Spencer Bachus

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding funding that I requested as part of H.R. 2996, Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010. Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus Bill Number: H.R. 2996, Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 Account: National Park Service, Save America's Treasures Legal Name of Requesting Entity: University of Montevallo Address of Requesting Entity: UM Station 6130, Montevallo, AL 35115 Description of Request: Provide $150,000 to fund interior and exterior renovation and an upgrade to existing safety codes. The Main Hall renovation project will provide students with safe, comfortable, and accessible housing in a building listed on the National Historic Registry. The projects will provide an enhanced environment for living and learning. This project's budget is $2.5 million. Within the budget is $150,000 for stone and masonry work, $300,000 for metal cornice repairs, $250,000 for exterior painting, $1,600,000 for windows, and $200,000 for professional services. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the National Park Service, Save America's Treasures account. The University of Montevallo will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for match funding where applicable

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding funding that I requested as part of H.R. 2892--Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010. Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus Bill Number: H.R. 2892--Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010 Account: FEMA, Predisaster Mitigation Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Alabama Emergency Management Agency Address of Requesting Entity: P.O. Drawer 2160, Clanton, AL 35046 Description of Request: Provide $200,000 for the construction of a Safe Room/Tornado and Severe Wind Shelter for the City of Graysville at the Graysville East Pavilion Park on 3rd Avenue N.E. The Shelter will accommodate approximately fifty people. This project directly supports efforts by the City of Graysville to reduce damages and the loss of life and property from natural disasters such as tornados and severe storms. This project's total budget is $250,000. Specifically within the budget, $50,000 will go toward engineering cost, $75,000 toward site preparations, and $125,000 toward construction cost. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the FEMA, Predisaster Mitigation account. The City of Graysville will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding funding that I requested as part of H.R. 2847--Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010. Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus Bill Number: H.R. 2847--Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 Account: Department of Justice, COPS Law Enforcement Technology Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Birmingham Address of Requesting Entity: 710 North 20th Street, Birmingham, AL 35203 Description of Request: Provide $250,000 for the City of Birmingham's Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program to add additional police officers to the existing force and for crime prevention technology like Shot Spotter and GPS technology. The City plans to use the funds to increase the number of personnel and to invest in technology such as shot spotter GPS technology which will result in an improvement in public safety. The project's total budget is $2,051,250. Specifically within the budget, $320,000 is for 300 mobile data computer licensing, $671,250 for 75 Coban VMDT, $180,000 for 150 DataRadio Ciphr Modems, and $880,000 for shotspotter expansion and mobile software. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Department of Justice, COPS Law Enforcement Technology Account. The City of Birmingham will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable. Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus Bill Number: H.R. 2847--Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 Account: Department of Justice, COPS Law Enforcement Technology Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Shelby County Sheriff Address of Requesting Entity: P.O. Box 1095, Columbiana, AL 35051 Description of Request: Provide $500,000 to upgrade the Shelby County Sheriff's office public safety communications network. The primary objective of the Wide Area Radio Network (WARN) project is to provide Shelby County with a county-wide, mission-critical radio voice communication system. The funding will help to improve the public safety communications network and thus result in an improved public safety system in Shelby County. The project's total budget is $500,000. Specifically within the budget, $250,000 is for mobile car radios and $250,000 is for hand held portable radios. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Department of Justice, COPS Law Enforcement Technology Account. The Shelby County Sheriff's Office will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable. Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus Bill Number: H.R. 2847--Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 Account: Department of Justice, OJP--Byrne Discretionary Grants Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Irondale Address of Requesting Entity: P.O. Box 100188, Irondale, AL 35210 Description of Request: Provide $350,000 for equipment and technology upgrades for the Irondale Police Department, which will allow for better communication and increased emergency response capability. The project will invest in crime prevention and protection. The project's total budget is $350,000. Specifically within the budget, $40,000 is for the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) System, $14,000 for a dispatch recorder, $85,000 for a 911 System Enhancement, $50,000 for communication room renovation, $79,200 for laptop computers, $4,500 for computers, $7,500 for a computer server with fiber optic cable, $1,800 for a printer/copier and $68,000 for a telephone system replacement. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Department of Justice, OJP--Byrne Discretionary Grants Account. The City of Irondale will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable. Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus Bill Number: H.R. 2847--Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 Account: Department of Justice, OJP--Juvenile Justice Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Team Focus, Inc. Address of Requesting Entity: 6110 Grelot Road, Mobile, AL 36609 Description of Request: Provide $500,000 for mentoring and education programs for Team Focus, Inc. The funding will help provide young men who lack a father figure in their lives with leadership skills, guidance, moral values, and a continuing relationship with a carefully selected adult mentor. The mentoring program will aid the participants in becoming productive members of society. The project's total budget is $500,000. Specifically within the budget, $120,000 is for equipment, $150,000 for travel, and $ 230,000 for supplies. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Department of Justice, OJP--Juvenile Justice Account. Team Focus, Inc. will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable. Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus Bill Number: H.R. 2847--Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 Account: Department of Justice, OJP--Juvenile Justice Legal Name of Requesting Entity: United Methodist Children's Home Address of Requesting Entity: P.O. Box 830 Selma, AL 36702 Description of Request: Provide $150,000 to provide security and IT improvements for the United Methodist Children's Home. By improving the efficiency and effectiveness of its information technology infrastructure, the United Methodist Children's Home will better serve the at-risk youth in its care. The creation of a seamless system will ease each children's movement through the continuum of care in the Children's Home system, which will improve the outcomes for each child, namely, becoming responsible and productive members of their communities. The project's total budget is $425,000. Specifically within the budget, $89,000 is for personnel, $13,000 for fringe benefits, $188,000 for equipment, $96,000 for contractual services, and $39,000 for miscellaneous items. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Department of Justice, OJP-- Juvenile Justice Account. The United Methodist Children's Home will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable. Requesting Member: Congressman Spencer Bachus Bill Number: H.R. 2847--Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 Account: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Legal Name of Requesting Entity: University of Alabama Address of Requesting Entity: Office of Research, Box 870117, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Description of Request: Provide $350,000 for the University of Alabama to develop novel and efficient miniature antennas that are capable of supporting systems that control the flight of UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles). Novel ferrites (magnetic material) and broadband ferrite antennas of unique design will be investigated and developed, respectively, to address the unstable imaging problem existing in UAV cameras. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) can provide vastly improved acquisition and rapid dissemination of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance data. The benefits and promise offered by UAVs have drawn attention because of the significant impact they have on our national security. The project's total budget is $1,000,000. Specifically within the budget, $500,000 will go toward salaries, $100,000 will go toward laboratory supplies and materials, $60,000 will go toward rental equipment, $40,000 will go toward travel expenses, and $300.000 will go toward equipment. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Account. The University of Alabama will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 328, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chair, I think there are some issues that may divide us, but there are other issues that unite us as Members, and this is a perfect example of an amendment, I think, that brings us all together. In fact, this amendment is cosponsored by Dennis Moore, my Democratic colleague from Kansas. And Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson was very helpful in crafting this amendment. And I express my appreciation to you, also, the ranking member, Peter King, and to the ranking member of the subcommittee, Charlie Dent, and also to the chairman of the subcommittee, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee. They and the Homeland Security Committee were most helpful. Mr. Chairman, often, as we go through the airports of America, we and our constituents see our members of the military passing through those airports. Many of them are going to Iraq and Afghanistan. They're leaving their loved ones, facing sometimes an uncertain future. Others are coming in from Iraq and Afghanistan, going home to see loved ones. Sometimes they haven't seen them for over a year. They're often loaded down with heavy gear. Now, also, at the same time, we see the registered travelers that we talked about earlier, we see United Premium members, we see Delta Platinum members and Gold Medallion members. We all see them getting priority, and that's okay. I have no problem with that. But if there is any group of Americans who ought to get priority to go to the front of the line, not to skip security, but to go to the front of the line, it's men and women in uniform. So this amendment extends to them the same basic courtesy that we extend to over a million other Americans right now. In fact, this is my Southwest A-list member. I, because I travel, I get to use that. United members do, Delta members do. But I want to see our military have this same privilege. I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as the gentleman, the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Dent from Pennsylvania, may consume.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, let me close by saying this. We received a letter in the last 2 days from Major General Abner Blalock, who says this amendment will make a big difference for our military and for their families. And I hope it does. I think it's a small gesture that we can make. I also received an e-mail from a young marine who was coming back from Iraq, and this is what he said: As I returned from Iraq, where I had been for over a year, I had to remove my boots and my blouse--a military term for battle dress uniform--and then a hand wand was used over my entire body. That was after he waited in line for some period of time. He said he felt humiliated. There is a way to have proper security, and this amendment does nothing to change those requirements. But we can give those young men in uniform some expedited service, and we also ask TSA to look at when men and women are in uniform, under orders, to consider an expedited way to get them through security. With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask all the Members to join with me in expressing our appreciation to the men and women who serve us and risk their life for us every day.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I think all of us in this body have had constituents call and complain that what they saw were unfair and deceptive credit card practices, and in many cases, these practices were not fair. As a result of that, the Financial Services Committee, working with the Federal Reserve, proposed--and the Federal Reserve has now adopted--changes. The things that have been talked about by Members of this body in the debate last week and in the debate today are taken care of in the Federal Reserve's requirements. In fact, they went through a long public process. They had over 60,000 public comments about the issues, and they issued, actually, 1,200 pages of changes in our credit card regulations. This included going up on balance fees. This included double-cycle billing. This included giving people a longer period of time from the time their statement was mailed to the time they had to get a payment in--all of the things, I think, that most of us have received calls on. One matter that we raised when this bill was before us--and I want to commend the Senate, and I want to commend the Democratic majority in the House--was this idea in the original legislation that you could apply for a number of credit cards, but it would not go on your credit report until you activated that card. I think, as a result of the debate 2 weeks ago, we took a closer look at that, and we did pass an amendment by Aaron Schock, which, I think, will close the door to a lot of fraud in that regard. I appreciate the majority's support on that. I think the Senate further closed that loophole, and I think we've struck the right balance there. As for the supporters of this bill, I don't question their sincerity, and I don't question their motivation. They and the American people want credit card reform. What we had said is there is tremendous reform in the Fed's proposals, in the Federal Reserve's proposals, and we felt like those ought to have a chance. We expressed why we were for those reforms which were going into effect next July and not for this bill. One of our concerns--and I think that this bill will do this, and I hope I'm wrong--is that this legislation, I believe, will restrict credit for those who don't have the best credit reports. They're really the people who probably need credit the most. In fact, the subcommittee ranking member, Mr. Hensarling, referred to a New York Times article. Now, that article and an article that appeared in today's Washington Post really express some of the same concerns that the gentleman from Texas and I expressed 2 weeks ago, which is that we are going to have several things happen as a result of this bill. One is we're going to have a restriction of credit. The Washington Post article does quote from the Financial Services Roundtable, but they say that they believe that credit could be reduced by as much as $2 billion. That's not very good timing if that's done, ladies and gentlemen of the House. As I have said and as I said yesterday in the Rules Committee, I fear that many Americans will not be able to renew their credit cards or I fear that their credit card lines will be reduced. Sometimes maybe this is good, but I think, in a time of economic crisis, it's going to be somewhat ill-timed. The New York Times and The Washington Post both mention that they believe, as a result of this legislation, you are not going to see any offers to transfer balances at zero percent. They also say the most creditworthy customers, those who pay every month and who haven't had to pay interest, will probably have to as a result of these changes. They probably will be charged interest. There are predictions in here that there will be the return of higher fees. I hope these predictions don't pan out. [From the New York Times, May 19, 2009] Credit Card Industry Aims To Profit From Sterling Payers (By Andrew Martin) Credit cards have long been a very good deal for people who pay their bills on time and in full. Even as card companies imposed punitive fees and penalties on those late with their payments, the best customers racked up cash-back rewards, frequent-flier miles and other perks in recent years. Now Congress is moving to limit the penalties on riskier borrowers, who have become a prime source of billions of dollars in fee revenue for the industry. And to make up for lost income, the card companies are going after those people with sterling credit. Banks are expected to look at reviving annual fees, curtailing cash-back and other rewards programs and charging interest immediately on a purchase instead of allowing a grace period of weeks, according to bank officials and trade groups. ``It will be a different business,'' said Edward L. Yingling, the chief executive of the American Bankers Association, which has been lobbying Congress for more lenient legislation on behalf of the nation's biggest banks. ``Those that manage their credit well will in some degree subsidize those that have credit problems.'' As they thin their ranks of risky cardholders to deal with an economic downturn, major banks including American Express, Citigroup, Bank of America and a long list of others have already begun to raise interest rates, and some have set their sights on consumers who pay their bills on time. The legislation scheduled for a Senate vote on Tuesday does not cap interest rates, so banks can continue to lift them, albeit at a slower pace and with greater disclosure. ``There will be one-size-fits-all pricing, and as a result, you'll see the industry will be more egalitarian in terms of its revenue base,'' said David Robertson, publisher of the Nilson Report, which tracks the credit card business. People who routinely pay off their credit card balances have been enjoying the equivalent of a free ride, he said, because many have not had to pay an annual fee even as they collect points for air travel and other perks. ``Despite all the terrible things that have been said, you're making out like a bandit,'' he said. ``That's a third of credit card customers, 50 million people who have gotten a great deal.'' Robert Hammer, an industry consultant, said the legislation might have the broad effect of encouraging card issuers to become ever more reliant on fees from marginal customers as well as creditworthy cardholders--``deadbeats'' in industry parlance, because they generate scant fee revenue. ``They aren't charities. They have shareholders to report to,'' he said, referring to banks and credit card companies. ``Whatever is left in the model to work from, they will start to maneuver.'' Banks used to give credit cards only to the best consumers and charge them a flat interest rate of about 20 percent and an annual fee. But with the relaxing of usury laws in some states, and the ready availability of credit scores in the late 1980s, banks began offering cards with a variety of different interest rates and fees, tying the pricing to the credit risk of the cardholder. That helped push interest rates down for many consumers, but they soared for riskier cardholders, who became a significant source of revenue for the industry. The recent economic downturn challenged that formula, and banks started dumping the riskiest customers and lowering their credit limits in earnest as the recession accelerated. Now, consumers who pay their bills off every month are issuing a rising chorus of complaints about shortened grace periods, new hidden fees and higher interest rates. The industry says that the proposals will force banks to issue fewer credit cards at greater cost to the current cardholders. Citigroup and Capital One referred comments to the A.B.A. Discover and American Express declined to comment. Bank of America intends to ``provide credit to the largest number of creditworthy customers possible, while also remaining prudent in our lending practices,'' said Betty Riess, a spokeswoman. Together with JPMorgan Chase, which has said the changes will force it to limit credit availability and raise fees, these banks account for 80 percent of the credit card industry. Banks are not required to publicly reveal how much money they make from penalty interest rates and fees, though government officials and industry consultants estimate they constitute a growing portion of revenue. For instance, Mr. Hammer said the amount of money generated by penalty fees like late charges and exceeding credit limits had increased by about $1 billion annually in recent years, and should top $20 billion this year. Regulations passed by the Federal Reserve in December to curb unexpected interest charges would cost issuers about $12 billion a year in lost fees and income, according to industry calculations. The legislation before Congress would build on the Fed rules and would further squeeze banks' revenue when they are being hit with a high rate of credit card charge- offs. The government's stress tests showed that the nation's 19 biggest banks will take on $82 billion in credit card losses in the next two years. A 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office estimated that 70 percent of card issuers' revenue came from interest charges, and the portion from penalty rates appeared to be growing. The remainder came from fees on cardholders as well as retailers for processing transactions. Many retailers are angry at the high fees and plan to pass them on to shoppers once the Congressional legislation takes effect. Consumer advocates say they have little sympathy for credit card issuers, arguing that they have made billions in recent years with unfair and sometimes deceptive practices. ``The business model will change because the business model doesn't work for the public,'' said Gail Hillebrand, a senior lawyer at Consumers Union. ``In order to do business under the new rules, they'll actually have to tell you how much it's going to cost,'' she said. With many consumers mired in debt and angry at what they consider gouging by credit card companies, the issue of credit card reform has broad populist appeal. Members of Congress and the Obama administration have seized on the discontent to push reforms that the industry succeeded in tamping down when the economy was flying high. Austan Goolsbee, an economic adviser to President Obama, said that while the credit card industry had the right to make a reasonable profit as long as its contracts were in plain language and rule-breakers were held accountable, its current practices were akin to ``a series of carjackings.'' ``The card industry is giving the argument that if you didn't want to be carjacked, why weren't you locking your doors or taking a different road?'' Mr. Goolsbee said.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very good amendment. I want to close and thank the gentleman for that time. Mr. Frank and I both agree, and I think most Members of this body, we must stop these outrageous mortgage fraud rescue scams. Congress shuts off one avenue for fraud, and we did that with the National Mortgaging Licensing and Registration System now being instituted by the Conference of State Banking Supervisors. But every time you shut one door, these innovative crooks find a back door, and now they have moved into the fertile field of foreclosure. We must protect unsuspecting and vulnerable homeowners from being cheated by these rogues and frauds. I close by urging my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. BACHUS. If the gentleman would yield me 30 seconds?

Mr. BACHUS. Before I discuss my amendment, I'd like to thank Chairman Frank and really, first of all, acknowledge his efforts over the past few years to combat predatory lending practices. I think as early as 2005, he was aggressively trying to stop some of these practices. I also appreciate the chairman working with me to bring this amendment to the floor. Originally, my amendment funded foreclosure rescue scam awareness and prevention efforts. And that's what the amendment is about. It's about so-called foreclosure rescue scams. I had proposed using money from the legal assistance fund and, after consultation with Chairman Frank, I revised my amendment to use the bill's counseling authorization as a funding source. Although the chairman and I disagree on the underlying merits of the bill, I do appreciate the spirit of bipartisanship which the chairman has shown in our discussions on this amendment and the bill as a whole. I earlier acknowledged your efforts since I think at least 2005 to come up with a bipartisan bill. I don't think we were successful this year, but I think had our efforts been successful in prior years, we could have avoided some of this. And I'm sorry the other body didn't show the urgency that we did.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Mr. BACHUS. First of all, I want to acknowledge that the funding for this bill is a good thing for mortgage foreclosure efforts. I would point out that I think the Bachmann amendment is the same amendment we adopted in the GSE Affordable Housing Fund. So we did adopt that in that legislation. So her amendment would be consistent with what this body did last year.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. To register all mortgage originators, and that has been a tremendous success. We have got a lot of people committing fraud in starting those loans, and I think we are putting an end to that through legislation. We need to work on something else, and I think we all agree. I have an amendment that I'm going to the Rules Committee to propose, and I think there are some Democratic amendments. There are now people coming in and promising people they'll work out these foreclosures, and they are defrauding people who are actually going through a foreclosure, which is outrageous; and this bill needs a strong provision on that. But here's what it doesn't do: Chairman Frank and I supported in the last Congress H.R. 3915. Look at that bill and look at this bill. That included licensing and registration of originators as the first title. That's what I had proposed. The Senator from California proposed a similar thing and introduced it in the Senate. I introduced it in the House. That's now passed. It was approved by a large bipartisan majority. But H.R. 1728, the bill before us, it strikes a far different balance, and I believe it's one that will undermine the mortgage market at the worst possible time. We are just starting to see preliminary signs of a possible housing recovery. Look at the numbers. Loans are being made. But H.R. 1728, the bill before us, it lacks clarity needed to provide, I think, meaningful protection to consumers. That was the testimony in the hearings from a coalition of consumer advocacy groups and labor groups. It manages to punish both responsible industry participants and worthy borrowers at the same time.

Mr. BACHUS. Let me tell you what I believe, and I believe Mr. Watt and Mr. Miller are sincere. According to the Charlotte Observer, we were close to an agreement. I have no idea what happened. But let's talk about today. Let's talk about today, and let's assume and I assume, and I think I'm right, that we have all been very concerned about this. The legislation today, I think all the testimony in the hearings has been that poor origination standards plagued the mortgage industry and we need origination reform. We did something last year. We started proposing in 2005 registration of all brokers.

Mr. BACHUS. I am going to go fairly quickly, Mr. Chairman. Rather than focusing on basic underwriting standards we were doing in 2005 and 2006 and in Chairman Frank's bill last year, we are not doing that anymore. Now, part of that is the Federal Reserve has adopted comprehensive antipredatory lending regulations. Mr. Garrett mentioned that. And those are going forward, and it's almost like this bill doesn't realize what has happened over the last year or two. It will expose the mortgage financial industry to substantial litigation risk. There was plenty of testimony on that. The cost of these inevitable lawsuits are going to be passed on to consumers. I actually proposed in my draft an individual right of action if people violated the standards that we were close to agreeing to. Many lenders have said they'll stop offering certain mortgage products that people are taking now. They're successful in paying them back.

Mr. BACHUS. Consumer advocates, Federal regulators, Members on both sides of the aisle expressed reservation on the bill before us. Margot Saunders, and I'm going to quote here again, National Consumer Law Center, we worked with her, the gentleman from North Carolina and I, on trying to fashion a bill. She was for the bill last year. She says that this bill is ``convoluted and virtually impossible as a mechanism to solve the current problem.'' Now, she was testifying on behalf of a coalition of consumer advocacy groups. The administration is working out a plan right now to resolve troubled mortgages, and we shouldn't make it more difficult for worthy borrowers to get home loans while they're doing that. A ``yes'' vote will do exactly that. It will raise the cost of mortgage credit, limit the availability to millions of Americans. It won't give the certainty that our mortgage market needs. It's poorly crafted and ill defined.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, and Members of the body, this discussion is a discussion that has been going on for 5 or 6 years. In fact, it predates that. In 1999, this body discussed the fact that Freddie and Fannie were being pushed into making loans without a down payment. And the New York Times, in an article in September, 1999, actually quoted Peter Wallison as saying that you are not requiring a down payment, and now the Clinton administration is pushing Freddie and Fannie to lower the credit standards. And he makes the statement in there that, if they fail, the government will have to step in and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry. In 2005, I made another statement that some people considered wild-eyed, and I said that if we don't reform the subprime lending market, we are going to have a similar situation that we faced with subprime lending. Mr. Kanjorski, listening to him reminded me that he and I pretty much, I thought, put together a bill--or he said bipartisan legislation, what he was talking about is, we were drafting it, and Chairman Frank was working on it. And I actually made the statement in 2005, and I will read my statement: ``Uniform standards in the marketplace are essential if the primary and secondary markets are to continue to serve as a vital source of liquidity to make mortgages available to homebuyers with less than perfect credit. I am committed to finding ways to end predatory lending while also preserving and promoting access for all homeowners to affordable credit.'' That was in May of 2005. Chairman Frank said--and I think said accurately--earlier on the floor that he and I came awfully close to a consensus in 2005 for a bill. I don't, quite frankly, know what happened. I am reading a Charlotte Observer statement, and I know Mr. Miller was concerned about putting some things in the bill that even some Democrat legislators objected to and I felt would limit access to credit. It is striking that I look at this House bill, 1728, and I will say this, Mr. Miller and Mr. Watt, this is essentially what you were advocating back in 2005. But at that time, I thought there was a bipartisan feeling--that I actually submitted in draft form--that didn't contain some of these things. Because I really sincerely believe that you will eliminate many worthy borrowers with this legislation because it is almost a one-size- fits-all. There's going to be a lot of loans that could be made and people could buy a home, and that's a delicate balance. That's a balance we obviously violated throughout the 1990s by putting people in homes that shouldn't be there. And Mr. Miller, I think, and Mr. Watt have argued that if they have to pay a certain price, it just won't work, and many of my Republican colleagues agree to that. And as I said, I submitted draft legislation for consideration, but we couldn't get there. If you will recall, the other body said they were not going to take a provision on securitization. They weren't going to take it. And here we are today, 4 years later, and we all agree that there needs to be skin in the game, but this legislation before us is not the legislation that Mr. Kanjorski has talked about that I was ready to move in 2005 or 2006, that Mr. Frank talked about, and it was essentially the legislation of Mr. Watt. I believe it was wrong then; I believe it's wrong now.

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.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me be very clear again. This bill, we requested the Congressional Research Service to analyze the bill, and they came out, and I am going to introduce this, with about 18 things that this bill does. Fifteen of those things, including probably what we spent 90 percent of our time on here today, the Federal Reserve required in their announcement. There are four provisions in this bill that are not in the Federal Reserve bill. Let me tell you, raising interest rates, we are all against that. The Fed says you can't do it without good reason, and it strictly defines the reason. There is something you hadn't mentioned that the Fed does. It says if you have got a higher interest rate on certain payments and a lower interest rate on another, you have to either direct the payment at the higher interest rate, and your bill does too, or prorate it, which is fair. Look, the American people are upset. You are absolutely right. Credit card companies haven't played by the rules. A lot of them have. Some of them haven't. But that is really not a difference of opinion, because we have the Federal Reserve saying you can't do it. Now, here are the things that the Federal Reserve doesn't do that your bill does. Your bill says if the outstanding balance on the credit card consists only of accrued interest, and it could be several hundred dollars, then no fee may be imposed in connection with such balance, and the failure to make timely repayments on the balance shall not constitute a default. Now, I don't understand that. Somebody owes $600 or $700, they are not paying on the bill, but it is not considered a default? Well, what is it? What is it? Here's another one. And I think there is a real difference of opinion about this because we have gone round and round on this one. It prohibits a creditor from informing a credit bureau that they've opened a credit card with a, say, $10,000 limit on a customer until such time as the customer uses that credit card, makes a charge against it. Now, let me tell you what I have a real problem with. What if somebody goes out and, hey, we've seen outrageous schemes perpetrated on the American people by some real crafty individuals, as well as firms? What if you went out and you got 10 credit cards for $10,000 apiece, you didn't draw against any of them, you kept getting them, and I'm a community bank and I give you a 5 or $10,000 line of credit, and I have no idea that you've opened up 10 just like it? You borrow the money, and you walk away with $100,000. Now, that can happen. That's why the Fed looked at this and said, whoa, no way. Now, here's the third one. Look, I've got five children, and I am just like the gentleman from Chicago. These credit card offers amaze me. But honest difference of opinion. What you say here is if you're under 18 years old, unless you've been emancipated by the State you're a resident of, you can't get a credit card. I don't think that's the right way to do it. I don't think that's right, because, let me tell you, there are 16- and 17-year-olds in this country that they've been cut off by their parents. They've been abused by their parents. They're out there working, and they're going to need this. So those are some differences of opinions we have. But I will tell you this: Most of what you do, and I commend you, what you have been proposing for years, and some of us on our side, is that the Federal Reserve is addressed. But as I said to start with, I never imply that we don't have sincere differences on some of these points. Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC, March 26, 2009. memordandum To: House Financial Services Committee From: Mark Jickling, Specialist in Financial Economics, 7- 7784. Subject: Comparison of H.R. 627 and the Federal Reserve's Credit Card Regulations. This memorandum provides the comparison you requested between H.R. 627, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2009, and the credit card regulations adopted by the Federal Reserve in December 2008. The table below sets out the provisions of the bill and the comparable provisions in the regulations. The Fed's credit card regulations involve amendments to its Regulation AA (Unfair Acts or Practices) and Regulation Z (Truth in Lending). The Fed also issued rules related to overdrafts on deposit accounts and returned checks by amending Regulation DD (Truth in Savings). The latter set of rules do not apply specifically to credit cards and are not included in the table. The texts of the final rules, as printed in the Federal Register, are online: [www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/ 20081218a.htm] TABLE I.--COMPARISON OF H.R. 627 AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE'S DECEMBER 2008

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, let me start out by saying that I know the Members on the other side and I think there is one thing that we all share--most of the Members if not all of the Members--and that is that we want to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive credit card practices and ensure that they receive useful, complete, fair disclosures as they enter these agreements and, once they enter these agreements, that the terms and conditions are met and that they're not abused. Like many of my colleagues, I have received calls from constituents about credit card practices that certainly don't seem to be fair. In fact, many times they are not fair. And I don't defend them. That's why I don't question the motivation or the sincerity of those who want to address this practice with this bill. Having said that, I don't believe that this bill is the right solution. But there is an alternative, and I want to discuss an alternative that I think has been taken. Because in going in and over- restricting the offering of credit and overly restricting credit card companies' ability to price and by over-restricting terms and conditions, you do affect the availability of credit. In fact, the Small Business Administration has testified--not about this bill, so I don't want to mislead anybody; it is not about this bill--that they have said that with small businesses, availability of credit is their greatest concern, restrictions on credit are their second greatest, and only third is the terms and conditions. And that there has to be a balance between the government--they didn't say this; this is what I am saying--if we over-restrict what companies or people offering credit, what they can do or offer, you do--and I think we all agree--you do, whether you unconsciously do it or intentionally do it, you do restrict the offering of credit. This bill will do that. I mean, there will be people who can have a credit card today at a higher interest rate, or if they don't pay on a timely manner at a rate that escalates, that if this bill passes, will not get credit at all. Now some people might say, well, that's good. But today, you have got to have a credit card. And we have to take, I believe, in offering rates and in changing rates from time to time, the payment history of the person, of the credit card holder, we've got to take into consideration whether they have met the obligations. Now, the sponsor of this bill--and I have agreed for some time that there are some practices that we ought to address. Double-cycle billing. You mentioned this bill addresses that. And it ought to be addressed. Mr. Gutierrez and I talked about them offering a rate and then coming back in 6 months and suddenly changing that rate without any notice, number one, and then changing it on the existing balance as far as going forward. We both think that they shouldn't do that unless there are unusual or extenuating circumstances. I think we also all agree that--and I have had complaints from other Members knowing that I am the ranking member of Financial Services-- that people get their credit card bill and they are out of town and all of a sudden they couldn't get it back and they didn't have time to pay it. The gentlewoman from New York says we're going to extend that to 21 days. That's a good thing. But all three of those things, and several other things that we agree on, the Federal Reserve has acted. Now there is a disagreement among us. Mrs. Maloney has said, and others have said, that they ought to be able to do this in 30 days, or 60 days. But the Fed has issued 1,200 pages of regulations--1,200 pages--and we simply don't think that 30 days or 60 days, the credit card companies, the banks tell us--and these are not just the big banks; these are community banks, these are credit unions--they have all said, ``Look, we agree there were abuses,'' and the Fed and members of this committee on both sides have pushed them into making changes. But I honestly don't think they can do it in 30 days or 60 days. That's a fair argument. What I fear is, as I said, credit cards play a crucial role in the lives of everyday Americans and the overall economy. I mean, the availability of credit cards, credit card offers, they are essential. And any regulation or any legislation affecting credit card practices is going to have a profound effect on every American and every American family. Those effects can be good in cases. I think when you give people 21 days, I think that's a good thing. I think when you say let's not change someone's interest rate on a balance, you ought to give them like you do, and we agreed and the Fed agreed, to give them 5 years, amortize it and give 5 years. I think it was a good thing to prohibit double-cycle billing. In fact, there are 12 or 14 things that the regulators have now told the banks they've got to do. But I believe there is always if you say one size fits all, yes, there will be people, if this bill passes, that will receive a lower interest rate or their interest rates won't go as high. But there are other people, I think a far greater universe, where the interest rates will go up on people that pay on time, people that have better credit, and that this is sort of a leveling, and I think you're going to see that interest rates are going to go up from 10 to 12 percent. Let me just simply stop there. I will give the lady a chance to respond. But I do want to say one thing and then I will quit. We're in the midst of a severe economic downturn. Unemployment is up. Hardworking Americans are facing unparalleled difficulties. Now, if a credit card company doesn't treat them right, they just add to those difficulties. But if we over-restrict these offers of credit, put too much conditions on it, we've been told that the credit limits are going to come down. Some people are going to be told, ``I'm sorry, we're pulling your lines of credit.'' That's already happened. And particularly, investors and people that invest and put capital behind credit card offerings are not going to be there. I do have all of those concerns. For that reason, I sincerely believe that H.R. 627 is going to do some good, a lot of it the Fed is doing anyway, but it's going to do some harm. And you weigh all of that out, and I am afraid that the consumers are not going to benefit. Some will, but I think most won't. At this time, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) such time as he may consume.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Chair, it seems that every day brings news of another large government program, intervention, mandate, or tax. Sometimes the expansion is subtle. Sometimes it's more direct. Just months into this Congress, this Majority has pushed an additional $350 billion in TARP funds out the door without additional oversight, passed a $410 billion spending bill full of wasteful pet projects, and handed our children and grandchildren the tab for the largest single spending bill our nation has ever seen in the form of a $1.2 trillion so-called stimulus bill. Today, their budget calls for taxpayers to commit another $3.6 trillion more of their hard-earned money without transparency or adequate oversight. This budget spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much. It expands government control on a scale that we have never seen before, not even during the New Deal. If you had told me a month ago that Congress wanted to increase the tax burden on charitable contributions, I would have said it's an April Fool's joke. But the fact is that if donations to charities go down, the government will say it has to step in. But there will be a big difference. It will be the government choosing what it wants to support and how. It can support groups like ACORN instead of my local church or local charity. Instead of allowing people to support their own causes and make their own choices about their charitable contributions, the government will expand into what will obviously and clearly be a restriction on private charities as their funds are restricted. Unfortunately, it wasn't an April Fool's Day joke and that is what is being proposed this very week, restricting private contributions. The higher taxes on energy will cost the average American household more than $3000. As a heavy user of coal, Alabama will be especially hard hit by the cap and trade tax. Electricity costs per capita in Alabama could go up by more than $1500, among the highest in any state. Our families and manufacturers can't afford that, especially in this economy. But I wanted to know what my constituents thought about this budget and in just a few' days I received more than 600 responses. Here are quotes from their letters. From Barbara in Clanton: ``As a small business, we cannot afford to pay any more taxes right now. I don't think our employees can cope with higher fuel prices. I am very concerned about the exploding federal budget deficit.'' From Danielle in Pelham: ``My goal is to become a small business owner and I'm concerned that any higher taxes on small business will squash my chances of making this goal a reality.'' From Randy in Pell City: ``I don't want any more energy increases. Our electric, propane, and gas bills have gone up far more than my husband's wages.'' We are witnessing a relentless expansion of the federal government, and I, for one, am worried. So are the American people. That's why Republicans offered solutions in our budget aimed at creating jobs and economic growth, not more government and not more unaffordable debt. The American people understand that this generational theft must end. The Republican budget reflects their priorities, and moves the country in the right direction towards economic recovery.