House Vote: Unfair Credit Card Billing Practices
Summary: Outlaws a number of unfair and deceptive credit card billing practices
Result: Motion Failed
A vote against the motion was counted as a + vote (in line with LCCR's position)
View individual member votes on this bill by state:
Bill Name: Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2008
Bill Number: H.R. 5244
Issue: Housing/Lending
Date: 09/23/08
Roll Call No. 622
During consideration of H.R. 5244, the Credit Cardholder's Bill of Rights Act of 2008, Rep. Michael Castle, R. Del., offered a motion to recommit (MTR).
Procedurally, these motions are the privilege of the minority to offer in order to change a bill. The MTR is offered in two ways: it is either offered to "improve" the legislation, in which case, if it passes, it is incorporated into the bill; or it is crafted to give the minority an opportunity to kill the bill by sending it back to the committee of jurisdiction.
The Castle MTR was written to kill H.R. 5244. The motion would have kept the various consumer protections in the bill from taking effect until the Federal Reserve determines that it will not reduce the availability of credit to small businesses, veterans, or minorities.
LCCR opposed the motion.
While the substance of the amendment was not particularly objectionable, the particular wording of this motion was meant to keep the House from voting on final passage of the bill.
The bill itself, which LCCR strongly supported, would outlaw a number of unfair and deceptive credit card billing practices. Such practices include "double-cycle billing," in which customers are subjected to interest charges after they have already paid off the debt; and "universal default," in which a card's interest rates are maxed out if a customer is late on a payment to another creditor – even if he or she is paying the credit card on time.
These and similar practices often keep consumers mired in debt – and they are of particular concern to minority borrowers, who are disproportionately given high-interest credit cards with predatory terms.
The motion to recommit was intended to kill the bill without requiring House members to take a stand on the merits of the issue.
Result: The House rejected the motion (198-219).
