Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. Elections are the heart of our democracy. We cannot afford to allow another Federal election to come and go without addressing the myriad problems in our election system. We must complete action on election reform legislation. We must complete it before we adjourn for the November election. It is time for Congress to assure the American people that every vote will count in the United States of America. We do this for all of America, but African Americans are particularly sensitive on this subject, because we fought so hard for the right to vote. I can tell my colleagues in that election where we saw a database identifying so-called felons where people who had never been arrested in their lives found themselves on that list, where people could not cast their vote because they could not find their names on the polls, it was reflections of yesteryear by a different name. We have our forefathers and foremothers who were made to pay poll taxes, who were intimidated, who were forced to have to read the Constitution in order to prove their literacy. We cannot afford to have America not fix this election system that is obviously broken and has been demonstrated to be such. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion and tell the conferees to complete their work before October 1. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I had not intended this to be a platform for the defense of Jeb Bush or any other Governor, but, since it has been made such, the buck stops at the top. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for all the work he did on the special committee on reform. He supported it 100 percent. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This motion instructs the conferees on H.R. 3295, the election reform legislation, to complete their work and file a conference report prior to October 31, 2002. Mr. Speaker, it has been almost 2 years since the 2000 Presidential election, an election that created a crisis of confidence in our Nation's election system. It has been more than 9 months since the House of Representatives passed the Help America Vote Act, H.R. 3295. It has been more than 5 months since the Senate passed its version of election reform legislation, S. 565, the Martin Luther King, Jr. Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2002 by a vote of 99 to 1. Yet the conferees still have not completed their work. The 2000 Presidential election lost between 500,000 and 1.2 million votes because of faulty machines, confusing ballot designations and designs, reported voter intimidation, and other human and mechanical impediments to the voting process. According to the United States census population survey, 2.8 percent of the 40 million voters who did not vote in 2000 stated they did not vote because of problems with polling place operations such as long lines and inconvenient hours or locations. Many of those who did vote in 2000 found themselves wondering whether their vote was counted and whether they actually voted for the candidate of their choice. We have already begun to observe similar problems in the 2002 primary election in several States, not to mention Florida one more time. Mr. Speaker, in February of 2001, because of all of this, House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt asked me to lead the Democratic Caucus Special Committee on Election Reform. The committee was given the responsibility to travel throughout America and examine our Nation's voting practices and equipment. Over a 6-month period of time, this committee held six public-filled hearings in Philadelphia, San Antonio, Chicago, Jacksonville, Cleveland, and Los Angeles. We heard from election experts and hundreds of voters about what is wrong with our election system. I was overwhelmed by the outpouring of interest and support we received from our Nation's voters. Our committee released a comprehensive report on November 7, 2001, the anniversary of the 2000 election debacle. The committee's report, entitled Revitalizing our Nation's Election System, set forth targeted minimal standards for Federal elections in order to guarantee that every vote will count. This report became part of the foundation for H.R. 3295, the Help America Vote Act of 2001. Mr. Speaker, not only did Leader Gephardt appoint me to lead the Democratic Caucus Special Committee on Election Reform, many other committees around this country were working to try to find out what went wrong, what is wrong with our election system, what is it we have not paid attention to, what caused us to get to the point of such dysfunction in that election. The NAACP held hearings. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights held hearings. There was a Carter-Ford Commission, and then, of course, this legislation was taken up that I am referring to by the Committee on House Administration led by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney). And, of course, even though the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is not here today, our ranking member on the Committee of the Judiciary has spent countless hours meeting with human rights groups and civil rights groups not only here in the Capitol but across the country, and I am told by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) that wherever he travels, he is asked what is going to be done about election reform? What are you going to do to correct the problems in the election system? In addition to that, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and many others that I am unable to notice today have already been holding hearings, gathering information and trying to bring us to a point of reform. With that, let me just say that the Help America Vote Act would establish the election assistance commission, set up a program to buy out or improve antiquated punch card voting systems, authorize funds to improve the administration of elections, improve procedures for uniform and overseas voters, and set certain minimal standards for State and local election systems. The Help America Vote Act was passed again by the House of Representatives on December 12, 2001, by an overwhelming vote of 362 to 63. You can see, Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to do something. It is time for the conferees to act. We need to get this conference report done and reported out. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct the conferees on the Help America Vote Act, H.R. 3295.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, the rent-to-own industry has come to this House, and they have gotten support to try and preempt States that have stronger consumer protection laws. We should not allow it to happen. It is unconscionable that we are allowing them to rip off the most vulnerable in our society with these rent-to-own contracts that are charging $800 and $900 for a $169 television, and on and on it goes. We have the opportunity to do something about it today. I would ask that we allow this bill to be recommitted so that it can be fixed.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully request that I be allowed the time that has been interfered with by the Members on the floor who have not respected the Speaker's gavel. The Speaker has taken up at least a minute of my time, and I would like to have it restored to me.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, yes, I am opposed to the bill in its current form.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to start this presentation by thanking the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) who was on the floor today to help oppose this legislation. As my colleagues know, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and I do not always get along on all of the issues that come before us, but he is a man of impeccable integrity, and I would like to thank him for taking the floor today in opposition to the legislation that is before us. Also, before I get into the debate on this amendment, I would like to thank my colleague from Alabama, and while I have been very, very pointed in my discussion about this, I do respect him. I have worked with him on debt relief. I have worked with him, along with many of the church organizations of the world, to do something about debt relief for poor countries. Today, I would ask him to do some domestic debt relief and work with me to make sure that we relieve the poor citizens of this Nation from the awful burden of debt that has been placed on them by these rip-off industries, and certainly the rent-to-own falls within that category. Let me say this. I had four amendments before the Committee on Rules. I was denied three of them, but as I said earlier, I was thrown a bone and allowed to present this one amendment. As unbelievable as it is, given everything that we have learned about the rent-to-own industry, the preemption, the abusive practices, all of that, let me add one more to the list of unbelievable practices. Under the common law of bailment, a merchant is responsible for damage to property unless the customer is neglectful or fails to exercise ordinary care. Typically, rental-purchase agreements contractually shift all responsibility for damages to the customer in a rent-to-own business. The merchant sells a liability damage waiver to the customer which effectively makes customers pay for responsibility that is not theirs. This amendment would ban this shifting of the liability to the consumer and prohibits the charging of a fee for ensuring the customer against loss. There is an exception for loss, damage or destruction that is deliberately caused by the consumer that is a result of consumer negligence. Imagine this. A person has got this contract with the rent-to-own industry. They need this television or whatever it is, refrigerator, whatever. Not only do they have an arrangement that is not considered a credit sales contract arrangement and so they do not have to disclose anything, they do not have to disclose what the interest is on it, and this industry just can charge whatever they want to charge that person. Then they say to the person, now, they are responsible for this item and we have a little something that is built into this contract that we want the person to pay. We want the person to pay some amount. What amount? Any amount that they decide. In some States the amount that they charge the customer is equal to the amount that they are paying weekly to rent this particular item, but they can do this, and they do not have to disclose it. It was so bad that in committee, what they decided is, say, well, at least they have to tell the consumer that they are going to charge them this damage waiver liability coverage in the contract. In my home State of California, we forbid this practice altogether. We forbid it altogether. It is wrong that they should shift this liability all to the consumer and the rent-to-own company takes no responsibility, charges whatever it wants, does not have to disclose it, and we just let this practice go on. So we would try with this amendment to stop the practice altogether. I know that it seems that we cannot say much more about the bad practices. Why would we preempt the States from taking the opportunity to fix what is wrong? We do not need to come over the top with some Federal legislation that would then preempt them from doing it the way they want to do it. This business about saying that we are helping the States and we are helping the consumer, we are not preempting them, is absolutely misleading the Members of Congress about what this is all about. If we really want to help the States, allow them to present public policy that will work in their States. For those States that do not have it, they will. Give them a chance. Do not preempt them. Do not create this so-called floor that my colleagues are talking about. I have never seen any one industry with so much that is wrong with it, and I sincerely believe that some of my colleagues who are trying to help the industry may have been duped. They did not know it was this bad. They did not understand that it really was preemption. They did not know about some of these abusive practices. They did not know about this, what do we call it, LDW. They did not know that people were being given contracts where they had to pay for this kind of coverage, and most people, even if we tell them, if they want it, we are going to charge a person whatever amount they decide to charge them as a fee just in case they damage this equipment, they do not know they could say no, even if we put it in the bill. They just assume that if they do not do it they will not be able to get this desperately needed item that they are going after. This amendment was made by the Committee on Rules. I could come to the floor and take it up. I do not know if my friends on the opposite side of the aisle are going to oppose it or if they are going to support it. It is just one other thing that I would like to point out that is so bad about this industry, as we wrap up today on this floor, all of the problems with rent-to-own. I hope that they would just show a sign of support for the consumers and say we will give my colleagues this one, but it does not make any difference. It is still a bad bill. It is still a terrible bill with all of the preemption in it, with all of the abusive practices allowed, all of which we have talked about so much today. Again, I would again thank my colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary. He would not come to this floor and oppose this legislation unless it was serious. He would not come to this floor and easily embrace those on the opposite side of the aisle that he is oftentimes in disagreement with unless he felt very strongly about it. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) does not simply oppose his colleagues. He does not do that without giving serious thought to it. When he came here today and said this is a bad bill, something is wrong with this bill, I would hope that the Members on the opposite side of the aisle would respect the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary who, too, had this bill in the Committee on the Judiciary. We are talking about two committees here today, the Committee on Financial Services, and it was in the Committee on the Judiciary. This is not something that he is speculating about from afar. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) had this in committee and had an opportunity to go through it, understands it very well and is opposed to it because the gentleman sees it for what it is. Again, I do not want to put my colleagues on the spot, and I have the highest respect for the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus). I have worked with the gentleman and I know in many instances he has had to work very hard to do the right thing on some issues. I would simply appeal to the gentleman to do the right thing. I do not care who in the leadership is pushing this bill. I do not care who the industry is friends with, what letters the Congress of the United States got from what sector or section. The fact of the matter is our constituents should be premier. They should be number one. Even if we were going to err, we need to err on the side of the constituents. If Members think for a moment there are bad things in this industry, as the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) has said, and yes, there are some bad things. He agreed to that, but then err on the side of the constituents. My colleague from Alabama said I do not like this business. That is an understatement. I am not here simply because I do not like the business. I am here because I have the power as one Member of Congress to go on the floor of Congress and say what is wrong with them. They are ripping off our constituents. They are charging exorbitant prices. There is no disclosure, and we should not let them do it.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, what is behind this bill? Not a desire to create a Federal floor of consumer protections for rent-to-own customers, as the majority views allege. If Members really believe that the rent-to-own people are in here doing all of this fighting because they want to provide consumer protection for the people that they have been literally ripping off and abusing all of these years, then I guess I do have a bridge I want to sell them. This is an effort to avoid hundreds of millions of dollars in legal penalties imposed by courts from precisely those States whose laws it would preempt. Since 1997, legal actions responding to State consumer law violations have produced legal judgments and settlements against the Nation's largest rent-to-own chain, Rent-a-Center, Incorporated, amounting to $30 million in Minnesota, $16 million in Wisconsin, and more than $60 million in New Jersey. Unable to win under these State laws, or to overturn them at the State level, the rent-to-own industry is simply calling on Congress to preempt them. All of the national consumer organizations oppose H.R. 1701, as has been indicated, as an inadequate standard to protect vulnerable consumers from misleading lease arrangements that really mask installment sales at exorbitant rates of interest. That is what this is all about. If Members travel through Washington, D.C. in the poorest areas, or any of these cities, Members will see the check cashing industry, the payday loan industry, the rent-to-own industry, where they put their operations, where people are the poorest and most vulnerable, people who are desperate, who do not ask the questions, and who are willing to do everything they can to make those weekly payments without asking, what is the bottom line? What do they add up to? Mr. Chairman, we cannot allow the Congress of the United States to be used to shield these rip-off rent-to-own dealers. We cannot allow this industry, I do not care how powerful they think they are, how much money they think they have, to come in here and use the Congress of the United States to keep ripping off people who expect some protection from us. If we cannot stop this legislation on the floor of Congress, we are not worth our salt. I would simply say to the Members of Congress, it is preemption, it is abusive, it is exorbitant. This is the worst of the worst. Again, for all people who went home and said to their constituents, forgive me about Enron, I did not know any better; forgive me about WorldCom, I did not know any better; yes, I am going to be about corporate responsibility; no, I will not allow the rip-off of the citizens of the country anymore, what are they going to tell their consumers and their citizens and their constituents when they go home after they have voted for this? We are not going to let Members forget it. This is an area that some of us are going to have to spend priority time on: predatory lending. Everybody that falls under that banner, they have had free rein in America for too long, and people are suffering from it. The assets, the hopes, and aspirations are being drained out of poor communities. They will never catch up. They will never be able to have a savings account. They will never have money to pay down on a home because they have been ripped off, dribble by dribble, buck by buck. I do not care whether it is Democrats or Republicans, this is not a bipartisan bill. Do not give me the name of any Democrats who support it, because they are just as bad as those on the opposite side of the aisle who support this. I do not care what color they are, I do not care where they come from. As a matter of fact, I intend to expose every legislator, black, green, purple, I do not care what they are, that supports this kind of legislation. They have too much power. The people have invested too much in the Members of Congress for them to take their power and use it in this fashion. Not only is it unconscionable, but I daresay it is criminal to do so. So they can name all the people who they want to name who supposedly support it, they can fashion their arguments in any way they want to call preemption, nonpreemption. They do not even try to defend against the abuses. They do not even try to defend against the exorbitant price because they cannot. It is just that bad. Shame on us if we allow this legislation to get out of here. Shame on us who are elected by the people of this country, expecting us to give them some minimal protection. Many of them do not know about all of the fancy, highfalutin corporate relationships we have around here, but many of them do know that on a day-to-day basis they have to go to these little businesses because they think they have no place else to go to get a little help. They think we are looking out for them. I ask the Members of Congress to reject this legislation.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to correct a few things. My colleague, the gentleman from Alabama, listed the FTC and cited the FTC report I think as support for the legislation. The FTC responded that they did not support a need for Federal legislation at this time. I just wanted to clear the record of that. Also, I want to clear up some statements that were made by my colleague relative to preemption. We have a letter from the State of Wisconsin that says that this proposal would block all future State efforts to protect rent-to-own customers within the context of consumer credit regulation. They also go on to say that the substitute's approach to preemption is in conflict with the fundamental principle underlying the attorneys general letter of September 5, 2001. So I do not want the Members of Congress to believe that somehow preemption is not a question. It certainly is still a question and, certainly, there is preemption. Mr. Chairman, I want to share with my colleagues that some of the amendments that I attempted have been alluded to by other Members who have talked about this bill. I want to share with my colleagues that I tried to amend this legislation that would basically place a cap on total price. My amendment was based on New York and Iowa, law which requires that a percentage of the periodic payment be devoted to equity. My amendment would have provided that 75 percent of each payment would count as an ownership interest in the property, and that the customer would acquire full ownership of the property when he or she had paid an amount equal to 133 percent of the cash price. Well, that was opposed; and that is what some of my colleagues were talking about when they talked about the exorbitant prices. Also, I would like to point out that I tried desperately to do something about the abusive practices with an amendment, and I cited some of the things that happened with these repossessions. Many of the rent-to-own contracts have clauses which attempt to sanction the entry into the customer's residence when the customer is not even at home. The contract currently used by a large company provides, and I quote, that ``the lessor shall have the right forthwith and without prior notice to enter any premises where said property is located and take immediate possession of said property without the necessity of any legal or judicial process,'' and ``the lessee shall be obligated to reimburse the lessor for any and all expenses related to any reasonable effort to repossess the property, including reasonable attorneys' fees.'' This industry is unconscionable. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce). (Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like the Members of this House of Representatives and the public to pay special attention to H.R. 1701, the bill we are debating on the floor today. For those Members who have been outraged about what they have learned about Enron and Global Crossing and Qwest and WorldCom and all of those major corporations which have been found to game the system, who have been ripping off the investors, who have been putting their pensioners at risk, if Members think that is bad, they ought to pay attention to this one. This is special interest legislation at its worst, because the people who will be ripped off in these schemes are little people. They are poor people. They are working people. They are people without very much money. We talk a lot about trying to do something about predatory lending. That is, some of us. But, Mr. Chairman, this rent-to-own industry falls in the category of the check cashers and the payday lenders and even the tax preparers that are ripping off the most vulnerable of our society. Let me tell you more about this rent-to-own industry. The bill is falsely presented by its industry proponents as pro-consumer, as not preemptive of State law. That is absolutely not true. The bill has one purpose and one purpose only, to circumvent stronger consumer protections in the Federal Truth in Lending Act and in statutes of a handful of States that the rent-to-own industry had not been able to overturn. As originally introduced, H.R. 1701 sought to preempt all inconsistent State laws. This included all current or future State laws that attempt to regulate rent-to-own transactions as credit or installment sales as well as industry-enacted State rent-to-own statutes that provide stronger, but inconsistent, protections for its consumers. Although the amended committee bill has narrowed the scope of the bill's preemption somewhat, the bill would still preempt the best of the State laws in New Jersey, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Vermont that seek to provide meaningful protections against unfair predatory practices; and it would still prevent these and other States from strengthening consumer protections in the future by treating rent-to- own transactions as credit sales. If the industry had any good intentions, they would have supported my amendments in the Committee on Rules. I went in there and I asked for four simple amendments that I talked about during the debate on the rule. I suppose the worst of these is this preemption. Why would the Congress of the United States of America wish to preempt State laws that give strong protection to their people against this rip-off industry? The stories about what happens in this rent-to-own industry are absolutely outrageous and unconscionable. The idea that you could go in and rent a television that cost about $169, we checked this out, and end up paying $800 or $900 for that television set through one of these contracts, and on top of it, be forced to pay insurance that would protect the company from any damages that they may have caused in addition to what you may have caused is just simply outrageous. Let me just say this. We are elected to come here to do a number of things. The least of that is to protect poor people and working people and voters and our constituents from being ripped off by industries that we know are ripping them off. We know what this is all about. Consumers must ask the question, Why would my Representative not protect me from this kind of rip-off? I want the consumers to ask that question. Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of Members here, some Members here, who want to add their voices to try to protect consumers. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for the attention that he paid to this particular piece of legislation in the Committee on Rules. I thank him for taking the time to understand it and to try and help me to make it a better bill with the amendments that I presented at the Committee on Rules. I had four amendments in the Committee on Rules to H.R. 1701; only one was accepted and, of course, I thank the members for that. However, I think I was thrown a bone, a bone to say, well, we did something; but certainly, this does not cure what is wrong with this bill. Let me tell my colleagues about the other amendments that I proposed that were not accepted. One of the amendments that I had was a very simple amendment. The sponsors of the bill had indicated that they wanted this bill to be a floor rather than a ceiling when it comes to State laws, and my amendment would simply strike a single subsection that would have accomplished that goal. Let me just share with my colleagues that 52 of the State Attorneys General earlier signed on to a letter objecting to this bill and, specifically, the preemption section. The Attorneys General stated: ``Any State law that affords consumers the benefit of disclosures in rent-to-own agreements beyond those required by H.R. 1701 would be invalidated.'' This is simply about State preemption. I am surprised that those who are advocating State preemption would do so when oftentimes we find they are standing up to protect States' rights and the State to protect its ability to make public policy in the interest of that State. As initially considered in committee, the bill would have preempted all inconsistent Federal and State laws, regardless of whether they provided greater or less protection for consumers. This has been revised to preempt only those State laws or regulations that treat rent-to-own transactions as credit sales and apply credit-like regulation, including disclosure of annual percentage rates and cost limits based on APRs. This would provide for automatic preemption of the laws of four States: Wisconsin, New Jersey, Minnesota, and Vermont, which currently apply credit statutes and regulations to rent-to-own transactions. It would also preempt all States from imposing credit- like restrictions on rent-to-own transactions in the future. A letter written to the Committee on Financial Services by 52 State and territorial Attorneys General expressed strong opposition to any language which ``expressly preempts any State law that regulates a rent-to-own transaction as a credit sale or similar arrangement that requires the disclosure to consumers of an effective interest, annual percentage, or singular rate.'' This is outrageous, and we should be ashamed that a bill like this could get this far in the Congress of the United States. Most of those people out there as consumers expect us to protect them. Why would we fight to keep this industry from disclosing the interest rates on rent- to-own contracts? I think I know why. Why would we not want to treat them like credit sales? I think I know why. But it is unconscionable and unreasonable that Members of the Congress of the United States of America would use their power to work against consumers in this way with an industry that has some really questionable practices. Let me tell my colleagues about the third amendment that they rejected. It would have added a new subsection to prohibit any unfair or deceptive acts or practices and abusive collection by the rental purchase industry. Mr. Speaker, for years the industry has resisted it being classified as a sale so that it would not be subject to protections governing credit sales transactions. At the same time, it has also resisted coming under protections offered by the Consumer Leasing Act. I think it is unconscionable that a Federal law purporting to regulate this industry would fail to include basic protections against unfair or deceptive practices. Let me tell Members a little bit about this industry. Some of the more outrageous examples include rent-to-own employees struggling with the customer in the home over the possession of the television set, and picking up a nearby object and smashing the set. This happened in Maryland in 1983. An employee was breaking and entering a customer's home, only to be shot and killed as a result, in Nebraska in 1980. In a number of instances, rent-to-own dealers have been found liable for tort claims such as assault, battery, and trespass. In 1985, a Texas jury returned a verdict of nearly $130,000 against a rental company for injuries to a customer which occurred during an attempted repossession. Many rent-to-own dealers, when faced with an incident of wrongful repossession, will attempt to accuse the employee of unforeseen misconduct. It goes on and on and on, but my attempts to clean up the legislation were rejected. Lastly, let me tell the Members about the fourth amendment, which was so reasonable. It would have placed a cap on total price. Twelve States currently require an early purchase option in rent-to- own contracts: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and West Virginia. All of these States employ a formula to determine how much equity is acquired in the product over time, and the difference between the figure and the cash price. Six States impose substantive limits on rental purchase prices: Connecticut, Iowa, Michigan, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. My amendment is based on the New York law. I would ask that we reject this rule because it has done nothing to make this a credible bill.