Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3639, Expedited Card Reform For Consumers Act Of 2009

Floor Speech

Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3639, Expedited Card Reform For Consumers Act Of 2009

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

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

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

H.R. 3639 would accelerate the implementation of H.R. 627, the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009, a bill that was signed into law earlier this year. I opposed the bill at that time because it took the wrong approach to addressing concerns with the credit card industry. The provisions it seeks to accelerate would impose unfunded private-sector Federal mandates, increased costs to borrowers; and it would limit the availability of credit to potential borrowers, which is just the opposite of what our colleagues think they are achieving.

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

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

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

I think that it is the height of arrogance to compare the outrageous 2,000-page bill written in Speaker Pelosi's office with the Ten Commandments given to us by God through Moses, whose face is looking down on us from the wall of this Chamber. That, to me, is the epitome of the arrogance of the majority party right now, saying that it is okay to have a lot of ``shalls'' in that because the ``shalls'' were in the Ten Commandments.

With Federal spending and debt already out of control, the Democrat leadership is content with putting the cost of their government takeover of health care on the Nation's credit card. Again, my friend, Mr. Roskam from Illinois, alluded to this a few minutes ago.

The Wall Street Journal called Speaker Pelosi's 1,990-page takeover of health care the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Speaker Pelosi's plan will cost $1.055 trillion over the first decade, not $894 billion as Speaker Pelosi claims. But the Democrats are using a procedural maneuver to include the $245 billion ``doc fix'' without violating PAYGO, so the real cost of the bill is closer to $1.3 trillion.

At more than $1 trillion and nearly 2,000 pages, H.R. 3962 is the antithesis of patient-centered reforms that empower Americans to truly own and control their health care coverage. The fact is, H.R. 3962 will force millions of Americans off their current coverage, hand control over medical decisions to new czars and bureaucrats, raise taxes, stifle job creation, expand entitlement spending, and break already-strained State budgets.

Pelosi's plan creates 111 new boards, bureaucracies, commissions, and programs. Americans can say goodbye to personal private insurance as individual health insurance coverage is grandfathered out of existence in section 202 and more limitations also are added to Health Savings Accounts, sections 531 and 533.

H.R. 3962 permits Federal funds to be spent on abortion services, section 222, and includes a government-run plan, section 321, that will force tens of millions of Americans off their current coverage. So much for the promise that if you like your current coverage, you can keep it.

The bill increases taxes by $729.5 billion, including a mandate that employers provide coverage or pay a tax equal to 8 percent of wages, section 512; a 5.4 percent surtax on small businesses, section 551; and a mandate that Americans purchase government-deemed acceptable health care coverage or face a tax of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income, section 501.

In navigating the new health care system, Americans will have to deal with a host of new czars and bureaucracies, including the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, section 223, the Health Choices Administration and Health Choices Commissioner, section 241.

Community organizations like ACORN may assist the Health Choices Commissioner in enrolling individuals in the Health Insurance Exchange, section 305. We all know how successful ACORN has been in enrolling people appropriately into different programs.

H.R. 3962 includes a huge expansion of the Medicaid entitlement, eligibility up to 150 percent of the Federal poverty level, but leaves already overstretched State governments to pick up the $34 billion tab, section 1701.

Mr. Speaker, I am mentioning these sections because

I want the American people to know they can verify what we are saying simply by going to the bill and looking at it in these sections. This is not something we are making up. It is there.

To appease their trial lawyer base, Democrats continue to ignore the enormous medical liability crisis that needlessly drives up costs. They pay lip service to medical malpractice reform with money for States that pursue ``effective'' lawyer-friendly alternatives, section 2531, but they explicitly exclude States that limit attorney's fees or cap damages. Members of Congress are not subject to the same health care system Americans will have to live by under the public health insurance option, section 330.

The Democrats claim their bill allows for the sale of health insurance across State lines. In reality, this bill will only provide for regional compacts that States can enter into if their State legislatures approve it. However, these compacts can only exist after the Federal Government has established stringent national rules for minimum benefits and what constitutes a qualified plan, virtually eliminating the individual market and creating a national exchange, causing many to wonder how this would even be possible.

Rather than forcing through a bad bill with only limited support, the Democrats should keep working until they can get a bill that represents the opinions of most Americans and helps rather than hurts Americans.

Democrats in Congress often portray Republicans as obstructionists with no health care reform solutions of our own. This is simply not true. Republicans in Congress are listening to the American people. We know that Americans want commonsense, responsible solutions that make health insurance more affordable, reduce the number of uninsured Americans, and increase quality at a price our country can afford while making sure that Americans who like their health insurance can keep it.

We have proposed many commonsense solutions that fell on deaf ears as the Democrats in charge wrote their bill in secret. Republican Members have introduced more than 50 health care reform bills this year. House Republicans will support responsible health care reform and offer an alternative plan to Pelosi's 1,990-page, $1.3 trillion takeover of health care.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from North Carolina?

There was no objection.

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

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

Source