Amendment Text: H.Amdt.102 — 111th Congress (2009-2010)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (04/30/2009)

This Amendment appears on page H5031 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages H5013-H5041]
             CREDIT CARDHOLDERS' BILL OF RIGHTS ACT OF 2009

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 379 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 627.

                              {time}  1140


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 627) to amend the Truth in Lending Act to establish fair 
and transparent practices relating to the extension of credit under an 
open end consumer credit plan, and for other purposes, with Mrs. 
Tauscher (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole House rose on 
Wednesday, April 29, 2009, all time for general debate, pursuant to the 
order of the House of April 28, 2009, had expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 379, no further general debate is in 
order. The amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill 
shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment is as follows:

                                H.R. 627

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Credit Cardholders' Bill of 
     Rights Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. CREDIT CARDS ON TERMS CONSUMERS CAN REPAY.

       (a) Retroactive Rate Increases and Universal Default 
     Limited.--Chapter 2 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 
     1631 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 127A the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 127B. Additional requirements for credit card accounts 
       under an open end consumer credit plan

       ``(a) Retroactive Rate Increases and Universal Default 
     Limited.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (b), no 
     creditor may increase any annual percentage rate of interest 
     applicable to the existing balance on a credit card account 
     of the consumer under an open end consumer credit plan.
       ``(2) Existing balance defined.--For purposes of this 
     subsection and subsections (b) and (c), the term `existing 
     balance' means the amount owed on a consumer credit card 
     account as of the end of the 14th day after the creditor 
     provides notice of an increase in the annual percentage rate 
     in accordance with subsection (c).
       ``(3) Treatment of existing balances following rate 
     increase.--If a creditor increases any annual percentage rate 
     of interest applicable to the credit card account of a 
     consumer under an open end consumer credit plan and there is 
     an existing balance in the account to which such increase may 
     not apply, the creditor shall allow the consumer to repay the 
     existing balance using a method provided by the creditor 
     which is at least as beneficial to the consumer as 1 of the 
     following methods:
       ``(A) An amortization period for the existing balance of at 
     least 5 years starting from the date on which the increased 
     annual percentage rate went into effect.
       ``(B) The percentage of the existing balance that was 
     included in the required minimum periodic payment before the 
     rate increase cannot be more than doubled.
       ``(4) Limitation on certain fees.--If--
       ``(A) a creditor increases any annual percentage rate of 
     interest applicable on a credit card account of the consumer 
     under an open end consumer credit plan; and
       ``(B) the creditor is prohibited by this section from 
     applying the increased rate to an existing balance,
     the creditor may not assess any fee or charge based solely on 
     the existing balance.''.
       (b) Exceptions to the Amendment Made by Subsection (a).--
     Section 127B of the Truth in Lending Act is amended by 
     inserting after subsection (a) (as added by subsection (a)) 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Exceptions.--
       ``(1) In general.--A creditor may increase any annual 
     percentage rate of interest applicable to the existing 
     balance on a credit card account of the consumer under an 
     open end consumer credit plan only under the following 
     circumstances:
       ``(A) Change in index.--The increase is due solely to the 
     operation of an index that is not

[[Page H5014]]

     under the creditor's control and is available to the general 
     public.
       ``(B) Expiration of promotional rate.--The increase is due 
     solely to the expiration of a promotional rate.
       ``(C) Failure to comply with workout plan.--The increase is 
     due solely to the fact the consumer failed to comply with a 
     negotiated workout plan with the creditor.
       ``(D) Payment not received during 30-day grace period after 
     due date.--The increase is due solely to the fact that any 
     consumer's minimum payment has not been received within 30 
     days after the due date for such minimum payment.
       ``(2) Limitation on increases due to failure to comply with 
     workout plan.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(C), the annual 
     percentage rate in effect with respect to each category of 
     transactions for a credit card account under an open end 
     consumer credit plan after the increase permitted under such 
     subsection due to the failure of a consumer to comply with a 
     workout plan may not exceed the annual percentage applicable 
     to such category of transactions on the day before the 
     effective date of the workout plan.
       ``(3) Standards required.--The Board shall prescribe, by 
     regulation, standards--
       ``(A) for entering into any workout plan applicable to any 
     credit card account under an open end consumer credit plan; 
     and
       ``(B) governing any such workout plan.''.
       (c) Advance Notice of Rate Increases and Significant 
     Contract Changes.--Section 127B of the Truth in Lending Act 
     is amended by inserting after subsection (b) (as added by 
     subsection (b)) the following new subsections:
       ``(c) Advance Notice of Rate Increases.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of any credit card account 
     under an open end consumer credit plan, no increase in any 
     annual percentage rate of interest (other than an increase 
     described in subsection (b)(1)(A)) may take effect unless the 
     creditor provides a written notice to the consumer at least 
     45 days before the increase takes effect which fully 
     describes the changes in the annual percentage rate, in a 
     complete and conspicuous manner, and the extent to which such 
     increase would apply to an existing balance.
       ``(2) Limitation on rate increase notices within first 
     year.--Except in the case of an increase described in 
     subparagraph (B), (C), or (D) of subsection (b)(1), no 
     written notice under paragraph (1) of an increase in any 
     annual percentage rate of interest on any credit card account 
     under an open end consumer credit plan (for which notice is 
     required under such paragraph) shall be effective before the 
     end of the 1-year period beginning when the account is 
     opened.
       ``(d) Advance Notice of Significant Contract Changes.--In 
     the case of any credit card account under an open end 
     consumer credit plan, no significant change to the contract 
     (such as any fee) may take effect unless the creditor 
     provides a written notice of at least 45 days before the 
     change takes effect which fully describes the changes in the 
     contract, in a complete and conspicuous manner.''.
       (d) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     2 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1631 et seq.) is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 127A 
     the following new item:

``127B. Additional requirements for credit card accounts under an open 
              end consumer credit plan.''.

     SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS REGARDING ACCOUNT FEATURES, 
                   TERMS, AND PRICING.

       (a) Double Cycle Billing Prohibited.--Section 127B of the 
     Truth in Lending Act is amended by inserting after subsection 
     (d) (as added by section 2(c)) the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Double Cycle Billing.--
       ``(1) In general.--No finance charge may be imposed by a 
     creditor with respect to any balance on a credit card account 
     under an open end consumer credit plan that is based on 
     balances for days in billing cycles preceding the most recent 
     billing cycle as a result of the loss of any grace period.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply so as to 
     prohibit a creditor from--
       ``(A) adjusting finance charges following the return of a 
     payment for insufficient funds; or
       ``(B) adjusting finance charges following resolution of a 
     billing error dispute.
       ``(3) Grace period.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `grace period' means, with respect to any credit card 
     account under an open end consumer credit plan, the time 
     period, if any, provided by the creditor within which any 
     credit extended under such credit plan for purchases of goods 
     or services may be repaid by the consumer without incurring a 
     finance charge.''.
       (b) Limitations Relating to Account Balances Attributable 
     Only to Accrued Interest.--Section 127B is amended by 
     inserting after subsection (e) (as added by subsection (a)) 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Limitations Relating to Account Balances Attributable 
     Only to Accrued Interest.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the outstanding balance on a credit 
     card account under an open end consumer credit plan at the 
     end of a billing period represents an amount attributable 
     only to interest accrued during the preceding billing period 
     on an outstanding balance that was fully repaid during the 
     preceding billing period--
       ``(A) no fee may be imposed or collected in connection with 
     such balance attributable only to interest before such end of 
     the billing period; and
       ``(B) any failure to make timely repayments of the balance 
     attributable only to interest before such end of the billing 
     period shall not constitute a default on the account.

     Such balance remains a legally binding debt obligation.
       ``(2) Rule of construction.--Paragraph (1) shall not be 
     construed as affecting--
       ``(A) the consumer's obligation to pay any accrued interest 
     on a credit card account under an open end consumer credit 
     plan; or
       ``(B) the accrual of interest on the outstanding balance on 
     any such account in accordance with the terms of the account 
     and this title.''.
       (c) Access to Payoff Balance Information.--Section 127B of 
     the Truth in Lending Act is amended by inserting after 
     subsection (f) (as added by subsection (b)) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(g) Payoff Balance Information.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each periodic statement provided by a 
     creditor to a consumer with respect to a credit card account 
     under an open end consumer credit plan shall contain the 
     toll-free telephone number, Internet address, and website at 
     which the consumer may request the payoff balance on the 
     account.
       ``(2) Small issuers.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), in the 
     case of any credit card issuer which issues fewer than 50,000 
     credit cards in conjunction with credit card accounts under 
     open end consumer credit plans, each periodic statement 
     provided by such a creditor to a consumer with respect to any 
     such credit card account shall contain the toll-free 
     telephone number, Internet address, or website at which the 
     consumer may request the payoff balance on the account.''.
       (d) Consumer Right To Reject Card Before Notice Is Provided 
     of Open Account.--Section 127B of the Truth in Lending Act is 
     amended by inserting after subsection (g) (as added by 
     subsection (c)) the following new subsection:
       ``(h) Consumer Right To Reject Card Before Notice of New 
     Account Is Provided to Consumer Reporting Agency.--
       ``(1) In general.--A creditor may not furnish any 
     information to a consumer reporting agency (as defined in 
     section 603) concerning the establishment of a newly opened 
     credit card account under an open end consumer credit plan 
     until the credit card has been used or activated by the 
     consumer.
       ``(2) Rule of construction.--Paragraph (1) shall not be 
     construed as prohibiting a creditor from furnishing 
     information about any application for a credit card account 
     under an open end consumer credit plan or any inquiry about 
     any such account to a consumer reporting agency (as so 
     defined).''.
       (e) Use of Terms Clarified.--Section 127B of the Truth in 
     Lending Act is amended by inserting after subsection (h) (as 
     added by subsection (d)) the following new subsection:
       ``(i) Use of Terms.--The following requirements shall apply 
     with respect to the terms of any credit card account under 
     any open end consumer credit plan:
       ``(1) `Fixed' rate.--The term `fixed', when appearing in 
     conjunction with a reference to the annual percentage rate or 
     interest rate applicable with respect to such account, may 
     only be used to refer to an annual percentage rate or 
     interest rate that will not change or vary for any reason 
     over the period clearly and conspicuously specified in the 
     terms of the account.
       ``(2) Prime rate.--The term `prime rate', when appearing in 
     any agreement or contract for any such account, may only be 
     used to refer to the bank prime rate published in the Federal 
     Reserve Statistical Release on selected interest rates (daily 
     or weekly), and commonly referred to as the H.15 release (or 
     any successor publication).
       ``(3) Due date.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each periodic statement for any such 
     account shall contain a date by which the next periodic 
     payment on the account must be made to avoid a late fee or be 
     considered a late payment, and any payment received by 5 
     p.m., local time at the location specified by the creditor 
     for the receipt of payment, on such date shall be treated as 
     a timely payment for all purposes.
       ``(B) Certain electronic fund transfers.--Any payment with 
     respect to any such account made by a consumer online to the 
     website of the credit card issuer or by telephone directly to 
     the credit card issuer before 5 p.m., local time at the 
     location specified by the creditor for the receipt of 
     payment, on any business day shall be credited to the 
     consumer's account that business day.
       ``(C) Presumption of timely payment.--Any evidence provided 
     by a consumer in the form of a receipt from the United States 
     Postal Service or other common carrier indicating that a 
     payment on a credit card account was sent to the issuer not 
     less than 7 days before the due date contained in the 
     periodic statement under subparagraph (A) for such payment 
     shall create a presumption that such payment was made by the 
     due date, which may be rebutted by the creditor for fraud or 
     dishonesty on the part of the consumer with respect to the 
     mailing date.''.
       (f) Payment Allocations.--Section 127B of the Truth in 
     Lending Act is amended by inserting after subsection (i) (as 
     added by subsection (e)) the following new subsection:
       ``(j) Payment Allocations.--
       ``(1) In general.--If 2 or more different annual percentage 
     rates apply to different portions of an outstanding balance 
     on a credit card account under an open end consumer credit 
     plan, the amount of any periodic payment in excess of the 
     required minimum payment shall be applied using 1 of the 
     following methods:
       ``(A) High-to-low method.--The excess amount is allocated 
     first to the balance with the highest annual percentage rate 
     and any remaining portion is allocated to any other balance 
     in descending order, based on the applicable annual 
     percentage rate each portion of such balance bears, from the 
     highest such rate to the lowest.
       ``(B) Pro rata method.--The excess amount is allocated 
     among each of the portions of such

[[Page H5015]]

     balance which bear different rates of interest in the same 
     proportion as each such portion of the outstanding balance 
     bears to the total outstanding balance.
       ``(2) Clarification relating to certain deferred interest 
     arrangements.--A creditor may allocate the entire amount paid 
     by the consumer in excess of the required minimum periodic 
     payment to a balance on which interest is deferred during the 
     2 billing cycles immediately preceding the expiration of the 
     period during which interest is deferred.
       ``(3) Prohibition on restricted grace periods under certain 
     circumstances.--If, with respect to any credit card account 
     under an open end consumer credit plan, a creditor offers a 
     time period in which to repay credit extended without 
     incurring finance charges to cardholders who pay the balance 
     in full, the creditor may not deny a consumer who takes 
     advantage of a promotional rate balance or deferred interest 
     rate balance offer with respect to such an account any such 
     time period for repaying credit without incurring finance 
     charges.''.
       (g) Timely Provision of Periodic Statements.--Section 127B 
     of the Truth in Lending Act is amended by inserting after 
     subsection (j) (as added by subsection (f)) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(k) Timely Provision of Periodic Statements.--Each 
     periodic statement with respect to a credit card account 
     under an open end consumer credit plan shall be sent by the 
     creditor to the consumer not less than 21 calendar days 
     before the due date identified in such statement for the next 
     payment on the outstanding balance on such account, and 
     section 163(a) shall be applied with respect to any such 
     account by substituting `21' for `fourteen'.''.
       (h) Due Dates.--Section 127B of the Truth in Lending Act is 
     amended by inserting after subsection (k) (as added by 
     subsection (g)) the following new subsection:
       ``(l) Due Dates.--If the date established by a creditor as 
     the date on which a periodic payment on a credit card account 
     under an open end consumer credit plan is due is a day on 
     which mail is either not delivered to such creditor or is not 
     accepted by the creditor for processing on such day, the 
     creditor may not treat the receipt by the creditor of any 
     such periodic payment by mail as of the next business day of 
     the creditor as late for any purpose.''.

     SEC. 4. CONSUMER CHOICE WITH RESPECT TO OVER-THE-LIMIT 
                   TRANSACTIONS.

       Section 127B of the Truth in Lending Act is amended by 
     inserting after subsection (l) (as added by section 3(h)) the 
     following new subsections:
       ``(m) Opt-Out of Creditor Authorization of Over-the-Limit 
     Transactions if Fees Are Imposed.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of any credit card account 
     under an open end consumer credit plan under which an over-
     the-limit-fee may be imposed by the creditor for any 
     extension of credit in excess of the amount of credit 
     authorized to be extended under such account, the consumer 
     may elect to prohibit the creditor, with respect to such 
     account, from completing any transaction involving the 
     extension of credit, with respect to such account, in excess 
     of the amount of credit authorized by notifying the creditor 
     of such election in accordance with paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Notification by consumer.--A consumer shall notify a 
     creditor under paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) through the notification system maintained by the 
     creditor under paragraph (4); or
       ``(B) by submitting to the creditor a signed notice of 
     election, by mail or electronic communication, on a form 
     issued by the creditor for purposes of this subparagraph.
       ``(3) Effectiveness of election.--An election by a consumer 
     under paragraph (1) shall be effective beginning 3 business 
     days after the creditor receives notice from the consumer in 
     accordance with paragraph (2) and shall remain effective 
     until the consumer revokes the election.
       ``(4) Notification system.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each creditor that maintains credit card 
     accounts under an open end consumer credit plan shall 
     establish and maintain a notification system, including a 
     toll-free telephone number, Internet address, and website, 
     which permits any consumer whose credit card account is 
     maintained by the creditor to notify the creditor of an 
     election under this subsection in accordance with paragraph 
     (2).
       ``(B) Small issuers.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), any 
     credit card issuer which issues fewer than 50,000 credit 
     cards in conjunction with credit card accounts under open end 
     consumer credit plans shall establish and maintain a 
     notification system, which shall include a toll-free 
     telephone number, Internet address, or website, which permits 
     any consumer whose credit card account is maintained by the 
     creditor to notify the creditor of an election under this 
     subsection in accordance with paragraph (2).
       ``(5) Annual notice to consumers of availability of 
     election.--In the case of any credit card account under an 
     open end consumer credit plan, the creditor shall include a 
     notice, in clear and conspicuous language, of the 
     availability of an election by the consumer under this 
     paragraph as a means of avoiding over-the limit fees and a 
     higher amount of indebtedness, and the method for providing 
     such notice--
       ``(A) on the periodic statement required under section 
     127(b) with respect to such account at least once each 
     calendar year; and
       ``(B) on any such periodic statement which includes a 
     notice of the imposition of an over-the-limit fee during the 
     period covered by the statement.
       ``(6) No fees if consumer has made an election.--If a 
     consumer has made an election under paragraph (1), no over-
     the-limit fee may be imposed on the account for any reason 
     that has caused the outstanding balance in the account to 
     exceed the credit limit.
       ``(7) Regulations.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Board shall issue regulations 
     allowing for the completion of over-the-limit transactions 
     that for operational reasons exceed the credit limit by a de 
     minimis amount, even where the cardholder has made an 
     election under paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Subject to no fee limitation.--The regulations 
     prescribed under subparagraph (A) shall not allow for the 
     imposition of any fee or any rate increase based on the 
     permitted over-the-limit transactions.
       ``(n) Over-the-Limit Fee Restrictions.--With respect to a 
     credit card account under an open end consumer credit plan, 
     an over-the-limit fee may be imposed only once during a 
     billing cycle if, on the last day of such billing cycle, the 
     credit limit on the account is exceeded, and an over-the-
     limit fee, with respect to such excess credit, may be imposed 
     only once in each of the 2 subsequent billing cycles, unless 
     the consumer has obtained an additional extension of credit 
     in excess of such credit limit during any such subsequent 
     cycle or the consumer reduces the outstanding balance below 
     the credit limit as of the end of such billing cycle.
       ``(o) Over-the-Limit Fees Prohibited in Conjunction With 
     Certain Credit Holds.--Notwithstanding subsection (n), an 
     over-the-limit fee may not be imposed if the credit limit was 
     exceeded due to a hold unless the actual amount of the 
     transaction for which the hold was placed would have resulted 
     in the consumer exceeding the credit limit.''.

     SEC. 5. STRENGTHEN CREDIT CARD INFORMATION COLLECTION.

       Section 136(b) of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 
     1646(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``Collection required.--The Board shall'' 
     and inserting ``Collection required.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Board shall''.
       (B) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) Information to be included.--The information under 
     subparagraph (A) shall include, for the relevant semiannual 
     period, the following information with respect each creditor 
     in connection with any consumer credit card account:
       ``(i) A list of each type of transaction or event during 
     the semiannual period for which 1 or more creditors has 
     imposed a separate interest rate upon a consumer credit card 
     accountholder, including purchases, cash advances, and 
     balance transfers.
       ``(ii) For each type of transaction or event identified 
     under clause (i)--

       ``(I) each distinct interest rate charged by the card 
     issuer to a consumer credit card accountholder during the 
     semiannual period; and
       ``(II) the number of cardholders to whom each such interest 
     rate was applied during the last calendar month of the 
     semiannual period, and the total amount of interest charged 
     to such accountholders at each such rate during such month.

       ``(iii) A list of each type of fee that 1 or more of the 
     creditors has imposed upon a consumer credit card 
     accountholder during the semiannual period, including any fee 
     imposed for obtaining a cash advance, making a late payment, 
     exceeding the credit limit on an account, making a balance 
     transfer, or exchanging United States dollars for foreign 
     currency.
       ``(iv) For each type of fee identified under clause (iii), 
     the number of accountholders upon whom the fee was imposed 
     during each calendar month of the semiannual period, and the 
     total amount of fees imposed upon cardholders during such 
     month.
       ``(v) The total number of consumer credit card 
     accountholders that incurred any finance charge or any other 
     fee during the semiannual period.
       ``(vi) The total number of consumer credit card accounts 
     maintained by each creditor as of the end of the semiannual 
     period.
       ``(vii) The total number and value of cash advances made 
     during the semiannual period under a consumer credit card 
     account.
       ``(viii) The total number and value of purchases involving 
     or constituting consumer credit card transactions during the 
     semiannual period.
       ``(ix) The total number and amount of repayments on 
     outstanding balances on consumer credit card accounts in each 
     month of the semiannual period.
       ``(x) The percentage of all consumer credit card 
     accountholders (with respect to any creditor) who--

       ``(I) incurred a finance charge in each month of the 
     semiannual period on any portion of an outstanding balance on 
     which a finance charge had not previously been incurred; and
       ``(II) incurred any such finance charge at any time during 
     the semiannual period.

       ``(xi) The total number and amount of balances accruing 
     finance charges during the semiannual period.
       ``(xii) The total number and amount of the outstanding 
     balances on consumer credit card accounts as of the end of 
     such semiannual period.
       ``(xiii) Total credit limits in effect on consumer credit 
     card accounts as of the end of such semiannual period and the 
     amount by which such credit limits exceed the credit limits 
     in effect as of the beginning of such period.
       ``(xiv) Any other information related to interest rates, 
     fees, or other charges that the Board deems of interest.''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Report to congress.--The Board shall, on an annual 
     basis, transmit to Congress and make public a report 
     containing estimates by the Board of the approximate, 
     relative percentage of

[[Page H5016]]

     income derived by the credit card operations of depository 
     institutions from--
       ``(A) the imposition of interest rates on cardholders, 
     including separate estimates for--
       ``(i) interest with an annual percentage rate of less than 
     25 percent; and
       ``(ii) interest with an annual percentage rate equal to or 
     greater than 25 percent;
       ``(B) the imposition of fees on cardholders;
       ``(C) the imposition of fees on merchants; and
       ``(D) any other material source of income, while specifying 
     the nature of that income.''.

     SEC. 6. STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO INITIAL ISSUANCE OF SUBPRIME 
                   OR ``FEE HARVESTER'' CARDS.

       Section 127B of the Truth in Lending Act is amended by 
     inserting after subsection (o) (as added by section 4) the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(p) Standards Applicable to Initial Issuance of Subprime 
     or `Fee Harvester' Cards.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of any credit card account 
     under an open end consumer credit plan the terms of which 
     require the payment of any fee (other than any late fee, any 
     over-the-limit fee, or any fee for a payment returned for 
     insufficient funds) by the consumer in the first year the 
     account is opened in an amount in excess of 25 percent of the 
     total amount of credit authorized under the account when the 
     account is opened, no payment of any fee (other than any late 
     fee, any over-the-limit fee, or any fee for a payment 
     returned for insufficient funds) may be made from the credit 
     made available by the card.
       ``(2) Rule of construction.--No provision of this 
     subsection may be construed as authorizing any imposition or 
     payment of advance fees otherwise prohibited by any provision 
     of law.''.

     SEC. 7. EXTENSIONS OF CREDIT TO UNDERAGE CONSUMERS.

       Section 127(c) of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 
     1637(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(8) Extensions of credit to underage consumers.--
       ``(A) In general.--No credit card may be knowingly issued 
     to, or open end credit plan established on behalf of, a 
     consumer who has not attained the age of 18, unless the 
     consumer is emancipated under applicable State law.
       ``(B) Rule of construction.--For the purposes of 
     determining the age of an applicant, the submission of a 
     signed application by a consumer stating that the consumer is 
     over 18 shall be considered sufficient proof of age.''.

     SEC. 8. PROHIBIT FEES FOR PAYMENT ON CREDIT CARD ACCOUNTS BY 
                   ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 127 of the Truth in Lending Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 1637) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(i) Payments by EFT.--In the case of a credit card 
     account under an open end consumer credit plan, a creditor 
     may not impose a fee based on the manner in which payment on 
     the account is made, including a fee for making any such 
     payment by electronic fund transfer (as defined in section 
     903).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to all payments made after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and any fee imposed after such date in 
     contravention of the amendment shall be promptly credited to 
     the consumer's account.

     SEC. 9. REPORT TO CONGRESS ON REDUCTIONS OF CONSUMER CREDIT 
                   CARD LIMITS BASED ON CERTAIN INFORMATION AS TO 
                   EXPERIENCE OR TRANSACTIONS OF THE CONSUMER.

       (a) Report on Creditor Practices Required.--Before the end 
     of the 6-month period beginning on the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
     System, in consultation with the Comptroller of the Currency, 
     the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Federal 
     Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union 
     Administration Board, and the Federal Trade Commission, shall 
     report to the Committee on Financial Services of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs of the Senate on the extent to which, during 
     the 3-year period ending on such date of enactment, creditors 
     have reduced credit limits or raised interest rates 
     applicable to credit card accounts under open end consumer 
     credit plans based on--
       (1) the geographical location where a credit transaction 
     with the consumer takes place or the identity of the merchant 
     involved in the transaction;
       (2) the consumer's credit transactions, including the type 
     of credit transaction, the type of items purchased in such 
     transaction, the price of items purchased in such 
     transaction, any change in the type or price of items 
     purchased in such transactions, and other data pertaining to 
     the consumer's use of such credit card account; and
       (3) the identity of the mortgage creditor which extended or 
     holds the mortgage loan secured by the consumer's primary 
     residence.
       (b) Other Information.--The report required under 
     subsection (a) shall also include--
       (1) the number and identity of creditors that have engaged 
     in the practices described in subsection (a);
       (2) the extent to which the practices described in 
     subsection (a) have an adverse impact on minority or low-
     income consumers;
       (3) any other relevant information regarding such 
     practices; and
       (4) recommendations to the Congress on regulatory or 
     statutory changes that may be needed to restrict or prevent 
     such practices.

     SEC. 10. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (c) for 
     the period described in such subsection, the amendments made 
     by this Act shall apply to all credit card accounts under 
     open end consumer credit plans after the earlier of--
       (1) the end of the 12-month period beginning on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act; or
       (2) June 30, 2010.
       (b) Regulations.--Except as provided in subsection (c) for 
     the period described in such subsection, the Board of 
     Governors of the Federal Reserve System, in consultation with 
     the Comptroller of the Currency, the Director of the Office 
     of Thrift Supervision, the Federal Deposit Insurance 
     Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration Board, 
     and the Federal Trade Commission, shall prescribe 
     regulations, in final form, implementing the amendments made 
     by this Act before the earlier of--
       (1) the end of the 5-month period beginning on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act; or
       (2) June 1, 2010.
       (c) Interim Effective Period for Advance Notices of Rate 
     Increases.--
       (1) In general.--During the period beginning 90 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on the 
     effective date of all the amendments under this Act as 
     determined pursuant to subsection (a), no increase in any 
     annual percentage rate of interest on any credit card account 
     under an open end consumer credit plan (as such terms are 
     defined in the Truth in Lending Act) may take effect unless 
     the creditor provides a written notice to the consumer at 
     least 45 days before the increase would otherwise take effect 
     which fully describes the changes in the annual percentage 
     rate, in a complete and conspicuous manner, and the extent to 
     which such increase would apply to an existing balance.
       (2) Exceptions.--A notice shall not be required under 
     paragraph (1) for an increase in an annual percentage rate 
     described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of section 
     127B(b)(1) (as added by section 2).
       (3) Regulations.--The Board of Governors of the Federal 
     Reserve System shall prescribe regulations implementing the 
     amendment referred to in paragraph (1), for purposes of this 
     subsection, before the end of the 60-day period beginning on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order 
except those printed in House Report 111-92. Each amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated 
in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the 
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent of the amendment, shall not be subject to 
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Gutierrez

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 111-92.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. I have an amendment at the desk made in order under 
the rule.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Gutierrez:
       At the end of section 3, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       (i) Availability of Legitimate and Accredited Credit 
     Counseling.--The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
     System shall suggest appropriate guidelines for creditors to 
     follow with respect to credit card accounts under open end 
     consumer credit plans to supply consumer cardholders with 
     information regarding the availability of legitimate and 
     accredited credit counseling services.
       Strike section 8 of the bill and insert the following new 
     sections (and redesignate succeeding sections accordingly):

     SEC. 8. PROHIBIT FEES FOR PAYMENT ON CREDIT CARD ACCOUNTS BY 
                   TELEPHONE OR ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS.

       Section 164 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1666c) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Payments received'' and inserting ``(a) 
     In General.--Payments received''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Payment Fees.--
       ``(1) Prohibition on fee based on mode of payment.--Except 
     as provided in paragraph (2), in the case of a credit card 
     account under an open end consumer credit plan, a creditor 
     may not impose a fee on the obligor based on the particular 
     manner in which the obligor makes a payment on such account.
       ``(2) Exception.--If the obligor requests to make an 
     expedited payment on a credit card account under an open end 
     consumer credit plan by telephone on the date that a payment 
     is due, or the day immediately preceding such date, the 
     creditor may assess a fee for crediting the payment to the 
     obligor's account on or by such date.''.

     SEC. 9. SOLICITATIONS REQUIRED TO INCLUDE WARNING ON ADVERSE 
                   EFFECTS OF EXCESSIVE CREDIT INQUIRIES.

       Section 127(c)(1)(B) of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 
     1637(c)(1)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new clause:
       ``(iv) Excessive credit inquiries.--A warning that 
     excessive credit inquiries, which occur in connection with 
     credit applications and solicitations and under other 
     circumstances, can have an adverse effect on a consumer 
     credit score.''.

[[Page H5017]]

     SEC. 10. READABILITY REQUIREMENT.

       Section 122 of the Truth in Lending Act (U.S.C. 1632) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Minimum Type-Size and Font Requirement for Credit 
     Card Applications and Disclosures.--All written information, 
     provisions, and terms in or on any application, solicitation, 
     contract, or agreement for any credit card account under an 
     open end consumer credit plan, and all written information 
     included in or on any disclosure required under this chapter 
     with respect to any such account, shall appear--
       ``(1) in not less than 12-point type; and
       ``(2) in any font other than a font which the Board has 
     designated, in regulations under this section, as a font that 
     inhibits readability.''.
       Insert at the end the following new section:

     SEC. 13. DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT FOR STORES ACCEPTING CREDIT 
                   CARD ACCOUNT APPLICATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 122 of the Truth in Lending Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 1632) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(d) Signs Required on Certain Premises Where Credit Card 
     Account Applications Accepted.--
       ``(1) In general.--A person who sells personal property to 
     consumers on a business premises and makes available to 
     consumers on such premises any application to open a credit 
     card account under an open end consumer credit plan, and 
     where such person is the issuer of such account, shall 
     display in the premises on a sign any information that is 
     subject to subsection (c) and that is required to be 
     disclosed by the person on that application.
       ``(2) Format.--Such information shall be displayed on the 
     sign in the form and manner which the Board shall prescribe 
     by regulations and which, to the extent practicable and 
     appropriate, shall be consistent with the form and manner 
     required for the disclosure of such information on the credit 
     card application.
       ``(3) Sign placement.--Such signs shall be conspicuously 
     placed at each location on the premises where the credit card 
     application may be submitted by the consumer.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 111(e) of the Truth in 
     Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1610(e)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``Section 122(d) shall supersede State laws relating to 
     store display of the information that is subject to the 
     requirements of such section, except that any State may 
     employ or establish State laws for the purpose of enforcing 
     the requirements of such section.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 379, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. 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.

                              {time}  1145

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition, but I am not 
opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I want to thank the gentleman.
  We had a tremendous amount of discussion about the pay-to-pay 
provision in this bill. One of the things that we don't want to do is 
to prevent the cardholders' ability to be able to make payments by 
telephone or by other means. However, a number of these companies have 
invested a lot of money in the technology to allow consumers to be able 
to pay their credit cards in different ways and thereby avoid late 
fees.
  A concern that many of us had was, if we somehow regulated and denied 
the ability completely of credit card companies to be able to charge a 
fee for this service, that they would discontinue it. We felt like that 
might even cost consumers more money because they would be charged late 
fees and interest.
  I also appreciate the gentleman in that, I think, all of us believe 
that disclosure is an important part of making credit card use a better 
tool for consumers, and I'm glad to see that the gentleman also has 
some additional disclosure provisions in here as to the size of the 
type. So I think this particular amendment makes the overall bill 
better, and I thank the gentleman for his amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the author and 
architect of the bill, the gentlewoman from New York, Carolyn Maloney.
  Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the chairman for yielding and for his 
leadership.
  Madam Chair, I rise in support of this manager's amendment. It makes 
a number of commonsense additions to this legislation, such as 
requiring all written materials from credit card companies to be in at 
least a 12-point font. Gone will be the days of too-small-to-read fine, 
fine print disclosures and contracts. It requires the better disclosure 
of credit card terms when potential customers are offered credit cards 
in retail stores. It warns customers that constant credit applications 
can have an adverse effect on one's credit score, and it makes a 
clarification that Congressman Ackerman sought and achieved somewhat in 
committee with his amendment that was accepted that will ban fees for 
paying your credit card bill. No more fees for paying your bills. These 
are all very good and important things.
  I support this amendment and urge its adoption.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Chair, it is my privilege at this time to yield 
so much time as he may consume to my good friend from Texas (Mr. 
Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, the part of this amendment that I, 
perhaps, do not support is one more mandate; but on balance, I wanted 
to compliment the ranking member, and I wanted to compliment the 
gentlelady from New York because the approach of this amendment is to 
provide consumers with tools that they can use to better understand the 
provisions of their credit card agreements. To me, that's at the crux 
of the argument.
  What we should do is not take consumer choice away. We shouldn't take 
credit opportunities away, particularly

[[Page H5018]]

in a national credit crunch, but we have got to end misleading, 
deceptive and confusing disclosures where consumers do not have the 
opportunity or the ability to understand the options that are before 
them.
  So as I look down here, being able to notify customers as to how a 
credit application can adversely affect their credit rating, this is a 
good thing. Increasing font sizes, in certain instances where needed, 
is a good thing. Requiring signage in stores that offer credit cards in 
order to help consumers to know their terms, this is a good thing.
  I have said before--and I don't know if the gentlelady from New York 
was on the floor--that I applaud her for that portion of her bill that 
helps empower consumers with greater disclosure. I think that is a huge 
step forward.
  As she well knows, I think her bill takes several steps backwards. I 
think it ends up eroding risk-based pricing. I believe there are some 
price controls within the bill. We've had a debate on that, and I 
assume we will continue to have a debate.
  Overall, this amendment is a very good amendment, and it will help 
empower consumers. I am concerned about some of the pay-to-pay fees. I 
don't quite understand what's being accomplished there; but otherwise, 
it's a good amendment, and I applaud the authors for it.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. 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.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I have no further speakers, and I yield back my time.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
  The amendment was agreed to.


         Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 111-92.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, I rise to offer the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts:
       After section 8, insert the following new section (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):

     SEC. 9. BOARD REVIEW OF CONSUMER CREDIT PLANS AND 
                   REGULATIONS.

       (a) Required Review.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     effective date of this Act and every 2 years thereafter, 
     except as provided in subsection (c)(2), the Board shall 
     conduct a review, within the limits of its existing resources 
     available for reporting purposes, of the consumer credit card 
     market including--
       (1) the terms of credit card agreements and the practices 
     of credit card issuers;
       (2) the effectiveness of disclosure of terms, fees, and 
     other expense of credit card plans;
       (3) the adequacy of protections against unfair or deceptive 
     acts or practices relating to credit card plans, and
       (4) whether or not, and to what extent, the Credit 
     Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2009 has resulted in--
       (A) higher annual percentage rates of interest, on average, 
     for credit card users than the average of such rates of 
     interest in effect before the effective date of the Act;
       (B) the imposition of annual fees or other credit card 
     fees--
       (i) that did not exist before such effective date;
       (ii) at a higher average rate of applicability than existed 
     before such effective date; or
       (iii) with higher average costs to the consumer than were 
     in effect before such effective date;
       (C) an increase in the rate of denial of--
       (i) new credit card accounts for consumers; or
       (ii) new extensions of credit, or additional lines of 
     credit, for existing credit accounts established before such 
     effective date; or
       (D) any other adverse or negative condition or effect on 
     consumers.
       (b) Solicitation of Public Comment.--In connection with 
     conducting the review required by subsection (a), the Board 
     shall solicit comment from consumers, credit card issuers, 
     and other interested parties, such as through hearings or 
     written comments.
       (c) Regulations.--
       (1) Notice.--Following the review required by subsection 
     (a) the Board shall publish a notice in the Federal Register 
     that--
       (A) summarizes the review, the comments received from the 
     public solicitation, and other evidence gathered by the Board 
     such as through consumer testing or other research; and
       (B) either--
       (i) proposes new or revised regulations or interpretations 
     to update or revise disclosures and protections for consumer 
     credit cards as appropriate; or
       (ii) states the reason for the Board's determination that 
     new or revised regulations are not proposed.
       (2) Revision of review period following material revision 
     of regulations.--In the event the Board materially revises 
     regulations on consumer credit card plans, a review need not 
     be conducted until 2 years following the effective date of 
     the revised regulations, which thereafter shall become the 
     new date for the biennial review required by subsection (a).
       (d) Board Report to the Congress.--The Board shall report 
     to the Congress no less frequently than every 2 years, except 
     as provided in subsection (c)(2), on the status of its most 
     recent review, its efforts to address any issues identified 
     from the review, and any recommendations for legislation.
       (e) Additional Reporting.--The Federal banking agencies and 
     the Federal Trade Commission shall provide annually to the 
     Board, and the Board shall include in its annual report to 
     Congress under section 10 of the Federal Reserve Act, 
     information about the supervisory and enforcement activities 
     of the agencies with respect to credit card issuers' 
     compliance with applicable Federal consumer protection 
     statutes and regulations including--
       (1) this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and 
     regulations prescribed under this Act and such amendments; 
     and
       (2) section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and 
     regulations prescribed under the Federal Trade Commission 
     Act, such as part 227 of title 12 of the Code of Federal 
     Regulations as prescribed by the Board (Regulation AA).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 379, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Madam Chair, at the committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hensarling) offered a proposal for a study. I did not agree with it at 
the time because it seemed to me to be talking about the potential 
negative. Subsequently, the administration asked us to support a study 
which seemed to me to be incomplete because it was only talking about 
potential positives.
  So what I decided made the most sense was to amalgamate the two and 
to offer a study which asked the Federal Reserve to do both sides of 
this. I am sometimes skeptical of studies. I will say that I have, from 
time to time, thought about an amendment that said that any Member who 
moved to create a study should be required to take a public test on the 
results of that study once it was completed because we too easily put 
in the extra work here; but I do think, in this case, it is a new area 
of policy. It is entirely reasonable to have both the potential pluses 
and minuses studied, and that is why I offer this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition, but 
I'm not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. At this time, I would like to yield such time as he 
may consume to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chair, I want to rise in support of the Frank amendment. I 
appreciate the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services 
Committee working with me on this.
  I do believe that it is an important study to have, and again, I 
don't know what the results of the study will be. I'll take the 
chairman up on his challenge. I'll be prepared to take the pop quiz 
once the study comes out.
  The only thing that is a little bit disappointing to me, if I recall 
right, is I offered a second-degree amendment to the Waters amendment 
in markup, which I believe was a 6-month study after implementation. 
This is a 2-year. I wish we didn't have to wait quite that long for the 
results.
  Madam Chairman, one of the big debates that we're having within this 
body today is ultimately what will the impact be of this legislation. 
There are those on the other side of the aisle who have maintained that 
this will have no

[[Page H5019]]

adverse impact on credit availability or that there will be no bailout 
effect with those who have good credit ratings and good practices who 
ultimately end up bailing out others. Now, some on the other side 
admitted they just believe there are more benefits to be derived from 
the legislation than the cost. I do not feel that way.
  Number one, the Congressional Research Service, in response to a 
question regarding this legislation, said: ``Credit card issuers could 
respond in a variety of ways. They may increase loan rates across the 
board on all borrowers, making it more expensive for both good and 
delinquent borrowers to use revolving credit. Issuers may also increase 
minimum monthly payments, reduce credit limits or reduce the number of 
credit cards issued to people with impaired credit.''
  That was the opinion of the Congressional Research Service. Again, it 
may prove to be true. It may not prove to be true. I believe it will 
prove to be true, and I believe that the Federal Reserve study could at 
least be helpful in determining this.
  I've heard from community bankers within my district. They believe, 
if this legislation is passed, that ultimately smaller banks will be 
driven out of the market and that only the larger banks will be left 
offering these cards. If so, that, again, is fewer choices for 
consumers and reduced credit options.
  We've heard from academics on the subject, like Professor Todd 
Zywicki of George Mason University, who said, ``The increased use of 
credit cards has been a substitution from other types of consumer 
credit. If individuals are unable to get access to credit cards, 
experience and empirical evidence indicates they will turn elsewhere 
for credit--such as to pawn shops, payday lenders, rent-to-own or even 
loan sharks.''
  Again, I think that, given the expertise of the Federal Reserve--and 
certainly, I don't agree with everything they come out with, but they 
are a relevant party. They do have expertise, and I think it is an 
important portion of the chairman's amendment that they study the 
phenomena. We know about the experience of the U.K. When a couple of 
years ago they passed legislation, they ordered that the credit card 
default fees had to be cut or legal action would be taken. What 
happened is that two of the three biggest issuers imposed annual fees 
on their cardholders. Nineteen of the largest raised interest rates. 
Sixty percent fewer applicants were being able to receive credit.
  So we have, number one, historical experience. We have academic 
testimony. We have testimony from the Congressional Research Service. 
So I hope there is an acknowledgment that there is at least a chance 
that those of us who argue the adverse consequences of the legislation 
may be proven right. I don't think the Federal Reserve are the only 
people who should study this phenomenon. I'm happy to invite a GAO 
study and other independent studies.
  Again, I think it's a very important point, and although I think the 
gentlelady from New York's legislation takes a huge step forward with 
respect to disclosure, with respect to fighting misleading and really 
deceptive practices, I also fear that those who need credit the most in 
a credit crunch will be denied those opportunities. I fear that those 
who pay their bills on time or at least pay the minimum on time, which 
is over half of America, will end up having to bail out the other half, 
and we will have more bailout legislation.
  So I appreciate the chairman in working with me and at least studying 
the phenomenon to see if it has any validity. I'm sorry we have to wait 
2 years, but it's certainly better than nothing. Again, I appreciate 
the chairman of the full committee working with me on this.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Chairman, I just want to reiterate what my 
friend from Texas said is that we do need to make sure we understand 
the intended and unintended consequences of this legislation and how 
it's going to impact consumers who use credit cards.
  Like the gentleman from Texas, I'm disappointed that we're going to 
wait for 2 years to get those results, but I do think it's important 
that the agencies involved here make sure that if we have gone down a 
road that has a negative impact on the people that use our credit cards 
and depend on them, we need to know about that.
  With that, I yield back.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, I am very pleased to be able 
to say today that the gentlewoman from New York, the author of the 
bill, and the gentleman from Illinois, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, are doing an excellent job.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Pastor of Arizona). It is now in order to 
consider amendment No. 3 printed in House Report 111-92.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Ms. Slaughter:
       In that portion of section 7 that precedes the amendment 
     adding a new paragraph (8), strike ``paragraph'' and insert 
     ``paragraphs''.
       At the end of the paragraph (8) added by the amendment made 
     by section 7, strike the closing quotation marks and the 2nd 
     period.
       After paragraph (8) of section 127(c) of the Truth in 
     Lending Act (as added by the amendment made by section 7), 
     insert the following new paragraph:
       ``(9) Provisions applicable with regard to the issuance of 
     credit cards to full-time, traditional-aged college 
     students.--
       ``(A) Definitions.--For purposes of this paragraph, the 
     following definitions shall apply:
       ``(i) College student credit card account defined.--The 
     term `college student credit card account' means a credit 
     card account under an open end consumer credit plan 
     established or maintained for or on behalf of any college 
     student.
       ``(ii) College student.--The term `college student' means 
     an individual--

       ``(I) who is a full-time student attending an institution 
     of higher education; and
       ``(II) who has attained the age of 18 and has not yet 
     attained the age of 21.

       ``(iii) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     `institution of higher education' has the same meaning as in 
     section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1001(a)).
       ``(B) Maximum amount limitation as a percentage of gross 
     income.--Unless a parent, legal guardian, or spouse of a 
     college student assumes joint liability for debts incurred by 
     the student in connection with a college student credit card 
     account--
       ``(i) the amount of credit which may be extended by any one 
     creditor to the full-time college student may not exceed, 
     during any full calendar year, the greater of--

       ``(I) 20 percent of the annual gross income of the student; 
     or
       ``(II) $500; and

       ``(ii) no creditor shall grant a student a credit card 
     account, if the credit limit for that credit card account, 
     combined with the credit limits of any other credit card 
     accounts held by the student, would exceed 30 percent of the 
     annual gross income of the student in the most recently 
     completed calendar year.
       ``(C) Parental approval required to increase credit lines 
     for accounts for which parent is jointly liable.--No increase 
     may be made in the amount of credit authorized to be extended 
     under a college student credit card account for which a 
     parent, legal guardian, or spouse of the consumer has assumed 
     joint liability for debts incurred by the consumer in 
     connection with the account, before the consumer attains the 
     age of 21, with respect to such consumer, unless the parent, 
     guardian, or spouse of the consumer, as applicable, approves 
     in writing, and assumes joint liability for, such increase.
       ``(D) Income verification.--For purposes of this paragraph, 
     a creditor shall require adequate proof of income, income 
     history, and credit history, subject to the rules of the 
     Board, before any college student credit card account may be 
     opened by or on behalf of a student.
       ``(E) Prohibition on more than 1 credit card account for 
     any college student.--No creditor may open a credit card 
     account for, or issue any credit card to, any college student 
     who--
       ``(i) has no verifiable annual gross income; and
       ``(ii) already maintains a credit card account under an 
     open end consumer credit plan with that creditor, or any 
     affiliate thereof.
       ``(F) Exemption authority.--The Board may, by rule, provide 
     for exemptions to the provisions of this paragraph, as deemed 
     necessary or appropriate by the Board, consistent with the 
     purposes of this paragraph.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 379, the gentlewoman

[[Page H5020]]

from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of my amendment 
to protect college students from the hardship of excessive credit card 
debt and bankruptcy, and I am pleased to share my time with Congressman 
Duncan of Tennessee, with whom I have labored for at least 10 years to 
try to see this day come. And I appreciate him for his constant help 
and support.
  According to Sallie Mae, the average undergraduate has $2,200 in 
credit card debt, and that figure jumps to $5,800 for graduate 
students. And according to Sallie Mae, 84 percent of undergraduates 
have at least one credit card, up from 76 percent in 2004. On average, 
students have 4.6 credit cards, and half of college students have more 
than four, which would be fine if the students were able to pay off the 
credit card debt.
  Only 17 percent have said that they regularly pay that debt. Most of 
them have parents or simply let it go. A 2005 study--which is very 
important for us to know--indicated that many university administrators 
believe that credit card debt leads to a higher drop-out rate than 
their academic failure. Now, I don't think any of us ever expected that 
in our lifetime, that more students would drop out of college because 
of credit card debt than because of their academics. Indeed, the 
Indiana University administrator was quoted in the Chicago Tribune 
warning incoming freshmen that the school ``loses more students to 
credit card debt than to academic failure.''
  And we all know the ramifications of what happens when they become 
delinquent on their credit card debt. They can ruin their credit scores 
and end up paying higher rates on all future loans, and even more 
seriously they may be forced to declare bankruptcy and may not have 
enough credit rating to have credit cards again.
  Over the past 10 years the number of young people filing for 
bankruptcy has increased. If credit card companies applied the same 
scrutiny to college students as they do to adults when approving them 
for credit cards, college students would not be able to maintain the 
balances which they are incapable of paying.
  This is not merely smart business practice, it's good public policy, 
and our amendment will do just that by requiring the credit card 
companies to take responsibility for their lending practices to reduce 
the number of young people carrying excessive debt and filing for 
bankruptcy. We would ensure that credit card companies cannot provide 
students with extravagant limits and require the creditors to obtain a 
proof of income, income history and credit history from the students 
before approving the application.
  It would also encourage financial responsibility from students by 
limiting those without income to one credit card and set a limit by 
allowing increases over time if prompt payments have been made.
  Credit cards can be a useful tool to help students; however, it can 
also be a card to failure.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, there is nothing more controversial than 
students with credit cards and young people with credit cards. I think 
we all, as Members of Congress, have heard complaints from our 
constituents, and this is a response to some of that unease or anger.
  But what we're doing here is two things. There are two provisions of 
this bill that I am opposed to. One is that you cannot have a credit 
card or someone under the age of 18 cannot have a credit card unless 
they have been emancipated by the State of residence, which means 
you're eliminating anyone under the age of 18. That includes a lot of 
students. And there are those who are saying no credit card under any 
circumstances unless you have been emancipated, which I disagree with.
  Secondly, here you're saying to a group of students, 77 percent, 
according to GAO, use their credit cards for most of their personal 
expenses, a lot of their lodging, a lot of their books, a lot of their 
fees, and make large purchases from time to time.
  You're saying you can only have a credit card in two cases: $500--
which is not going to be sufficient for many of them--or 20 percent of 
your income. Some of them are students. They have no income.
  Now, you say to get around this, their parents can cosign and, number 
two, you do a complete credit history, which is pretty intrusive. 
You're really making decisions for every family and every student. Do 
you want to do that? What if their parents won't sign? But what if they 
need a credit card to go to school and they need to charge over $500? 
You're really beginning to micromanage. And sometimes it will prevent 
some injustices, sometimes it will prevent some financial difficulties, 
like Ms. Slaughter said, but oftentimes, it will result in students not 
having the use of a credit card.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield the remainder of my 
time to Mr. Duncan.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 1\1/
2\ minutes.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief.
  First, I want to commend my colleague, the gentlelady from New York, 
for her hard work on this over many years, as she has mentioned.
  The college student loan program has resulted in many thousands and 
thousands of college graduates, graduated from college or even before 
graduation incurring huge, huge debts. And when you add credit card 
debts on top of that, now the average graduating college student has a 
combined credit card and student loan debt of $20,402. Many, many 
thousands have much, much more than that.
  And I think this amendment, some of what my friend, the gentleman 
from Alabama, has discussed, doesn't really pertain to the specific 
amendment that Ms. Slaughter and I have done.
  This amendment applies only to full-time, traditional-age college 
students, defined as a full-time student and in an institution of 
higher education who has not reached the age of 21. So this amendment 
does not apply to anyone over the age of 21.
  I think it's a very reasonable amendment and a very minimal 
limitation or restriction on credit cards. Some universities, many 
universities across this country have entered into deals with credit 
card companies, and now they are not only encouraging students to incur 
huge student loan debts, they're encouraging students to incur credit 
card debts.
  And I just think this amendment will send a message to parents and 
college students that they at least need to think about. We passed a 
resolution a couple of days ago encouraging a financial literacy 
program recognizing the fact that many people don't have the financial 
literacy they need.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the intent 
behind the legislation, but I am fearful of what its adverse impact 
could be.
  Like many people across this Nation, probably many people in this 
institution, I worked my way through undergraduate school. I worked a 
couple of different jobs in Texas A University back in the mid-
seventies to get through college. To get to those jobs, I somehow had 
to keep an old 1965 Mustang running, and it didn't want to run.
  For some reason, a credit card company sent me a solicitation, and I 
got a credit card. And whether I had a transmission problem that I 
couldn't pay for, I had a water pump go out, that credit card tided me 
over, made sure I had transportation to get to my job to pay for my 
undergraduate studies. And I hate to think about all of the college 
students in America who may be denied that opportunity. I used it the 
way it was supposed to be used. I used it for emergency purposes. I 
used it to tide me over until that next paycheck came in.

[[Page H5021]]

  We're talking about folks over 18 who can vote, who can go to war, in 
most States can marry, own real property. We shouldn't be paternalistic 
towards them. We shouldn't deny them what could be an incredibly 
valuable tool to get them through college in the first place.
  So I urge the rejection of this amendment.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I think one of the concerns I have is this is a road we seem to be 
going down every day in these first hundred days, and that is the 
Federal Government telling people what they can and cannot do. I was 
shocked this week when the EPA administrator Lisa Jackson told public 
radio that it was time for America to have a single roadmap and for the 
government to tell Americans what kind of cars they ought to be 
driving. Now we have an amendment here that's going to tell college 
students whether they can have a credit card or not.
  This is not the America that our Founding Fathers founded. They 
founded this Nation on empowerment and they founded it on the basis of 
freedom of choice, and now we're taking choices away. And like the 
gentleman from Texas just said, my wife and I put ourselves through 
college. We felt like we were fairly responsible. We weren't getting 
student loans, we were working. From time to time we needed a little 
extra help, and we were able to use our gasoline credit card or our 
credit card for unforeseen expenses. Now we're telling people 18-21 the 
government doesn't think you ought to have a credit card or you're not 
responsible enough to have a credit card.
  So now we have an amendment that says, By the way, we're not going to 
teach you how to use your credit appropriately. We're just going to 
take your credit away.
  Anybody that knows what challenges that young people in college are 
facing today would know that this is not a good thing for these young 
people. Many of them are working their way through school and they use 
this credit card as a valuable tool. Ranking Member Bachus said 77 
percent of students and universities are using these cards. Not all of 
them are using them irresponsibly.
  So now for those people that feel like that somehow there's predatory 
activities going on, we're going to take that right away.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Gutierrez

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 111-92.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Gutierrez:
       In paragraph (1) of subsection (j) of section 127B of the 
     Truth in Lending Act (as added by section 3(f) of the bill) 
     strike ``minimum payment shall be applied'', where such term 
     appears in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), and all 
     that follows through the end of subparagraph (B) of such 
     paragraph and insert ``minimum payment shall be allocated 
     first to the balance with the highest annual percentage rate 
     and any remaining portion is allocated to any other balance 
     in descending order, based on the applicable annual 
     percentage rate each portion of such balance bears, from the 
     highest such rate to the lowest''.

                              {time}  1215

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 379, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. 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. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, the bill itself I think reached a 
compromise on this issue as well as the Federal regulations that came 
out about this, and basically it allows it to prorate that. So if there 
were an introductory period where the interest rate was lower and then 
later on that introductory period passed, it was fair to prorate the 
payments between the two rates, the old rate and the new rate. This one 
now allows the payment to be applied to the introductory rate. And 
thereby, I think what it is going to do--and again, we talk about 
choice. It is going to continue to restrict the kinds of cards and 
choices that the American people are going to be able to use and look 
at and be given from the various credit card companies. And so I am 
opposed to this.
  At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I fear that what we have here is another form of price controls being 
applied to credit card availability.
  You know, what is going to happen here, as we attempt to protect the 
consumer, I think we are about to protect him right out of having any 
opportunity to have an introductory rate. I mean, what is going to end 
up happening here is, instead of, say, enjoying a 10 percent rate for 3 
months and then a 15 percent rate kicks in for the next 9 months, you 
are going to end up with 15 percent for the whole year.
  Again, the answer here is to allow the consumer to have choice. 
People can understand this if we will write the disclosure in the right 
way. Yes, there are deceptive practices, but don't hurt the consumer as 
you clean up deceptive practices, but let the consumer choose. Let the 
consumer choose. And particularly for those who pay their bill on time 
at the end of each month, they are going to be hurt every time you take 
away just a little bit and chip away at the ability for people to have 
their risk priced because those who are good risk are going to end up 
subsidizing those who aren't.
  I fear, again, that this will be an amendment that has untold, 
unintended consequences that are going to

[[Page H5022]]

ultimately hurt the consumer. I mean, there are a lot of different 
things that I would love for Congress to do. You know, I don't like to 
pay extra for the cheese on a cheeseburger; maybe we can somehow pass a 
law that they can't charge me extra for that. But you know what's going 
to happen? Either, one, they are going to quit offering me the 
cheeseburger, or number two, everybody who doesn't offer it is going to 
have to pay more. If you poke in on one end of the balloon, it pokes 
out somewhere else.
  I know the intention is good, but we are going to protect consumers 
out of having any opportunity to have introductory rates if they wish 
them. So we need to reject this amendment.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire as to the time remaining 
on our side.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the wonderful 
gentlewoman and cosponsor from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
  Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Gutierrez-Peters-Edwards amendment. I am a proud sponsor of the 
amendment. And thank you to Chairman Gutierrez for his leadership on 
this issue, and also to Representatives Frank and Maloney for their 
stellar work on behalf of consumers and protecting consumers.
  This amendment is such common sense that it almost seems unnecessary 
to explain, and it is supported by the White House. It would simply 
require credit card issuers to allocate payments in excess of the 
minimum payment to the portion of the remaining balance with the 
highest outstanding annual percentage rate.
  Today, most credit card companies put the high-interest charges at 
the bottom of your balance. So even if you are making a payment every 
month, none of that payment will go to the highest interest debt until 
your payment covers the entire balance of the low-interest debt as 
well. This is costing consumers thousands of dollars that could be put 
back into the economy.
  The current system makes it difficult, if not impossible, for people 
to pay off their debt, and it is really designed to make consumers 
prisoners of the credit card company, forever indebted to them because 
you could never pay off the highest interest debt. The practice has to 
be changed, and this is the vehicle to change it.
  Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill and this amendment are about doing 
the right thing for American consumers and potentially saving them 
thousands of dollars that can be put straight back into our economy. I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying bill.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 1\1/
2\ minutes.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. 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. PETERS. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of this Amendment and 
the underlying bill, which provides important protections for consumers 
against unfair credit card billing practices. This amendment, which I 
am proud to be cosponsoring, simply states that when a credit card 
holder makes a payment it has to be allocated to the balance with the 
highest interest rate first.
  Like many of my colleagues, I meet regularly with constituents who 
are struggling. In Michigan, unemployment is rising, home prices are 
falling, and many families are struggling with increased debts and 
financial insecurity. While I am new to the Congress, I am not new to 
the business of advising families on what's in their financial best 
interest. For twenty-two years I was a financial adviser, and my advice 
to anyone attempting to pay off outstanding debt was clear: pay off the 
highest interest accounts first. But current credit card billing 
practices don't always make that possible.
  This straight forward, common sense amendment protects consumers by 
requiring any payment beyond the minimum payment to be applied to the 
highest interest balance, thus ensuring that families that are working 
hard to pay their bills and get out from under their credit card debt 
are not stuck in a hole paying off low interest debt while the compound 
interest on their higher interest debt keeps piling up.
  Mr. Chair, this amendment and this bill provide important protections 
for America's families during this time of economic uncertainty. I urge 
my colleagues to adopt the Gutierrez/Peters Amendment and vote in favor 
of the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Pingree of Maine

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 111-92.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Ms. Pingree of Maine:
       After section 9, insert the following new section (and 
     redesignate the subsequent section accordingly):

     SEC. 10. INTERIM IMPLEMENTATION REPORTS TO THE CONGRESS.

       The Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal 
     Reserve System shall submit a report each 90 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act on the level of 
     implementation of the regulations required to be prescribed 
     under this Act to the Committee on Financial Services of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, 
     Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate until the Chairman 
     can report full industry implementation.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 379, the gentlewoman 
from Maine (Ms. Pingree) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Maine.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  First I need to thank Chairman Frank, Chairman Gutierrez, and my 
colleague, Representative Maloney, for their tireless leadership on 
this very important bill before us today. This bill takes real steps to 
curb the unfair, unreasonable, and deceptive practices that nearly 175 
million Americans with credit cards are subject to.
  Late fees, over-the-limit fees, arbitrary interests, increases in 
interest rates, the credit card companies have gotten away with far too 
much for far too long. It is time we level the playing field now for 
small businesses, families and individuals.
  In Maine, like so many places across the country, this is one of the 
most important issues on the minds of hardworking men and women. If 
they have not themselves been the victim of arbitrary rate increases, 
double-cycle billing, and deceptive fees buried in pages of 
indecipherable terms, then they know someone who has.
  While these deceptive and misleading practices have always been 
unfair, they have devastating financial consequences during this time 
of economic difficulty when more and more people are using their credit 
cards to buy gasoline, to pay for their health care bills, or put food 
on the table.
  In Maine, not only have we been customers, but we are also employees 
of a credit card company. And as employees, we have seen firsthand the 
pervasive and unethical methods that these companies employ. When 
MBNA--now Bank of America--came into our community, people who had 
traditionally

[[Page H5023]]

built homes or been fishermen found themselves using deceptive company 
practices to sell their neighbors credit they couldn't afford, and it 
took its toll.
  Last fall, Nightline profiled Cate Columbo and Jerry Young of Camden, 
Maine, who worked 10-hour shifts at MBNA pushing customers into taking 
huge cash advances that they couldn't afford. The company urged 
employees to take advantage of parents sending their kids to college, 
homeowners, even veterans. In the Nightline piece, Cate said, ``I would 
come home, and I would literally be crying in the sink doing dishes.'' 
The deceptive and misleading practices that Cate, Jerry and thousands 
of others were pressured to enforce ran squarely counter to the core 
values that Mainers and those across this country live by every day. 
That is why it is so important to pass this landmark bill today.
  I strongly support the bill before us, but I want to be sure that it 
is implemented as soon and as well as possible. It is very important 
that we, as Congress, should be diligent about making sure that the 
industry and the regulators hold up their end of the legislation. My 
amendment simply requires that the Chairman of the Board of Governors 
of the Federal Reserve System reports on the level of implementation 
every 90 days until he can report full industry adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, consumers have demanded that Congress act to stop the 
egregious practices of credit card companies, and it is our 
responsibility to provide the accountability and oversight that is 
necessary to ensure this happens. As we move to rebuild our economy in 
a way that is honest and fair, this commonsense legislation will allow 
cardholders to responsibly manage their finances.
  Today, this body has the opportunity to change course by fixing a 
broken credit card system. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment and 
the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. We do not claim any time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield back my time and I urge a ``yea'' vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Polis

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in House Report 111-92.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Polis:
       In subparagraph (A) of the new paragraph (8) added to 
     section 127(c) of the Truth in Lending Act by section 7 of 
     the bill, insert ``or the parent or legal guardian of such 
     consumer is designated as the primary account holder'' before 
     the period at the end.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 379, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Polis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to ensure 
that young Americans can continue to access credit and begin to 
establish a credit history and learn financial literacy.
  I would like to thank Congresswoman Maloney and her staff and 
Chairman Frank and his staff for bringing this important consumer 
protection bill to the floor and for consideration of my amendment.
  In my district of Colorado, financially responsible families who have 
paid their bills and been careful with credit have had the added insult 
of skyrocketing interest rates imposed by the very banks who caused the 
injury of this recession through their mismanagement.
  We need available credit and fair borrowing terms in order to restore 
our Nation's economic health. This bill is good for consumers and, by 
reducing defaults and increasing consumer confidence, it is also good 
for the financial services industry. Equitable terms will result in on-
time payments, making bank balance sheets healthier.
  Management of credit is a matter of personal responsibility; however, 
to be truly accountable, the rules must be clear. The Credit 
Cardholders' Bill of Rights gives Americans the tools to be responsible 
with credit, and I urge its swift passage.
  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, it is important to recognize the 
professionals in the lending industry who have been the champions of 
their customers. In Colorado, we have the Young Americans Center for 
Financial Education. This bank for young people is teaching the next 
generation how to use credit wisely and teaches about business 
development and investment. Many other banks and credit unions, 
realizing that the informed customer is the best customer, have offered 
financial literacy and counseling courses, and these efforts are to be 
applauded.

                              {time}  1230

  Across the country, brokerage firms and even employers have taken 
action to inform people about financial services. I want to commend 
these efforts and encourage the entire industry to follow the example 
of these leaders.
  While regulatory reform is important, the blame for our economic woes 
does not rest solely on the shoulders of the finance industry or 
government regulation. We must also aggressively address our culture of 
financial illiteracy. According to the consumer financial literacy 
survey report released this week, 41 percent of American adults would 
give themselves a C or below for financial literacy. More troubling is 
the lack of knowledge about credit among younger Americans. We all know 
that the credit mistakes of youth can carry serious long-term 
consequences. If we expect the next generation of Americans to use 
credit responsibly, we must ensure that they are exposed to the tools 
of financial literacy at an early age.
  It's for this reason that I have offered this amendment that will 
continue to allow minors to have a credit card in their name under the 
supervision of their parent or guardian. Not only is the practical 
firsthand experience of credit critical to financial literacy and 
establishing credit and personal responsibility, but for many families 
it's also an important safeguard in emergency situations. The Credit 
Cardholders' Bill of Rights is the beginning of what needs to be a 
thorough discussion of making financial literacy universal. This 
economic crisis has created a new awareness of the importance of 
financial literacy, and I urge this Congress to support reforms not 
only in regulation but in education to ensure that familiarity of 
financial instruments give Americans of all ages access to increased 
credit, homeownership, higher education, and are able to build wealth.
  Today as we recognize the importance of financial literacy here on 
Capitol Hill, let's put words to action for young people back in our 
districts by protecting their ability to be introduced to credit.
  I ask my colleagues to support my amendment to ensure age-appropriate 
access to credit continues to be the law of the land, and I further ask 
my fellow Members of Congress to pass this bill to give our 
constituents the needed relief and reforms of the Credit Cardholders' 
Bill of Rights.
  I once again thank Congresswoman Maloney and Chairman Frank.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, we have no opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Jones

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in House Report 111-92.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Jones:
       After section 9, insert the following new section (and 
     redesignate the subsequent sections accordingly):

     SEC. 9. PROCEDURE FOR TIMELY SETTLEMENTS OF DECEDENT 
                   OBLIGORS' ESTATES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 2 of the Truth in Lending Act ( 
     U.S.C. 1631 et seq.) is amended

[[Page H5024]]

     by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 140A Procedure for timely settlements of decedent 
       obligors' estates

       ``The Board, in consultation with the Federal Trade 
     Commission and each other agency referred to in section 
     108(a), shall prescribe regulations to require any creditor, 
     with respect to any credit card account under an open end 
     consumer credit plan, to establish procedures to ensure that 
     any administrator of an estate of any deceased obligor with 
     respect to such account can resolve outstanding credit 
     balances in a timely manner.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     2 of the Truth in Lending Act is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to section 140 the following new item:

``140A. Procedure for timely settlements of decedent obligors' 
              estates.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 379, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I first would like to thank Chairman Frank 
and Mrs. Maloney for permitting me to bring this amendment to the 
floor. This amendment today reflects a personal story that I would like 
to tell in just a very few minutes.
  A childhood friend of mine, Ben Monk, died of cancer in January. His 
brother, J.Y. Monk, is also a very close and dear friend of mine. As 
the estate executor, J.Y. Monk had a difficult time resolving the 
outstanding balance of Ben's account. He sent four separate letters to 
the credit card company, Capital One, requesting the account balance 
amount. He called Capital One on four different occasions. He 
repeatedly faxed and mailed Capital One his brother's death certificate 
and letters of testimony. He was never contacted in return and was 
unable to gain access to the account balance due. Meanwhile, Capital 
One was collecting very high interest payments on the account.
  This was unacceptable. It is already difficult enough for families to 
take up the practical matter that must be dealt with soon after a loved 
one dies. They should not have to chase after creditors and get the 
runaround from poor customer service.
  This amendment is very simple. It would require the Federal Reserve 
Board to establish regulations to allow estate administrators to 
resolve outstanding credit balances on credit card accounts in a timely 
manner. This amendment would allow a deceased person's estate to 
quickly settle their account and pay off the remaining debt.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, there is no current 
standard for credit card companies to follow to wind down estates in a 
timely manner when a deceased person's estate is trying to be settled. 
This amendment would help estate administrators to quickly and without 
hassle be able to bring a resolution to the estate.
  Again, I would like to thank the chairman and Mrs. Maloney. I would 
like to thank my side for permitting me to bring this to the floor of 
the House.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very nominal 
opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed only in that 
by bringing forth this amendment, the gentleman from North Carolina has 
revealed the imperfection of our product. We should have included this 
in the first place.
  But it is a very good idea, and I congratulate him for his diligence. 
And this is the process at its best, a specific issue which was called 
to the attention of a Member in a concrete way, and he responds not 
simply in terms of that specific situation but with a broader solution.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I now yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. First, let me thank the chairman for yielding 
and for his tremendous leadership in bringing this very important bill 
to the floor today.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that the critical protections contained in 
this legislation will strengthen the regulations issued by the Federal 
Reserve, and I strongly support its passage.
  However, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that during these incredibly 
difficult and challenging economic times, our constituents are 
increasingly being squeezed with egregious fees and dubious business 
practices by the very banks that their tax dollars have been bailing 
out. The newspapers are rife with stories about consumers being gouged, 
mind you, gouged by banks that have been suddenly jacking up their 
interest rates on their credit cards or imposing new monthly service 
charges or reducing credit limits with little or no explanation. In 
most cases these tactics are being used on consumers, although they 
carry a balance from month to month, they pay their bills on time, 
they're playing by the rules, and they make at least their minimum 
payment. We've heard countless, countless stories of bait-and-switch 
tactics by credit card issuers who suddenly raise interest rates 
because a consumer is a few days late in paying another creditor. This 
is just downright wrong. It's outrageous.
  Years ago I worked with now-Senator Sanders on legislation, and this 
was when I was on the Financial Services Committee, to address this 
practice of universal default. I am pleased that this language is 
included in this bill, but it's critical that the protections banning 
this practice are put into place immediately.
  Mr. Chairman, the Federal Reserve has already determined that the use 
of these unfair bait-and-switch profit-maximizing tactics must end. I 
believe that we can and we should end these practices at the earliest 
possible date, like now.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will reclaim my time to say the 
gentlewoman has been a staunch advocate of this. She was thinking about 
an amendment. I regret that we were in a situation where we weren't 
able to move the date up for a variety of reasons.
  I will say this: if the banks, the credit card issuers, use the time 
between now and the effective date in a way that is abusive of 
customers, if they use the time not simply to get ready for the change 
that they say they need, but if they use the interim period to raise 
rates on people retroactively and to do other things that are abusive, 
to me that will be a very strong argument for speeding up the date. 
Now, the Senate hasn't acted on this bill yet, and it doesn't become 
law until they do and we go to conference. If we see a pattern of the 
credit card companies using the time lag to engage in practices that 
this bill seeks to stop in an excessive way, then I will urge my Senate 
colleagues to speed up the date and we will acquiesce.
  Mr. Chairman, I now yield on this issue to one of the main advocates 
here, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I think he's 
yielding to me because I made this point in the committee markup that 
credit card companies were engaging in negative conduct in the interim 
before this bill gets implemented, and Mr. Frank made exactly the same 
commitment to me at that point, and we're certainly going to push them 
on that.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I will yield again to the 
gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LEE of California. I certainly thank you for your very strong 
statement.
  I just want to mention that originally, as I understand it, this bill 
did contain a 3-month window following the date of enactment. And I 
want to thank Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney from New York for her 
leadership on this bill, who really understands the need to do this as 
quickly as possible.
  The fact is, as the chairman noted, the banks know that the 
handwriting is on the wall. They're boosting up fees and rates on 
consumers now, and we have a lot of evidence of that. And the longer we 
wait to ban these practices, the more our constituents will suffer.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, if the 
handwriting on the wall becomes graffiti, in our view, then out comes 
the whitewash brush. So we'll be very clear. We were told they needed 
time to get things ready. If it appears that that time is being used to 
take advantage of consumers and to try to get in some

[[Page H5025]]

last licks before the rule goes into effect, then I and I believe the 
overwhelming majority of the committee and of the House will urge our 
colleagues in the Senate to speed up the date in their version and we 
will acquiesce with that.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by thanking them again 
for this opportunity to bring this to the floor of the House, and I 
hope that the House will pass this amendment and also pass this bill. 
It's much needed.
  Mr. WATT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JONES. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT. I neglected to address the gentleman's amendment, Mr. 
Chairman.
  I want to urge my strong support for the gentleman's amendment from a 
personal experience. I was the administrator of my brother's estate 
after he died more than 2 years ago. I'm still getting bills that I 
have paid off to credit card companies out of that estate. So it's a 
serious problem and I am glad he's addressing it.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mrs. Maloney

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in House Report 111-92.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mrs. Maloney:
       Strike out subsection (m) of section 127B of the Truth in 
     Lending Act (as added by section 4 of the bill) and insert 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(m) Opt-in Required for Over-the-Limit Transactions if 
     Fees Are Imposed.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of any credit card account 
     under an open end consumer credit plan under which an over-
     the-limit-fee may be imposed by the creditor for any 
     extension of credit in excess of the amount of credit 
     authorized to be extended under such account, no such fee 
     shall be charged unless the consumer has elected to permit 
     the creditor, with respect to such account, to complete 
     transactions involving the extension of credit, with respect 
     to such account, in excess of the amount of credit 
     authorized.
       ``(2) Disclosure by creditor.--No election by a consumer 
     under paragraph (1) shall take effect unless the consumer, 
     before making such election, received a notice from the 
     creditor of any over-the-limit fee in the form and manner, 
     and at the time, determined by the Board.
       ``(3) Form of election.--A consumer may make the election 
     referred to in paragraph (1) orally or in writing.
       ``(4) Time of election.--A consumer may make the election 
     referred to in paragraph (1) at any time and it shall be 
     effective until the election is revoked by the consumer 
     orally or in writing.
       ``(5) Regulations.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Board shall issue regulations 
     allowing for the completion of over-the-limit transactions 
     that for operational reasons exceed the credit limit by a de 
     minimis amount, even where the cardholder has not made an 
     election under paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Subject to no fee limitation.--The regulations 
     prescribed under subparagraph (A) shall not allow for the 
     imposition of any fee or any rate increase based on the 
     permitted over-the-limit transactions with respect to the 
     account of any cardholder who has not made the election in 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(C) Disclosures.--The Board shall prescribe regulations 
     governing any disclosure under this subsection.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 379, the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Last week when the President met with executives of the card 
companies, he said that credit cards had become unnecessarily 
complicated for consumers, often leading them to pay more than they 
reasonably expect. After his meeting, his administration reached out to 
Congress to offer their support of the credit cardholders' bill of 
rights but also to offer additional amendments and provisions. The one 
that we are considering now is one put forth by the administration, and 
this would require cardholders to opt into any over-the-limit coverage 
on their credit card.
  Our constituents are faced with a multitude of fees and penalties 
that can be assessed to their credit card accounts. In many cases they 
do not even know the fees exist because disclosure agreements can be 
confusing and hard to understand. A recent editorial in the New York 
Times called ``Over the Limit'' detailed one of the so-called ``worst 
tricks'' used by credit card companies, ``allowing a consumer to 
overcharge on his or her account but when the bill arrives, the 
consumer has been assessed an over-the-limit fee.''
  I would like to place this editorial in the Record.

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

                             Over the Limit

       President Obama told banking executives this week to clean 
     up their credit card business. He made clear that he 
     understands the billowing anger and the huge strains placed 
     on millions of American cardholders who face sudden interest 
     rate spikes, hidden fees and tricky contracts that no one 
     without a law degree and a magnifying glass can hope to 
     master.
       His promises will amount to little unless he follows 
     through quickly to strengthen bills in Congress designed to 
     protect credit card customers.
       The president said after meeting credit card executives on 
     Thursday that he and his economic team recognize the need for 
     credit cards, especially in a tough economy. Small businesses 
     often depend on the cards to order goods or meet the payroll. 
     And consumers have learned to enjoy instant credit at the 
     checkout counter. But as a longtime user of credit cards 
     himself, Mr. Obama told banking executives that it is time to 
     reform this area of their business.
       He demanded stronger protections against unfair rate 
     increases and abusive fees along with more oversight and 
     enforcement. He called for clarity. He wants contracts 
     written in plain language, minus fine print or ``anytime, any 
     reason rate hikes.'' He wants people to be able to comparison 
     shop online, with one option being ``a plain-vanilla, easy-
     to-understand, simplest-terms-possible'' card for the average 
     user.
       Credit card operators have long resisted such reforms, and 
     earlier experiments with self-policing resulted in very 
     spotty improvements. After complaints from cardholders who 
     felt tricked by their banks, the Federal Reserve last year 
     proposed several useful changes that will not, unfortunately, 
     take effect until July 2010.
       There's a better way to help consumers. A credit card bill 
     of rights proposed by Democratic Representatives Barney Frank 
     of Massachusetts and Carolyn Maloney of New York would codify 
     many of the Fed's rules into law. It would ban interest rate 
     increases on existing balances unless payment is more than 30 
     days late, and it would forbid ``double-cycle billing,'' 
     which means charging interest on debts paid off the previous 
     month.
       It would also require 45 days' notice for a rate increase 
     in most cases. An even stronger bill by Senator Christopher 
     Dodd of Connecticut would make it harder for people under the 
     age of 21 to get cards, far too many of whom now think 
     plastic is simply another form of cash. It would also require 
     creditors to apply a cardholder's payment to the balance with 
     the highest interest rate. So far, these reforms face fierce 
     Republican opposition, especially in the Senate.
       If the president is really serious about credit card 
     relief, he could pressure Congress to end some of the 
     industry's worst tricks right now. Remember when credit card 
     limits caused great embarrassment at the restaurant? These 
     days, many cards allow the overcharge, sparing the 
     embarrassment but socking the customer with a large fee at 
     billing time. One solution would be to offer consumers the 
     choice if a real ceiling that renders cards unusable above 
     that limit.
       Mr. Obama has spent a lot of time and energy trying to save 
     the banks. He and Congress must also do more to spare their 
     customers.

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

                              {time}  1245

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

[[Page H5026]]

  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, here we go again taking choices away 
from the people that use credit cards, a very valuable tool for their 
personal finances. Just imagine, you are at a banquet or someplace and 
you give the maitre d' your credit card. Now you go over there and they 
put the credit card in, and it comes back rejected.
  And you face the embarrassment of that, and you have called the 
credit company and you find out, well, you didn't opt into a service 
that we provide, and so we don't provide you the opportunity to go over 
your line of credit. You said, Well, how much was I over my line of 
credit? Well, I was over by $4.
  What we find today, according to the American Bankers Association, 99 
percent of the people opt in or avoid opting out because they like that 
valuable service that they have.
  So, again, what we would have here is a situation where people may 
not even know that this service is available to them. Maybe they are 
making their utility bill payment and they find out that their card was 
rejected because they didn't have this service. It's 2 or 3 weeks 
before they get a notice from their utility company and find out that 
their utilities are about to be shut off.
  Now, this is a system that is really not broken. In fact, the Federal 
Reserve, in their study, when they looked at these regulations, looked 
at that issue, decided to leave it alone, found out it was working 
extremely well.
  Again, we are micromanaging this process. And the big losers aren't 
going to be the credit card companies, who, I think, as a lot of people 
are trying to attack with this bill, the big losers are going to be the 
consumers that rely on that very valuable service.
  So I am in strong opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment and urge 
my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MALONEY. I yield the balance of my time to my good friend and 
colleague and coauthor of this amendment, along with the 
administration, Diane Watson.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in enthusiastic support for 
the Maloney-Watson amendment to H.R. 627.
  I would like to thank her deeply for her leadership on the bill and 
for allowing me to join with her in her amendment.
  This amendment will increase the level of fairness in the 
relationship between constituents and their credit card companies by 
limiting the ability of credit card companies to authorize transactions 
in excess of a consumer's credit limit.
  Without this amendment, consumers have to go out of their way to opt 
into an election program to stop their credit card company from 
authorizing over-the-limit transactions, which incur additional fees 
and indebtedness. This amendment will strengthen the bill by only 
allowing credit card companies to authorize over-the-limit transactions 
for consumers who specifically request the ability to do so.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment to ensure 
American consumers are spared from additional unwanted fees and debts.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. May I inquire how much time I have remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 3 minutes.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I listened to the gentlelady from New York, who sponsored the bill, 
talk about this is a trick that credit card companies use.
  Well, we don't want credit card companies to use tricks. But, you 
know what, Mr. Chairman? They can't use tricks if we will strengthen 
the competitive market and ensure consumer choice. They can't use 
tricks if we have an elective disclosure and we police it.
  Again, I congratulate the gentlelady for that title in her bill, 
which, I believe, roughly parallels the rules that the Federal Reserve 
has promulgated after their 3-year study. Indeed, we need better 
disclosure.
  It's better disclosure we need. We need greater consumer choice. We 
need strength in markets.
  Also, tricks can't be used if consumers, who have effective 
disclosure, will take some, some responsibility to know the terms that 
they are agreeing to. By definition, if they agreed to accept a credit 
card, they are opting into terms.
  Now, that's not effective today because we don't have effective 
disclosure. But ostensibly we have a title in this legislation, which I 
assume will soon be passed. If not, we have the regulations of the 
Federal Reserve that will ensure that we have effective disclosure, 
that we empower consumers.
  But let's not take their choices away from them, especially when all 
the evidence we have seen, anecdotal, statistical, tells us that 
consumers overwhelmingly want this option. They want it.
  So if we are already admitting today in some respects that the 
disclosure isn't there, you know, I don't want to have to tell them 
that, I am sorry, they wouldn't accept your credit card, but, you know, 
Congress passed a law that said you had to go read the fine print 
before you could go get this particular service. Again, I think that we 
are taking away consumer choice by doing this.
  As the gentleman from Texas said, we are trying to micromanage the 
terms that ought to be managed within the framework of a competitive 
marketplace, with consumer choice, with informed consumers, with 
effective disclosure.
  But quit protecting consumers from their choices. Quit protecting 
them from competition. You are making their lot worse, not better, when 
you do this.
  So I would urge rejection of this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in House Report 111-92.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Hensarling:
       In subsection (b) of section 127B of the Truth in Lending 
     Act (as added by section 2(b) of the bill), insert after 
     subparagraph (D) the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) Transparent advanced notice of rate increase.--
     Notification of the increase is provided to the consumer in 
     writing, in clear and conspicuous language, at least 90 days 
     before the increase is scheduled to take effect, provided 
     that the applicability of this exception is fully described 
     to the consumer in their contract and at least once annually 
     thereafter, in a clear and conspicuous manner.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 379, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a fairly simple amendment that is aimed, again, 
at a form of embedded price controls within this legislation.
  The underlying legislation would permit interest rates to rise on 
existing balances under four narrow options. This amendment would say, 
again, within the framework that we hope to achieve of protecting the 
competitive marketplace, of assuring that we have effective disclosure, 
this amendment would say that interest rates can vary as long as, 
number one, the issuer has specifically reserved the right to raise 
rates in its contract and has communicated that to the consumer.
  Number two, the issuer communicates this fact to the consumer at

[[Page H5027]]

least once a year, and the issuer provides the consumer clear 
notification 90 days in advance.
  Again, this is a facet of risk-based pricing. Now, many of us believe 
that this has been a good thing. It has empowered consumers who 
previously didn't have access to credit to have access to credit.
  As their circumstances change, if you do not allow risk-based 
pricing, you are going to take credit opportunities away from them in 
the middle of a credit crunch when they need it most.
  Now, this gives a reasonable time period of 90 days to say, you know 
what? If you don't want to have this card, you have got 90 days under 
the old interest rate to pay off this balance and either get rid of the 
card, find a new card, shop for a new card, do something.
  But, ultimately, if we don't pass this amendment one of three things 
is going to happen. Again, we are going to have a bailout, yet another 
bailout from Congress. And that is the 50 percent of Americans who are 
paying their bill on time, making at least the minimum payment at the 
end of each month, they are going to be punished. They are going to 
have to subsidize the rates for all.
  Again, it's a facet of eroding risk-based pricing that takes us back 
to an era where interest rates were 25 percent higher, everybody had to 
pay the same rate. The good credit risk had to subsidize the bad credit 
risk and everybody had this dreaded annual fee of 20 to $50.
  We don't want to go back to that era. Assuming a competitive 
marketplace, and, unfortunately, this legislation, I believe, in some 
respects will result in a less competitive marketplace, I fear that 
some of the smaller issuers will be driven out of the market.
  But if we can have a competitive marketplace, and if we can assure 
effective disclosure, then let's have the full benefits of risk-based 
pricing. I think some people just don't want it. They want to force 
those who pay their bill on time to somehow subsidize those who don't.
  I fear, Mr. Chairman, that there is a lot at stake here. I mean, I 
hear from my constituents about how important the credit cards are to 
their lives, their small businesses.
  I hear from a group, the family, Baker family of Rowlett, who said, 
``Congressman, credit cards have been my main source of financing for 
my small businesses for the past 13 years. Without access to this type 
of instant credit, I would not be able to timely meet payroll.''
  I mean, we have to help the small businesses.
  I heard from the Weldon family of Garland. ``I use my credit card 
just about everywhere. When I receive my monthly credit card bill, I 
pay the full balance. I feel this legislation concerning credit cards 
would be unfair to me and others who prefer to pay off their credit 
cards each month. Why should we be punished for having good credit?''
  Indeed, Mr. Chairman, it is a good question. Allow risk-based 
pricing. Don't take credit away.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The amendment seeks to gut all of the consumer protections of the 
bill as long as the credit card company gives the cardholder 90 days' 
notice that they are going to do it. This is the exact same amendment 
that was defeated in the committee with unanimous opposition from the 
Democrats on the committee, and even a few Republicans voting in 
opposition.
  Allowing issuers to raise interest rates retroactively for a new 
reason is just creating a loophole for issuers.
  The bill allows issuers to impose retroactive interest rates if the 
cardholder fails to pay or pays 30 days late, which is the time 
commercial contracts deem late.
  So if an issuer is harmed, they have a remedy. In the absence of 
harm, it's hard to see why we would give the issuer the unilateral 
right with 90 days' notice to raise the rate retroactively and change 
the deal with the cardholder.
  A deal should be a deal. They shouldn't have these opportunities to 
change them.
  As the Federal Reserve found, and this is important, this is a 
Federal regulator, the Federal Reserve found most retroactive rate 
increases are, and I quote, from the Federal Reserve, ``unfair and 
deceptive.''
  In our current mortgage reform discussions, we are trying to mitigate 
losses by making sure borrowers can repay their loans. Retroactive rate 
increases do the opposite. They slam borrowers with increased debt and 
make it less likely that they will be able to repay and pay down the 
balance.
  I believe the best defense against the concerns raised by my 
colleague is the use of sound underwriting standards by the issuers.
  Additionally, nothing in the bill prohibits an issuer from lowering 
the credit line or canceling the card if they are worried that the 
cardholder will not repay.

                              {time}  1300

  The bill also allows for fees if a customer does not pay on time, for 
30 days, or has their check returned. Sound underwriting and these risk 
mitigation tools will be far more effective in fighting the concerns 
the gentleman is talking about.
  I would say this amendment basically guts the protections that are in 
the bill that have been endorsed by 54 editorial boards and endorsed by 
numerous regulators, including the Federal Reserve, and this simply 
creates a new loophole. I am deeply opposed to it, as was the committee 
in the committee vote with Republicans' votes.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I tried to listen very closely to the 
gentlelady from New York, and what I think I heard was she would rather 
credit card companies cancel credit cards than allow my constituents to 
voluntarily agree to increases in their interest rate. That is not what 
the people of the Fifth District want to achieve. When she says, well, 
the credit card people are changing the deal, if it is in the 
agreement, that is the deal. That is the deal that allows many people 
to get credit in the first place and allows other people to have lower-
priced credit.
  Again, I believe this legislation is changing the deal on the 
American people, taking away their credit card options and 
opportunities.
  I heard from the Juarez family in Mesquite. ``I oppose this 
legislation, as I have utilized my credit cards to pay for costly oral 
surgeries. I do not want to get penalized by this legislation for 
making my payments on time.''
  Taking away risk-based pricing, which is disclosed, disclosed in the 
agreement, is punishing, punishing people like the Juarez family in 
Mesquite. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mrs. MALONEY. The Federal Reserve's report on the rule they proposed, 
which was very similar to the bill, in it they said that disclosure in 
their studies was not enough; that the practices were so deceptive it 
was hard for many consumers to understand them and the contract is so 
complicated and the fine print so small that most people don't even 
read it. So to build in another loophole undermines the whole purpose 
of the bill.
  This amendment was killed in the committee, and I urge my colleagues 
to kill it again. It should be Black Flag dead, because it guts the 
bill and the protections that we are trying to put in place to protect 
America's consumers.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  The amendment was rejected.


               Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in House Report 111-92.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page H5028]]

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Hensarling:
       In subsection (b) of section 127B of the Truth in Lending 
     Act (as added by section 2(b) of the bill), insert the 
     following new paragraph after paragraph (1) (and redesignate 
     the subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
       ``(2) Nonapplicability to certain creditors who make 
     available alternative card options.--The limitations on 
     retroactive rate increases and universal default shall not 
     apply to any creditor that offers a credit card account to 
     consumers under an open end consumer credit plan to the 
     extent such creditor--
       ``(A) makes at least 1 credit card option available to 100 
     percent of the creditor's existing consumers that does not 
     feature retroactive rate increases or universal default 
     billing practice; and
       ``(B) provides clear and conspicuous notice of the 
     availability of a credit card option referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) to the consumer customers of such creditor 
     at least once annually.''.
       In subsection (e) of section 127B of the Truth in Lending 
     Act (as added by section 3(a) of the bill), insert after 
     paragraph (3) the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Nonapplicability to certain creditors who make 
     available alternative card options.--The limitation on double 
     cycle billing shall not apply to any creditor that offers a 
     credit card account to consumers under an open end consumer 
     credit plan to the extent such creditor--
       ``(A) makes at least 1 credit card option available to 100 
     percent of the creditor's existing consumers that does not 
     feature double cycle billing; and
       ``(B) provides clear and conspicuous notice of the 
     availability of a credit card option referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) to the consumer customers of such creditor 
     at least once annually.''.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 379, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the underlying legislation here again seeks to erode 
the ability of consumers to access credit, especially those who may 
have checkered pasts, especially those who may be of low income. It 
does it by trying to restrict risk-based pricing.
  Again, there was an era in our country's history where a third fewer 
people had access to consumer credit through credit cards. Everybody 
had to pay the same universal high rate, 25 percent more than what we 
are seeing today. We had the dreaded annual fees. There was no such 
thing as airline miles, cash back, any of this.
  The ability for creditors to price for what they view the risk of the 
consumer has opened a market for people to have credit cards who 
previously couldn't have them, people who might have had to turn to 
pawn shops or payday lenders, who, again, serve very valuable functions 
in our society, but people ought to have options.
  The underlying bill functionally outlaws a practice called universal 
default and a practice called double-cycle billing. Universal default 
doesn't offend me. Double-cycle billing offends me. But I don't feel a 
need to outlaw every practice in America that offends me personally, 
because it may not offend somebody else.
  Mr. Chairman, if there is an option out there in the marketplace with 
14,000 different issuers, and through every hearing, every markup, 
there was not one shred of evidence that we didn't have a competitive 
market and that consumers had choices. Now, they may not understand 
their choices, and that is the disclosure issue, but they have choices.
  So I don't like double-cycle billing. I don't think it is 
particularly fair and I wouldn't choose a credit card with it. But, Mr. 
Chairman, you know, out there in the marketplace, people ought to have 
options. Somebody ought to be able to say I prefer to have a credit 
card with a 10 percent interest rate that has universal default and 
double-cycle billing in it as opposed to paying a 13 percent interest 
rate that doesn't have universal default, doesn't have double-cycle 
billing.
  Why are we taking consumer choices away from them and why do we 
continue to contract credit when it is already being contracted in this 
economic recession? I just don't understand that, Mr. Chairman. I do 
not think it is good practice. Now, universal default, some cards use 
it, some cards don't. It is a risk management tool for some.
  I am not in the credit card business. I don't know what works. I just 
want consumers to have choices. I want there to be a competitive 
marketplace. I want there to be effective, fair disclosure, and I want 
our Federal Government to police it. And there needs to be 
repercussions for credit card companies that defraud, that mislead, 
that use deceptive practices. But for us to come in and say 
subjectively, well, we don't like that practice, we think it is unfair, 
we think it is offensive. Well, maybe it is unfair and offensive to 
you, but if it allows somebody a lower interest rate, shouldn't in the 
land of the free they have that option? They should have that option.
  So my amendment is a simple one. It simply says if a credit card 
company has a credit card and they want to offer this credit card that 
features either universal default or double-cycle billing, as long as 
they offer a card that doesn't have these features, which many consider 
to be unfair, unjust, then they can offer it. As long as all of their 
customers are offered a card without the feature, then a consumer, if 
they want to, can opt in to the card with these features if they think 
the trade-offs benefit them and their family. That is all it says. This 
is a consumer choice amendment, pure and simple. I urge its adoption.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. 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.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 45 seconds.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, again what I see is we are trying to 
protect consumers from their choices. We are trying to protect 
consumers from their freedom. The consumer has the option. But I do 
thank my friend, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, for 
adding some clarity to the debate when he says the people with the good 
credit ratings will get the better interest rate. That pretty well 
makes my bailout argument.
  That is what is happening. Half of America pays their bill on time at 
the end of each month. Another 20 to 25 percent at least make the 
minimum payment. Why should they be punished? Why should they be 
punished with higher interest rates? Why do they have to be 
homogenized?
  We are getting away from risk-based pricing, and what will happen if 
we don't pass this amendment is, number one, we will achieve the 
bailout, and many people who would have received credit will no longer 
receive credit. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This is an amendment that Congressman Hensarling offered both at the 
subcommittee and the full committee markups, and it was defeated both 
times by unanimous Democratic opposition, with even a few Republican 
votes in opposition to it.

[[Page H5029]]

  Essentially what this amendment attempts is to create significant 
exceptions to the consumer protections offered by the underlying 
legislation and the final rule that was adopted by the Federal Reserve, 
the Office of Thrift Supervision and the National Credit Union 
Administrator. These three regulators have called the practices that my 
colleague would attempt to exempt unfair, deceptive and 
anticompetitive. Why would anyone in this body want to continue unfair, 
deceptive and anticompetitive practices? Even competition of the free 
market, they are saying it is anticompetitive.
  I would like to point out during some of the many hearings and 
meetings and seven hearings that we held on the topic in the last 
several years, we frequently heard from academics, from regulators, 
that disclosure is not enough. It is too confusing. It is deceptive. 
Most consumers do not read the contract, they do not understand the 
contract, and it is worded in a way that is deceptive.
  The President called for a plain vanilla card that people could 
understand. What this card would be that he is proposing is toxic. It 
would continue the bad practices and defeat the whole purpose of the 
bill. This amendment would create a subclass of credit cardholders who 
would have little to no rights.
  The bill provides baseline consumer protections that everyone should 
enjoy. The last thing we should be doing is creating exceptions or 
subsets that would allow these abusive practices to continue.
  It is abusive. It is wrong. This amendment should be killed Black 
Flag dead.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. 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.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  The amendment was rejected.

                              {time}  1315


                Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Minnick

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 
printed in House Report 111-92.
  Mr. MINNICK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Minnick:
       In paragraph (2) of section 127B(a) of the Truth in Lending 
     Act (as added by section 2(a) of the bill, strike ``14th'' 
     and insert ``7th''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 379, the gentleman 
from Idaho (Mr. Minnick) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Idaho.
  Mr. MINNICK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chair, H.R. 627 requires a creditor to provide a consumer at 
least 45 days' notice before increasing the consumer's credit card 
rate. However, in this bill the higher interest rate taking effect on 
day 45 applies only to the extent that the consumer's balance is more 
than it was at the end of 14 days after receiving the notice.
  However, determining the protected balance as of day 14 may still 
provide enough time for consumers to incur higher overall debt than may 
be appropriate for them by inflating the balance that will be protected 
from the rate increase and, in the process, allow consumers to game the 
system at the expense of creditors.
  This amendment would provide that the amount of the balance protected 
from the higher interest rate be set at the 7-day mark, instead of at 
14 days. This change would still give consumers the full 45 days to 
shop for an alternative source of credit for a better deal, but it 
would reduce their ability to inappropriately inflate their balances to 
avoid the application of the higher rate in the event that they do not 
transfer their balances to another card by that time.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, we have no one to claim time in 
opposition.
  Mr. MINNICK. Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues support this 
amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Minnick).
  The amendment was agreed to.


        Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Price of North Carolina

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 
printed in House Report 111-92.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Price of North Carolina:
       After section 8, insert the following new section (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):

     SEC. 9. ENHANCED MINIMUM PAYMENT DISCLOSURES.

       Paragraph (11) of section 127(b) of the Truth in Lending 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 1637(b)(11)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(11) Minimum payment disclosures.--
       ``(A) Minimum payment warning.--A written statement in the 
     following form: `Minimum Payment Warning: Making only the 
     minimum payment will increase the interest you pay and the 
     time it takes to repay your balance.'.
       ``(B) Information on outstanding balance.--Not less than 
     once per calendar quarter, such billing statement shall also 
     include repayment information that would apply to the 
     outstanding balance of the consumer under the credit plan, 
     including--
       ``(i) the number of months (rounded to the nearest month) 
     that it would take to pay the entire amount of that balance, 
     if the consumer pays only the required minimum monthly 
     payments and if no further advances are made;
       ``(ii) the total cost to the consumer, including interest 
     payments, of paying that balance in full, if the consumer 
     pays only the required minimum monthly payments and if no 
     further advances are made;
       ``(iii) the monthly payment amount that would be required 
     for the consumer to eliminate the outstanding balance in 12 
     months, 24 months, and 36 months, if no further advances are 
     made, and the total cost to the consumer, including interest 
     and principal payments, of paying that balance in full if the 
     consumer pays the balance over 12, 24, or 36 months, 
     respectively; and
       ``(iv) a toll-free telephone number at which the consumer 
     may receive information about accessing credit counseling and 
     debt management services.
       ``(C) Exception to requirements of subsection (b).--The 
     quarterly disclosure requirements in subsection (B) shall not 
     apply with respect to--
       ``(i) a calendar quarter if, in the 2 consecutive billing 
     cycles preceding the end of such quarter, a consumer has paid 
     the entire balance of the bill in full;
       ``(ii) a calendar quarter if, at the end of the calendar 
     quarter, a consumer has an outstanding credit balance of zero 
     or has a positive credit; or
       ``(iii) any class of consumers for which the Board has 
     determined will not benefit substantially from additional 
     disclosures.

[[Page H5030]]

       ``(D) Applicable rates to be used in disclosures.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), in making the 
     disclosures under subparagraph (B), the creditor shall apply 
     the interest rate or rates in effect on the date on which the 
     disclosure is made until the date on which the balance would 
     be paid in full.
       ``(ii) Special rule in case of temporary rate.--If the 
     interest rate in effect on the date on which the disclosure 
     is made is a temporary rate that will change under a 
     contractual provision applying an index or formula for 
     subsequent interest rate adjustment, the creditor shall apply 
     the interest rate in effect on the date on which the 
     disclosure is made for as long as that interest rate will 
     apply under that contractual provision, and then apply an 
     interest rate based on the index or formula in effect on the 
     applicable billing date.
       ``(E) Form and prominence of disclosure.--All of the 
     information described in subparagraph (B) shall--
       ``(i) be disclosed in the form and manner which the Board 
     shall prescribe, by regulation, and in a manner that avoids 
     duplication; and
       ``(ii) be placed in a conspicuous and prominent location on 
     the billing statement in conspicuous typeface.
       ``(F) Tabular format.--In the regulations prescribed under 
     subparagraph (D), the Board shall require that the disclosure 
     of such information shall be in the form of a table that--
       ``(i) contains clear and concise headings for each item of 
     such information; and
       ``(ii) provides a clear and concise form stating each item 
     of information required to be disclosed under each such 
     heading.
       ``(G) Location and order of table.--In prescribing the form 
     of the table under subparagraph (E), the Board shall require 
     that--
       ``(i) all of the information in the table, and not just a 
     reference to the table, be placed on the billing statement, 
     as required by this paragraph; and
       ``(ii) the items required to be included in the table shall 
     be listed in the order in which such items are described in 
     subparagraph (B).
       ``(H) Substitution of terminology.--In prescribing the form 
     of the table under subparagraph (D), the Board may employ 
     terminology which is different than the terminology used in 
     subparagraph (B), if such terminology is more easily 
     understood and conveys substantially the same meaning.
       ``(I) `Rounding' regulations.--For purposes of determining 
     whether an error in the disclosures required by subparagraph 
     (B) constitutes a legal cause of action against a creditor or 
     any other party, the standard referred to under the heading 
     `Rounding assumed payments, current balance and interest 
     charges to the nearest cent' in the publication by the Board 
     in the Federal Register (74 F.R. 5385) on January 29, 2009, 
     of the final regulation revising part 226 of title 12 of the 
     Code of Federal Regulations (Regulation Z), or a standard 
     that affords substantially similar protections as determined 
     by the Board, shall apply for purposes of the determination 
     with regard to such disclosures.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 379, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Price) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Minimum payment practices, which often are deceptive at best and 
abusive at worst, clearly contribute to the problem of unmanageable 
debt. And they need to be reined in. That's exactly what the Price-
Miller of North Carolina-Moran of Virginia-Quigley-Stupak-Sutton-Lowey 
amendment will do. Our amendment would ensure that consumers receive a 
warning of the risks of making only the minimum monthly payment and 
information on the total cost of paying only monthly minimum payments 
on their balance.
  It would also require issuers to provide quarterly assessments of the 
monthly payments that must be made to pay off the current balance of 
the consumer in 1, 2 or 3 years. And it would establish consumer credit 
counseling and debt management services through a toll-free telephone 
number.
  Let me assure colleagues, we've sought to ensure that these 
requirements are not too onerous for credit card companies. For 
example, disclosure requirements target only consumers who regularly 
have not paid their balances in full. Our amendment will help consumers 
regain control of cascading credit card debt.
  So I urge colleagues to support this amendment to provide American 
families with the tools they need to help them manage their money 
effectively.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, we have no one to claim time in 
opposition.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my 
colleague from North Carolina, who has served with distinction on the 
Banking Committee, Brad Miller.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, about 35 million 
Americans just pay their monthly payment, the minimum monthly payment 
on their credit card every year. And some of the opponents of this bill 
may have very little sympathy for families that are deep in debt. But 
as our economy has produced billionaires who have done nothing of any 
conspicuous value to society, there are millions of American families 
that are working very hard and struggling to get by, and it is very 
tempting when they're doing triage with their bills and they know they 
can't pay everything, for their eye to skip down to the minimum monthly 
payment and just pay that. This bill makes sure they know what the 
consequences of that are. This amendment makes sure. It informs them of 
what kind of debt they're going to be in, how much it's going to cost 
them in interest, how long they're going to be in debt, how deep the 
hole will be, and what it is going to take to get out.
  I applaud Mr. Price for his efforts. And I urge all Members to vote 
for this amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank my colleague. I would like at 
this point to yield 1 minute to a new colleague, Representative 
Quigley, who is already distinguishing himself as a protector of the 
consumer.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. I rise in strong support of this amendment because today 
the average American can apply for a credit card anywhere, at a grocery 
store, at an airport, a ballpark, even college campuses. It all seems 
so easy.
  Unfortunately, the terms of the agreements aren't so easy. In some 
cases, terms have become so complicated that the average consumer 
cannot always know what they've gotten themselves into.
  Now more than ever, Americans are turning to their credit cards to 
get them through the end of the month, and in turn, the U.S. credit 
card debt has reached an all-time high.
  Meanwhile, almost half of Americans carry a balance and have no idea 
how long it'll take to pay that down. The Credit Cardholders' Bill of 
Rights will protect consumers from predatory practices, and this 
specific amendment will give them the ability to pay down their debts.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment and the 
underlying bill.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the amendment, of 
which I am a cosponsor.
  The amendment would require additional disclosure information on 
credit card statements. While most cardholders know it takes a great 
deal of time to pay off a balance by making only the minimum payment, 
most do not understand the total additional costs they will pay. This 
amendment would change that.
  Based on industry norms of an 18 percent APR and 4 percent minimum 
payment requirement, a cardholder will spend 87 months and $1,515 
paying off a balance of $1,000 if making only the minimum payments. The 
finance charges are more than 50 percent of the actual balance.
  Our amendment would require that each statement have a warning on 
minimum payments and that every quarter, cardholders receive a 
statement that lists the number of months it would take to pay the 
entire balance if only the minimum payments are made, along with the 
total cost of doing so. Those statements would also have to list the 
necessary payment to pay off the balance in 12, 24, and 36 months, as 
well as a toll-free number to receive information about accessing 
credit counseling and debt management services.
  Credit cardholders have a right to know the real cost of making only 
minimum payments. For that reason, I urge your support for the 
amendment.
  I would also like to voice my strong support for the underlying bill. 
In recent months, Congress has been dominated by rescue and economic 
recovery legislation. But there are few better ways to instantly help 
hard-working Americans than to end costly, abusive credit card 
practices.
  For too long, banks have saddled cardholders with deceptive marketing 
and fine print. The New York Consumer Protection Board reports that 
credit card complaints comprise more than a quarter of those it 
receives, and cards with debt have an average balance of $5,700.
  Because of unfair practices, one hidden fee snowballs into ballooning 
interest rates and thousand dollar balances that many families 
struggling to get by with today's economic challenges cannot afford.

[[Page H5031]]

  I regret that the Rules Committee did not make in order an amendment 
I submitted that would have applied the protections in the bill to 
credit cards issued to small businesses. However, this is an excellent 
bill that I am proud to cosponsor, and I urge your support.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of 
Representative Price's amendment to H.R. 627. This is an issue on which 
I have worked for a number of years, so I am honored to be able to join 
my friend and colleague, and to urge adoption of this critical consumer 
protection amendment. This provision is a valuable disclosure amendment 
which would call for card issuers to provide three very important 
pieces of information to cardholders at least once per calendar quarter 
on their billing statements.
  First, the statement would report how long it would take the 
cardholder to pay off the entire balance if only the minimum monthly 
payment is paid.
  Second, the statement would report the total cost to the consumer of 
only making the required minimum payments, with a breakdown of the 
resulting principal and interest shares of the total cost.
  Third, the statement would report the estimated monthly payments 
required for the consumer to pay off the entire balance in a period of 
12, 24 and 36 months.
  This is important for the more than 100 million households with 
revolving loan credit of nearly $1 trillion according to the Federal 
Reserve, who have average credit card debt of $7,430--particularly 
middle- and low-income families, who are carrying record amounts of 
debt--both in absolute value and as a share of their total income--and 
who often don't realize they are digging themselves further into debt 
as they make their minimum monthly payments. With the average credit 
card debt per card-holding household carrying a balance of $17,103, 
some 49.7 million do not pay their balance in full every month. We need 
to make sure there is simple and clear information for these families.
  In 2007 alone, there were 5.2 billion credit card solicitations 
mailed, a average of 36 per household. Just plain truth in disclosure 
warrants this important change to ensure that any family fully 
understands what is at stake.
  I stand in support of both H.R. 627 and this amendment to it, which 
will require the disclosure of information to consumers that will help 
them to make more informed choices and to better plan their finances 
and thus their futures.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Gutierrez

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 
printed in House Report 111-92.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Davis) I offer the amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Gutierrez:
       Insert after section 127B(c) of the Truth in Lending Act 
     (as added by section 2(c) of the bill) the following new 
     subsection (and redesignate succeeding subsections 
     accordingly):
       ``(d) Advance Notice of Account Closure.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of any credit card account 
     under an open end consumer credit plan, a creditor may not 
     close such account unless the creditor provides a written 
     notice to the consumer at least 30 days before the closure 
     takes place, and which notifies the consumer--
       ``(A) of the reason the account is being closed;
       ``(B) of any recourse that the consumer may take to prevent 
     the account from being closed;
       ``(C) of any program under which the consumer may repay the 
     balance on the account over a period of time; and
       ``(D) that if the consumer's account is closed, it may have 
     an impact on the consumer's credit score.
       ``(2) Exception.--The requirements of paragraph (1) shall 
     not apply in the case of a consumer request that the creditor 
     close such account.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 379, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. 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.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I'm somewhat uncertain, frankly, 
whether I am actually opposed to the underlying amendment. I think the 
intention is good. I just hope there's not an unintended consequence 
here. And so, if my friend from Illinois, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, would yield for a question, my concern would be this: We 
all know from our constituents how much identity theft is taking place 
in our society. I, myself, at one time have been victimized by identity 
theft; and many of our constituents have.
  So if there is fraudulent activity, if identity theft is suspected, 
it at least would appear to me, in a reading of the amendment, that the 
credit card issuer would have to keep the account open for at least 30 
days, and so I was concerned about its impact in trying to combat 
identity theft. That was my reading of the amendment.
  And I'd be happy to yield to the gentleman from Illinois just to see 
if he could help explain how this would work.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. 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.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Reclaiming my time, I certainly respect the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez). We do have an excellent working 
relationship. I don't know that this is a problem. I fear it may be a 
problem. Given his commitment that we can work on this at our 
conference, Mr. Chairman, I no longer oppose the amendment.
  And I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. I yield to one of the sponsors of the bill, Mr. Carney 
from Pennsylvania, 2 minutes.
  Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Chairman, I'm very glad to be able to offer this 
amendment with the gentlelady from California. It really is a 
commonsense amendment, and I do want to address the gentleman from 
Texas's concern that in the Truth in Lending Act it does protect banks 
from being victim to fraudulent accounts being opened. It doesn't cover 
that, but we will certainly work with the gentleman from Texas on 
language that would make him feel better about what we're talking about 
now.
  Now, I've heard from a number of my constituents regarding credit 
card companies closing accounts in good standing for no reason other 
than inactivity. I'm sure many of us have constituents in the same 
position.
  Despite the fact that you can use your credit card on just about 
anything anywhere, many people do that, but many people prefer to use 
cash. The part of Pennsylvania where I live is not a young area and 
it's not an urban area. We have traditional folks who like to use cash 
and don't like to put a lot of credit on their cards. They use the card 
for emergencies. They don't use it for sort of day-to-day expenses.
  So not only were constituents and neighbors of mine surprised to be 
losing their credit card privileges, but they were concerned over 
potential harm to their otherwise great credit ratings due to card 
companies' desire to wipe inactive accounts from their books.
  This amendment would protect people who supposedly underutilize their 
credit cards from forced closure of their accounts and negatively 
impacting their credit scores. It requires credit card companies to 
notify cardholders

[[Page H5032]]

at least 30 days in advance of an account closure. It also requires the 
card companies to tell cardholders that their account closure could 
adversely affect their credit rating. And it requires card companies to 
give cardholders guidance on how to appeal the issuer's decision to 
close the account. It's just a commonsense protection for cardholders. 
That's all it really is.
  And as I addressed earlier, the gentleman from Texas has some 
concerns. We respect them, and as I mentioned, we're willing to work 
with him on that.
  But in the end, I encourage all my colleagues to support this 
amendment.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have left on our 
side?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. I yield 2 minutes to the chief sponsor of the 
legislation.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time, and I 
certainly want to respond to my colleagues.
  It's always possible to raise those kinds of concerns over fraud, and 
this is not intended to do that on the face of it, but we're willing to 
work with you, because the reality is that, if fraud is being 
committed, then these kinds of agreements wouldn't hold anyway, and the 
banks would certainly have a way of dealing with this.
  The real concern here is letting consumers know what's going on with 
their accounts. If they have been in an experience--and we know there 
are many consumers who have been--where card accounts that are not 
being used very often are closed and where they don't know about it, 
then their credit scores are affected. That's one of those surprises 
that comes along that people aren't expecting.
  This is an attempt to be transparent about it and to give people, 
really, the opportunity to be able to respond and to work out whatever 
problem exists and to move on. So we appreciate the opportunity to put 
this in what I think is some very important legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, today Mr. Gutierrez, as my designee, offered a common 
sense amendment to H.R. 627--The Credit Card Bill of Rights Act.
  This amendment warns consumers of possible reductions to their credit 
scores.
  Currently, credit card companies are not required to notify a 
consumer when they decide to close an account.
  Often, consumers do not know that their accounts are being closed 
until after the fact.
  Because of the way credit scores are calculated, account closures can 
lower a consumer's credit score, sometimes significantly.
  A reduction in a consumer's credit score can hamper his or her 
ability to buy a car or home, start a business, or pay for college.
  Especially in today's tight credit market, a solid credit score is 
more important than ever.
  A large number of consumers have no idea that the mere closure of a 
credit card can adversely impact their credit scores.
  Imagine saving for a home only to discover your credit score is too 
low for a mortgage because of an account closure.
  Consumers do not get a chance to prepare and plan their finances 
accordingly. This is an issue that affects all consumers and not just 
the elderly retiree in San Diego who first brought this to my 
attention.
  It affects teachers, firefighters, doctors, and our men and women in 
uniform.
  I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record a recent article in 
the Wall Street Journal detailing this problem for consumers across the 
country.
  The amendment Mr. Gutierrez offered on my behalf would require credit 
card companies to give consumers a 30-days advance notice that their 
accounts are being closed.
  Within this notice, the card issuer must also include:
  The reason why the account is being closed;
  Options the consumer has to keep the account open;
  Programs available for the consumer to repay their account balance 
over time;
  And the fact that an account closure may impact the cardholder's 
credit score.
  This amendment is really about informing consumers so they are not 
caught by surprise.
  We believe that consumers have a right to know when their credit 
scores may be lowered so they can plan their finances accordingly.
  This amendment has been endorsed by a broad coalition of consumer 
groups including the Center for Responsible Lending, Consumer 
Federation of America, and U.S. PIRG.
  I thank Congressman Carney for all the hard work he has put into this 
amendment. It has been a pleasure working-With you and your office in 
this effort.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment.

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 11, 2009]

              Credit Card Issuers: Buy Something or Else!

                          (By Kelli B. Grant)

       One of the biggest causes of the financial crisis was that 
     Americans were borrowing (and spending) more money than they 
     could afford to pay back.
       So how are credit-card issuers reacting to consumers' 
     attempts to live a more financially responsible lifestyle? 
     They're threatening to cut their credit cards off if they 
     don't spend enough.
       Loretta Maxwell of Troy, Mich., thought her credit score of 
     790 buffered her against most of the fallout of the credit 
     crunch. When Chase closed her $6,000-limit card in December 
     without warning after two years of inactivity, she called to 
     fight it. She was unsuccessful. ``If you're not using it, 
     they entice you to do so, and then the moment you don't spend 
     enough, they cut your limit,'' she says. (Chase says it is 
     standard practice is to review inactive accounts. ``Inactive 
     cards with large open credit lines present a real risk of 
     fraudulent use and large potential liabilities for Chase,'' 
     says spokeswoman Stephanie Jacobson.)
       Maxwell's experience is far from an isolated incident. Most 
     major issuers, including Chase, Bank of America, American 
     Express and Citibank have been slashing credit lines and 
     closing the accounts of those who don't spend on their card 
     regularly. While these issuers are required to notify you in 
     writing of an account closing, there's no requirement that 
     they do so in advance. Even when they do give early notice, 
     the only way a cardholder can stop their account from getting 
     shut down is to start spending again.
       In December, Discover reported that it closed three million 
     accounts during 2008 due to inactivity, and plans to cull up 
     to two million more. A Discover spokeswoman says the issuer 
     is constantly reevaluating cardholder's credit and assessing 
     whether they have the most appropriate credit line and 
     product. Capital One is suspending accounts that have been 
     inactive for at least a year, warning account holders they 
     only have 60 days to redeem their rewards. ``Some of these 
     accounts had literally never been used,'' says spokeswoman 
     Pamela Girardo. A spokeswoman for Bank of America, meanwhile, 
     says the bad economy prompted it to close accounts with zero 
     balances that have been inactive for more than a year. 
     American Express spokeswoman Lisa Gonzalez says it 
     periodically reviews inactive accounts for cancellation. 
     Citibank did not respond to requests for comment.
       From a business perspective, cutting off certain customers 
     is a smart financial move, says Sanjay Sakhrani, an analyst 
     with investment bank Keefe, Bruyette & Woods. Closing rarely-
     used accounts lowers a card issuer's risk profile by keeping 
     their potential liabilities (i.e., the amount of credit 
     available they extend to cardholders) from outweighing 
     their assets. Inactive accounts also cost the issuer money 
     to maintain, without providing the benefit of income from 
     interest or merchant fees, he says.
       For consumers, however, closing accounts can be 
     devastating--especially to their credit score. Your credit 
     utilization ratio the amount of your debt in relation to the 
     amount of your available credit--comprises 30% of your score, 
     says Craig Watts, a spokesman for Fair Isaac Corporation, the 
     company that calculates and issues the FICO credit score that 
     most lenders use. So when an account is closed, you have less 
     credit available to you--and the ratio immediately jumps 
     higher. A person with a solid credit score of 720 or so, 
     whose utilization ratio jumps from 35% to 75% after one of 
     their accounts is closed is likely see their score drop by 
     ``several dozen points,'' to somewhere in the 600s, he says. 
     That's a far cry from the 760 (or higher) consumers need to 
     get the best rates from lenders.
       One thing that somewhat softens the blow is that FICO 
     factors in closed accounts when calculating the longevity of 
     your credit history, which accounts for 15% of your score. 
     While lenders may make a note on your report indicating 
     whether the account was closed by them or you, the 
     information isn't used in the scoring formula, says Watts.
       Ironically, an excellent credit score can actually serve as 
     more of a bulls-eye than a shield, says Dennis Moroney, a 
     research director and senior analyst for consulting firm 
     Tower Group. He says banks figure they can limit cardholder 
     backlash by targeting consumers with few debts and plenty of 
     other accounts. That way, a closed account won't have as much 
     of a detrimental effect on their creditworthiness.
       Even years of loyalty and regular spending won't spare some 
     cardholders. David Good of Houston, used to be devoted to 
     American Express, with which he had two credit cards: an 
     unlimited charge account and a $7,500 revolving account. Yet 
     a solid credit score, eight years of on-time payments and 
     fairly frequent purchases on the cards--including more than 
     $100,000 last year alone--weren't enough to save his 
     accounts. In December, Good received a written notice that 
     the issuer had closed both due to ``low activity in the past 
     six months.'' ``I was shocked,'' he says. ``They lost my 
     trust, totally.'' (American Express declined to comment on 
     Good's or any other individual's accounts.)
       New Yorker Veronica Eady Famira was vacationing in Germany 
     when she discovered that her $1,500-limit Delta SkyMiles card 
     from American Express had been shut down. ``I must have spent 
     $300 in cellphone charges

[[Page H5033]]

     calling banks,'' she says. ``I was pretty stranded.'' Adding 
     insult to injury, Famira had just earned a free companion 
     ticket on the card valued at up to $400 for a domestic 
     flight--now she can't redeem the ticket.

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, we yield back the balance of our time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Perriello

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 
printed in House Report 111-92.
  Mr. PERRIELLO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Perriello:
       In subsection (c) of section 127B of the Truth in Lending 
     Act (as added by section 2(c) of the bill) insert after 
     paragraph (2) the following new paragraph:
       (3) Minimum term for promotional rates.--In the case of a 
     promotional rate, no written notice under paragraph (1) of an 
     increase in any annual percentage rate of interest on any 
     credit card account under an open end consumer credit plan 
     shall be effective before the end of a 6-month period 
     beginning from the date the promotional rate takes effect.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 379, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Perriello) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. PERRIELLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise today in support of my amendment requiring credit card 
companies to have a 6-month minimum period for promotional rates.
  Credit card companies should not have the right to take advantage of 
consumers with their confusing policies. Today, the voices of 
accountability and common sense have a chance to fight back against 
many of the problems that got us into this economic mess in the first 
place. If you can't sell a product without tricks and traps, this is 
the kind of place where consumer protection must come in to ensure a 
well-functioning free market.
  This is a simple amendment that represents the common sense that is 
greatly needed. Credit card companies should not be allowed to trick 
consumers around with short-term promotional rates that confuse them. A 
6-month minimum is a reasonable period of time to expect these so-
called ``teaser rates'' to last.
  It also includes a 45-day notice before any rate change is 
implemented. Middle class Americans are facing difficult economic 
times, and many factors have caused the current economic crisis, but 
soaring debt is near the top of that list.
  One group particularly targeted by these rates is that of young 
people, our students, who get caught in a cycle of debt early in life. 
Instead of using those first earning years as a time to save up and to 
be able to afford a down payment on a home, we see people caught in a 
cycle of credit card debt, then taking a zero-interest loan or a zero 
down payment on a home, and that cycle of debt continues.
  I believe this is a day where we can start to fight back for Main 
Street over Wall Street and put common sense over greed to protect the 
American family.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully to the gentleman, and I appreciate 
the intent of his particular amendment, but I fear, again, that this 
will be one more in a series of amendments that may have unintended 
consequences.
  I heard the gentleman, as well as other speakers on the other side of 
the aisle, say they want to prevent tricks by the credit card 
companies. I think that is one of the few items, besides renaming a 
post office, that could receive a unanimous vote in this institution.
  Out of, I believe, 1,200 pages of Federal Reserve regulations where 
they spent 3 years studying the issues, we will have disclosure under 
the Federal Reserve regulations that will prevent such tricks unless 
one defines the actual period of a teaser rate to be a trick. I believe 
a consumer can understand the difference between 1 month, 6 months, 6 
years, and 12 years. Let the consumer choose.
  Let me tell you what I believe the practical result of this amendment 
will be. Particularly those who may have a more checkered credit past, 
consumers, instead of having the ability to have a teaser rate--and I'm 
just using numbers for an example--at 8 percent for 3 months that then 
goes up to 15 percent for 9 months--they'll just end up having to pay 
15 percent for the whole 12 months. They'll lose consumer choice. 
They'll lose that opportunity.
  Now, some maintain that there are some concepts--and I've heard it 
said from friends on the other side of the aisle--certain aspects of 
their credit card agreements that consumers just can't understand. 
They're just too difficult to understand. Again, I congratulate the 
gentlelady from New York, yet again, for having a disclosure title, I 
believe, very roughly equivalent to that of the Federal Reserve's. This 
is a problem that can be solved with disclosure.
  Empower the consumers. Don't take away their options. Empower the 
consumers with effective disclosure, and let them choose in a 
competitive marketplace. Let there be competition. Again, today, I can 
understand how consumers are confused. These forms are so long. They're 
written in legalese. It's easy to hide it. The answer is effective 
disclosure. The answer is not an arbitrary date on how long a teaser 
rate ought to be.
  What you are doing is protecting the consumer out of having any 
opportunity of having a teaser rate. A teaser rate, when averaged with 
the other rate, again gives you an average of what the interest rate 
would be for a year. If you pass this, there is going to be a universe 
of consumers who are going to end up paying more, paying more on 
average for their credit than they otherwise would. So I urge rejection 
of the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERRIELLO. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I heard my friend from Texas with 
mixed emotions. I liked the part of it where he said to trust the 
individual to make his or her economic decisions and to not interfere, 
and I hope when the bill I am sponsoring to repeal the ban on Internet 
gambling comes up that that sentiment doesn't die, because some people 
don't like the choices people would make. I would like to empower 
consumers. Congress passed a law that said, if you want to gamble with 
your own money on the Internet and you're 53 years old, you can't do 
it. So I welcome this kind of consumer choice, but that's, I think, a 
more clear-cut choice than this one.
  The gentleman from Texas confidently says that, if you have this, 
there will be no teaser rates for a lot of people. I do not think there 
is any basis on which he can say that.
  I am reminded of what Lord Melbourne said about Macaulay in the 19th 
century: ``I wish I could be as sure of anything as he is of 
everything.''
  There is no basis for saying there will be no more teaser rates. As a 
matter of fact, a rate that only lasts 2 months or 3 months is likely 
to be a confusing thing to people, and he says that a consumer can 
tell. There still will be disclosure, but it will still come with a 
blizzard, and it will still come in ways that may not be clear to 
people.
  The fact is that a 6-month minimum is a way to make sure that the 
product being offered is a sensible and thoughtful product that will 
not mislead some people. The fact is that not all consumers are of 
equal education, of equal ability to discriminate, of equal financial 
literacy. Yes, I think we should work to the point where people are as 
well educated as they should be, but that's not the case now.
  You have to ask yourself, Mr. Chairman: Why would someone offer a 2-
month teaser rate other than to try and bait and switch people into a 
higher rate?
  I congratulate the gentleman from Virginia. This is a very thoughtful 
amendment. He has been working with the Obama administration. It comes 
with their strong support, and he is to be congratulated for an 
important consumer protection motion.

[[Page H5034]]

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, one, what I believed I said in my 
comment is that, for some universe of people, they would lose their 
teaser rates under this legislation. I listened to the chairman spend a 
fair amount of his time debating Internet gambling, which I do not 
believe is on the floor at this time; but if the chairman is so 
supportive of having consumer choice, I don't understand why we just 
spent a day and a half in markup in his committee taking away 
consumers' choice in the mortgage market. So we will continue to have 
this debate throughout.
  Again, it's a simple argument. I believe that we can have effective 
disclosure and can allow consumers to make choices. If they're not 
allowed, if this type of arbitrary date is imposed, some universe of 
borrowers will probably lose their teaser rates and will effectively 
end up paying more, which will restrict their options. Again, I urge 
rejection of the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERRIELLO. I would like to inquire if the gentleman has 
additional speakers.
  Mr. HENSARLING. No.
  Mr. PERRIELLO. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to who has the right 
to close.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has the right to close.
  Mr. HENSARLING. In this case, I continue to reserve.
  Mr. PERRIELLO. Mr. Chairman, I ask for my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of the amendment, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Perriello).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Schauer

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 
printed in House Report 111-92.
  Mr. SCHAUER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Schauer:
       After section 8, insert the following new section (and 
     redesignate the subsequent sections accordingly):

     SEC. 9. POSTING INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET.

       Section 122 of the Truth in Lending Act (U.S.C. 1632) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Internet Posting of Credit Card Agreements.--
       ``(1) Posting agreements.--A creditor shall establish and 
     maintain an Internet site on which the creditor will post the 
     written agreement between the creditor and the consumer for 
     each open-end consumer credit plan not secured by a dwelling 
     that has a credit card feature.
       ``(2) Providing copy of contracts to the board.--A creditor 
     shall provide to the Board in electronic format, the consumer 
     credit card agreements that the creditor publishes on the 
     creditor's Internet site.
       ``(3) Record repository.--The Board shall establish and 
     maintain on its publically available Internet site a central 
     repository of the consumer credit card agreements received 
     from the creditors pursuant to this subsection and such 
     agreements shall be easily accessible and retrievable.
       ``(4) Exception.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply to 
     individually negotiated changes to contractual terms, such as 
     individually-modified workouts or renegotiations of amounts 
     owed by a consumer under an open end consumer credit plan.
       ``(5) Regulations.--The Board, in consultation with the 
     other agencies described in section 108 and the Federal Trade 
     Commission, may prescribe regulations to implement this 
     subsection, including--
       ``(A) specifying the format for posting the agreements on 
     the creditor's Internet site; and
       ``(B) establishing exceptions to paragraphs (1) and (2) in 
     cases where the administrative burden outweighs the benefit 
     of increased transparency, such as where a credit card plan 
     has a de minimis number of consumer account holders''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 379, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Schauer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. SCHAUER. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, first, let me congratulate my distinguished colleague 
from New York for her leadership on bringing forward this important and 
timely bill. I'm proud to be a cosponsor of the credit cardholders' 
bill of rights.
  I've heard from many of my constituents in Michigan, as I'm certain 
all of you have heard from your constituents, who have found themselves 
being misled by the credit card companies and being subjected to 
usurious rates. Americans are hurting, Michiganders especially, and 
they need our help. This bill is a critical step in providing that 
relief. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a simple, two-part amendment that 
will help consumers make good choices when they get a credit card.
  First, it requires credit card companies to post their agreement 
disclosures on their Web sites. Second, it requires a company to 
transmit that information to the Federal Reserve Board so that the 
board can compile those agreements and post them on the board's Web 
site. Together, these provisions provide important disclosure and 
transparency to the public, and they are an important resource for 
consumers so that they can easily be informed of tricks and traps that 
may exist within their credit card contracts or so that they can shop 
for the best possible deal for credit cards.
  The goal is to provide consumers with direct public information and 
transparency regarding the interest rates that companies charge for 
their credit cards. This will allow one-stop shopping for good, fair 
rates.
  Mr. Chairman, our people are hurting. Unemployment in my State is 
approaching 13 percent, and it's much higher than that in parts of my 
district. My amendment is a simple, straightforward step, and I ask for 
your support.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm not completely certain that I actually oppose the 
amendment. I do have a couple of concerns.
  One, I want to congratulate the gentleman for the thrust of his 
amendment, and indeed, we want to ensure that our consumers are 
empowered and that our consumers have proper disclosure.
  There are a number of reasons why consumers do not understand the 
disclosure forms that they have today, one of which is there are 
misleading and deceptive practices by credit card companies. We all 
agree on that.
  Another reason, though, is that, day after day and with the noblest 
of intentions, we mandate more disclosures. I'm just somewhat fearful--
and not that this is not necessarily good information--that the 
combined impact will turn what otherwise might be a 2- to 3-page 
disclosure that a consumer might actually take the time to read into a 
30- to 45-page behemoth that no one will take the time to read.
  Again, I congratulate the gentleman for his intent and for his 
thrust. I'm not going to oppose the amendment, but I do want to 
articulate the concern again that we really want to emphasize that the 
most important aspects of a consumer's relationship with his credit 
card company are disclosed so that we can get focused there. In the 
average mortgage disclosure, there is so much disclosure, that people 
see a dizzying array of documents and pay attention to none of them.

                              {time}  1345

  I have always been an advocate for the succinct, effective disclosure 
written in plain English, not necessarily voluminous disclosure written 
in legalese.
  I would also say that particularly for my friends on the other side 
of the aisle that have been extolling the virtues of the Federal 
Reserve throughout this debate, that through their rule-making, I 
believe that they have already addressed this issue. They did spend 
more time studying it than we did. I personally don't know. I didn't 
see the evidence of how much demand there is for consumers for this 
information. I don't know the answer to that.
  One other aspect I would bring up besides the fact that we need to 
ensure that we're having effective disclosure. I am not indifferent as 
to the increased

[[Page H5035]]

regulatory burden on our small community banks. Two Congresses ago, I 
had the opportunity to be the lead sponsor and write regulatory relief 
legislation for our small community banks. We have about half of what 
we had, I believe, 20 years ago. And so I am always a little concerned, 
too, in making sure that the benefits of an amendment or legislation 
are worth the cost. I don't want to continue to see more community 
banks get out of the credit card business because it's an extra cost 
here, it's an extra cost there. They don't have the personnel, and I 
just always want to be sensitive to the fact that I do not want to 
reduce competition down.
  I don't see the distinguished chairman of the full committee on the 
floor today at this moment, but I know that he often jokes about that 
one day we may change our name to the ``bank committee'' because there 
will only be one bank left in America.
  So, again, I just want to show sensitivity, and I don't know if there 
is any kind of program for our smaller banks. I know on a number of 
pieces of legislation there are exclusions for small businesses. I 
don't see that in the language here. And again, I am not going to 
oppose this particular amendment, but I did want to articulate concerns 
that I hope will be taken to heart by the majority, things that they 
could consider as this goes into conference.
  At this moment, I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHAUER. I appreciate the comments from the gentleman from Texas 
in support of the amendment. My amendment doesn't change the content of 
the disclosure, only its dissemination through a Web site that the 
Federal Reserve Board would collect and post those disclosures.
  Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. 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. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has the right to close.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Then I will continue to reserve.
  Mr. SCHAUER. Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues support this 
amendment.
  I yield back my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schauer).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Teague

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 
printed in House Report 111-92.
  Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Teague:
       After section 8, insert the following new section (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):

     SEC. 9. REGULATIONS RELATING TO ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY 
                   CONSUMERS AND RECENTLY DISABLED VETERANS.

       Section 127B of the Truth in Lending Act is amended by 
     inserting after subsection (p) (as added by section 6) the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(q) Regulations Relating to Active Duty Military 
     Consumers and Recently Disabled Veterans.--In the case of any 
     credit card account, under an open end consumer credit plan, 
     held by any veteran receiving compensation for a service-
     connected disability (as such terms are defined in section 
     101 of title 38, United States Code) that occurred less than 
     2 years before or any active duty military consumer (as 
     defined in section 603(q)(2) of this Act) , the Board shall 
     prescribe regulations that prohibits the creditor with 
     respect to such account from making adverse reports to any 
     consumer reporting agency with respect while the consumer 
     maintains status as such a veteran or as an active duty 
     military consumer.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 379, the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Teague) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment along with my 
friends, Congressmen Nye, Kissell and Boccieri, that has three 
principal attributes. One is it's common sense. It does what is right 
and it helps out our Nation's veterans. Specifically, the amendment 
stops credit card companies from bringing down the credit scores of 
deployed soldiers and disabled veterans during the first 2 years of 
their disability.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the time-honored commitments we make to our 
veterans is after they do the dangerous work of protecting our national 
security, we, as a country, ensure their economic security. When a 
soldier is fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan or the deserts of 
Iraq, he or she does not have access to regular mail service nor the 
ability to tend to the everyday financial pressures of home.
  Likewise, when an injured veteran is adjusting to life with his or 
her disability, there is often a period of economic vulnerability where 
the costs pile up and sometimes you just don't get to every last letter 
in the mail.
  When veterans return home, they should do so with the confidence that 
their credit history allows them to open a business, buy a house or a 
truck. If they were late on some payments while serving their country 
or recovering from a severe injury, that shouldn't prevent them from 
pursuing the American Dream. No commercial credit rating agency can be 
equipped to account for the intangibles of combat service and 
recovering from service-connected injuries.
  Economic opportunity for veterans should not be a question of 
mistakes that they may have made during deployment or recovery. It 
should be a question of their service.
  I urge my colleagues to pass this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I may be reluctantly opposed to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  First, let me congratulate the gentleman from New Mexico. I have said 
other times that people had a noble purpose in their amendment. Of all 
amendments I have seen, this certainly has the most noble purpose, the 
most noble intent. No one who dons our Nation's uniform and fights for 
freedom, protects America's security ought to somehow be harmed because 
they missed a payment while they were taking on their Nation's duty. I 
certainly agree with the intent of the gentleman's legislation.
  I have a couple of concerns, though, because I believe that this 
would be the first time that we are asking credit card bureaus to hide 
information.
  I am just curious. Is there not another way to protect our brave men 
and women in uniform than setting the precedent of keeping accurate 
information away from a credit file which allows people to access 
credit in the first place? I am not an expert on it, but others who 
serve on the committee have informed me that this situation has been 
addressed under the Civil Relief Act. I know that military, Active Duty 
military, can append to their credit file that they are indeed in 
harm's way.
  I would be happy to work with the gentleman for a program in DOD that 
would help ensure, again, that whatever type of resources are needed to 
ensure that people do not default on their

[[Page H5036]]

credit obligations while they are in harm's way, that's something I 
would want to support. I would want to go to the Appropriations 
Committee and ask them to appropriate funds to assure that this is 
done.
  Clearly, we want to be sensitive to our Active Duty personnel. It's 
the most important thing we can do in this institution is protect the 
Nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
  So I want to achieve the gentleman's goal, but I wonder if it might 
not have the unintended consequence of, perhaps, making credit even 
less available to our military personnel if, for some reason, the 
creditor community started believing that they were no longer receiving 
accurate information.
  So I don't have a solution at my hand, and I admit that. But I do 
continue to be concerned that there may be unintended consequences 
here.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend from 
Ohio (Mr. Boccieri).
  (Mr. BOCCIERI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOCCIERI. They are fighting for us; now we have to fight for 
them. Every day, thousands of brave Americans are asked to leave the 
comfort and safety of their homes and families to fight for our freedom 
abroad. Oftentimes, those soldiers leave behind families who are 
surviving on credit cards to put food on the table or to clothe their 
kids as they send them off to school.
  Some of those brave soldiers are deployed to the Middle East and then 
they are deployed to a forward-operating base. As a C-130 pilot, I 
delivered mail to those austere and sometimes remote locations. No, our 
soldiers in the battle every day don't have time to affix a stamp and 
send off a bill or a statement, their credit card bills, back to 
America. But while those soldiers are dodging bullets and IEDs and 
RPGs, they shouldn't be concerned about whether they sent their Visa 
bill on time. Frankly, they are under enough pressure. I know the 
stresses of a battlefield, and our soldiers shouldn't have to fight the 
credit card companies when they return because they were defending our 
country when their bill was due.
  So I ask you, we've heard a lot about how this bill and amendments 
could create unintended consequences. Are we going to allow our 
soldiers and our brave men and women serving in our Nation's uniform to 
be victims of unintended consequences because they are overseas 
fighting?
  The industry should be proud to stand by the soldiers and veterans 
who defend their ability to operate in a safe and secure environment 
led by a freely elected government. The industry should be willing to 
take the extra step, go the extra mile to show leniency to the military 
members who put their lives on the line.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I will continue to reserve.
  Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend from 
Virginia (Mr. Nye).
  Mr. NYE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague from New 
Mexico for his hard work on this amendment and for yielding.
  Earlier this month, I had the opportunity to visit two forward-
operating bases in the eastern part of Afghanistan, and it's true our 
troops today can keep in touch with home more easily than ever before. 
But the reality of patrolling the border along Pakistan means that 
sometimes payment dates will be missed.
  Quite frankly, our troops deployed overseas have more important 
things to do than worry about a credit score. Their only concern should 
be to complete their missions and come home safely.
  The same is true for injured veterans. As service-disabled veterans 
work to readjust to civilian life, they often face serious challenges 
finding a job, going through therapy, and working to recover from their 
injuries. We should do everything in our power to help them recover and 
rebuild. That's what this amendment will do.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment and 
supporting our troops overseas and our injured veterans back home.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I was listening carefully to the 
previous speakers. And again, I could not agree with them more in 
sharing their desire to ensure that this is not a problem. No one on 
Active Duty should be worrying about paying for their credit card 
bills. But I do continue to ask the question, is this the single best 
remedy?
  Now, I'm not sure that any credit card company in America would be so 
stupid as to go and consciously ping somebody who is fighting for 
freedom in Afghanistan or Iraq. Wait until the local newspaper or local 
television station finds out about that. I would say some PR department 
would be working overtime.
  But again, the thing that disturbs me here--and I want to solve the 
problem. Again, I admit, I am not an expert on what resources may be 
available at the Pentagon. I don't know if there couldn't be somehow 
automatic payment through the paycheck. If we need to set up money to 
loan our soldiers to ensure their bills are paid when they are 
overseas, I would be happy to support that.
  But in some respects, you are asking credit bureaus to, in some 
respects, deceive creditors because they have information and you are 
telling them you are not allowed to give accurate information. Now, I 
don't want them to act adversely, but the precedent of essentially 
saying that you can now put misleading information into the market 
disturbs me greatly. I just would hope that there would be an 
alternative solution than this particular amendment, again, with the 
noblest of intentions.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TEAGUE. My concern is that penalizing veterans for missing 
payments while they are in combat or recovering from an injury is not 
an accurate way of determining their creditworthiness. However, I do 
look forward to working in conference to address some of these valid 
concerns.
  The amendment requires the Federal Reserve to write the rules that 
accomplish the goals of this amendment, and we will work closely with 
the Fed.
  Once again, Mr. Chairman, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote 
for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Again, I want to congratulate my friend from New 
Mexico and his leadership on this issue.
  This is absolutely, positively, unequivocally something that the 
Federal Reserve has to look into. I don't care if it affects only one 
soldier, sailor or airman in the entire Nation, this problem must be 
solved.
  I continue to have reservations on this particular solution and its 
potential unintended consequences. I will most reluctantly urge a 
``no'' vote at this time and hopefully have a commitment, particularly 
those who serve on our Armed Services Committee and our Appropriations 
Committee, to maybe find out if there is a less onerous way to treat 
what is a very, very serious problem.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Teague).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Schock

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Serrano). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 17 printed in House Report 111-92.
  Mr. SCHOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Schock:
       In the subsection heading for section 3(d), strike 
     ``Before'' and insert ``After''.
       In the subsection heading of subsection (h) of section 127B 
     of the Truth in Lending Act (as added by section 3(d)), 
     strike ``Before'' and insert ``After''.
       In paragraph (1) of section 127B(h) of the Truth in Lending 
     Act (as added by section 3(d))--
       (1) strike ``may not furnish any information to'' and 
     insert ``shall remove any information furnished to''; and
       (2) strike ``until the credit card has been used or 
     activated by the consumer''and insert ``if the consumer has 
     not used or activated the account and the consumer contacts 
     the creditor within 45 days of the establishment of the 
     account to close the account''.


[[Page H5037]]


  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 379, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Schock) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. SCHOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer today is really targeted at 
reducing identity theft and ensuring that consumers have the 
appropriate information they need to make themselves aware of 
inappropriate activity on their accounts that may be opened in their 
name.
  As the current legislation stands, it leaves inactivated credit cards 
off of credit reporting altogether. The legislation would allow a 
potential identity thief to apply for and obtain numerous credit cards 
in someone else's name, accruing massive lines of credit, all with the 
intention of opening each credit card at once and simultaneously 
spending massive amounts of that victim's money and then disappearing, 
as often is the case, which ruins the victim's credit history and 
oftentimes costs the victim thousands of dollars.
  My amendment ensures consumers are aware of credit activity made in 
their name by removing the requirement that open lines of credit are 
not reported to the credit bureaus until the issued credit card is 
activated.
  Now, identity theft is a real problem. As an individual who has had 
my identity stolen, I can tell you that it is also a very costly 
problem. Eight million Americans were victims of identity theft in 
2005, and over 2 million of those 8 million victims were victims 
because new accounts were opened in their names that they were not made 
aware of.
  The Federal Trade Commission also states that a quarter of those 
victims' problems were exacerbated because they were not made aware of 
the problems for over 6 months. The underlying legislation will only 
exacerbate that without this amendment.
  The Federal Trade Commission goes on in the report that they 
encourage consumers to stay vigilant in protecting their identity 
through two ways; one is monitoring accounts that you didn't open and 
debts on your accounts that you can't explain. Well, Mr. Chairman, my 
amendment does exactly that by ensuring consumers continue to have the 
information about these accounts that would otherwise have been applied 
in their name but up until this point would not be noted on their 
credit account. Under the 2003 Fair Credit Reporting Act passed by 
Congress, consumers are allowed this information free of charge. And 
with the amendment I offer here today, they will be given that 
information in advance of any adverse credit effects that a potential 
identity thief could be trying.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. 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.
  Mr. SCHOCK. I urge passage, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New York, 
Carolyn Maloney.
  Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I am generally in support of what my colleague from 
Illinois is attempting to do, but I do have concerns that too few 
consumers would take advantage of this provision or even know that it 
was available to them. I am going to be supporting your amendment, but 
I would like to work with you in further refining it.
  I know the main concern that has been raised about this provision has 
focused on preventing fraud. And I fully support efforts to prevent 
fraud, and I am willing to work with you going forward to ensure that 
consumers know of their right to reject the card and have this 
information removed from the credit report.
  I would also like to take this time to explain why this provision was 
added to the bill and why I believe it is necessary in one form or 
another.
  Right now, consumers generally do not know the full terms and 
conditions of their credit card until they have been issued the card. 
And once a card has been issued, the card is reported on the consumer's 
credit report, regardless of whether the consumer uses the card or not. 
The bill would allow an issuer to report a consumer's application for a 
credit card, but would not allow an issuer to report the approval of 
the credit card to the credit bureaus until the card has been activated 
or used.
  Consumers should not have open lines of credit listed on their credit 
report if they have no intention of ever using the card. And while I 
appreciate the gentleman's amendment and will maintain this going 
forward, I just want to ensure consumers receive adequate disclosures 
relating to this. And so I will be supporting your amendment, and we 
can help work on further disclosures.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 111-92 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 3 by Ms. Slaughter of New York.
  Amendment No. 8 by Mrs. Maloney of New York.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 276, 
noes 154, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 225]

                               AYES--276

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Camp
     Cao
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent

[[Page H5038]]


     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NY)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pierluisi
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sablan
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--154

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Conaway
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doggett
     Dreier
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Giffords
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Griffith
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Himes
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Obey
     Olson
     Olver
     Paul
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis (CO)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Walden
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Berry
     Bishop (UT)
     Bordallo
     Burgess
     Granger
     Hastings (FL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Rush
     Stark

                              {time}  1439

  Messrs. GALLEGLY, TANNER, FLAKE, BOYD, MITCHELL, FOSTER and SCHIFF 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan and Messrs. GUTHRIE and WITTMAN changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 225 I was unavoidably detained 
in a strategic meeting of significant interests to my constituents. Had 
I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''


                Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mrs. Maloney

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 284, 
noes 149, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 226]

                               AYES--284

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Campbell
     Cao
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matsui
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pierluisi
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sablan
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--149

     Akin
     Alexander
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Broun (GA)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey (GA)

[[Page H5039]]


     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Space
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Berry
     Bordallo
     Burgess
     Granger
     Hastings (FL)
     Stark

                              {time}  1448

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chair, today I have been granted an official leave 
of absence by the House of Representatives and am in my district 
attending to official business. As such, I am unable to cast my votes 
in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union on 
amendments to H.R. 627, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 
2009. If I were present for these votes, I would vote as follows and 
ask that the Record reflect these positions: ``no'' on the amendment 
offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York (rollcall vote 225) and ``aye'' on 
the amendment offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York (rollcall vote 226).
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Weiner) having assumed the chair, Mr. Serrano, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 627) to 
amend the Truth in Lending Act to establish fair and transparent 
practices relating to the extension of credit under an open end 
consumer credit plan, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 379, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the 
Committee of the Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. ROSKAM. I am, in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Roskam moves to recommit the bill H.R. 627 to the 
     Committee on Financial Services with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     instructions:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 11. TRIGGER FOR ENACTMENT.

       No provision of the Act shall take effect until a study to 
     be completed by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
     System makes a determination that the provisions of the Act 
     will not result in a reduction in the availability of credit 
     covered by this Act to small businesses.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, we are here today because we are having a 
national conversation about credit, and it is a conversation that has 
had an impact on each and every one of our congressional districts. It 
doesn't matter where we are from, it doesn't matter what our background 
is, credit is inextricably linked to our success as a country.
  So here we are, and we have got sponsors who have worked hard, and I 
want to take my hat off to the sponsors and to the chairman of the 
committee for taking on a very, very serious work. There are some good 
things in here, there are some good things in the underlying bill, but 
I think there is a weakness, and I want to point out the weakness and 
offer a suggestion.
  This is not a ``gotcha'' amendment. This was an idea presented to the 
Rules Committee, and, unfortunately, it was sort of swatted aside. I 
think it was a little bit misinterpreted, and that's disappointing. But 
the great thing about this process is you get another shot at the 
title. So here we are and we have another opportunity to consider this 
idea. Here is what it says.
  Notwithstanding everything that is in this bill, it doesn't matter 
what you have been told about it, what has been represented to you, 
what kind of talking points, what kind of hearings you have heard, what 
kind of testimony, let's face it, if this falls short and it has an 
adverse impact on small business, then we have failed. If this has an 
adverse impact on the biggest job creators in our economy, then we have 
failed.
  So my attitude is look, we all, all of us, talk about how important 
small business is, how important the entrepreneur is, how important the 
self-employed are. But ultimately, if we are passing legislation that 
has an adverse impact on that group's ability to get credit, we have 
failed.
  So what this amendment says, it says, look. What the motion says is 
take a good hard look at the bill, but hit the pause button, and here 
is why. Let the Fed look at this, do a study that says it is not going 
to have an adverse impact on small business.
  ``Small business'' is a term of art, one that we can all come around. 
It is not meant to sneak up on anybody. It is not meant to overly 
characterize anything. But what it says is do the credit card changes, 
if you will, but make sure we are not having an impact on the small 
person.
  Now, why is this important? Why should we be thinking in terms of a 
pause button right now? And I want to give you three examples where we 
cumulatively voted on things that have been presented in one way and 
they have turned out very differently.
  Remember during the bailout debate last fall, remember the drumbeat, 
the pounding sort of, that pulsing feeling on the House floor and that 
sense of urgency of you got to pass it, you got to pass it, you got to 
pass it? Well, what is in it? I don't know, but just pass it and it is 
all going to be great.
  Well, it didn't work out so well. Credit markets haven't been 
restored and we are still limping along months later.
  Remember during the stimulus debate, when we heard from the White 
House that if we pass this, unemployment was going to peak at 8 
percent, the birds were going to be chirping, it was all going to be 
great and that was going to be the high mark in terms of unemployment? 
That didn't happen to turn out that way, and we are already at 8.5 
percent or beyond.
  And most recently in the budget figures we heard represented in the 
Ways and Means Committee, that the Budget Committee heard, this is what 
we were told in terms of projections: That real GDP was only going to 
shrink by 1.2 percent this year. But already this quarter, this last 
quarter, it is down 6.1 percent.
  Now, why do I bring those numbers up? They are important because they 
are indicators of mischaracterizations of things.
  So when people say we are going to fix this credit card situation, my 
reluctance, and I think the reason there is a little bit of reluctance 
out there is the suggestion that there is going to be no cost to it and 
it is all going to be great and it is all going to be roses, and what I 
am suggesting to you today is that if we fail to protect small 
business, then we have failed.
  Now, you will hear that the NFIB has endorsed it, and endorsed it 
they have. The NFIB has endorsed it, and I think

[[Page H5040]]

in fairness to the NFIB, they have looked at it and they have thought 
it is okay.
  But we can do better. We have an opportunity to raise this to a 
higher standard. We have a chance today with adopting this simple 
motion to say it is all well and good, but let's make sure the Fed 
checks this out and comes back affirmatively.
  Now, you might hear there is a study, Congressman, in the bill 
already. And I would suggest to you that the way the study in the bill 
is already crafted, it is a retroactive study, right? So it says within 
3 months, 6 months of the acceptance date, we need to move forward.
  You know what you need to do, and you know we need to do it.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. 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.

                              {time}  1500

  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.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Today, America's consumers can see what a Democratic 
President and a Democratic majority means to their lives. We can stop 
these abusive practices by voting down the motion to recommit and 
voting for the bill.
  Small businesses, the Small Business Association was part of our 
coalition. They support the bill. The National Federation of 
Independent Businesses, they call it a key vote alert. They will score 
people on this vote, a vote in support of the legislation.
  So we have a chance to vote with the regulators of this country that 
support the bill and have called these practices unfair, deceptive and 
anticompetitive. We get to vote with 54 editorial boards across the 
country that have endorsed the bill, with every consumer group, every 
civil rights group, and many grassroots organizations that have called 
this their number 1 legislative priority.
  We do not need to delay. We need to vote against this motion to 
recommit, and we need to move forward in enacting these provisions to 
protect America's working men and women, particularly when our economy 
is downturning, many people are losing their jobs. We need to protect 
our consumers, not delay provisions that can help them better manage 
their credit and stop abusive practices.
  Vote for the Democratic bill.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 164, 
noes 263, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 227]

                               AYES--164

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--263

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gerlach
     Gonzalez

[[Page H5041]]


     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McMahon
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Berry
     Burgess
     Granger
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Stark

                              {time}  1521

  Messrs. GERLACH, MEEKS of New York, MINNICK, and Ms. McCOLLUM changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. FLAKE and CANTOR changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 357, 
noes 70, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 228]

                               AYES--357

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boccieri
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cao
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Graves
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Harper
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NY)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Quigley
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--70

     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Cantor
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Conaway
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dreier
     Flake
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Inglis
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lummis
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Price (GA)
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Berry
     Burgess
     Granger
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Pence
     Stark


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are reminded there 
are less than 2 minutes remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1534

  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS and Mr. GOODLATTE changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________