Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3639) to amend the Credit Card Accountablity Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 to establish an earlier effective date for various consumer protections, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I do not believe there is ever a good time to enact a bad law. And unfortunately, although there are some good provisions in the underlying credit card legislation, ultimately many of us predicted that if it passed, credit would become more expensive and less available to millions of Americans, and that's exactly what we see.

Now, the good part of the bill is, clearly, there have been misleading and deceptive practices by some credit card companies. We need to have better disclosure, more effective disclosure so people understand the credit relationships in which they enter. But, Mr. Chairman, we are in the midst of a huge credit contraction that's taking place today; jobs are being lost and people are having trouble accessing credit for their personal lives and for small businesses. Unfortunately, ultimately this underlying legislation on which one of three effective dates is moved up--or two of the three effective dates are moved up by the bill that is before us--will essentially exacerbate that trend. In many respects, Mr. Chairman, I hate to say I told you so, but we told you so. And so, again, all we're going to do is make a bad situation worse.

Already we have seen, for example, a recent article in USA Today, let me quote from it, October 23, ``Curtis Arnold, founder of creditratings.com, said he expected credit card issuers to raise annual fees after the legislation was enacted.'' Sure enough, Mr. Chairman, that's exactly what we see.

Let me quote from The Wall Street Journal. ``Other issuers, such as Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase Card Services, and Discover, recently converted customer fixed rates to variable ones.''

New York Times, ``Now Congress is moving to limit the penalties on riskier borrowers''--which is exactly what the underlying legislation did, Mr. Chairman. Let me continue on--``who have become a prime source of billions of dollars in fee revenue for the industry. And to make up for the lost income, the card companies are going after those people with sterling credit.''

So now we also find out--again, from USA Today--that starting next year Bank of America will charge a number of customers an annual fee ranging from $29 to $99. We see that, in the same article from USA Today, Citigroup has started charging annual fees to cardholders.

And so, again, Mr. Chairman, we have the testimony. Many of us predicted this. As I said way back in March, make no mistake about it, if this bill passes, it's going to be a lot harder for people to access the credit they need to pay their bills, cover medical emergencies, or finance large purchases.

And so all over America people are getting these notices in the mail--including the Hensarling family of Dallas, Texas, where all of a sudden I've seen our own interest rates skyrocket from 15 percent to 23 percent. And with very few exceptions, my wife and I pay our balance in full at the end of the month. It's the half of America that pays their bills on time, in full that are now having to subsidize those who don't through an act of Congress.

So I think we all agree, nobody likes what's happening in America, but the question is, who's responsible? I believe this underlying piece of legislation is exacerbating a huge credit contraction that's already taking place in the economy.

And, Mr. Chairman, it just couldn't come at a worse time. I mean, as we know, apparently on Friday or Saturday this body will vote on a huge government takeover of our health care bill which could cost easily, even according to CBO, over $1 trillion that ultimately has to be paid for by the American people.

We've seen estimates again that premiums will rise, particularly for young, healthy people, young, healthy people who may be getting these notices in the mail today that all of a sudden maybe their credit cards have been yanked and maybe their interest rates have gone up. At the same time when we are staring in the face of an over $1 trillion health care bill, a bill that could impose a 2.5 percent penalty, again, on young people who may not be able to afford insurance, but they could be penalized 2.5 percent. Well, if you take away their credit cards, how are they going to be able to pay the 2.5 percent tax if they don't buy the government improved health insurance?

Mr. Chairman, how about small businesses? If small businesses find that their credit cards have their interest rates skyrocket or taken away, how are they going to be able to pay the 8 percent pay-or-play tax which is in the Pelosi government takeover of health care bill?

How about the other surcharge that would go to a number of small businesses, supposedly raising half a trillion dollars? Again, we know a lot of small businesses access credit through credit cards. So if we take an underlying bad bill that's exacerbating a credit crunch and all we do is accelerate the effective date, I mean, how, again, are tens of thousands of small businesses going to be able to pay the 8 percent new pay-or-play tax in the Pelosi takeover of our health care system bill?

How about the 2.5 percent medical device tax, or the 2.5 percent what some are calling the ``wheelchair tax''? Again, a number of our seniors rely on credit cards. Now they have Medigap policies. They need those credit cards for medical expenses, especially if the majority is about to impose a 2.5 percent wheelchair tax upon the American people.

Why are we going to pass a bill, again, in the middle of a huge credit contraction that is only going to exacerbate the matter, make matters worse, take away credit cards, make interest rates go up, make credit less available and more expensive at a time when we are threatened with this $1 trillion government takeover of health care legislation?

Again, I want to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that there is at least one good part of the legislation, which is that we do need effective disclosure and that we need competitive markets. But when you start taking away the ability of companies to price for risk, the people who do it right end up bailing out a number of people who don't, and those who don't--and for some of whom it may not be through any fault of their own--find that they no longer have credit opportunities at a time when many are facing a 2\1/2\ percent tax if they don't buy the government-improved health insurance. They are facing a 2\1/2\ percent tax if they need a wheeled chair, maybe even a replacement hip. I suppose that's also defined as a ``medical device'' under the Pelosi government takeover of our health care system legislation. Small businesses face the 8 percent pay-or-play tax.

Again, even if you thought that the underlying legislation was good, how could the timing not be worse?

If you were to ask the American people, number one, if those who pay their bills on time shouldn't be punished for those who don't, and of those who don't, if they had a choice of paying a higher interest rate or of having their credit cards taken away from them, my guess is a number of them would choose the higher interest rate.

But Congress has taken that decision away from them by enacting the underlying bill, if we choose to enact this bill, which will simply hasten what is already a bad process which is making credit less available and more expensive to thousands of small businesses and to millions of Americans as we're facing a government takeover of our health care system.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, in order to help equalize the time, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the ranking member, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. Chairman, I assume the chairman of the full committee has the right to close?

The chairman having said he has no other speakers, in that case, I will close for our side.

Again, we have no great pleasure in saying ``I told you so,'' but I think it is important before this body decides to accelerate a problem that is exacerbated by this body, they should take full import of their actions and the consequences.

As I said back in June, we must remember that every restriction, every limit, every regulation, has a high probability of making credit less accessible, less affordable and more costly, and, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what we see today.

In a recent article in The Wall Street Journal, we read, In the past 2 years, credit card lines have been cut by over $1.25 trillion. During the same time, 10 percent of all credit card accounts have been canceled.

Again, we know, Mr. Chairman, that our constituents are feeling this pain as they get these notices in the mail. Let me go back to the article: According to the most recent Federal Reserve data, small business lending is down 3 percent, or $113 billion, from fourth quarter 2008.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the chairman keeping me informed.

Again, Mr. Chairman, what we have seen is what I believe to be a number of unintended consequences that have taken place in this legislation. We were warned about this.

We heard from, for example, the ABA, who testified at the committee back in March, Restrictions on repricing higher risk accounts means two things. Number one, that higher risk customers will likely see less credit available to them; and, two, since the higher risk customers do not bear the full cost of the risk they pose, lower risk customers will bear some of the added cost.

We heard back in December of 2008 from Oliver Ireland of the Morrison and Forester law firm: The effects of this are going to be pretty severe. People are going to see either some combination of rising prices or a reduction in the availability of credit by either cutting lines or simply not making credit available.

Again, Mr. Chairman, we have been warned. Julie Williams, chief counsel for the OCC, who testified before our committee back in April of 2008: The risk mitigation tools used by credit card lenders to address changes in the credit risk profile of customers may include freezing or reducing credit lines, closing accounts, shortening account expiration dates and repricing for outstanding balances on the account. I could go on and on.

We have been warned, Mr. Chairman. We see it happening. We hear the anecdotal evidence. We see the statistical evidence. Again, I fear that although there are some good aspects of the legislation, that ultimately, ultimately, in the midst of a huge credit contraction, that what we will see is credit become even less available and more expensive, at a time when many of our constituents need it most.

Again, this has to be put into the context of the larger legislation that this body will consider this week, according to the Speaker of the House, and that is the government takeover of our health care system.

We know that on page 297, section 501 of that bill, there is a 2.5 percent tax imposed on all individuals who do not purchase the government-approved health insurance, which clearly applies to people making less than a quarter million dollars a year, which seems to contravene a campaign commitment that was made by our President.

We also see that there are new taxes on medical devices, a 2.5 percent excise tax. Again, many call this the wheelchair tax. But as our constituents are finding it more and more difficult to access credit cards, when they are having their credit cards cancelled, when they are seeing their interest rates rise, how are they going to be able to pay the 2.5 percent medical device tax in this $1 trillion piece of legislation?

Mr. Chairman, I hear from my constituents. I hear from the Farmer family of Athens who wrote to me once, Dear Congressman, more than once we have put medical bills on our credit cards. Two years ago, my middle son had to have cervical surgery. I split the cost of the surgery, doctors and hospital. It took my husband and me about a year to pay off that particular debt, but we did it at a low rate of interest since our credit is good. I am just thankful for having the means to help my son.

Now, what do I go back and tell the Farmer family of Athens? Well, Congress decided to pass a piece of legislation; that although your credit is good, you are going to have to start paying more for people whose credit isn't good. The next time you have a medical emergency or challenge in your family, I don't know if that credit card will be there for you.

That is a tragedy, Mr. Chairman, as, again, we continue to have this huge credit contraction. And, again, when we are looking at this $1 trillion government takeover of our health care legislation that on page 336, section 551, imposes a half a trillion dollar surcharge, supposedly just on the wealthy, but if you read the fine print what you figure out is that half of that is going to be paid by small businesses. So you could have a $534 billion surtax imposed in this government takeover of health care legislation, and as you impose this, again, how is small business going to be able to afford to pay this surcharge if on their credit cards their interest rates continue to rise and their availability to access credit continues to erode? I don't understand it.

Then the more visible tax on small business, page 313, section 512 of the government takeover of health care bill imposes an 8 percent tax on employers who can't afford to purchase the government-approved health insurance. Now, according to the National Federation of Independent Business, such a mandate could cost 1.6 million jobs in the next 5 years. So, if you lose your job and we are making credit more expensive and less available, Mr. Chairman, I just ask the question, how is this supposed to improve the Nation's health care?

So we have to take a look at the underlying credit card legislation and how it is going to impact our constituents as we go forward, perhaps on Friday or Saturday, to vote on this other legislation.

We also know, Mr. Chairman, that in the government takeover of our health care bill, that there are at least 43 new entitlement programs that are either created, expanded or extended in the bill.

Now, is somebody going to tell me that doesn't make health care more expensive? And if it makes health care more expensive, how are Americans who are losing their credit cards supposed to pay for the $1 trillion takeover of our health care system?

In addition, there are 111 new offices, bureaus, commissions, programs and bureaucracies that the bill will put between Americans and their doctors. Are you going to tell me, besides rationing health care, that somehow that is going to make health care less expensive? I don't believe so.

If it doesn't make health care less expensive, and I haven't found anybody to come to this floor to tell me that this 1,990-page bill costing the American people over $1 trillion is somehow going to make their health care less expensive, so if it doesn't make their health care less expensive, why would we want to support legislation that, again, has the impact and effect of taking away millions of Americans' credit cards or artificially raising their interest rates? I don't get it.

Mr. Chairman, in this $1 trillion government takeover of our health care system bill, we have 3,425 uses of the word ``shall'' representing new duties, new obligations, new mandates on individuals, businesses and States, which, oh, by the way, is double the number that we saw in the last iteration of the government takeover of our health care system bill.

Okay. So if we have 3,425 different mandates in this bill, is that somehow going to make our health care less expensive? I don't believe that. I don't believe the American people believe that. And, again, Mr. Chairman, if it doesn't make our health care less expensive at a time when our Nation has just achieved its first $1 trillion deficit in our history, when this Congress has enacted a spending plan that will triple, triple the national debt in the next 10 years, that is even before the $1 trillion government takeover of our health care bill comes to the floor, how can we pass a piece of legislation making credit less available and more expensive?

I urge rejection of the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, certainly we had a spirited debate on the underlying legislation. I do want to thank the chairman for his efforts for allowing this particular amendment to be made in order. I have always feared that on a number of pieces of legislation that Congress enacts that it is always fraught with unintended consequences. I believe I stumbled across one of those unintended consequences.

I believe it was last week, perhaps the week before, that I was contacted by one of my constituents who had received a credit card offer in the mail that offered him a better interest rate than the interest rate his current credit card offered; but because of a number of other provisions, he wanted to keep his current credit card.

So he called his credit card company and said, Would you match this other deal on the interest rate? I want to stay with you, but will you match this interest rate? He was told by whatever voice was on the other end of the 1-800 number, We would like to match your interest rate, and we will match your interest rate, but we cannot do it for 45 days under a law recently enacted by Congress.

Now, I certainly don't believe that was the intent of the majority, but clearly the language in the underlying bill is being interpreted by some credit card companies to prevent them from lowering rates or lowering fees without a 45-day notice. Again, I do not believe that was the intention of the majority, and they may have written their bill thinking they had taken care of that. But, clearly, the language is sufficiently ambiguous for some companies that they do not feel that they can actually lower interest rates or lower fees or cancel fees or do something that almost every single individual in this body would interpret as only, only benefiting the consumer.

So, Mr. Chairman, my simple amendment would provide a clarification that no provision in the subsection shall be construed as preventing any creditor from putting any reduction in an annual percentage rate, any decrease or elimination of any fee imposed on any consumer or any significant change in terms solely or primarily for the benefit of the consumer into effect immediately.

So, again, what I believe the majority was trying to do would be preserved, and I think what they were trying not to do and, that is, certainly I do not believe it is their intent to have consumers wait for 45 days for lower interest rates. Again, I grant you, in this economic environment, it is not a common occurrence, but apparently it does occur or this constituent wouldn't have called me in the first place.

So I believe it is a simple amendment. Again, I hope it takes care of an unintended consequence. I fear there are many other unintended consequences, but this is one that it would take care of, and I would certainly urge all Members of the body to adopt the amendment.

Again, I thank the chairman for making sure that this particular amendment was made in order.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although as I seek to understand the amendment, I am not completely certain that I am in opposition.

I will yield myself as much time as I may consume.

It appears that if a credit card issuer does not increase an annual percentage rate fee or finance charge applicable to any existing or future balance, it need not comply. With the bill's requirements, payments above the minimum will be allocated first to that balance until February of 2010. So I guess there is a carve-out for credit card issuers who do not increase annual percentage rates. I suppose at the margins it is good to give more choices instead of fewer choices. Whether or not this results, again, in some people having to pay even more in fees, maybe an annual fee, I don't know the answer to that question. I suppose I will urge my colleagues to adopt this.

But again, all of this legislation, Mr. Chairman, has to be put in the context of the legislation that this body will consider this Friday or Saturday and that is the 1,990-page government takeover of our health care system bill. And I think that on every single piece of legislation that we consider in this body prior to that time, we have to ask the question, If our constituents are going to be looking at having to pay for a trillion-dollar government takeover of health care legislation, is any particular amendment going to make our constituents have a greater ability or a lesser ability to pay for that?

I am thinking specifically right now of all the seniors across America, particularly those in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas that I have the honor and privilege of representing, who will see their Medicare Advantage plans cut by $150 billion under the government-takeover-of-health-care plan. Now, if so, on the health care benefits they're receiving under their Medicare Advantage plan that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will cut $150 billion from Medicare Advantage, will the seniors in the Fifth Congressional District, will they still have access to credit cards, for example, that help them fill the gap to, number one, help pay for the trillion- dollar health care bill and, on the other hand, as $150 billion is taken away from those who receive Medicare Advantage, particularly those in rural areas?

In representing the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, I represent a lot of rural America. So it's a little unclear to me whether the underlying amendment is going to make it easier for seniors to keep those credit cards or not. I believe perhaps at the margin

it does; and because of that, I will urge my colleagues to adopt this.

Again, all of this has to be put in context of the trillion-dollar government takeover of our health care system. And I hope the gentlelady's amendment helps ease the pain of that legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, as I have said before, there is never a good time to enact a bad bill. Here we are again in the midst of a huge credit contraction. Every single day people are waking up, they're losing credit cards. Their interest rates are increasing. We have had at least 3.5 million of our fellow citizens lose their jobs since this

administration has taken office. We have the highest unemployment rate in a quarter of a century. And yet in the midst of this credit contraction, when people are having trouble expanding their business, creating jobs, paying their bills, we are going to enact legislation that simply is procyclical and makes the whole matter worse.

I heard the gentleman say we can't enact this retroactively. I would say, at least in the years I have been in the House, we have certainly tried. I suppose that might be the next amendment. Maybe we can make this retroactive to 1974 or some other fairly arbitrary date.

Again, this particular legislation has to be put in the context of the trillion-dollar legislation, the government takeover of our health care system, that this House is due to vote on, apparently, according to the Speaker, either Friday or Saturday. And I question each and every amendment.

Will our constituents be less able or more able to afford to pay for this $1.3 trillion government takeover of our health care system if we pass this amendment? My guess is that the gentleman from New York's amendment fails that test.

And so I would urge that we reject that amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, I fear that this amendment is simply going to take a bad situation and make it worse. How will all of our constituents be able, again, to pay for this monstrosity of a government takeover of our health care system, one that will directly tax a number of our constituents? Page 297, section 501, imposes a 2.5 percent tax on all individuals who do not purchase the government-approved health insurance; 2.5 percent.

Now, again, a number of our constituents use credit cards to help pay for their medical expenses, to pay for their groceries, to pay for everything else. And now a number of them are going to be subject to a 2.5 percent tax. How will this amendment help them?

New taxes on medical devices, a 2.5 percent excise tax, which many call the wheelchair tax, particularly I assume a number of seniors will be subject to this tax. I know a number of them rely upon credit cards. Will their credit cards ultimately be taken away from them under this legislation?

The underlying legislation takes away the ability, erodes the ability to do risk-based pricing and takes us back to an era where a third fewer people had access to credit cards and everybody paid annual fees and everybody paid one universal high interest rate.

The underlying legislation takes us down that road, and the gentleman from New York's amendment gets us there tomorrow. And then later in this week we're going to tell our constituents, Congratulations, we just passed a $1.3 trillion government takeover of your health care system that you have to pay for through new taxes on individuals, new taxes on medical devices, new taxes on small businesses, at a time where this Congress and this administration has brought us the first trillion-dollar deficit in our Nation's history, tripling the national debt--tripling the national debt--in the next 10 years. The least you can do is at least allow your constituents to have a credit card to help pay for this mammoth takeover of our government health care system.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, there are aspects of the legislation I am not sure that I completely understand, and if the gentlelady from Ohio would be willing to explain her amendment, I will be happy to yield her time.

On line 9 of the amendment, it speaks of the notice of the imposition of a new fee, and I am curious whether a new fee, does that include increasing the amount of a fee that is already in existence?

I yield to the gentlelady for a clarification.

That it would, okay.

So an altogether new fee that had not previously been imposed, that would be included in the language and any increase in an existing fee would come within your definition of new fee, correct?

I yield to the gentlelady.

I thank the gentlelady for her explanation.

The next question I had, on line 14 there is the phrase ``to negatively impact.'' I am curious whether or not certain creditors feel they are getting accurate data, whether or not this could cause them to drop the consumer's credit card in total, but I suppose the language you use is to negatively impact the consumer's credit score or credit report. So if the impact of your amendment, because incomplete or inaccurate data was given by a credit bureau to a creditor and they chose instead not to take the risk, that the negative impact of losing their credit card, that is not assumed in your amendment?

I yield to the gentlelady.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlelady for her explanation. I fear for, frankly, a number of creditors it might just have that impact.

So again, I would oppose the underlying amendment because I think, again, under the purpose of attempting to help the consumer, you might actually hurt the consumer. And I think what we want is to make sure that creditors receive the most accurate information possible because it has helped allow more Americans to receive credit than otherwise would be possible.

Now I don't know, there may be some credit bureau out there who believe that people like me who wear red ties are a greater credit risk, I don't know, I am not an expert in it, and I feel quite certain that my colleagues are not experts on what constitutes a greater or lesser credit risk, and except for the prohibited classes of race, creed, and color which have been clearly delineated in our civil rights laws, why do we want to start dictating to credit bureaus about what constitutes a greater risk and what constitutes a lesser risk.

Again, it might make us feel better. It may have good optics; but at the end of the day, I fear the result is if you start restricting, if you go down the road of beginning to restrict the information that is available to creditors, with less information, they are either going to make credit less available or they are going to increase the cost of it because it becomes a greater risk.

Listen, on its face the gentlelady's amendment strikes me as fair; but I don't believe Congress has expertise in this. Again, when we are facing the imposition of a trillion dollar government takeover of our health care bill, I believe this will make credit less available and more costly.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time to close.

Mr. Chairman, I would agree with the chairman of the full committee, people who do it right shouldn't be penalized, and that is exactly what is happening in the underlying legislation.

This particular amendment is simply tantamount to a gag order to tell credit bureaus that they can't report accurate information that creditors want in order to give credit. It is going to take credit away, make it more expensive and less available as we try to finance the trillion dollar government takeover of health care.

While I am somewhat unclear why this amendment was made in order, it seems to do precisely the opposite of what the Expedited CARD Reform for Consumers Act was supposedly designed to do. This freezes prices. And yet we have had so many Members on the other side of the aisle tell us the bill doesn't do that.

I see that the chairman of the full committee has come back to the floor. Just in September, on September 23, the chairman was quoted as saying on the House floor, When it comes to rate setting, this bill, to the disappointment of some, doesn't limit future rates. As far as the future is concerned, if proper notice is given, this bill is not restricted.

Well, the adoption of this amendment would seem to fly in the face of that. The chairman, I assume, was correct when he said it. But if the House adopts this amendment, it will no longer be true.

The chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), There is no limit in this bill on the interest rate that you can charge. None whatsoever. That was spoken on the House floor on April 29. Again, if the amendment is adopted, that will no longer be true.

This bill aims to bring back some balance in the playing field. Unlike other proposals out there, this bill does not set price controls or rate caps or limit the size of fees. That would be the gentlelady from New York who spoke those words in subcommittee in March of 2008. Again, if the underlying amendment is adopted, it seems to change the nature of the underlying bill.

I would be happy to yield to the chairman.

Well, I thank the chairman.

Reclaiming my time, During the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this act and ending 9 months after the date, no creditor may increase annual percentage rate fee finance charge. Again, under the subsection it appears again ``for at least a 9-month period.''

Yes, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Well, reclaiming my time, I was still reading as I yielded to the chairman. So I can either read or I can yield to the chairman. I would be happy to yield to the chairman.

Well, reclaiming my time, then I would question the body on what particular purpose the amendment then serves.

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

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

Well, one thing of interest, I suppose, is that if we adopt the earlier amendment of the gentleman from New York, this all becomes irrelevant anyway since the effective date would be immediate. So I believe that----

I have only 60 seconds, but yes, I will yield a short time to the chairman.

I thank the chairman for his clarification.

Again, I believe that ultimately this is an amendment that would simply impose price controls for a limited duration of time, contrary to what some of us were led to believe.

But again, the most important aspect of this legislation has to be put into the context of the $1 trillion government takeover of our health care plan to be voted on Friday or Saturday. This will make credit more expensive and less available. It should be defeated.

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

Mr. Chairman, I recognize for 4 minutes the prime mover of this bill, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Chairman, demonstrating that we bear no ill will to those who have deserted us, I yield 2 minutes to a former member of the committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

I yield 3 minutes to an active Member, who also filed a very good piece of legislation to this bill, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. Chairman, I intend to close and I have no further speakers, so I reserve my time.

If the gentleman would yield, someone on our side who said she wanted to speak has since come on the floor. I just wanted to alert the gentleman that I will not be the final speaker. I will be yielding one more time before I close.

How much time remains on the other side?

Well, that is nice.

As I told the gentleman, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is recognized for 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a very important member of our committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

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

I want to begin by addressing the role of small business. The gentleman from Texas said this would be unfair to small business. The gentleman from Alabama said this credit card bill, the underlying bill and the speedup, would be a problem for small business.

On April 30 of this year when we voted on the underlying bill, we received the following letter from the National Federation of Independent Business, generally considered to be the most representative and forceful advocate for small businesses:

``On behalf of the NFIB, the Nation's leading small business advocacy organization, I urge you to support H.R. 627, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights. While credit cards provide an important source of credit for many small business owners, our members are troubled by some of the business practices utilized by card companies.''

``H.R. 627 ends unfair penalties on cardholders who pay on time, requires 45 days' notice of interest rate increases, prohibits arbitrary interest rate increases, and establishes industrywide definitions for common terms to deter deceptive marketing advertising. These provisions can protect small business owners' credit by giving them enough notice to pay off debt and shop for competitive credit.''

``While our members favor the credit card reforms in H.R. 627, we are mindful that credit cards pay for approximately $1 of every $6 of sales small businesses make. We believe this legislation does not unduly punish credit card companies in these tough economic times but limits business practices that harm small business credit cardholders.''

I wonder how we could be told how bad this is for small business when the National Federation for Independent Business says it would, in fact, do exactly the opposite and protect credit cardholders.

We also heard, of course, some debate on other issues such as health care, and the gentleman from Alabama in particular blamed the Obama administration for bailouts. I don't want to dwell too much on things not before this bill, but let me reiterate a point that I do not think can be even debated, certainly not refuted. Every single activity of the Federal Government now being carried on that some people have characterized as a bailout was initiated by the administration of President George Bush. President Bush's Secretary of the Treasury and his chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, his appointees, and the President himself were the ones who initiated the funding of AIG by the Federal Reserve. They came to us and asked for the TARP program. They were the ones who first gave money to General Motors and to Chrysler. There is literally nothing now going on called a bailout that the Obama administration did not inherit from George Bush.

Now, I suppose the Obama administration could have just pulled the plug on all these ongoing operations and caused chaos and blamed the previous administration. It did not do that. But literally everything going on now that is called a bailout is an inheritance from the Bush administration.

Now, the gentleman from Alabama also quoted the Federal Reserve in saying don't speed it up. And he said, well, people sometimes quote Mr. Bernanke one way or another. Well, he just did it. In the first place, the gentleman from Alabama and the gentleman from Texas have their major quarrel with the Federal Reserve because the Federal Reserve, on its own, under its regulatory power, promulgated regulations very similar to this bill. The sequence is interesting. The gentlewoman from New York, as she often is, was the first one out of the box on the consumer protection here, but after the gentlewoman from New York began discussions on this bill in our committee, the Federal Reserve moved.

So it seems odd to cite the Federal Reserve and say you believe them when they say there are difficulties in speeding it up when you are fundamentally opposed to the Federal Reserve's basic action here. The Federal Reserve agreed with this House that regulations were needed to protect consumers. It is a set of regulations promulgated by the Federal Reserve that are as strongly opposed by the other side as are our regulations.

By the way, in quoting the Federal Reserve even on the speedup, they did express some concerns. They also said, however, the board cannot predict how an effective date of December 1 would affect credit card interest rates and credit availability. However, moving the CARD Act's effective date to December 1, 2009, would mean that consumers would receive important benefits and protections earlier. So they invoke the Federal Reserve and they invoke small business despite the protestations of both of these organizations that they disagree fundamentally with the Republican position.

Now let's talk about substance. The single biggest piece of this--and they say it prevents the poor credit card companies, the poor beleaguered banks. They warned us that if we tried to stop them from behaving irresponsibly, they would speed irresponsible behavior. Yes, they did. But that should not be allowed to be a deterrent against stopping them from doing things.

And what this fundamentally does, the single best, biggest thing, is it says this: If you have used your credit card to buy things at a rate that you were told was binding and you have made all your payments on time for years and you have been running a credit card balance, as the credit card companies want you to do--I know if you have a credit card and you pay it off every month, they don't like that because they're not getting the interest. But at any rate, if you have fully complied with all the terms of the credit card and you have made purchases and incurred debt at a given interest rate and you have made every payment you were supposed to make on time, they have retained the right unilaterally and retroactively to raise the interest rate on what you already owe them. It is the single unfairest economic transaction I can think of that doesn't involve a pistol. The fact is that they decide they can make more money that way.

We're told they have to deal with risk management. What's the risk on debt already incurred on the part of someone who's always made the payments? This isn't risk management. This is hostage taking. This is raising money after the fact.

Now, it's true they told you that when they sent you the contract. It is true that if you have very good vision and a very high boredom threshold and nothing else to do but read pages and pages of small print, you might have figured that out if you spoke lawyerese. But for most people, the notion that you take your credit, you were told that this is the interest rate, you buy things at that interest rate, you incur debt, and they then say, oh, by the way, you know that rate that was at 8 percent, retroactively it's now 12 percent.

This bill doesn't prevent them from going forward with appropriate notice for raising rates. It absolutely does not. It says they can't do it retroactively and they have to give you some notice so they cannot trap you.

It also says that if you mail the bill at a certain time, you are not subject to their saying, oh, by the way, something happened to your payment, we don't know what, and you're going to have to pay extra. All the burden of any misplaced bill falls on you, the payer, not them, the payee.

Let me last say here's a problem. We have had a pattern of abuse. The National Federation of Independent Business and the Federal Reserve agreed with us that there was a pattern of abuse. Members on the other side said, oh, no, these credit card companies, wonderful people. They're just trying to help you out and they are simply trying to give you credit, and if they raise your rates retroactively, that's in your own best interest. Trust us. That's so you don't have to pay higher rates down the road.

So we said we're going to stop these practices. They then said you can't do it right away, it's very complicated, give us some time. So we gave them time, more than I wanted to at the time. They then used that time not to calibrate so they would be ready for the effective date but to start to jack up the rates.

But I reject the notion, first of all, that people who are engaging in abusive practices, as the credit card companies were, according to us, according to the National Federal of Independent Business, according to Federal Reserve, hardly radical Obamaistic organizations, they should not be allowed to stop it by saying but if you try to make things better, we're going to blow things up in advance. We should not give into those kinds of facts. In fact, I reject the notion that we caused any of this. Nothing they have done couldn't have been done without the bill, and they were doing it. All they did was to use this bill as an excuse for doing what they were trying to do anyway.

So we have here a reasonable bill that will prevent them from imposing things retroactively, that will require some notice going forward, that will fairly allocate the risk of a late payment, and that's what we are talking about. And we are talking about speeding up the date. They have many months to get ready for this.

And let me say this: They tell us, oh, my goodness, it's so hard to recalibrate. But you know what? They have very odd computers over there. Maybe they've got great software. They've got software that works perfectly when they want to raise rates, but if they want to hold rates constant, the software goes berserk. Maybe we can implore the software makers to give them some software that works both ways, because they are able to raise people's rates retroactively in violation of what people thought were their contractual rights, very quickly, but they aren't able to get ready to be giving people a 45-day notice before they raise their rates going forward. And the 45-day notice is so that you can say, okay, I will go through one more billing cycle and I don't want them anymore. I will go to shop. What we have here is what we had in April.

By the way, I don't want to be unfair to the entire Republican Party. Individual Members--it's okay, but not to the entire party. Many Republicans voted for this bill. Those who were speaking in opposition to it clearly were not representative of their whole party last time. And what we have, though, is the leadership from the Financial Services Committee of the Republican Party coming firmly to the defense of the credit card firms, telling us that what they were doing was out of economic necessity. They really don't want to raise these rates but they are just forced to do it by sound risk management.

We believe, along with the National Federation of Independent Business and the Federal Reserve and every consumer group that's looked at it, that exactly the opposite is the case. They have abused the time that they asked for because they said it was for getting ready and they used it to do precisely the things the bill will stop them from doing. I, therefore, very much hope that this bill is adopted.

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

Mr. Chairman, if there is anybody opposed to this amendment, I would yield. But in the absence of anybody who is opposed, I will take the time.

I support the amendment. The gentleman from Texas is a very careful legislator. We disagree a lot. And there were times when I had wished he wasn't as careful as he is, but he is absolutely right in this case. Let me go a step further: this may get entangled, this bill and broader things. If that should happen, I would be prepared, if nothing else worked, to break out this particular amendment at a later date and do it by suspension and hopefully do it unanimously because it, clearly, shouldn't be that way.

So I thank him for calling it to our attention, and I hope the amendment is

adopted. Let me just say that I will be asking for a roll call. Mr. Chairman, I am intending to vote for it; but as you know, one doesn't always ask for roll calls simply because one has an issue on that amendment.

I will yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

I take back my time. In fact, in the spirit of conciliation, let me extend to my friends, if I have any left in that industry, a willingness to even allow them to decrease it retroactively for 45 days, not just waive it prospectively.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Would the gentlewoman yield?

I very much appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment. The notion that people should be penalized for being prudent is outrageous. What this says is if you close out a credit card account, which is an act of prudence, you shouldn't be penalized for it. It is one of these things that I am embarrassed that we ever had to deal with in the first place because that situation should have never been allowed to have existed. The gentlewoman has a very good amendment.

Would the gentleman yield?

The bill does not impose any restrictions other than those in the underlying bill. What it says is, section 4(a) in general, during this period and ending 9 months after the date, it says no creditor may increase any annual percentage rate fee or finance charge except as permitted under subsection 171(b) of the Truth in Lending Act, the CARD Act. So it does have restrictions, but it only reaffirms those that were already in there with the 9-month date. It does not do any new restriction on the ability to raise rates.

He stops reading inexplicably. He's got to work on his attention span because it goes on to say, Except----

I apologize, because the part that we were probably both going to read--and we will work on doing it in unison--says, Except as permitted under subsection 171(b). That is, it imposes no new restrictions. It does revert back to those that are already enacted into law.

Would the gentleman yield? That's not a bad question. I don't have as good an answer to that question as I had to the one before.

The point is this: Given the context of all these amendments, this one doesn't have great effect. But as Members filed amendments, it wasn't clear all the amendments that were there. I think if the gentleman knew everything else that was going to be done, it might not have appeared.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the recommit motion.

Yes, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, first, I will acknowledge--and the gentleman from Delaware was quite civil--I will acknowledge that this is a moderate approach. I only hope, given the current situation, he is not in political trouble for taking a moderate approach in his party, but that's a matter for another day.

The issue for me here is the extent to which many of my colleagues on the other side are engaged in an on-again/off-again love affair with the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve has often been the object of their scorn, but when it comes to consumer protection, the Federal Reserve is sometimes a convenient bulwark against that. For example, when the committee passed the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act, which transfers more power from the Federal Reserve than any other group of Federal entities, many of my Republican colleagues ran to the defense of the Federal Reserve by quoting the Chairman of the Federal Reserve as saying, Don't take this away from us. We have this on-again/ off-again.

What this bill does is really quite remarkable. It empowers the Federal Reserve to cancel an act of Congress. We are hoping to get this bill passed, and there was some concern in the Senate from the Senate chairman. And thanks to the amendment that was offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Markey), we have accommodated his concerns. We think we have a workable proposal here.

What the recommit says is, if the bill passes the House and passes the Senate and is signed by the President, we will then wait for the permission of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors to implement it; and if they say it's not feasible, then the bill dies. In fact, they did write us, however, and say that if they had to do it by December 1--we wrote to them a couple of weeks ago--here is this problem that they wouldn't be able to get full comments in.

But they also note the Administrative Procedures Act does provide a good clause exception when the notice and comment period would be impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.

So what they say is, if the effective date for these provisions were moved to December 1, the board would have to issue final regulations without waiting for comments. But the point is that they've had a lot of time for comments. The Federal Reserve proposed this earlier after the gentlewoman from New York initiated it. The President signed the bill, the underlying bill, the effective date of what we're trying to do in advance, on May 22. They've had--what is that, 5\1/2\ months to study it. This is not the most complicated thing in the world.

And by the way, if this was so complicated to figure out, how did the banks manage to be able to increase so quickly? Apparently, the banks have this problem: when it comes to implementing the law, they're working with typewriters. When it comes to raising your rates retroactively--remember, the biggest single part of this bill is that it says, if you've got a credit card and are abiding by the terms of that credit card, you bought things and you are charging them at the interest rate you were told would apply, and you make every payment you were obligated to make, they can retroactively raise your rates.

That is the biggest single thing we stopped. I don't see why it is going to take them 8 or 9 or 10 months or a year to figure it out. I thought February was too much time in the first place.

But here is the basic point: several of us said, okay, we will reluctantly agree to February for a bill that is passed in May, to do something that's not that complicated. But if you abuse it, if you use the time to raise rates and then blame us for it, adding insult to injury, then we are going to speed it up. So I think our credibility is at issue here. We in good faith said, take some time to implement it. May 22 until February. Many of you have heard what they did was to speed this up. There is an element of fairness here. And, yes, the Federal Reserve will have to forgo some public comments. I think I would say to people, You know, we have until December 1. If you are out there and you think the Federal Reserve is going to listen to you-- Madam Speaker, let me violate the rule, please, and address people who aren't here. If you're listening, and you really need to talk to the Federal Reserve, write them a letter, send them an email, call them up. You don't have to wait. So we can get your comments in now, and we can go into effect by December 1.

We should certainly never set the precedent that any agency, and certainly not the Federal Reserve, which has become so controversial, should be given the power to suspend an act of Congress before it goes into effect. That is what this does. It says that we will pass this law; but unless it is certified as feasible by the Federal Reserve, it doesn't go into effect. I have a lot of respect for the Federal Reserve, but they're not in charge of what we think is feasible. They're not in charge of telling us that we have to wait more for public comments when our constituents, we believe, are being mistreated.

So I hope the motion to recommit is defeated.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding time for us.

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the consideration of a wholly unnecessary and potentially destructive bill that could further aggravate the struggles of small businesses and families who are suffering from an unavailability of credit during these times of economic uncertainty.

Here we are on the 4th of November, and the majority thinks that this bill is going to be passed in time to move this date up to December 1. It's totally unrealistic in addition to all the other comments that I'm going to make.

H.R. 3639 would accelerate the implementation of H.R. 627, the Credit Card

Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009, a bill that was signed into law earlier this year. I opposed the bill at that time because it took the wrong approach to addressing concerns with the credit card industry. The provisions it seeks to accelerate would impose unfunded private-sector Federal mandates, increased costs to borrowers; and it would limit the availability of credit to potential borrowers, which is just the opposite of what our colleagues think they are achieving.

These provisions are inappropriate in a credit card market that is fiercely competitive, and those who are concerned about the terms of their credit cards should rely on individual responsibility to become informed. Rather than taking the approach laid out in H.R. 627 and that which is accelerated by the bill before us today, consumers can always exercise the option of either avoiding carrying a balance or of shopping for a different credit card. Many people do not realize that credit cards were created to provide for a convenient form of payment for goods and services. They were not originally intended to serve as a loan system, which is how many people are using them now.

Mr. Speaker, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

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

Excuses. Excuses. Excuses. That's all we hear from the other side of the aisle. Blame. Blame. Blame. Don't take responsibility, blame George Bush. I think that's getting a little old with the American people. Excuses.

You know, this country was founded on the concept of individual freedom. That's what we were founded on and on taking responsibility. We are not in the business of blaming others, or we should not be. Our economy was doing really great until the Democrats took control of this House in 2007. You can look. We've got charts. We can show you that job growth was going on and that the economy was doing terrific. The Democrats take over, and all of a sudden everything starts going downhill.

You know, the people who take out credit cards are not having guns held to their heads. They take out the credit cards. If they don't like the rates of interest that they're paying, they should get other credit cards, but don't blame the credit card companies for extending credit to people who then are irresponsible.

All this Congress is doing is setting the example for this irresponsibility by, as my colleague from Illinois said, continuing to spend money we do not have. That is the crux of the argument. It is the largest deficit in the history of this country. In fact, it is larger than all the other deficits put together. This Congress is the example for those irresponsible people out there.

I want to talk a little bit about an article by Horace Cooper, which was printed in the May 15, 2009, issue of Politico, which gives the history and potential consequences of the bill before us, both of which are necessary in understanding the right approach to this issue, and I will be quoting Mr. Cooper for the next few minutes:

While most Americans take credit card use and ownership for granted, credit cards are a relatively new financial device coming in in only the past 50 years, but their widespread use is ample evidence of the value they bring to most Americans.

Their use started in the 1950s with the original Bank of America cards, which cardholders were able to use at multiple merchants. Notably, the entire balance would have to be paid off each month. Now there are more than 175 million credit card holders, and today, credit cards typically have revolving accounts, giving individual

users the ability to decide how much of their charges they wish to pay off each month.

Cooper continues by highlighting the consequences these new restrictions will have on financially vulnerable populations, stating: What the advocates of these reforms have failed to understand is that these changes will dramatically raise the costs of extending loans to cardholders and will cause the riskiest cardholders to be dropped all together, and that will hurt people in the urban community--and minorities most--because their income is lower than average.

Fees and rate hikes are among the means that credit card companies use to recoup the costs associated with credit card lending. Because credit card charges aren't secured, lenders can't seize your home or even the assets you've purchased. Credit card companies use interest rates and other fees as a way to offset the risks associated with a given cardholder.

A cap or limit on fees will cause credit card companies to limit their exposure, particularly to minorities in inner city areas, since those with low incomes are at a higher risk for default, but this won't help the rest of the credit card-holding public. Everyone will likely see lower credit lines and higher average interest rates, since these are now ``forever'' rates instead of adjustable ones, and shorter credit card activation periods, weeks instead of months of authorized credit use.

Particularly troubling is that even minorities, women and working class families with good records of paying their debts will see credit access dry up. This is especially bad during an economic downturn as it means that fewer new small businesses, which increasingly rely on credit cards, will start to bring more jobs and economic growth into the economy, and it will be far harder for all families, including minorities and working class families, to bridge job losses or even temporary layoffs by using credit cards to temporarily buy family staples.

Critics of the credit card industry fail to appreciate the alternatives that presently exist to credit card use by most Americans; payday lending, auto title loans, and pawnshops for those who wish to operate within the law, and street lamp vendors named ``Rocky'' for those who don't. Minority and lower income families will be disproportionately forced to these alternatives when traditional credit card access goes away.

Mr. Cooper brings to the attention of the American people some very important points. What Republicans have done is to provide an alternative measure, H.R. 2327, the Protection of Consumer Credit and Consumer Choice Act of 2009, which embodies the principles necessary to protect the availability of credit while providing consumers with the information needed to make informed decisions.

H.R. 2327, of which I am a sponsor, would require credit card issuers to provide clear and conspicuous disclosures pertaining to, one, the time provided to make timely payments; two, allocation of payments when different annual percentage rates apply to different balances of such accounts; three, increases in APRs; four, a two-cycle average daily balance method of balance calculation; and, five, fees that may be assessed at the opening of each account.

Additionally, this alternative bill would require credit card issuers to provide advanced written notice of a change in such terms before it takes effect, with certain exceptions.

With the presence of this reasonable alternative that provides sensible consumer protections, while avoiding the pitfalls of assigning a variety of new federally unfunded mandates, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and oppose the underlying bill.

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

I do not have any further speakers, but I do intend to speak a little longer on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago during 1-minutes, one of our Democratic colleagues came in and talked about the number of ``shalls'' in the proposed health care bill by the Democrats and then spoke about the Ten Commandments and pointed out that the Ten Commandments liberally uses the word ``shall.''

Mr. Speaker, I like my colleague from Colorado very much on a personal level, but let's get real: This bill is going nowhere. Republicans have an alternative bill that will do very well. And those of us here know that this bill is just a time consumer, because the Democrats have no real legislation to offer. They know this bill can't go into effect by December 1, but they need something to keep us here this week because they are trying to twist arms to get the votes for the health care bill. So we have to spend time talking about something, so this is what was brought up.

Let me say that, talking about health care now, we are doing that because we know when the health care bill does come to the floor, the almost 2,000-page health care bill, or a little over 2,000 pages, I suspect, won't get any time for discussion, not what it deserves, taking over one-sixth of the economy, because, and I quote from today's Roll Call, ``House Rules Chairman Louise Slaughter, Democrat-New York, said that the rule would be locked down, allowing a vote on a Republican alternative and perhaps one other, but no additional amendments,'' continuing the tradition that has been going on here this entire session--no amendments, because you don't want debate on what it is we should be debating.

But let me talk a minute about the Republicans' alternative plan. It will lower health care premiums for American families and small businesses, which addresses the number one priority for health care reform of Americans. It will establish universal access programs to guarantee access to affordable care for those with preexisting conditions.

I have read part of the plan that you have. It provides for waiting lists and taking people with existing conditions out of your plan. You don't even guarantee those people coverage.

Ending junk lawsuits. The Republican plan will help end costly junk lawsuits and curb defensive medicine by enacting medical liability reforms modeled after the successful laws in California and Texas.

It will prevent insurers from unjustly canceling a policy or instituting annual lifetime spending caps. It will encourage small business health plans. It gives small businesses the power to pool together and offer health care at lower prices, just as corporations and labor unions do. It will encourage innovative State programs. It will allow Americans to buy insurance across State lines.

It will codify the Hyde amendment. The Republican plan explicitly prohibits Federal funds, whether they are authorized funds or appropriated funds, from being used to pay for abortion. It will promote healthier lifestyles. It will enhance Health Savings Accounts, and it will allow dependents to remain on their parents' policies for a longer time.

We have alternatives, sensible alternatives, what the American people want. And I think yesterday's elections give us some idea about what the American people want.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, again, as our good colleague from Illinois pointed out, the health care bill is going on

the Federal credit card and it's going to have very high interest rates, and it's something the American people want us to talk about because of its effect on the economy.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Indiana and the Republican Conference Chair, Mr. Pence.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, again I thank my colleague from Colorado.

He mentioned that we would be able to debate the health care bill in the Rules Committee, that we'd have a long time to do it. But the Rules Committee is the only committee in the Congress that meets behind closed doors, that does not allow C-SPAN to televise what it does, despite the fact that Barack Obama promised to have deliberations on all bills broadcast on C-SPAN and Nancy Pelosi promised the most open Congress in history. This is like the book ``1984'' by George Orwell. They say one thing and do absolutely another. It's doublespeak.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so an amendment can be added to the rule. The amendment to the rule would provide for separate consideration of H. Res. 554, a resolution to require that legislation and conference reports be posted on the Internet for 72 hours prior to consideration by the House. It does not affect the bill made in order by the rule.

The amendment to the rule provides that the House will debate the issue of reading the bill within 3 legislative days. It does not disrupt the schedule.

The bill currently has 214 cosponsors. The discharge petition has 182 names, including five Democrats. This bill has gained support of an overwhelming majority of Americans and is widely respected by government watchdogs.

The existing House rule that committee reports be available for 3 days prior to floor consideration has been repeatedly waived by Republicans and Democrats alike.

This is not a partisan measure. As Members of Congress, we ought to agree that regardless of the legislation brought before us, we should always have the opportunity to read and understand the legislation before we vote. The American public agrees with this commonsense position. A recent survey by Rasmussen Reports found that 83 percent of Americans say legislation should be posted online and available for everyone to read before Congress votes on it. The poll also found that this is not a partisan issue: 85 percent of Republicans, 76 of Democrats, and 92 percent of unaffiliated voters favor posting legislation online prior to its being voted on.

In the beginning of the year, Members of this Congress, Democrat Members of this Congress, voted to spend almost $790 billion in taxpayer dollars on a stimulus package that most Members did not even read. The enormous document wasn't posted on the government's Web site until after 10 p.m., the day before the vote to pass it was taken.

Furthermore, before the debate on the cap-and-tax bill offered last summer, the House was presented with a 300-plus-page amendment at 3 a.m. for debate the following morning and a vote the following afternoon. This was unacceptable and further demonstrated the need to read the bill and the arguments.

Mr. Speaker, we are elected to Congress to represent our constituents. How are we supposed to determine what is right for our fellow Americans if we have to vote on something before we even have time to read it?

We need to have this debate. If people oppose having the text of bills available to read, they should make their case. This amendment to the rule allows them to do just that. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can have this debate and do the right thing for the American people.

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

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule.

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

Would the gentleman yield for one short question?

Do you think that two wrongs make a right?

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 884 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 884.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 884 provides for consideration of H.R. 3639, the Expedited CARD Reform for Consumers Act of 2009, under a structured rule. The rule self-executes an amendment to clarify that the accelerated effective date of December 1, 2009, will apply only to those provisions of the Credit Card Act that deal directly with credit cards and currently have an effective date on or after February 22, 2010.

The amendment also provides that the accelerated effective dates are not applicable to any credit card issuer which is a depository institution with fewer than 2 million credit cards in circulation as of the date of the enactment of the bill.

This rule makes in order five amendments printed in the Rules Committee report. The amendments are each debatable for 10 minutes. The rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act, the CARD Act for short. This legislation ordered important new rules to credit card issuers to end unfair, exploitive, and sharp practices, and to protect consumers against the tide of arbitrary rate hikes, spiking fees, and hidden charges.

The bill moved to end double-cycle billing, universal default and over-the-limit fees.

We passed this bill to give Americans a fair shake. The CARD Act marked a broad overhaul in the way credit card companies do business, and I acknowledge some of these changes require no small measure of time and resources to implement. Indeed, many lenders have made an honest effort to come into compliance with these new rules.

However, Mr. Speaker, the reason I stand here today is that some lenders have not used this interim period in such good faith. Since the CARD Act was signed into law, instead of preparing to implement these consumer protection provisions, some credit card companies have raised interest rates and have decreased credit limits on their consumers in advance of the effective dates. Responsible cardholders who have regularly met monthly obligations have seen their minimum payments and interest rates arbitrarily double and triple. They are finding their credit limits slashed, and they're hit with new and hidden fees. To many consumers, this is a slap in the face, and it is a violation of the spirit of the law designed to protect them. This has now unfairly increased the financial burdens on Americans in already difficult times.

Card issuers' actions highlight the need for protections under the CARD Act now more than ever. The credit card industry requires its cardholders to act responsibly, and it holds them accountable. It is in fairness that we require card issuers to act with the same level of responsibility and accountability.

H.R. 3639 would accelerate the implementation of certain provisions in existing law related to regulations and operations of the credit card companies. The CARD Act has set deadlines for implementing various reforms and procedures, with most of those measures scheduled to take effect in February and in August of 2010. This bill would move those effective dates forward to December 1, 2009.

American consumers don't need protection next year. They need it now, so I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and in favor of the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I would say to my friend from North Carolina, in walking around the district in the suburbs of Denver, which I represent, or in doing a government at the grocery every other Saturday, a number of topics are raised. It could be the Middle East. It could be energy, health care, immigration; but always among the top five are credit cards and overdraft fees because so many people are affected by what turns out to be some sharp practices by some issuers. The purpose of the CARD Act is to stop those sharp practices.

Most of the issuers are diligent, thorough, responsible companies; but some are not. What we've seen in the interim is that those who are not have just continued to increase their prices, to increase the interest rates, and to take advantage of this interim period. It's that type of sharp practice, that irresponsible behavior, that we're trying to stop by expediting the date to December 1, 2009.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself so much time as I might consume.

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate hearing from my friend from Illinois. He has a number of things he wants to talk about. The trouble is that nothing he has talked about has anything to do with the bill that's before the House today. It's completely outside the topic.

I would just say to my friend from Illinois that this country, by taking a tack under President Bush and a Republican Congress, to cut taxes, prosecuting two wars, and driving this country into an economic ditch is what we, the Democrats, are trying to build ourselves out of. It will take time, and it will take a lot of effort on the part of everyone, but he should not be so quick to blame, because the roots of this financial distress go back to the Republican Congress and to President Bush.

Now, coming back to the topic at hand, this is about credit cards and about abusive practices which hurt individual Americans. It's not some amorphous kind of question that we face. It's for people who are barely making ends meet now, who have had good credit histories and who see their credit card interest rates rising three and four and five and six--and double sometimes--from what they were originally paying, through no fault of their own. This has got to stop.

So the purpose of the bill that is before the House today is to expedite the rules and regulations that were first passed by the House last May. It is to expedite them up to December 1, 2009.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend if she has any other speakers?

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have and how much time does Ms. Foxx have?

I just was listening to my friend from North Carolina, and she really didn't talk about the bill. She talked about health care, which is a problem that has been lingering for a long time. Republicans for 12 years in the Congress, as well as 8 years under President Bush, failed to do anything about discriminating against people with prior illnesses. This health care bill takes care of that.

They failed to deal with anything related to the increase in premiums that individuals and businesses across the country are experiencing. We are going to take care of that.

Finally, they didn't do anything with the antitrust laws that protect insurance companies, and we are going to deal with that so that there is portability.

Now, let's get back to the bill at hand. The bill at hand deals with a real problem faced by Americans every day because companies are taking advantage of them by jacking up interest rates, continuing to use sharp practices, all to the detriment and to the harm of middle Americans. We have got to change that. So for purposes of this bill, this credit card bill, we are going to expedite the new rules to December 1. That is the purpose of the bill. That is the purpose of the underlying rule. That is why we are here today.

But with respect to the credit card bill, it is the usual Republican mantra, ``Just say no, we like the status quo,'' just as it applies to the health care bill. ``Just say no, we like the status quo.''

We can't afford the status quo when it comes to credit cards. We can't afford the status quo when it comes to health care.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I think that my friend from North Carolina and I are going to have a lot of time on the Rules Committee to debate health care issues, so I am going to just remind her that the health care matter was never addressed by a Republican Congress and really not addressed by the President of the United States, except to create the doughnut hole for seniors. That is about the sum and substance of 12 years of Republicans in Congress and 8 years of President Bush in the White House.

Now, we've had three committees debate this health care bill over time, many, many amendments, lots of discussion, lots of conversations all across America dealing with the health care bill. So we're going to see that come up here very soon and we will continue to have this kind of spirited debate.

As it applies to the elections, I'm not sure if I want to remind my good friend from North Carolina that the Democrats picked up a seat in New York that they hadn't held for 154 years. So there was good news and bad news for both Democrats and Republicans in yesterday's elections.

But I would remind my friend we are here on the credit card bill. This is to move up the date for the rules and regulations to go into place to December 1 to stop the sharp practices that we see occurring today, which is the increase of interest rates, the continued use of double billing cycles, and the like, which are hurting everyday Americans. And that's got to stop.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to allow the gentlewoman from North Carolina to close and then I will close.

Mr. Speaker, just to correct a couple of points, TVs are always allowed in the Rules Committee, always are invited to each and every hearing and committee meeting. Sometimes they come, sometimes they don't. My guess is that they'll be there for the debate on the health care bill.

I just want to remind my friends on the other side of the aisle, in the bill that produced the doughnut hole for seniors on Medicare and was written by a Republican Congress with a Republican President, the word ``shall'' appeared in that bill 2,080 times.

I will yield to my good friend for about 10 seconds.

No. And the gentlewoman makes a point. No question about that.

But the problem here, Mr. Speaker, is that my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, they're concerned that there's too much regulation or we're focused on trying to rein in credit card companies or rein in insurance companies when it comes to health care. Their focus is on the profits of those companies. Well, our focus is on middle Americans who felt the sharp practices of credit card companies and have seen their premiums go sky high as part of the health system that we have in this country today.

Speaking about this bill, this credit card expedited bill, our purpose before the House of Representatives is to pass a rule that allows us to take up the credit card bill to move up rules and regulations to be imposed on credit card companies on December 1, 2009, instead of waiting until February of 2010 and August of 2010. The purpose is because we have seen rates being increased dramatically on all sorts of people. We see billing practice continue to be applied which hurts everyday Americans, and this has got to stop. It's not fair that the profits come before treating people honorably, responsibly, those people who have been paying their credit cards on time regularly. They're seeing their credit cards' interest rates increase. This has got to be limited and stopped.

So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and on the rule.

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

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

I rise today in opposition to this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, let me start by saying that this bill moves up the effective date on the underlying credit card bill, and that credit card bill is not a major bill. Unlike the health care bill, unlike the climate control bill, or the cap-and-tax bill, and unlike the systemic regulation bill, this bill addressed one thing and one thing only, and that was credit cards. We passed it 5 months ago. When we passed it, there were all these prophecies of wonderful things that were going to happen to consumers.

We Republicans stood on the floor of this House, and we said there needed to be changes in this bill. We said, if this bill passed in its present form, which it did, that the cost of credit would increase for consumers. We said there would be limits placed on their credit lines.

Sure enough--and I take no pleasure in saying this--5 months later, after President Obama signed this legislation, the so-called Credit CARD Act, into law, credit tightened. Consumers every day are facing notices in the mail that their credit rates are going up from 6 and 8 percent to 20-something percent. American Express and others have said they're going to start charging $100 fees. These are so-called unintended consequences. As a result of this legislation, we're seeing many consumers facing the cancellation of their credit cards, millions in fact. Regrettably, those warnings have come true.

Small businesses, which rely heavily on consumer credit, are also feeling the credit crunch. They're the main creators of jobs in our country--small businesses. They need credit. According to the National Small Business Association, 79 percent of those small businesses which were surveyed just recently said that credit card lending standards have tightened dramatically in the last few months and that their credit lines are being decreased materially.

The new credit card restrictions are exacerbating the economic crisis and the loss of jobs, and they are causing the shutdown of a key source of financing for small businesses and, therefore, job creation.

Small businesses are the engine of our economy. They're the number one job creators. Of all businesses, they rely the most on credit cards and on credit lines from those credit cards. We shouldn't have restricted their ability to obtain credit. They need it to expand and to create jobs.

This original bill came at just the wrong time. We could have stopped the abusive practices; but at the same time, we went beyond that and restricted the ability of credit card companies to protect themselves from people who didn't pay their credit card bills. That's really the essence of why this bill is not working, because we protected those who didn't pay their credit card payments. They're who are protected. We did some other good things, but we did that; and that was a mistake.

Now, don't take my word for it as to the fact that this present legislation--and let me say this: it's very unlikely. This is sort of a charade because, I think, most of us realize that this legislation is not going to be enacted into

law. It's December 1 now. I mean, it takes effect December 1. The Senate, I don't think, will even pick it up by December 1. Maybe they will. Maybe they will.

If they do, I think the warning of Chairman Bernanke is appropriate. When asked about the feasibility of enacting the provisions of the bill we're now considering, here is what Chairman Bernanke said--and Chairman Bernanke is often quoted by the Members on the other side of the aisle:

The board continues to believe that, given the breadth of changes required by the Credit CARD Act and its regulation, card issuers must be afforded sufficient time for implementation to allow for an orderly transition and to avoid unintended consequences, compliance difficulties, and potential liabilities.

Well, we've seen those unintended consequences: no credit cards where people had credit cards and a country in which we had the most ability to have credit cards and the choices in credit cards at the lowest interest rates. That is beginning to change before our eyes.

All of us share the goal of protecting consumers from unfair and deceptive credit card practices and of ensuring that cardholders receive useful and complete disclosures so that they have sufficient time to pay their cards and so that they aren't subjected to double- cycle billing, but we must be careful. Let this bill be a lesson to us, in trying to protect consumers or the government's intervening into these practices, that we do not impose new costs on them or on the U.S. economy as a whole. Just like the Speaker Pelosi health care plan we may consider later this week, this bill limits choice; it rations credit; it decreases costs; and it strangles innovation.

According to recent studies, as many as 114 million Americans will lose their current health insurance coverage under the Democrats' health plan. Now, that's even more serious than the few million who have lost their credit cards under this legislation. Likewise, several million consumers will lose their credit cards or will see their credit lines severely restricted by this legislation.

If there is one common denominator in Congress this year, it's the substitution of the government for the individual: with the stimulus, with the multiple bailouts, with the climate change legislation, with this credit card bill, with financial reform, and now, later this week, with health care. Instead of you making the choice, the government is making the choice for you.

The United States of America is the world's largest economy. It's three times larger than our closest competitor, Japan; and it's larger than the economies of Japan, China, Germany, and of Great Britain combined. We got there through innovation. We got there through choice. We got there through competition. We got there through individual initiative and responsibility, not through government control and management.

As we've seen time after time, when you substitute a government- controlled and -run program for individual choice, the cost goes up and the quality goes down. When it comes to health care, there is nothing more important than quality and choice. Given the choice, I'll always place my faith in the individual, not in the government; and this time is no different. It is no different with the credit card legislation. It is no different with the health care legislation.

Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying many of my colleagues in this body, both Republicans and Democrats, are going to come in and they are going to vote for this legislation today. They are going to do so really, many of them, because of the underlying legislation and the animosity and the bad feelings it has created with the American people, who are seeing their credit lines limited and their interest rates raised. The American people are upset, and this bill is an attempt, I think, almost to cloud why those interest rates are going up.

We need to help families, we need to help businesses that are struggling in this economic recession, and we need to create jobs. And, as we said 5 months ago, that was exactly the wrong time to saddle them with additional fees, higher interest rates, limit their credit lines and add significant new compliance burdens to our community banks. That was true 5 months ago on credit cards. We have seen the unintended results.

We are going to vote on health care. Those results will be even more serious and more drastic. You will see a greater cost of health care. You will see a diminished quality. You will see rationing of care. We warned about unintended consequences 5 months ago. Those warnings weren't heeded. We are warning again, but this time we are dealing with a far more serious issue, and that is the quality of health care in America, the affordability of health care, and the ability to get services in this country that are not offered in other countries.