Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, due to a meeting at the White House, a Financial Services Committee Hearing and other commitments, I was unavoidably absent for certain votes this week. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 453, 454, 457, 458 and 460 and voted ``nay'' on rollcall votes 427, 455, 456, and 459.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the ``Bank Accountability and Risk Assessment Act of 2009.'' This legislation, which I introduced today, will change the way that the FDIC charges premiums to federally insured banks in order to capitalize the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF).

Specifically, my bill will do two things: First, it will create a risk-based assessment process for all insured banks. Second, it will establish a special annual risk premium for the ``too-big-to fail'' banks that represent a systemic threat to our financial system.

I am recommending these changes because I believe that our current system disproportionately advantages the largest institutions at the expense of small banks. For example, under the current system, the FDIC determines the regular quarterly premiums for each bank based only on the domestic deposits held by the bank, rather than on the bank's total assets. As a result, banks with assets of $1 billion or fewer pay assessments on nearly 80 percent of their liabilities because domestic deposits are their primary source of funding. Meanwhile, banks with more than $10 billion in assets pay premiums on only 47 percent of their liabilities.

So, under the current system, while small banks pay insurance premiums on nearly their entire balance sheets, large banks pay on only half. I think we have it backwards. I think the largest banks with the riskiest investments should be responsible for paying more into the Deposit Insurance Funds than our Main Street banks that generally stay away from subprime mortgages and don't invest in mortgage backed securities or credit derivative swaps.

The absurd result of the current system is that banks with fewer than $10 billion in assets pay approximately 30 percent of the total assessment base, although they hold only about 20 percent of total bank assets. This discrepancy is exacerbated by the fact that the largest institutions are ``too-big-to-fail,'' and it can be argued that their depositors and other creditors enjoy superior protection than do the depositors and creditors of ``too-small-to save'' banks.

I believe that each institution should pay an insurance fee based on risk. And where does risk come from? It does not come from deposits, but from the assets and investments of banks. We've seen how assets-- like mortgage backed securities--can turn from assets to liabilities overnight. It's just common sense that banks with risky investments should pay more in deposit insurance premiums.

In addition, small banks all across the nation, those under $10 billion in total assets, will almost universally see their premiums go down under my proposal. For example, of the 655 federally insured banks in Illinois, 651 of them would see their premiums reduced. Only four banks would see an increase--the four largest banks.

I like to compare this bill to the risk-based pricing that the banks have forced on consumers. For years, the banks have argued that risk- based pricing for their products, such as credit cards and home mortgages, is not only logical but fair because they only raise rates on those customers they feel are the greatest risk to the overall health of their institution.

Well, many of the same banks that utilize ``risk-based'' pricing for consumers required hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to survive. Their irresponsible actions not only created a huge risk for our nation's overall financial health, but also placed hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars at risk. Through the ``Bank Accountability and Risk Assessment Act of 2009,'' I propose that the American people impose the same risk-based assessment on the banks that the banks have been imposing on our constituents for years.

The FDIC has already taken a step forward in recognizing the greater risk that large, money center banks represent to the DIF. Last month, the FDIC's Board of Directors voted 4-1. to base their emergency premium assessment off a bank's assets and not their deposits. By basing the assessment off the institutions assets and not the deposits, the FDIC has recognized that any threat to the fund through a bank failure is dependent upon the liabilities that exist in a bank's assets, not their deposits.

This was a good first step toward requiring systemically significant banks to pay their fair share into the DIF, but Congress must take action to codify this assessment base for all quarterly payments into the DIF and create system risk premiums for those banks deemed ``too- big-to-fail.''

I am introducing this bill today, because I think this issue should be on the table as we consider legislation to overhaul our financial regulatory system. Deciding who will bear the financial burden for the systemically important institutions is, I believe, a fundamental aspect of the regulatory restructuring debate. Above all, the ``Bank Accountability and Risk Assessment Act of 2009'' will return fairness to the deposit insurance assessment process.

I urge my colleagues to support this important regulatory reform bill.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 267, 268 and 269.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 627 and to insert extraneous material thereon.

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.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

The bill prohibits a creditor from providing information about a new credit card to consumer reporting until the consumer uses or activates the card. I think the intention is excellent. I don't know that you are going to reach it through this amendment.

I am going to look forward to speaking to the gentleman. And as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions, I look forward to working with him to make sure that we actually reach your goal. I think credit card companies should be able to allow that information to be removed. Moreover, the reporting agencies should remove that information, and it should be done quickly and swiftly, and we should look at measures to do that.

I am not going to oppose or ask people to oppose this particular amendment here this afternoon. I just want to share with the gentleman that I am going to vote ``yes'' on it--and hopefully we won't have a recorded vote and it will become part of the bill. We can then work on it. And if we can't, I would suggest to the gentleman that we sit down and figure out a way to get there, just in case I'm wrong, you're right; you're wrong, I'm right. We should continue this conversation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New York, Carolyn Maloney.

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

I rise in opposition to the motion.

Members of the House, a consistent argument that we hear from the other side is about the alleged lack of transparency and bipartisanship in this House; yet, it was only 5 minutes ago that we received this motion to recommit. How seriously can we take this? It is a motion to delay.

But we cannot stand another day and delay stopping the suffering of the American consumers at the hands of practices that the Federal Reserve Board, the same Federal Reserve Board which the minority wishes to have a study, has already spoken. They said it is unfair, it is deceptive, it is wrong, and we should change it. And we should not delay one day more the suffering of the American consumers at the hands of the deceptive practices of the credit card industry.

We are considering today a bill which already passed last year. The gentlelady from New York, Carolyn Maloney , the architect of the bill, a heroine for consumers across this country, deserves our recognition and our praise and our gratitude for fighting, for fighting this good and courageous fight.

Look, the Federal Reserve Board, the one you want to do a study, has already spoken. It says the practices are unfair and deceptive, and they have created rules and we will put them into effect on July 1, 2010, to stop those things.

I say let's not wait. Let's do it today. If it is unfair and it is deceptive, this Congress has the responsibility to the American consumer to act quickly and promptly with no further delay.

They say that this bill is for the small business community, a community of businesses that we are very concerned about. But, look, maybe you didn't get it. ``Key vote alert. On behalf of the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the Nation's leading small business advocates, we urge your support immediately for the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights.'' They have spoken.

The National Small Business Association endorses the bill, also.

It seems to me that the predicate of the minority is that they are in defense of small businesses. The small business community has already spoken on this issue. We need to delay this no further.

The only one, the only group in America that can be happy if we delay this bill any longer are those that are engaged in deceptive predatory lending to consumers who are already unemployed, who are already suffering, who are already at the mercy of an economic system that just isn't there for them. Let's stand up for consumers at least one time while we're here. We can do it today, and the first step is saying ``no'' to the motion to recommit.

I yield to the gentlelady from New York, Carolyn Maloney.

I would just like to say, once again, listen, seriously, on both sides, let's not delay this any further. Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 627 and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield at this moment 2\1/2\ minutes to the chief architect, promoter, the person who really brought this bill to fruition here on the House floor not once but for the second time, the gentlewoman from New York, Congresswoman Maloney.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to Mr. Pascrell from New Jersey.

I thank Mr. Hensarling for his very kind words. I look forward to continue working with him.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the subcommittee and of the full committee, a really dynamic member of Financial Services.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), who came here to fight for our people here.

I am delighted to always see members of our leadership show up here.

Congressman Van Hollen of Maryland is recognized for 2 minutes.

I recognize the gentleman from New York, who I enjoy working with on Judiciary and also on Financial Services, Mr. Maffei, for 2 minutes.

If I could inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side?

I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to someone who has a great history of protecting, came here to continue to expand protection of consumers, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

I yield an additional 2 minutes to the chief architect and sponsor of this bill, the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Chairman, in continuing our agreement, I am going to yield myself 5 minutes. That will put us at about the same amount of time on each side of the aisle.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me rise in strong support of H.R. 627, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2009.

Let me once again thank the gentlelady from New York, Congresswoman Maloney, for her tireless effort and work on defending consumers. I can't think of a better legislative product that I could have as chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions to bring before this House of Representatives than the bill that the gentlelady has worked so tirelessly on over many, many years. I am delighted that I got this opportunity and it's, indeed, a great privilege.

We have more than 640 million credit cards in circulation that account for an estimated $1.5 trillion of consumer spending. Clearly the U.S. economy has gone plastic.

I mean, you have been around. Nobody takes out a checking account anymore. Nobody sticks their hand in their pocket and brings out cash. We have become a credit card economy and society.

But America's love affair with credit cards comes with a hefty price. The average credit card debt among American households has more than doubled during the last 10 years. Today the average family owes roughly $8,000, Mr. Chairman, on credit cards. The debt has helped generate record profits for the credit card industry.

Unfortunately, a growing share of the industry's revenues don't come because you took $200 at 10 percent, but come because the industry's revenues come from deceptive practices such as universal default terms spelled out in very fine print.

As a matter of fact, we now know that even the Federal Reserve Board when they evaluated this situation said, listen. I want the American people to understand that it isn't that they aren't smart, it isn't they can't read, it isn't that somehow they didn't get schooled well. Look, these things are designed to be deceptive. They are designed to trick you.

And so you get tricked, you get fooled. That's what we are here for, to make sure it no longer happens. And that has been independently confirmed. That's the way they do it. That's the magic of what they do. And kind of the recipe here is to make sure there is a level playing field, and that's what this thing does.

The terms and conditions can be changed. Not only is there fine print, but then they can change it with 15 days' notice at any time for any reason.

According to a recent Pew study, 100 percent of 400 types of credit cards that they reviewed contained in its terms at least one practice that has been found, not by the Democrats, not by the Republicans, not by the Obama administration, but by the Federal Reserve to be unfair and deceptive. And 93 percent of the cards studied allowed for any time, any reason, repricing, allowing an issuer to hike the APR on a consumer's credit card even if they never missed a payment.

So I wanted everybody to understand we are not talking about people who are late with their credit card bills, not paying late. They are not somehow scofflaws. These are people who every month paid on time, get it in to the credit card company, and they are still increasing their interest rate.

In 2008, the House passed the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights by a vote of 312-112, but it was unfortunately not signed into law. This year, once again, under the leadership of Representative Carolyn Maloney, we have taken up H.R. 627, which appropriately carries the name of its predecessor, and it has moved swiftly to the floor for final passage.

We must pass this legislation once again. Americans are suffering from rising unemployment rates, dramatically falling household wealth and declining real wages. I want to say that again. Americans are suffering from rising unemployment rates, dramatically falling household wealth and declining real wages, all of which makes

it harder for them to pay off their credit card debt. It makes it harder, more difficult.

If there was ever a time for the Congress of the United States to step up and defend consumers, it is now. We are in an economic crisis and meltdown. Unemployment, millions of people are unemployed, and probably hundreds of thousands more will continue to be unemployed.

Look, all we are saying is we did a lot for the banks. Everybody knows that. When they were in tough shape, we did a lot for them. Can't we do a little bit for the consumer, for the person who has to tirelessly work at these jobs, and their wages are going down and their health care benefits are going down and everything around them seems to be just causing more and more anguish and suffering? That is what I hear from the American people.

I yield myself an additional minute, Mr. Chairman.

So we have to pass this.

Let me just end with this. Look, I understand that we don't want to restrict credit. We want people to have it. But, golly, if I go take a loan at 10 percent, and then all of a sudden they charge me 20 percent on the same money I took at 10 percent, that is wrong. That is just wrong. Nobody should be able to change the terms.

This is America, right? You shake hands, you make an agreement, you say this is how much you are going to pay on that $100. But we know the credit card companies are not doing that. As a matter of fact, what they do is they say, you know, Luis, that $1,000 you took at 10 percent? I am not only going to charge you 20 percent on it, but, you know what? I am going to go back two or three months retroactively and charge you the 20 percent on that money.

That is wrong. And it is wrong when you pick up a telephone and you say, listen, I just got my bill, but it is 3 days before it is due. Can I pay you over the phone? And they tell you yes, for 15 or 20 bucks.

I yield myself 30 additional seconds.

I will end with this. How many people in America haven't picked up the phone to complain to a credit card company, and if you get a little testy with them, which I have because they angered me, and I say, can you please explain this to me, they go click.

Well, you know what we are doing today? We are going ``click'' right back to the credit card companies, except this time we are hanging up the phone on abusive practices here in America against the American consumer.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 627, the ``Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2009.''

With more than 640 million credit cards in circulation that account for an estimated $1.5 trillion of consumer spending, the U.S. economy has clearly gone plastic. But America's love affair with credit cards comes with a hefty price. The average credit card debt among American households has more than doubled over the past decade. Today, the average family owes roughly $8,000 on their credit cards. This debt has helped generate record profits for the credit card industry.

Unfortunately, a growing share of the industry's revenues come from deceptive tactics, such as universal default terms spelled out in the fine print of cardholder agreements--the terms and conditions of which can be changed at any time for any reason with 15 days' notice or less.

According to a recent Pew study, 100 percent of the 400 types of credit cards they reviewed contained in its terms at least one of the practices that have been found by the Federal Reserve to be unfair and deceptive. And 93 percent of the cards studied by Pew allowed for any- time, any-reason repricing, allowing an issuer to hike up the APR on a consumer's credit card even if they've never missed a payment.

In 2008, the House passed the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights by a vote of 312-112 but it unfortunately was not signed into law. This year, once again under the leadership of Representative Carolyn Maloney, we have taken up H.R. 627, which appropriately carries the name of its predecessor, and moved it swiftly to the floor for final passage.

We must pass this legislation once again. Today, Americans are suffering from rising unemployment rates, dramatically falling household wealth and declining real wages, all of which make it harder for consumers to pay off credit card debt. In fact, in 2008, we saw the percentage of accounts 30 days past due rise to an all-time high of 5.6 percent. On average, American families owe 24 percent of their income in credit card debt.

These are daunting figures in an unstable time, but Congress can and must do something about it, by making sure that unfair credit card practices and fees do not deter consumers from paying down their debt. The Federal Reserve has mandated new regulations that mirror many of the protections included in H.R. 627. I applaud the Board for its work on the UDAP and Regulation Z changes, but I believe that this Congress should codify these important consumer protections to send the message to the industry and consumers that Congress is serious about standing up for consumer rights.

H.R. 627 would level the playing field between card issuers and cardholders by applying commonsense regulations that would ban retroactive interest rate hikes on existing balances, double-cycle billing, and due-date gimmicks. It would also increase the advance notice of impending rate hikes, giving cardholders the information and rights they need to make decisions about their financial lives.

I urge my colleagues to support this important consumer protection bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

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

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Well, let me first of all say, I look forward to continuing working with the ranking member of the full committee, Spencer Bachus. We have, indeed a great, I think, friendship. And we have a difference of opinion. That's what it is. And in America you can do that. That's part of what makes this the best Nation in the world.

And I look forward to continuing our discussion with Mr. Hensarling. We may not agree, but we will agree not to be disagreeable or attack each other personally or question our motives about what we do and why we do it because, for me, the bill does not equate to price controls. And I think a lot of America, listening to my friends on the other side of the aisle, think there's price controls here. There are none. There is no limit in this bill on the interest rate that you can charge. None whatsoever. Free market.

Rather, what the bill does is it brings transparency. It brings openness to the credit card marketplace. What could be better than to shine daylight on any product? Because then the consumers know what they're getting and what they're not getting and they can say, no, I don't want that, or, yes, I do want that.

Transparency promotes competitiveness in the marketplace, which will eventually bring prices down. If you know what the price of something is at Store X and Y and Z, you're going to go where you can get the best deal because that's what Americans do. That's what this bill really does.

What this bill does is it tells the consumers and the credit card issuers,

honor your contract. Here's the contract. You told me it was 10, you told me it was 15, you told me it was 20 percent. You can't change it.

Under existing law, issuers can change the contract terms in the middle of the game. And what do they leave consumers with? As we know, we have a constricting credit, with nothing but to pay the higher interest rate.

You know, I want to tell the American people that right now, credit card companies can issue cards to 14-, 15-, 16-year-olds that are not emancipated. Now, who's going to pay those credit card bills? Mommy, Daddy, that's who's going to pay them. We all know that. Who's going to leave their kids out there? No one is. All good parents are going to say, well, that's my child, my son. I'm responsible for my daughter. I'm responsible. And the credit card companies know it. They know it. I don't know this to be a fact, but I'm sure they're checking into just what your credit ability is, and they say, well, Daddy can pay. Mother can pay. Let's give the child.

And listen, I want to make one thing clear. Even though the bill says 18, you know, emancipation, come on. In America, what 18-year-old is emancipated? You're not emancipated. They're 19, 20, 21, 22, and nobody throws their kids out of the house. Everybody keeps them and cherishes them and nurtures them and continues. Credit card companies know that, too, when they're issuing credit cards.

College students, you're paying tuition. You're paying for their room and board. You're paying for their health care. You're paying for their clothes, and then they send them a credit card to undermine your ability to give your child a college education.

And listen, everywhere you go in America, you want to buy clothes? Take a credit card. You want to fix your car? Got a credit card for you. Want to go buy a refrigerator? Take it on a credit card. Everybody offers you. So what we have is an economy that's on credit card basis. So all we're saying is, hey, since this has been promoted so much, let's make sure that we do this.

And listen, I remember when I didn't make $174,000 as a Member of Congress. I remember when I lived paycheck to paycheck. I remember when the credit card companies would increase the interest rate or tell me, Mr. Gutierrez, through no fault of your own, we're not going to extend you any more credit. Pay down your bill at this credit interest rate higher than the one you took it out. I remember. Maybe we should all go back to remembering when things weren't so rosy in our own personal lives in terms of being Members of Congress and put ourselves in the position of people who live paycheck to paycheck. If we do that tomorrow, I think what we're going to do is we're going to stand on the side of consumers.

As Mr. Bachus says, consumers are angry. The American public is frustrated. They're outraged by what credit card companies are doing.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to announce the introduction of my bill, the Alert Laid off Employees in Reasonable Time (ALERT) Act, legislation to amend the definition of ``mass layoff'' in the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act and to increase penalties for the violation of this act.

With unemployment levels on the rise, widespread layoffs have ravaged our nation's workforce. All too frequently, employees are provided with no more than a month's notice to prepare for unemployment, and often less than that. This is a critical time that employees need to prepare for unemployment and to make informed financial decisions.

Current federal law does not do enough to protect these workers. Under the federal WARN Act, employers are only required to provide 60- days notice if the mass layoff impacts at least 500 employees or 33 percent of a workforce when that percentage represents at least 50 employees at one employment site. More and more, companies are conducting widespread layoffs which, nationwide, can impact hundreds and even thousands of employees but these massive layoffs often fail to trigger the WARN Act at each employment site. As such, far too many employees are denied the protections they are entitled to.

To address this issue, I am proud to have introduced the ALERT Act. This legislation amends the definition of a ``mass layoff'' to include layoffs by one employer at more than one worksite. In addition, this bill would increase the penalty for violating the WARN Act to two times back pay and benefits.

Madam Speaker, in these challenging economic times it is our responsibility do all we can to protect the workers. We must always remember that they are a key component to the growth of our economy and we must always ensure that they are protected, especially in this time of uncertainty. I am joined in support of this bill by the United Electrical Workers Union (UE) and the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW).

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber today. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 207, 208 and 209.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 187 I was held up in a meeting and unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 125, 126, and 127.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 100, 111, and 112.

Madam Speaker. I rise today to announce the introduction of my bill, the Federal Living Wage Responsibility Act of 2009, legislation to mandate a livable wage for employees under Federal contracts and subcontracts.

The Economic Policy Institute estimates that, in fiscal year 2006, ``over 406,000 federal contract workers earned less than $9.91/hr,'' the poverty threshold for a family of four. It is unacceptable that in a time of economic crisis, Congress is not doing all it can to ensure that hardworking Americans have the opportunity to keep themselves and their families out of poverty.

That is why I am re-introducing the Federal Living Wage Responsibility Act of 2009, which requires that employees of federal contracts or subcontracts of more that $10,000 are paid wages in accordance with the Federal poverty level for a family of four as determined by the Department of Health and Human Services. This legislation also ensures that federal contract workers receive benefits such as health insurance, vacation and holiday pay, disability insurance, life insurance, and pensions.

While Congress took one step in the right direction with the passage of laws such as the Davis-Bacon Act and the Service Contract Act to help ensure that employees of federal contractors earn a decent wage, our work is not done. Thousands of federal contract workers still do not earn enough to support their families. These prevailing wage standards fall well below what is required for full-time federal contract workers to sustain a reasonable standard of living.

Madam Speaker, in these times of economic turmoil this Congress must guarantee that hardworking Americans will be able to support their families with a livable wage. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this timely and necessary legislation which would set a standard for decent wages.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the ``Payday Loan Reform Act of 2009.'' During turbulent economic times like these, many Americans are searching for ways to meet their financial obligations. It is unfortunate that some in the financial services industry have actually profited from the financial pain of hard-working citizens who are doing their very best to provide for their families. This Congress should not and will not sit back and watch that happen.

For more than a decade, I have been concerned about my constituents becoming trapped in the cycle of debt caused by unfair payday loans. Consumers sometimes prefer these loans because the credit history requirement imposed by traditional banks is waived. Unfortunately, those who most need these loans are often the least able to repay them. The consumer is then subjected to exceptionally high interest rates, ranging from 261 percent to 913 percent annually.

The ``Payday Loan Reform Act of 2009,'' which I am introducing today, provides significant new federal protections for payday loan consumers by restricting or prohibiting certain predatory payday loan terms and lending practices. The bill focuses on the two major concerns with regard to payday loans: the fees charged and the ``cycle of debt'' that occurs when consumers are not able to immediately repay their loans.

First, the bill caps payday loan fees and interest rates at a total of 15 cents for every dollar borrowed. This fee and rate cap is lower than the fees allowed in 23 states, and would save consumers roughly $250 million annually through federally mandated lower fee levels. Undoubtedly, many in the payday industry will claim that fee and rate caps this low will drive lenders out of business. However, this fee is high enough to allow lenders to continue making such short-term credit advances, while at the same time providing consumers a credit option that is less expensive than many credit card fees and rates, and substantially less expensive than overdraft protection charges through banks.

The second major concern addressed in this bill relates to the ``cycle of debt'' that too often traps consumers when they cannot repay their payday loan when first due. As a result, many payday lenders force borrowers to rollover their payday loan or obtain a new loan to pay off the initial loan, while piling on additional fees. The ``Payday Loan Reform Act of 2009'' prohibits these rollovers (i.e., extensions of the loan term in exchange for an additional fee).

Under the bill, payday lenders would be banned from rolling over loans, and they would be required to give consumers the option of entering into a repayment plan in the event that they could not repay their loan when due. The repayment plan will allow consumers to repay the loan over an extended period of time without any additional fees or other charges whatsoever. The bill's repayment plan requirements are generally far stronger than those found in the few state laws that mandate such plans.

These three key provisions--capping fees, prohibiting rollovers and requiring extended repayment plans--would supersede state law provisions when such state provisions are less consumer-friendly. In all other areas, the bill's requirements would provide a minimum national standard for consumer protections, with states free to enact tougher payday lending restrictions.

The legislation also mandates that consumers receive special warnings and disclosures, stating that these short-term payday loans are only intended for short-term needs, that credit counseling should be considered, that no criminal prosecution can occur for nonpayment nor may security interest be taken in the consumer's personal property, and that an interest-free, no-cost repayment plan will be available if needed. These disclosure notices must be given both in the loan documents before obtaining a payday loan and in similar disclosures posted in the lender's public business area, Web site and/or printed advertising and solicitation materials. Disclosures must be in English and in Spanish, as well as the language in which the loan was negotiated.

Finally, the legislation guarantees consumers additional protections relating to various potentially abusive terms and practices currently used by payday lenders. For example, I have already explained that the bill prohibits lenders from taking a security interest in a consumer's personal property or seeking to have the consumer prosecuted in criminal court for nonpayment of the loan. However, it would also prohibit unfair mandatory arbitration clauses and grant consumers the right to rescind a loan by notifying the lender in writing and returning the money no later than the end of the second business day after the loan agreement was executed.

Specifically, additional penalties of up to $10,000 per violation could be imposed; and state attorneys general, as well as consumers, will be allowed to enforce the Act. Additionally, states will be free to provide consumers with additional or greater protections than are provided for in the ``Payday Loan Reform Act of 2009.''

I urge my colleagues to support this important consumer protection bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to announce the introduction of my bill, the Consumer Fairness Act of 2009. In the last decade, too many of our nation's consumers have been subjected to abusive payday lending and increasingly relied on high-cost credit cards and predatory mortgage loans. To make matters worse, a consumer's ability to fight back against predatory lenders or to challenge unfair credit card fees and rates has been severely constrained by consumer contracts that require binding, mandatory arbitration to settle disputes between the borrower and the lender. We cannot allow these unfair practices to compound our economic challenges.

Mandatory arbitration clauses undermine existing consumer protections. They prohibit class action lawsuits by requiring consumers to waive their right to access a court of law and by forcing them into an arbitration system that has been set up for the benefit and expediency of corporate America. In many cases, individual consumers are required to pay thousands of dollars in arbitration fees that they cannot afford before their case is even heard. If this strikes my colleagues as unfair, then I ask them to support my bill, the Consumer Fairness Act of 2009.

The Consumer Fairness Act of 2009 would prohibit binding arbitration clauses in any consumer contract by recognizing these clauses as an unfair and deceptive trade practice. This legislation will help to level the playing field in the fight against predatory lending practices by giving consumers access to the courts and to class action lawsuits in order to address these unfair practices in an environment free of bias. When our constituents suffer through the worst recession in decades, the very least we can do is to give them a fair environment to defend themselves against predatory practices.