The bailout will be expanded to pension plans, local governments, and community banks. Here are the details as reported by Reuters:

• The $700 billion in buying power would be doled out by Congress in stages. After the first $250 billion is authorized, the President could request another $100 billion. The final $350 billion could be cleared by a further act of Congress.
• Washington will take a stake in companies helped through the program so that taxpayers can share in the profits if those companies get back on their feet.
• A new congressional panel would have oversight power and the Treasury secretary would report regularly to lawmakers in two elements of a multi-level oversight apparatus.
• Compensation limits would be set for the chiefs of participating firms to prevent excessive pay and "golden parachutes" for those who might tap government aid and then quit.
• The federal government may stall foreclosure proceedings on home loans purchased under the plan.
• Alongside the plan to buy securities outright, the Treasury Department will conceive an alternative insurance program that would underwrite troubled loans and would be paid for by participating companies.
• If the government has taken losses five years into the program, the Treasury Department will draft a plan to tax the companies that took part to recoup taxpayer losses.

Both parties will now release their Whips into the horde of election-weary members. Expect an exciting (yes, exciting) vote late tonight before the Asian markets open.

Lawmakers Reach Tentative Bailout Deal [WSJ]
PREVIOUSLY: BREAKING: Congress Has A Bailout Plan
(Photo: Associated Press)

CNN says:

Both parties and both houses agreed Thursday to a set of principles on revisions to the rescue plan, which calls for the Treasury Department to buy up bad mortgage securities from banks in an effort to get them to lend again.

The proposal will help homeowners, curb executive pay packages at participating firms and provide oversight of Treasury's actions, said Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., a key architect of the congressional effort. He did not provide details but said lawmakers will sit down with Treasury officials to discuss it.

"We've reached a fundamental agreement on a set of principles, one, for taxpayers, which is tremendously important," Dodd said.

Americans should "legitimately feel better about the overall approach," said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who heads the House Financial Services Committee.

CNN also noted that the stock market was up over 300 points on news that a bailout may be forthcoming.

Congress has a plan [CNN]

Why Personal Letters Beat Form Letters
Don't get suckered in by the quick and easy "Write to Congress!" form letters littering the internet. Form letters are not an expression of values; they are a show of organizational strength. If the NRA convinces five million people to send letters opposing gun control, it shows that the NRA can muster five million people to action, not that five million people necessarily care about gun laws. Congressional offices know this and generally disregard form letters.

So what happens when you send a letter?

Every office has its own procedures for tabulating constituent correspondence, but most will produce a report at the end of week breaking down how many letters were received by issue area, separating out form letters from letters sent by individual constituents.

Members treat each type of letter differently, but most look for individual letters as a barometer of their district's concerns. These are the letters that have the most influence, the ones we will show you how to write.

What Should Your Letter Say?
We adhere to the three paragraph rule: introduce yourself, introduce your issue, request action. Congressional offices have staffers whose days are spent solely on the mail, so make their lives easier by keeping letter succinct and to the point.

• Introduce Yourself: There is a two-prong test for determining your worth: 1) Are you a constituent? 2) Are you an important constituent? Feel free to puff up your chest. Are you a lifelong member of the district? Are you associated with community groups? Say so! Convince the reader that yours is a voice of experience and wisdom.
• Be specific: Don't just ask a Member to oppose mandatory binding arbitration agreements. Ask them to rush to the floor to support S.1782, The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007.
• Marshall Facts: Your argument—and you are making an argument—must be supported by facts. Feel free to use facts gleaned from us or other sources, but don't copy and paste paragraphs of pre-written text from form letters. Personal experiences are particularly effective, and often moving. Share them!
• Be Exceedingly Polite, Please: Congress attracts haughty personalities. Staffers don't appreciate being spoken down to or insulted. You are trying to rally them to your cause, so be nice.
• Clearly State Your Request: Plainly tell your representative that you want them to support or oppose a certain bill. If you want a response, explicitly (but politely) ask for one.

Send Your Letter To The Right Place
Only write to your representatives. You have three: one Representative in the House, and two Senators. Do not send more than three letters. Some citizens try to get their voice heard by writing to all 435 members of the House. Congressional courtesy compels the 434 Members who do not represent the zealot to forward his letter to the one lucky Member who does. This angers the Member's staff greatly at the expense of any point you are trying to make.

The addresses for your Representatives and Senators are available online, but don't waste your time with an email. Letters carry significantly more weight. Send your letter to the Capitol, where the legislative staff is based, though it will take a while to arrive since all incoming Congressional mail is irradiated thanks to those still-unidentified Anthrax mailers.

For an even greater impact, send your letter care of the staffer covering the issue. These staffers - called Legislative Assistants - are the Member's eyes and ears on their assigned issue areas. Finding the staffer destined to read your letter is easy: call the Capitol switchboard (open 24 hours a day!) at (202) 224-3121, ask for your Member's office, and ask the person who answers for the name of the staffer handling the issue area or bill number. Once you get that name, address your letter like this:

Member Of Congress
c/o Staffer
Office Building/Number
Washington, DC 20515

What Should You Expect In Return?
It depends. There are 535 Congressional offices and each handles constituent correspondence differently. The vast majority respond to letters with either a form letter pre-written by a Legislative Assistant, or with a more personal response written by a Legislative Correspondent. Controversial issues that attract many letters normally receive a form letter response, while smaller issues or specific questions often receive the attention of a personalized response.

Conclusion
Members of Congress work for you. Without your votes, they won't stay in office. They go to great lengths to cultivate a positive relationship with you, their boss. Very few people take the time to write to a Member of Congress, so the few that do carry a disproportionate influence.

Fifteen minutes is well worth the time to influence a $2 trillion enterprise.

(Photo: indi.ca)

Alpha Consumer, who was at the hearing, recounts:

[Susan Wones of Denver said one] of her Chase credit cards jumped from a 14.9 to 25 percent interest rate after she got close to, but didn't exceed, her $6,000 credit limit. She said the interest rate on a second Chase card similarly shot up after she went $15 over her credit limit in the middle of a billing cycle, even though the beginning and ending balances were under the limit.

The NFL does not allow one team, in the midst of the fourth quarter, to unilaterally move their end zone 20 yards in their favor just because they don't like the point spread. The rules are laid out before the kickoff, and the umpires enforce the same rules for both home and visiting teams for the whole contest. It's time for legislation at the federal level that tells the credit card industry, "Game Over" to unilateral, one-sided, rule changes.

As a registered Republican, it has typically been my philosophy that business and commerce flourish and perform better with minimal government interference. However, when an industry sector proves time and again that it is unable to police itself and behave and engage in fair and ethical trade practices, legislative intervention is required.

"credit card abuses faced by our middle class families add insult to injury ...charging interest on penalty fees is wrong...contracts are totally incomprehensible...if this problem is going to be resolved it is going to be resolved here in Congress...The fed is looking at disclosures, it's (looking is) endless."

The Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights is a wonder-packed piece of legislation that would:

• Ban arbitrary rate increases
• Force creditors to provide 45 days notice of any rate increase
• Ban double-cycle billing
• Empower cardholders to set limits on their cards and ban over-the-limit fees once that ceiling is reached
• Ban excessive fees
• Ban lending to subprime borrowers
• Require creditors to mail bills at least 25 days before the due date, instead of 14 days as currently required
• Require creditors to apply payments first towards high interest items

The Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights: Providing New Protections for Consumers [House Financial Services Committee]
Live blog from credit card hearing [U.S. PIRG]
Credit Card vs. Consumer [Alpha Consumer]
HR 5244 - The Credit Cardholder's Bill Of Rights [THOMAS]
Write Your Senator
Write Your Representative
PREVIOUSLY: How To Write To Congress
Credit Card Victims Muzzled, Ordered To Release Financial Histories Before Sharing Their Experiences
(Photo: the illustrious untitled13)

Here is what Steven Autrey planned to tell the Committee:

Thursday, March 13th, 2008
Testimony of Steven Autrey

Ladies and Gentlemen of the subcommittee, Ranking member, and Madame chair: Good morning, and thank you for inviting us to speak before you.

I would like to give you a brief recap of some negative experiences both my wife and I have had with one particular credit card issuer. Though Chase, Citibank, and GE Money Bank have engaged in similar behavior, I would like to make you aware of the actions of Capital One with regards to our retail credit card accounts.

When a consumer applies for credit with a card issuer, or as we did - respond to a "pre- approved" offer, upon establishment of an account, a bona-fide financial contract exists between the consumer and financial institution. It is because of consumer protection laws at the federal level, that the rates, rules, and terms of the contract are spelled-out in advance of the first use of the card. Both the customer and financial institution trust that the other will live up to the terms of the agreement.

Unfortunately, an increasing number of credit card issuers are engaging in less-than- ethical practices at an alarming rate. Unilateral, or one-sided changes in the terms of the contract - most always in favor of the credit card company - are becoming routine practice at an alarming rate. These one-sided changes are bad for consumers, bad for our national retail credit health, and essentially violate the spirit and letter of Title 15 Consumer Credit Protection Law.

My relationship with Capital One goes back to 1999, when I was solicited with an offer for a Visa card with a "fixed" 9.9% rate card. I applied over the phone, and was approved. The card was used for both purchases and balance transfers in a positive relationship with Capital One for eight years until July, 2007. That's when Capital One advised me in a billing insert that my "fixed" rate of 9.9% was being raised to 16.9%. No reason or explanation was given - I was not late on payment, and had not utilized the entire credit limit. This was a unilateral change to the terms of our agreement.

In August, of 2007, I wrote a letter to Mr. Richard D. Fairbank, Chairman, President, and CEO of Capital One, at their McLean, Virginia home office. My written statement will contain a copy of Capital One's response which includes the line, "Unfortunately, changes in the interest-rate environment or other business circumstances may require us to increase rates, even for fixed-rate accounts in good standing."

Other issues should be of concern to this committee as well. My wife holds a Capital One-issued MasterCard credit card. Last October, she experienced a medical emergency and had to leave work to spend hours at a medical facility to receive tests and treatment. Arriving home later that evening, she immediately logged on to the CapitalOne.com website to pay her bill online. It was approx. 9:00pm on the due date. Although she made the payment on the due date, it was 6 hours past the 3:00pm cutoff time.

For being six hours late on her payment, she was hit with a $39.00 punitive fine labeled as a "late fee." That late fee, when added to her account, pushed her balance over the limit by $16.00. It was at this point that Capital One added a second $39.00 fine in the form of an "Over the limit fee" to her account.

In tears, my wife called Capital One and explained her situation and the emergency medical treatment. She was told the late fee was not going to be removed, she was late and that was that. They did tell her that as a "courtesy" they would remove the over limit fee on a one-time-only basis. Ironically, at the same time, my wife had a credit balance of over $300.00 for her overpayment on the total balance of her Capital One Auto Loan.

The NFL does not allow one team, in the midst of the fourth quarter, to unilaterally move their end zone 20 yards in their favor just because they don't like the point spread. The rules are laid out before the kickoff, and the umpires enforce the same rules for both home and visiting teams for the whole contest. It's time for legislation at the federal level that tells the credit card industry, "Game Over" to unilateral, one-sided, rule changes.

As a registered Republican, it has typically been my philosophy that business and commerce flourish and perform better with minimal government interference. However, when an industry sector proves time and again that it is unable to police itself and behave and engage in fair and ethical trade practices, legislative intervention is required.

With some progress in our consumer credit laws, and reform of the monopolistic credit scoring cartel controlled by the Fair, Isaac, and Company ("FICO"), perhaps once again consumers can have a level playing field in doing business with credit card issuers.

• Ban arbitrary rate increases
• Force creditors to provide 45 days notice of any rate increase
• Ban double-cycle billing
• Empower cardholders to set limits on their cards and ban over-the-limit fees once that ceiling is reached
• Ban excessive fees
• Ban lending to subprime borrowers
• Require creditors to mail bills at least 25 days before the due date, instead of 14 days as currently required
• Require creditors to apply payments first towards high interest items

Credit Slips Goes to Washington [Credit Slips]
Mr. Autrey Speaks for Himself [Credit Slips]
Credit Card Hearing Starts With a Surprise [Alpha Consumer]
Write Your Senator
Write Your Representative
PREVIOUSLY: How To Write To Congress
(Photo: the illustrious untitled13)

On Friday, February 15, 2008, the President signed into law:

H.R. 3541, the "Do-Not-Call Improvement Act of 2007," which prohibits the automatic removal of telephone numbers registered on the Federal "do-not-call" registry; and

S. 781, the "Do-Not-Call Registry Fee Extension Act of 2007," which extends permanently the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to charge fees to telemarketers required to access the Federal "do-not-call" registry and specifies the fees to be charged.

For anyone who doubts the list's usefullness, read one Ars Tech editor's experience:

My family recently moved into a new home, and with it, we received a new phone number (I didn't want a new one, but in Massachusetts they can be strict about towns and their exchanges). At our old house we had been covered by the DNCR, but at the new home, we weren't because we had a new number. It took one week, at most, before the unsolicited calls started. When they started, they were frequent and annoying. Life "off" the DNCR was horrible.

After about another week of putting up with it (it just sat on a long "to do list" as we attended to other move-in crises), we finally got around to signing up our new number, and even though the Registry gives ample time for opt-out information to be followed by telemarketers, in reality we were spam-call-free within a week. In short, the DNCR works, it's fast, and telemarketers are by and large obeying it when expected.

Both measures passed the House on a voice vote and cleared the Senate by unanimous consent.

Statement by the Press Secretary [The White House]
Do Not Call Registry saved from mandatory reset [Ars Technica]
PREVIOUSLY:
Liveblogging The Do Not Call Improvement Act and CPSC Reform Act Committee Markups
FTC Vows Not To Expire Numbers From The Do Not Call List
Should Do Not Call List Registrations Last Forever?
(Photo: Getty)

We encourage you to review your pledge and act accordingly by recalling the red blood pressure cuff. Furthermore, we challenge you to live up to your words and set a standard for the entire industry by completely eliminating the use of lead in all of the children's products manufactured by Mattel. When parents purchase a product from your company, they are not just purchasing a toy—they are putting their trust in an established brand that has historically been believed to provide merchandise that is safe for their children. We urge you to live up to this reputation.

Representative Elijah E. Cummings, Democrat of Maryland, wrote Mr. Eckert in December asking it to stop using lead in its products. He said that Mattel's reply, which arrived last week, and its action on the toy were inadequate and that the company should issue a nationwide recall.

Mr. Cummings said in an interview that if Mr. Eckert "knew his child had one of these toys with this kind of lead in it, I know he would not allow his child to be having such a toy."

Lawmakers Say Mattel Broke Word on Lead [NYT]
Cummings, DeLauro to Mattel: 'Stop Selling Toxic Toys' [Congressman Elijah Cummings]
PREVIOUSLY: Consumer Reports Finds "Troubling" Levels Of Lead In Unrecalled Fisher-Price Toy
Fisher-Price Pulls Lead Tainted Toy In Illinois Only
Fisher-Price Pulls Another Lead-Tainted Product In Illinois Only
(Photo: Getty Images)

H.R. 3010: Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007
What It Does: Prevents corporations from shackling consumers with extra-judicial mandatory binding arbitration agreements.
Status: Hearings held in both the House and Senate.

H.R. 2881: The Passengers Bill Of Rights
What It Does: Prevents airlines from caging passengers on planes for hours at a stretch without access to food, water, and restrooms.
Status:Approved by the House as part of the FAA Reauthorization Act, 267-151-14. Currently simmering in the Senate.

H.R. 3610: Food and Drug Import Safety Act of 2007
What It Does: Strengthens the FDA by granting the power to issue mandatory recalls.
Status: Hearings held in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

H.R. 3541: Do-Not-Call Improvement Act of 2007
What It Does: Makes Do Not Call List registrations permanent.
Status: Approved by the House. Floor debate pending in the Senate.

H.R. 1525: Internet Spyware (I-SPY) Prevention Act of 2007
What It Does: Subjects spyware makers to jail terms and multi-million dollar fines.
Status: Approved by the House, languishing in the Senate.

S. 2045: CPSC Reform Act of 2007
What It Does: Gives the CPSC the staff and support it needs to do a slightly less pitiful job.
Status: Passed by the Senate Commerce Committee. Companion legislation unanimously approved by the House.

S. 2033: Cell Phone Consumer Empowerment Act of 2007
What It Does: It's the most impressive bill of the 110th Congress. It battles dragons and slays evildoers.
Status: Hearing held in the Senate Commerce Committee.

H.R. 4332: Financial Consumer Hotline Act of 2007
What It Does: Establishes a consumer hotline for banking complaints.
Status: Introduced, stuck in the House Financial Services Committee.

H.R. 3915: Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2007
What It Does: Attempts to prevent a recurrence of the subprime meltdown by tightening oversight of the mortgage industry.
Status: Approved by the House 297-127-14. The Senate Banking Committee is slow-mulling companion legislation.

H.R. 3678: Internet Tax Freedom Act Amendments Act of 2007
What It Does: Keeps the internet nice and tax-free until 2014.
Status: Signed by the President! Now known as Public Law No: 110-108.

H.R. 946: Consumer Overdraft Protection Fair Practices Act
What It Does: Caps overly-punitive debit card fees.
Status: Introduced, stuck in the House Financial Services Committee.

S. 704: Truth in Caller ID Act of 2007
What It Does: Bans caller ID spoofing.
Status: Approved by the House. Passed the Senate Commerce Committee.

H.R. 698: Industrial Bank Holding Company Act of 2007
What It Does: Bans Walmart from opening a bank.
Status: Approved by the House 371-16-45, dead in the Senate Banking Committee.

H.R. 2669: College Cost Reduction and Access Act
What It Does: Steals money from rich student loan companies and gives it to students.
Status: Signed by the President! Now known as Public Law No: 110-84.

• Establishing a national licensing and registration system for mortgage lenders;
• Establishing the Office of Housing Counseling within HUD to help borrowers avoid foreclosure;
• Banning loans that a borrower cannot reasonably repay;
• Banning lenders from steering borrowers towards loans with predatory characteristics;
• Making banks that securitize mortgages liable for violating lending laws.

The mortgage lobby spent several weeks trying to derail the bill as it percolated in Committee. Even some consumer advocates oppose the bill in its current form because it preempts strong consumer protections from the states with a uniform federal standard.

The mortgage lobby has already shifted its focus towards killing companion legislation stalled in the Senate. Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) has released only a vague sketch of his chamber's response to the subprime meltdown, saying that his legislation will meet two requirements:

[First], it must establish strong standards against abusive practices such as prepayment penalties, steering, and other problems. Second, it must provide for strong enforcement to ensure that those standards are met. My bill...will meet both requirements and help protect homeowners from predatory lending.

The White House has issued a Statement of Administrative Policy objecting to several provisions of the House bill, but has restrained itself from issuing a veto threat.

House Votes to Rein in Certain Mortgage Lending Practices [AP]
H.R. 3915 - Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2007 [THOMAS]
Write Your Senator
PREVIOUSLY: How To Write To Congress
(AP Photo/Kim Johnson Flodin)

Friday's bill would extend AMT relief for one year, at a cost of about $51 billion. It includes another $30 billion in largely popular tax relief measures, including expanding the child tax credit, providing a property tax deduction to some 30 million families and extending a tax exemption for the combat pay of military personnel.

It extends several dozen targeted tax breaks due to expire at the end of the year, including a deduction for college tuition, a deduction for teachers' out-of-pocket expenses and deductions for residents of states that do not have income taxes. Others benefit winemakers, employers of Katrina victims, contributors to charities, and state lawmakers.

The controversies come over some $80 billion in new tax revenues required under House Democratic rules that tax cuts or spending increases be offset so that the federal deficit does not grow.

The bill, said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, will enable Congress ''to plant a flag for fiscal responsibility.''

But anti-tax Republicans said the AMT was a mistake and thus offsets were unneeded. ''What absolute lunacy,'' said Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., ''paying for a tax that was never intended.''

President Bush promised to veto the bill, though it remains uncertain if it will even clear the Senate. The uncertainty has the IRS in a tizzy as it prepares to print next year's tax forms. If Congress doesn't provide clear guidance on the AMT by the end of the year, up to 50 million taxpayers could overpay their taxes by $75 billion.

Bill Easing Tax Clears House [NYT]
H.R. 3996 - The Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007 [THOMAS]
Write Your Senator
Write Your Representative
PREVIOUSLY: How To Write To Congress
(Photo: FastFords)

Today's hearing will feature two panels. Four separate law firms will testify, along with the American Arbitration Association and Public Citizen. Join us as we struggle to interpret the Committee's legalese - which may prove just as futile as binding arbitration.
(Photo: xsparrowx)

2:00: Video Link
2:05: Today's commentary is brought to you by both Carey and Meghann in the hope that two pairs of ears will be able to decipher the Committee's legalese.
2:41: FINALLY! The hearing has been called to order.

2:43: The resolution on this feed is terrible. Someone, a Congresswoman - maybe Rep Sanchez (D-CA), is reviewing the history of arbitration.

2:44: Rep Cannon (R-UT) believes that arbitration provides protection for consumers because it's fairer (what?) cheaper, and faster. That's not right. Individual consumers don't have deep pockets, which is why class action waivers are unconscionable.

2:45: Arbitration is so complex and ingrained that this Committee can't possibly handle the topic today. Ok, Congressman, set up a webcam at the Hawk and Dove and we'll meet you there.

2:47: Nobody has proposed banning arbitration - just mandatory arbitration. Consumers would still have the option to forego a trial, but that's a choice they would be empowered to make, a choice they don't currently have.

2:49: Rep. Johnson (D-GA), sponsor of the measure is here, pointing out that people wouldn't voluntarily sign away other constitutional rights.

2:51: Arbitration carries its own anti-consumer charges. The fees to expedite a hearing can cost $500.

2:53: See Cannon, nobody wants to ban arbitration, they merely want to restore consumers' right to a trial.

2:57: One of the panelists is former Georgia Governor Roy Barnes, who is receiving quite the introduction from Rep Johnson - Governor Barnes helped save Georgia from the subprime meltdown and scared the Confederate flag from the Statehouse.

2:59: That was practically a eulogy.

3:01: Onto Laura McCleary of Public Citizen.

3:02: Arbitration allows "rulings that are silly, wacky, or contrary to law..." "They are flawed by design."

3:04: An eight month analysis of 34,000 cases of credit arbitration, data they could access only because California requires disclosure, showed that the 28 arbitrators who handled most cases ruled against consumers 94% of the time.

3:04: Arbitration involving businesses went against the consumer 99% of the time.

3:05: Credit card companies, specifically MBNA, are using mandatory arbitration to circumvent the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act.

3:07: Onto Richard Naimark of the American Arbitration Association (AAA), who wants to find a balanced response to Congress' concerns.

3:08: AAA developed a basic code of conduct that makes arbitration slightly fairer than, say, a Gitmo tribunal. Consumers can have access to counsel, arbitrators must disclose financial interest.

3:10: He's arguing that only 2% of cases go to court, so consumers don't "get their day in court" anyway. The cases don't go to trial because they're settled, not arbitrated, usually because the parties think a jury will rule against them.

3:11: Gov Barnes is branding mandatory binding arbitration as a "contract for a crime." Payday lenders use binding arbitration to circumvent the courts.

3:12: He's challenging Cannon - nobody thinks it's fair to go to arbitration to prove that they are the victim of a crime.

3:13: Arbitration provides a small remedy but does not condemn the criminal action as illegal.

3:14: There are more payday lenders than McDonald's. Frightening.

3:15: Barnes doesn't want people to use arbitration to hide from criminal acts - one of the defenses raised is that if Congress didn't want arbitration used that way, Congress would act.

3:18: Onto nursing homes.

3:19: News to us: Shaving cream softens feces.

3:20: Nursing homes = Abu Ghraib.

3:21: We're struggling to see how this relates to binding arbitration.

3:21: Here we go - families are presented with 50-60 page disclaimers before their loved ones can be admitted.

3:22: Most people don't realize they are waiving their litigation rights to gain admission.

3:23: Because they were offered "the opportunity to sign," courts accept the agreements as valid.

3:23: The costs for arbitrating nursing home issues are significantly higher, as are the rewards.

3:23: Final thought: Mandatory binding arbitration kills grandparents.

3:24: Arbitration dissuades people from pursuing very valid claims. If a credit card company withholds a couple bucks, you won't sue, but if you can't form a class for a class action, the company walks away with oodles.

3:25: Appellate courts have been bench-slapping down such agreements as unconscionable.

3:26: Gov. Barnes: "I got mayhem and murder in the streets." Apparently, no one cares about stopping illegal payday lending in the criminal courts, and arbitration is keeping it out of the civil ones.

3:27: Illegal practices flourish when individual consumers can't pursue their claims as a class.

3:29: Conservatives should be all over this bill. They're all about returning power to the local level, empowering local decision makers. That's what juries are all about.

3:32: Cannon will have another chance to make his point. So far, none of the panelist agree with him. Apparently, soldiers need payday lenders.

3:34: Cannon is picking a fight with McCleary, wondering how much weight to give to her damning study. 'We can't trust any consumer who says "my widget broke"'

3:35: If you arbitrate, you are wrong. "Credit cases are going to against the person who didn't pay their bill."

3:37: McCleary can't convince Cannon because arbitration data isn't readily available - nobody discloses, so Cannon is technically right in saying that her data is narrow, the category is narrow, and the study as a whole is narrow. "The implications are not narrow."

3:38: Maybe if AAA wanted to part with their data, they could produce a story as wide as Cannon.

3:40: Point proven: according to the AAA, 60% of arbitrations are settled before they can reach arbitration - so not every arbitration results in a hearing before an arbitrator. Might as well kick things back to the courts.

3:40: Johnson wants to know how AAA gets their business. (Hint: consumers have no choice!)

3:41: "Unions and businesses primarily" refer to AAA.

3:41: Most arbitrators are lawyers, but not judges. AAA claims that there's no bias in selecting arbitrators, that they look for "senior, respected members of the community."

3:43: There is no court reporter in arbitrations, which means there's no practical way to file an appeal.

3:44: There is a limited right to discovery, as controlled by the arbitrator - the arbitrators who rule against consumers 90% of the time.

3:45: The word right here is fairly creatively used.

3:45: The first panel is excused. Onto the second panel.

3:49: Deborah Williams is 64 and bankrupt thanks to binding mandatory arbitration agreement.

3:49: Her dreams of owning a Coffee Beanery franchise turned to nightmares. The binding agreement required her to purchase all sorts of unnecessary equipment, and a Pepsi contract.

3:51: The average Coffee Beanery lasts three years, and costs $375,000.

3:51: Maryland's AG found that the Coffee Beanery committed fraud - but she was forced to arbitrate.

3:52: The arbitrator had significant financial ties to the Coffee Beanery, and had ruled in their favor repeatedly. The Coffee Beanery's own lawyer doubled as an arbitrator.

3:53: The Coffee Beanery dragged discovery out for over 7 months, because the company knew she couldn't pay the costs, and forced her and her layer to fly to Michigan - 500 miles away - four times for 11 days of hearings.

3:53: The cost of arbitration was over $100,000 - and the arbitrator found that the Maryland AG was wrong, there was no fraud, and that she had to pay penalties to the Coffee Beanery, including their attorney's fees.

3:54: She has lost over $1.5 million to the franchise.

3:55: She is borrowing money from her family just to file for bankruptcy - and even then, she'll need to pay the Coffee Beanery franchise fees over the next 15 years until her contract expires.

3:57: Onto Cathy Ventrell-Monsees of the National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA)

3:57: "Companies from Circuit City to Hooters To Halliburton" use arbitration to limit employee suits.

3:58: Employees are required to sign these agreements despite any laws that prohibit mandatory binding arbitration agreements as a condition of employment.

3:59: Wow, Cathy almost looks like she's going to cry.

3:59: Arbitration is a "modern version of separate and unequal justice for employees."

3:59: "Arbitrators do not need to follow the law. THEY DO NOT EVEN NEED TO KNOW THE LAW."

4:00: Companies continually use the same arbitrators that rule in their favor. As a result, the arbitrators have a direct financial interest in ruling in the companies' favor.

4:00: Pfizer has a 97% success rate.

4:01: Halliburton has an 82% success rate. They need to bum Pfizer's arbitrators. We wonder how Verizon's dinosaur-eating lawyers would fare.

4:02: Onto Peter Rutledge of the The Catholic University of America.

4:04: Arbitration lowers costs for companies, which is passed on in the higher wages, better share prices and lower prices. Thank god.

4:05: "Imagine what the increase in costs would be if arbitration was eliminated altogether." No, no, don't make us imagine the costs! Oh, wait, nobody is saying arbitration should be eliminated! Just that the constitutional right to a trial should be restored.

4:05: "Where are these people going to end up if arbitration is not available?" Court, good professor. They will end up in court, where they belong.

4:06: Rickshaw justice for the many is the alternative? That sounds awesome. That guy was nuts.

4:07: Onto Theodore G. Eppenstein of Eppenstein and Eppenstein - did he really go out to find another Eppenstein? Suspicious.

4:08: He wants to talk about arbitration in securities disputes - something we know absolutely nothing about.

4:09: This guy loves his resume. Enough already.

4:09: "Securities arbitration does not work for the investor."

4:10: The poor guy has been arguing about this for 20 years.

4:11: "The public pool [of investors] isn't pure." Arbitrators are pandering to keep their jobs.

4:12: This guy tells you he's going to say things a lot.
"Let me tell you something."
Ok.
"I'm going to give you examples."
Well, um. Ok.

4:13: He has data. 58% of the time, the customer goes home with nothing except a bill for arbitration.

4:13: Pfizer laughs at the industry's 58% success rate.

4:14: There is a place for arbitration, but it needs to be run independently. Great idea.

4:16: Geekybiker is absolutely right. If you haven't already, tell Congress to support the Arbitration Fairness Act!

4:18: The Chairwoman is sorry for Coffee Beanery woman's experience: Do you feel like you were ripped off? Um, duh.

4:19: Deborah is amazed to hear the professor and the AAA talk about the flaws in arbitration and wants to know: "What are you going to do for me? I lost everything. What are you going to do for me?"

4:21: Chair to the professor: if your data shows that businesses don't prevail, why would they chose to arbitrate?

4:22: According to the prof, a ten-year-old study has useful anecdotes. One corporation spent $1 m winning a case, and legal fees are the root of all evil. Lawyers are such great villains.

4:24: Chairwoman politely says, "You're on crack."

4:24: Consumers' win rate is falling, as is there rate of recovery. Maybe that has something to do with it? Maybe? Bueller?

4:26: The professor is rightly pointing out that some businesses have a higher win rate at trial - but, when they end up in court, the trial is overseen by a judge bound by the law, and both parties have a right to appeal.

4:27: This should be settled with KY wrestling. No one's data is good enough for the other.

4:28: Eppenstein angry. Testimony misrepresented. Rarr, Eppenstein.

4:29: The very threat of arbitration depresses settlement offers.

4:30: Onto Cannon's last stand.

4:30: Cannon wants to know if stockbrokers cheat their investors, won't the investors take their money elsewhere?
Eppenstein: 'If they have any money left!'

4:31: NELA has no issue with a waiver for unions because unions handle arbitration responsibly.

4:32: Not that it's relevant, but we have discovered that Chris Cannon has 8 (eight) kids. EIGHT!
He's never spoken to them at length.
Along with the rest of the planet.
He's like a metronome of bullshit.

4:34: He's now attacking Coffee Beanery woman. It's her fault she got screwed. According to him, "we live in a world of information." If Deborah had only done her homework, she could have kept the $1.5 million now lost forever.

4:35: Buzzers sound in the distance. Floor votes. The end is near.

4:39: Johnson is defending Coffee Beanery woman, implicitly calling Cannon a nut.

4:40: According to Ventrell-Monsees, her story is typical.

4:41: Epperstein says the public never hears about the egregious violations, the systemic raping of justice caused by mandatory binding arbitration.

4:42: Overheard on the video feed from a mystery person: "Unbelievable. I think I'm the only like regular joe blow kinda guy here and I am outraged." @Godai heard a slightly different version.

4:42: We didn't think it possible, but mandatory binding arbitration is even more frighteningly horrific than we knew. God help us all. The hearing is adjourned.

The FTC's promise, after the jump.

The Commission adopted the five-year re-registration requirement based on the information it had in 2003. Since then, several changes have taken place. First, changes in the marketplace, including increased usage of cell phones and increased popularity of telephone number portability, may have had an impact on data underlying the 2003 rulemaking proceeding. Second, the legal landscape has become clearer because we have more information about how courts view consumers' privacy in this context. Third, the Registry has been implemented successfully for nearly 5 years, and has included a scrubbing program through which telephone numbers that have been disconnected and reassigned are purged from the Registry on a monthly basis. Fourth, the Registry has enjoyed unprecedented popularity and helped enhance the privacy of the American public in a tangible way.

As a result of these changes, the Commission now commits that it will not drop any telephone numbers from the Registry based on the five-year expiration period pending final Congressional or agency action on whether to make registration permanent. The Commission will continue its robust efforts to maintain the Registry's accuracy and ensuring the continued success of the Do Not Call program.

The FTC's announcement is an undeniable victory for consumers, one that will hopefully push Congress to make Do Not Call registrations permanent.

S. 2096 [GovTrack]
H.R. 3541 [GovTrack]
Write Your Senator
Write Your Representative
PREVIOUSLY: How To Write To Congress
Should Do Not Call List Registrations Last Forever?
(Photo: Eduardo Mendes (Smile=P))

• Issue mandatory recalls;
• Limit food imports to ports clustered near FDA inspection labs;
• Require a country of origin labels for food, drugs and medical devices;
• Subject exporters to a strict certification program administered by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Start hitting refresh at 10 a.m. for up-to-the-minute coverage of overly politicized opening statements and excessively verbose questioning.
(Photo: Associated Press)

9:40: Video Link
10:07: And we're off! Chairman Dingell must be sleeping in - Frank Pallone of New Jersey has taken over his seat.

10:09: Pallone is addressing a Presidential Working Group that we already covered. Their report tells us nothing we don't know.
10:11: He's staying fair and balances. E-coli contaminations and the infamous Peanut Butter Recall of 2007 were caused by domestic producers, not foreign factories. A stronger FDA could address these recalls as well.
10:14: Nathan Deal (R-GA) is talking. Not that our site is loading, or anything like that. So we'll just write for ourselves for a bit.
10:16: Gene Green (D-TX) needs to go to media school. This guy is making all the classic mistakes: rushing through his statement, reading into the paper... we haven't seen eye contact yet. His points about Houston getting shafted by the requirements to bring imported food only into select cities have been completely lost to his poor speaking skills.
10:18: His solution: open a FDA lab in Texas. For reference, there are only thirteen labs in the U.S. One, as Green is pointing out, is located in Jefferson, Arkansas. Come on, Arkansas, get one of your reps up there to defend your pork lab.
10:20: Michael Burgess (R-TX) is going China-hunting. He worried about carbs in the '90s, but now, (cue ominous music) he worries whether his groceries will make him sick. Tear for the scared Congressman.
10:23: Someone's angry that their Subcommittee didn't get to hold a hearing. Chairman Dingell need not yield to Subcommittees. He's the Dean of the House. When he introduces a bill, he can have the full Committee hold an immediate hearing. Sorry, Congressman Burgess.
10:25: Congresswoman DeGette (D-CO) has made a sad comparison. People are surprised that the CPSC can recall toys, but the FDA can't recall baby food. Please, don't ever hail the CPSC recall procedures as ideal, or better than something else. Just compare everything to the USDA's relatively amazing power to recall everything on demand.
10:27: Mike Ferguson thinks it's impressive that citizens trust the government to inspect food. What?
10:28: Ferguson worries about counterfeit drugs pushed by the Chinese Poison Train. "We need to examine the origin of these drugs." Pst, Congressman... they come from China!
10:29: Hey look, the tech gods have revived our site. Every time the site goes down, I look around my shoulder and expect to see Verizon man wearing an evil grin.
10:31: Dingell has risen, but not really. He's propping his head on his hand. The former Army Second Lieutenant always sounds like he's barking orders.
10:32: He has compared our inspection regime to a block of swiss cheese. We award no points for originality.
10:33: He has heard from the FDA that they will improve since he has arrived. "It is as much a bunch of hooey now as it was then."
10:34: A small user fee ($50 on food shipments, $1,000 on drug shipments,) is necessary to fund FDA inspectors, labs, etc.
10:35: "I would observe that the credo down there seems to be "Trust Us."
10:38: John Sullivan (R-OK) believes that reused chopsticks and support for the Taliban show that China is not a friend.
10:39: One clever fox from California just held their opening statement time so they could ask additional questions later. That means fireworks.
10:41: Jan Schakowsky is giving her opening statement. We still wish she bothered to show up for last week's hearing to chew out Mattel CEO Robert Eckert like she promised.
10:42: Jan also doesn't like limiting imports to certain ports, excluding ports like Chicago. What? Since when does the port of Chicago receive goods from China?
10:44: Heather Wilson (R-NM) is wearing a greenish-blue thing straight of the 1950s. Way to wear your values, Congresswoman.
10:50: Steve Buyer (R-IN) is mistaking a Congressional hearing for the first day of second grade. "In three minutes, I can't even begin to cover what I did over the summer."
10:53: "We propose giving the FDA the power to destroy fraudulent drugs coming into our postal system." Sounds more fun than it is.
10:56: Jim Matheson (D-UT) thinks the solution to the Chinese Poison Train is bipartisanship. Um, yeah. Care Bear Stare!
10:58: Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) is talking. 1.7% of goods were inspected in FY06. Not much more than FY07.
11:00: Blackburn has a few concerns, namely, everything in the bill. "I look forward to the discussion."
11:03: OMG, Congressman Buyer (R-IN,) there are fake drugs on the internet? No! It must be a lie! Damn Canadians, trying to kill us every chance they get.
11:07: Buyer is playing with drugs.
11:08: Statistically improbable phrase of the hour: flim-flam man (shady internet pharmacist.)
11:09: Our first coffee break of the morning is approaching. A vote on the floor will soon recess the Committee for a bit. Still haven't gotten to the first panel.
11:10: Why do all Members have the urge to regurgitate the bill's main points. We know the bill imposes mandatory country of origin labeling. We know it limits ports and imposes user fees. Resist the urge to tell us for the millionth time.
11:11: Coffee break. The Committee will return in about twenty minutes.

11:39: The hell with opening statements, we're going straight to the panelists.
11:40: First up, Randall Lutter, FDA Deputy Commissioner for Policy
11:43: He's also lauding the Presidential Working Group, the one that concluded inspections are a waste.
11:45: The FDA, like the CPSC, is meeting with Chinese officials to hammer out a Memorandum of Understanding. China regularly ignores MOUs with the CPSC.
11:46: "I would like to comment briefly on H.R. 3610." Isn't that why you're here, Deputy Commission?
11:48: Green wants to know how the FDA decides where to put its labs.
11:49: Lutter isn't sure, but he knows the FDA plan to consolidate labs is shelved (thanks partly to Dingell's threat to ban the consolidation in this bill.)
11:50: Green wants mobile labs sent to Texas.
11:51: The bill allows the FDA chief to issue a waiver regarding the port inspection provision. Green thinks that will result in an influx of waiver requests, but the FDA hasn't examined that part of the bill. Is that their strategy? We can't comment because we haven't read the bill?
11:53: Good catch, Mr. Deal: "Your written testimony doesn't seem to cover the legislation covered by this hearing. When will the Administration provide a written response? "
11:53: Lutter: "It looks like a matter of some weeks."
11:55: The user fee structure is based on line item. A line item is a shipment that comes in as one commodity under one part of the tariff code.
11:56: Mr Deal: "Does that mean an ethnic restaurant using lots of products would be subject to multiple user fees?" Do most ethnic restaurants import their raw ingredients from abroad? We're pretty sure that's not how it works.
11:57: The video link appears to be suffering from Mad Cow.
12:07: The video link has been restored. All rejoice.
12:10: Israel, Costa Rica, and Vanuatu have caught fake pharmacies shipping to the U.S. that claim to be Canadian.
12:12: Good news, kids. The FDA is especially concerned about leafy greens. Didn't stop us from enjoying a yummy kale and cheddar omelette this morning.
12:13: Another recess. Back in twenty.

1:01: That was not twenty minutes.
1:02: Dingell is shooting off a line of questions. Yes or no answers only.
1:04: Dingell's favorite phrase: "Please submit that to the record."
1:10: Pallone wants to know what new authority the FDA wants.
1:16: There's an active dialogue within FDA about what new powers they want, but they really don't want to share any details with the Congress.
1:18: "User fees are a double-edged sword." Yes, they cost businesses money, and they fund government activities.
1:19: We're clearly not dealing with the CPSC.
Pallone: Your resources are adequate, right?
FDA: Yes, they certainly are.
1:22: 5% of packages going into the FDA bin from FedEx and UPS are inspected.
1:23: The bin lets the Agency flag certain suspect shipments for inspection.
1:24: Detained products receive a mark. Buyer wants to know why products with a mark are continually shipped back to the U.S.
1:26: Counterfeit products that are not destroyed are returned to sender.
1:26: Buyer: Do you think that's a good policy?
FDA: We're concerned about the continued circulation of counterfeit products.
1:28: The FDA is willing to accept the power to destroy more products, providing that cost and due process are addressed by Congress. Sounds like a fun job.
1:30: DeGette is taking the opportunity to shill for her Denver lab. "They don't want to move to a centralized lab. Those people will all quit."
1:31: Degette: "When can you get back to me about when you can get back to me about the analysis?"
FDA: Sometime next week?
1:33: The FDA would accept more resources to inspect more items coming in, so long as it's part of a broader proposal.
1:34: By mid-November the FDA thinks it'll know how much more cash they need.
1:38: The certification regime will require the FDA to certify that exporting nations have the same or equal quality control measures as we have. Individual companies would be able to gain certification for individual facilities. Doesn't sound like it would address subcontractor problems similar to Mattel's.
1:41: FDA: "It's not something you can throw money at, flick a switch, and expect to be fixed."
1:45: The first panel is dismissed.

1:53: Onto the second panel, which has eschewed nameplates. Watch as we struggle to track who's who.
1:54: Former Congressman Calvin Dooley, now representing the Grocery Manufacturers Association is arguing that the problem is really quite small. Needle in a haystack small.
1:57: Surprise, surprise. They oppose a user fee. "Food safety is a public good, and should paid for out of the general fund."
2:00: Dooley is making a terrible point about how groceries would have to pay two separate user fees for two similar products. He holds up two boxes of vegetarian chile made by two different manufacturers. According to Dooley, the user fees on those two boxes would cost $100, but you don't import one box. You import a crate, a shipping container with a few hundred or a thousand boxes. So it's not $50 per box, it ends up being $0.05 per box.
2:04: The Food Marketing Institute, of course, opposes user fees as well.
2:07: Pallone tells FMI to wrap it up. Dooley zoomed past his time limit, which is ok because he's a former Congressman.
2:08: Another recess.

2:50: Oh, they bothered to return. How kind of them.
2:53: The Center for Science in the Public Interest, one of our favorite advocacy groups, is worried that the user fees will end up being a side show that distracts from other issues. That sounds about right, but might be intentional. It's the old Thomas Crown two-step: "...make a lot of noise over there, so over here in this room you can take 100-million off the wall and waltz right out the front door. Oh, that's good."
2:54: Big Pharma is talking, but in all honesty, we don't feel compelled to repeat their bleatings here. Feel free to get a cup of coffee and we'll let you know when Members are ready to question the other panelists.
3:16: Pallone asked everyone to defend their opposition to user fees. Upon hearing their responses, he quipped: sounds like the previous objections we have heard, but we did it anyway because we weren't sure where they money would come from.
3:23: More questions for Big Pharma. Suffice it to say, the FDA is under tremendous pressure to combat counterfeit drugs.
3:30: Matheson is making an excellent comparison between food safety and toy safety. Both require improving oversight over supply chains and the imposition of some inspection regime, either from the government or the private sector that can assure the quality and safety of goods destined for our shores.
3:38: The hearing is adjourned.

Legitimate locksmiths say many of those jobs should cost less than $100. In addition, sometimes the work is so shoddy that additional repairs are needed, said the council, which is the umbrella organization for the BBB system.

Dependable was one of the stars of the alert, with the council calling it "a particularly disreputable locksmith."

Others mentioned in the alert were Basad Inc. and Liberty Locksmith, but each of the companies does business under several additional names.

For example, Dependable — which did not respond to requests for an interview — uses at least 15 other names, according to a BBB report, and 25 telephone numbers.

The key to finding an honest locksmith [LA Times]
(Photo: Maulleigh)

The Senate bill will:

• Cut subsidies to lenders by $18 billion;
• Boost direct aid to students by $17.4 billion;
• Raise the maximum Pell grant allowance to $5,400;
• Cap loan repayments at 15% of the borrower's discretionary income (read: beer fund);
• Automatically forgive loans after twenty years.
• 
  From the Washington Post:

  Lending companies said the legislation was a backdoor effort to drive some companies out of business and force borrowers to use a federal program, strongly supported by Democrats, in which the government lends directly to students.

  Yes, lending companies, the bill might undercut your business model of obscene interest rates and draconian collection practices. We think this is a great bill that deserves to be enacted into law, but before that can happen, the House and Senate need to meet in a conference committee to hammer out the few remaining details.

  Senate Approves Overhaul of Student Loan Program [Washington Post]
  H.R. 2669 - Higher Education Access Act of 2007 [THOMAS]
  Write Your Senator
  Write Your Representative
  (Photo: DanielVF)

The hearing will examine factors that continue to contribute to inaccurate consumer credit reports and evaluate the adequacy of the consumer dispute process under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). In addition, the Committee will hear recommendations for improving the process and efforts that furnishers, credit bureaus and the regulators are taking to improve the accuracy of credit report information and will review the status of key rule makings and studies mandated by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA) related to the accuracy of information furnished to consumer reporting agencies and the adequacy of the dispute resolution process.

"Credit Reports: Consumers' Ability to Dispute and Change Inaccurate Information" [Live Webcam]
Full Committee Hearing [House Financial Services Committee]

• Frozen pipes: Soak towels in hot water and wrap them around cold sections of the pipe. Keep cabinet doors open to allow warm air to circulate around pipes. Turn on faucets enough to let them drip slowly. Keeping water moving within pipes will prevent freezing. Monitor faucets for reduced water flow.
• Burst pipes Shut off the main valve and call a plumber.
• Furnace out: Call your service provider. Use an alternative heat source such as a wood stove or fireplace in the meantime. Do not use your stove/oven as a source of heat. This increases your risk of carbon monoxide poisoning.
• Away from home: Keep your temperature at least 65 degrees. Have someone check on your house regularly while you're away.
• Cold air drafts: Caulk gaps in windows and doors or add weather stripping.

Derail the Siberian Express! — BEN POPKEN

[via Angieslist]

Exemptions could be granted if the Food and Drug Administration determines they are needed and they would not unduly burden interstate commerce.

We'd hate to think that fully informing customers about a product's contents might unduly inconvenience companies.

More: Union-Tribune [via MrConsumer]