction--some issuers now charge virtually unlimited fees for a single violation.

Ends unfair ``double cycle'' billing--card companies couldn't charge interest on debt consumers have already paid on time.

If a cardholder pays on time and in full, the bill prevents card companies from piling additional fees on balances consisting solely of left-over interest.

Prohibits card companies from charging a fee when customers pay their bill.

Many companies credit payments to a cardholder's lowest interest rate balances first, making it impossible for the consumer to pay off high- rate debt. The bill bans this practice, requiring payments made in excess of the minimum to be allocated proportionally or to the balance with the highest interest rate. Protects Cardholders from Due Date Gimmicks.

Requires card companies to mail billing statements 21 calendar days before the due date (up from the current 14 days), and to credit as ``on time'' payments made before 5 p.m. local time on the due date.

Extends the due date to next business day for mailed payments when the due date falls on a day a card company does not accept or receive mail (i.e. Sundays and holidays).

Establishes standard definitions of terms like ``fixed rate'' and ``prime rate'' so companies can't mislead or deceive consumers in marketing and advertising.

Gives consumers who are pre-approved for a card the right to reject that card prior to activation without negatively affecting their credit scores.

Prohibits issuers of subprime cards (where total yearly fixed fees exceed 25 percent of the credit limit) from charging those fees to the card itself. These cards are generally targeted to low-income consumers with weak credit histories.

Prohibits card companies from knowingly issuing cards to individuals under 18 who are not emancipated.

Requires reports to Congress by the Federal Reserve on credit card industry practices to enhance congressional oversight.

Requires card companies to send out 45-day notice of interest rate increases 90 days after the bill is signed into law; the remainder of the bill takes effect 12 months after enactment.

I urge my colleagues to support the rule. Seventeen amendments were made in order. I will discuss my views on each below.

1. Gutierrez Amendment. This amendment offered by Representative Gutierrez, would allow issuers to charge consumers for expedited payments by telephone when consumers request such an expedited payment, and would make technical corrections; would require that all credit card offers notify prospective applicants that excessive credit applications can adversely affect their credit rating; would direct the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve to suggest appropriate guidelines for creditors to supply cardholders with information regarding the availability of legitimate and accredited credit counseling services; would require all written information, provisions, and terms in or on any application, solicitation, contract, or agreement for any credit card account under an open end consumer credit to appear in no less than 12 point font; and would require that stores who are self-issuers of credit cards display a large visible sign at counters with the same information that is required to be disclosed on the application itself.

I support this amendment and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. This amendment addresses the issue of financial literacy and ensures that the consumer is afforded information to make an informed decision about applying for and ultimately securing a credit card. Credit counseling is a key element and is of paramount importance. This amendment provides credit counseling to the consumer before the consumer gets into financial trouble.

2. Frank (MA), would require the Federal Reserve (1) to review the consumer credit card market, including through solicitation of public comment, and report to Congress every two years; (2) publish a summary of this review in the Federal Register, along with proposed regulatory changes (or an explanation for why no such changes are proposed). The amendment also requires the Federal banking agencies and the FTC to submit to the Federal Reserve, for inclusion in the Federal Reserve's annual report to Congress, information about the agencies' supervisory and enforcement activities related to credit card issuers' compliance with consumer protection laws.

I support this amendment and encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. This amendment ensures that the FTC and the Federal banking agencies are engaging in supervisory and enforcement activities related to credit card issuer's compliance with consumer protection laws. This is important to ensure that another credit crisis is not looming and is an appropriate step to take to prevent such crises from occurring in the future.

3. Slaughter (NY)/Duncan (TN)/Hastings, Alcee (FL)/Johnson (GA)/ Christensen (VI), would set underwriting standards for students' credit cards, including limiting credit lines to the greater of 20 percent of a student's annual income or $500, without a co-signer and requiring creditors to obtain a proof of income, income history, and credit history from college students before approving credit applications.

I support this amendment. During the 1990s and 2000s, credit companies began a massive campaign of inundating university students with credit card offers. Such advertisement and easy availability of credit to students had the effect of enticing students to apply for credit. The students would then become indebted and subsequently face economic hardship. This amendment would help ensure that a student would be qualified for credit that he or she could afford. This amendment is practical and it makes sense. I support it and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

4. Gutierrez (IL)/Peters, Gary (MI)/Edwards, Donna (MD), would require credit card issuers to allocate payments in excess of the minimum payment to the portion of the remaining balance with the highest outstanding APR first, and then to any remaining balances in descending order, eliminating the pro rata option.

I support this amendment. The inclusion of this amendment would inure to consumers. I support it and urge my colleagues to do the same.

5. Pingree, Chellie (ME), would require the Chair of the Federal Reserve to submit a report on the level of implementation of this bill every 90 days until the Chair can report full industry implementation.

I support this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

6. Polis (CO), would clarify that minors are allowed to have a credit card in their name on their parent or legal guardian's account.

I support this amendment. I believe that if young people are afforded credit cards and are taught how to effectively and safely use credit that it can be beneficial to them. This amendment would help in making children more financially responsible.

7. Jones (NC), would require the Federal Reserve Board, in consultation with the Federal Trade Commission and other agencies, to establish regulations that would allow estate administrators to resolve outstanding credit balances in a timely manner.

I support this amendment. Its inclusion would ensure that debts are not passed off to the state. I support this bill and urge my colleagues to support.

8. Maloney (NY)/Watson (CA), would require credit cardholders to opt- into receiving over-the-limit protection on their credit card in order for a credit card company to charge an over-the-limit fee. Allows for transactions that go over the limit to be completed for operational reasons as long as they are of a de minimis amount, but the credit card company is not allowed to charge a fee.

I support this amendment. This is the same principle that applies with respect to over the limit fees in banking accounts. The premise is reasonable and makes sense. I urge my colleagues to support it.

9. Hensarling (TX), would allow issuers to raise rates on existing balances if they provide consumers clear notification 90 days in advance, provided that the issuer has previously specified this ability to consumers in their contract and at least once every year thereafter.

I do not support this amendment. The whole idea behind this bill is to extend certain rights to the consumer. This amendment allows credit card companies to continue to raise rates without any regard as to whether the rates were reasonable in the first instance. I urge my colleagues not to support this amendment.

10. Hensarling (TX), would allow creditors to use retroactive rate increases, universal default, and `double cycle billing' practices as long as they offer at least one card option that does not have those billing features to all of their existing customers.

I do not support this amendment. The whole idea behind this bill is to extend certain rights to the consumer. This amendment allows credit card companies to continue to raise rates without any regard as to whether the rates were reasonable in the first instance. I urge my colleagues not to support this amendment.

11. Minnick (ID), would provide that the amount of a balance as of the 7-day mark, instead of the 14-day mark, following a notice of a rate increase would be protected from the rate increase.

I do not support this amendment. Allowing the balance as of the 14- day mark following a notice of rate increase that would be protected would help the consumer. I urge my colleagues not to support this amendment.

12. Price, David (NC)/Miller, Brad (NC)/Moran, James (VA)/Quigley (IL)/Lowey (NY)/Stupak (MI)/Sutton (OH), would require credit card issuers to provide enhanced disclosure to consumers regarding minimum payments, including a written Minimum Payment Warning statement on all monthly statements as well as information regarding the monthly payment amount and total cost that would be required for the consumer to eliminate the outstanding balance in 12, 24 and 36 months. Would require credit card issuers to provide a toll-free telephone number at which the consumer may receive information about accessing credit counseling and debt management services.

I support this amendment. It makes good sense and would help the consumer make informed decisions. It affords the consumer with credit counseling and debt management services which can be vital informational tools for consumers.

13. Davis, Susan (CA)/Carney (PA), Would require card issuers to notify cardholders 30 days before closing their accounts, the reason for the account closure, options to keep the account open, programs available to repay the balance, and the resulting impact on their credit score.

I support this amendment and urge my colleagues to support it. This amendment offers the consumer the last clear chance to self-help and to fix the consumers bad credit situation. Should the consumer not be able to improve the situation, the consumer must be informed about the resulting impact upon the consumer's credit score. This amendment makes sense. I urge my colleagues to support it.

14. Perriello (VA), Would require a 6-month period for a promotional rate for credit cards before the standard rate may be increased.

I support this amendment.

15. Schauer (MI), Would require creditors to post their credit card written agreements on their Web sites, and requires the Board to compile and report those agreements on its Web site.

I support this amendment. It promotes transparency.

16. Teague, Harry (NM)/Nye (VA)/Boccieri (OH)/Kissell, Larry (NC), Would restrict credit card issuers from making adverse reports to credit rating agencies regarding deployed military service members and disabled veterans during the first two years of their disability.

I support this amendment and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. This amendment ensures that veterans and servicemen are not prejudiced in their credit ratings because of deployment or disability. It is a small sacrifice for our servicemen and veterans who have given so much to protect this country. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

17. Schock (IL), Would allow consumers who have not activated an issued credit card within 45 days, to contact the issuing institution to cancel the card and have it removed from their credit report entirely. If after 45 days the card has not been activated it is automatically removed from any such report.

I support this amendment. It is a good commonsense amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, I support the rule and the amendments that I enumerated above. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.

Madam Chairwoman, this amendment contains several provisions that both sides have either agreed to or believe are noncontroversial.

First, it amends section 8 of the bill, which prohibits credit card issuers from charging consumers who choose to pay their bill by phone, over the Internet, or by other means of electronic funds transfer. It allows credit card companies to charge consumers for expedited payments by telephone when consumers request such an expedited payment.

In current practice, many credit card issuers charge their customers a substantial fee to pay their monthly bill over the phone or online. These fees, known as pay-to-pay fees, are assessed regardless of whether a customer's payment is made on time.

Pay-to-pay fees don't exist to recoup the costs incurred through processing phone or online payments. Processing an electronic payment certainly does not cost as much as the $15 fee which some credit card companies assess to their customers.

This bill would end the discrimination against payment methods by prohibiting the companies from charging a consumer to pay their bill. This amendment retains that prohibition, but permits an exception to the ban when the consumer wishes to have the convenience of an expedited payment. This would include any expedited payments made by the consumers within 24 hours of when the bill is due.

I want to thank Mr. Ackerman for his efforts in getting the pay-to- pay prohibition added to the bill and for working with the committee to find a bipartisan compromise to carve out expedited payments from the ban.

I also want to thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for his work on this compromise.

This amendment contains several other provisions, including a provision drafted by Mr. Hastings directing the Federal Reserve to suggest appropriate guidelines for creditors to supply consumers with information regarding the availability of credit counseling services; a provision sponsored by Mr. Castle requiring that all credit card offers notify prospective applicants that excess credit applications can adversely affect their credit rating; a provision authored by the gentlelady from New York, Congresswoman Slaughter, to require all written information and terms in any application, solicitation, contract or agreement for a credit card account to appear in no less than 12-point font; and a provision sponsored by Mr. Weiner requiring stores that are self-issuers of credit cards to display a large visible sign at counters with the same information that is required to be disclosed on the credit card information itself.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the author and architect of the bill, the gentlewoman from New York, Carolyn Maloney.

I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) for his words. It's the second time we'll have a manager's amendment that we're going to be together on. I look forward to working with him more.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which includes language that was requested by the White House, addresses how credit card companies allocate payments when a consumer is carrying balances on their credit cards at several different interest rates.

Under existing law, when different portions of a consumer's credit card balance have different interest rates, the credit card insurer may allocate payments in excess of the minimum payment in any manner they choose. Many insurers allocate these excess payments to the portion of the balance with the lowest interest rate, ensuring that the highest interest portions remain on the debtor's account longer.

H.R. 627, as reported, requires payments in excess of the minimum payment to be allocated either, one, to the portion with the highest interest rate first and then other portions based on descending order of APR, or, two, on a pro rata basis. The Gutierrez-Peters-Edwards amendment would eliminate the pro rata option in H.R. 627 and require credit card insurers to allocate payments in excess of the minimum payment to the portion of the consumer's remaining balance with the highest interest rate first, and then by any remaining balances in descending order. This amendment would prevent the credit card insurers from abusing the introductory rates they offer by allocating payments to the lowest rate balance first, while the industry makes their profits from keeping the highest interest rates balance on the consumer's account, which is common practice today.

Our consumers need every tool we can give them to pay down their existing credit card debt and avoid getting caught in the cycle of debt. This amendment would dramatically shift the balance of power from credit card companies to our consumers.

I thank the two wonderful freshmen Members who cosponsored this amendment, Mr. Peters from Michigan and Ms. Edwards from Maryland. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would inquire as to the time remaining on our side.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the wonderful gentlewoman and cosponsor from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

First of all, this is really a simple, commonsense practice for consumers. It says, you had an interest rate of 10 percent on the first $100 you took, and then the credit card company raises it to 20 percent when you take another $100. And the minimum payment is $30 on that $200, but you make a payment of $50. What happens with that extra $20 over the minimum payment? It goes to reduce the debt on the highest interest rate first. So, therefore, the consumer is protected from the hike.

I just want to say that this amendment comes after conversations with the President and the White House and the credit card industry. It was sent over here to the House. I am proud to join the gentlelady from Maryland in proposing this commonsense amendment to protect consumers.

Just think, you have a chance to put consumers first by allowing them to pay down the debt at the highest interest rate after the credit card company changed the rate on you. That is all this really does. It is very consumer-oriented, and that is what I think we should be all about here today.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I oppose this amendment because it would essentially allow credit card insurers to circumvent most of the consumer protections in this bill, such as double-cycle billing and retroactive pricing increases, by simply making available one card that does not have these practices.

The key to this amendment is that credit card companies will not be required to offer the cards to consumers that do not include predatory practices. In other words, consumers with the highest credit scores, those that have the ability to pay and the greatest assets and income, will get the good card, the one without double billing, without retroactive price increases, and those with low credit scores will get the subprime cards that include the very deceptive practices that this bill was intended to stop. That is why I have to be in opposition to this.

It is almost as though we went through this for nothing. Allow this amendment to pass, and most of the work we have done in protecting consumers is undone.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

First of all, let me suggest to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) that this bill is not going to prohibit credit card companies, once it is passed, to extend lines of credit at lower interest rates to those who have higher credit scores. It is just not going to do it. They will still be able to do that.

When he suggests to us that this is a choice, this is an option, there are some options and some choices we should stand up against, and this is one of those choices and one of those options, because it is going to affect those that cannot read. I am sure the gentleman would never suggest that consumers understand every point of the fine print on that credit card. It is going to be hidden there. And the Federal Reserve Board has said to us it is bad practices. It is predatory. It is not fair to simply give notice.

Lastly, look, all we are saying is, yes, we are stopping credit card companies and we are stopping consumers from having the ``choice,'' we like to suggest the ``harm'' of a credit card company being able to give you 90 days' notice and say, you know the $1,000 you took last year at 18 percent? They can say, for the whole last year that you have paid it, we are going to go retroactively and double that interest rate, and we want the money, although you have made all of the payments all year long on time, we are going to double the interest rate. Give me more money.

That is fundamentally unfair, to retroactively go back and claim money just because you can, just because you sent somebody a 90-day notice.

I urge everybody to vote against this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) I offer the amendment at the desk.

It's a pretty simple amendment. It would require that credit card issuers notify credit cardholders 30 days before closing their accounts, the reason that the account was closed. They put it in writing; options to keep the account open; programs available to repay the balance, and the resulting impact on their credit score that this might have. It's a pretty simple amendment. It's very consumer- oriented. It allows for more transparency between those that issue the credit card and those that receive it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Well, let me just suggest the following: number one, I understand the gentleman's concern. And I think the amendment is a pretty good amendment, and I understand your concern.

I think we can kind of predict that you and I are probably going to the conference report once we get this, should this bill be successful, which, given precedent of last year, it looks very, very likely we're going to pass this bill here today. I've worked with you, I think, very well in the past, and obviously, I look forward to the coming years and working with you. Why don't we work out that in conference to make sure that that just doesn't happen and the consumer isn't harmed.

I yield to one of the sponsors of the bill, Mr. Carney from Pennsylvania, 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have left on our side?

I yield 2 minutes to the chief sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, we yield back the balance of our time.

First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for introducing this amendment. I think, first of all, probably the most junior member of my staff--they are all really bright--but the most recent graduate from college can probably go on the computer and somehow transcribe a document because the consumers--I don't want anybody to be led to believe that somehow this bill of rights isn't going to give the consumers the agreement. They are going to have every right to the agreement, and the banks are going to have to print the agreements and give it to people, except the agreements are going to be easier to read and understand. So I think a junior member can put that on a computer and Web site.

Having said that, again, Mr. Hensarling--I hope that I have done a good enough job today, and I know he's always done a good enough job on his side, and we will take a look at that. If there is some onerous cost, we will take a look at that. But I have a funny feeling that there is a template out there that's going to be given to these smaller institutions. And I thank the gentleman for not opposing the amendment.

I thank the chairman for yielding and for his leadership.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of this manager's amendment. It makes a number of commonsense additions to this legislation, such as requiring all written materials from credit card companies to be in at least a 12-point font. Gone will be the days of too-small-to-read fine, fine print disclosures and contracts. It requires the better disclosure of credit card terms when potential customers are offered credit cards in retail stores. It warns customers that constant credit applications can have an adverse effect on one's credit score, and it makes a clarification that Congressman Ackerman sought and achieved somewhat in committee with his amendment that was accepted that will ban fees for paying your credit card bill. No more fees for paying your bills. These are all very good and important things.

I support this amendment and urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

Last week when the President met with executives of the card companies, he said that credit cards had become unnecessarily complicated for consumers, often leading them to pay more than they reasonably expect. After his meeting, his administration reached out to Congress to offer their support of the credit cardholders' bill of rights but also to offer additional amendments and provisions. The one that we are considering now is one put forth by the administration, and this would require cardholders to opt into any over-the-limit coverage on their credit card.

Our constituents are faced with a multitude of fees and penalties that can be assessed to their credit card accounts. In many cases they do not even know the fees exist because disclosure agreements can be confusing and hard to understand. A recent editorial in the New York Times called ``Over the Limit'' detailed one of the so-called ``worst tricks'' used by credit card companies, ``allowing a consumer to overcharge on his or her account but when the bill arrives, the consumer has been assessed an over-the-limit fee.''

I would like to place this editorial in the Record.

[From the New York Times, Apr. 25, 2009]

Over the Limit

President Obama told banking executives this week to clean

up their credit card business. He made clear that he

understands the billowing anger and the huge strains placed

on millions of American cardholders who face sudden interest

rate spikes, hidden fees and tricky contracts that no one

without a law degree and a magnifying glass can hope to

master.

His promises will amount to little unless he follows

through quickly to strengthen bills in Congress designed to

protect credit card customers.

The president said after meeting credit card executives on

Thursday that he and his economic team recognize the need for

credit cards, especially in a tough economy. Small businesses

often depend on the cards to order goods or meet the payroll.

And consumers have learned to enjoy instant credit at the

checkout counter. But as a longtime user of credit cards

himself, Mr. Obama told banking executives that it is time to

reform this area of their business.

He demanded stronger protections against unfair rate

increases and abusive fees along with more oversight and

enforcement. He called for clarity. He wants contracts

written in plain language, minus fine print or ``anytime, any

reason rate hikes.'' He wants people to be able to comparison

shop online, with one option being ``a plain-vanilla, easy-

to-understand, simplest-terms-possible'' card for the average

user.

Credit card operators have long resisted such reforms, and

earlier experiments with self-policing resulted in very

spotty improvements. After complaints from cardholders who

felt tricked by their banks, the Federal Reserve last year

proposed several useful changes that will not, unfortunately,

take effect until July 2010.

There's a better way to help consumers. A credit card bill

of rights proposed by Democratic Representatives Barney Frank

of Massachusetts and Carolyn Maloney of New York would codify

many of the Fed's rules into law. It would ban interest rate

increases on existing balances unless payment is more than 30

days late, and it would forbid ``double-cycle billing,''

which means charging interest on debts paid off the previous

month.

It would also require 45 days' notice for a rate increase

in most cases. An even stronger bill by Senator Christopher

Dodd of Connecticut would make it harder for people under the

age of 21 to get cards, far too many of whom now think

plastic is simply another form of cash. It would also require

creditors to apply a cardholder's payment to the balance with

the highest interest rate. So far, these reforms face fierce

Republican opposition, especially in the Senate.

If the president is really serious about credit card

relief, he could pressure Congress to end some of the

industry's worst tricks right now. Remember when credit card

limits caused great embarrassment at the restaurant? These

days, many cards allow the overcharge, sparing the

embarrassment but socking the customer with a large fee at

billing time. One solution would be to offer consumers the

choice if a real ceiling that renders cards unusable above

that limit.

Mr. Obama has spent a lot of time and energy trying to save

the banks. He and Congress must also do more to spare their

customers.

Our amendment would require credit cardholders to opt in to receive over-the-limit protection on their credit card in order for a credit card company to charge an over-the-limit fee. Additionally, the amendment allows for transactions that go over the limit to be completed for operational reasons as long as they are of a small amount. But the credit card company is not allowed to charge a fee.

For far too long, credit cardholders have been alone in the fight to bring reasonable standards back to credit card practices. With the passage of this amendment and the underlying bill, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights, consumers will be treated more fairly by credit card issuers and will be better able to manage their accounts.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield the balance of my time to my good friend and colleague and coauthor of this amendment, along with the administration, Diane Watson.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

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

The amendment seeks to gut all of the consumer protections of the bill as long as the credit card company gives the cardholder 90 days' notice that they are going to do it. This is the exact same amendment that was defeated in the committee with unanimous opposition from the Democrats on the committee, and even a few Republicans voting in opposition.

Allowing issuers to raise interest rates retroactively for a new reason is just creating a loophole for issuers.

The bill allows issuers to impose retroactive interest rates if the cardholder fails to pay or pays 30 days late, which is the time commercial contracts deem late.

So if an issuer is harmed, they have a remedy. In the absence of harm, it's hard to see why we would give the issuer the unilateral right with 90 days' notice to raise the rate retroactively and change the deal with the cardholder.

A deal should be a deal. They shouldn't have these opportunities to change them.

As the Federal Reserve found, and this is important, this is a Federal regulator, the Federal Reserve found most retroactive rate increases are, and I quote, from the Federal Reserve, ``unfair and deceptive.''

In our current mortgage reform discussions, we are trying to mitigate losses by making sure borrowers can repay their loans. Retroactive rate increases do the opposite. They slam borrowers with increased debt and make it less likely that they will be able to repay and pay down the balance.

I believe the best defense against the concerns raised by my colleague is the use of sound underwriting standards by the issuers.

Additionally, nothing in the bill prohibits an issuer from lowering the credit line or canceling the card if they are worried that the cardholder will not repay.

The bill also allows for fees if a customer does not pay on time, for 30 days, or has their check returned. Sound underwriting and these risk mitigation tools will be far more effective in fighting the concerns the gentleman is talking about.

I would say this amendment basically guts the protections that are in the bill that have been endorsed by 54 editorial boards and endorsed by numerous regulators, including the Federal Reserve, and this simply creates a new loophole. I am deeply opposed to it, as was the committee in the committee vote with Republicans' votes.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

The Federal Reserve's report on the rule they proposed, which was very similar to the bill, in it they said that disclosure in their studies was not enough; that the practices were so deceptive it was hard for many consumers to understand them and the contract is so complicated and the fine print so small that most people don't even read it. So to build in another loophole undermines the whole purpose of the bill.

This amendment was killed in the committee, and I urge my colleagues to kill it again. It should be Black Flag dead, because it guts the bill and the protections that we are trying to put in place to protect America's consumers.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This is an amendment that Congressman Hensarling offered both at the subcommittee and the full committee markups, and it was defeated both times by unanimous Democratic opposition, with even a few Republican votes in opposition to it.

Essentially what this amendment attempts is to create significant exceptions to the consumer protections offered by the underlying legislation and the final rule that was adopted by the Federal Reserve, the Office of Thrift Supervision and the National Credit Union Administrator. These three regulators have called the practices that my colleague would attempt to exempt unfair, deceptive and anticompetitive. Why would anyone in this body want to continue unfair, deceptive and anticompetitive practices? Even competition of the free market, they are saying it is anticompetitive.

I would like to point out during some of the many hearings and meetings and seven hearings that we held on the topic in the last several years, we frequently heard from academics, from regulators, that disclosure is not enough. It is too confusing. It is deceptive. Most consumers do not read the contract, they do not understand the contract, and it is worded in a way that is deceptive.

The President called for a plain vanilla card that people could understand. What this card would be that he is proposing is toxic. It would continue the bad practices and defeat the whole purpose of the bill. This amendment would create a subclass of credit cardholders who would have little to no rights.

The bill provides baseline consumer protections that everyone should enjoy. The last thing we should be doing is creating exceptions or subsets that would allow these abusive practices to continue.

It is abusive. It is wrong. This amendment should be killed Black Flag dead.