WASHINGTON – Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Joe Barton, R-Texas, today made the following statement during the Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection Subcommittee markup of H.R. 3993, the Calling Card Consumer Protection Act; H.R. 3655, the Bereaved Consumers Bill of Rights Act; and H.R. 4805, Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act:

“Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am pleased we are marking up H.R. 3993, the Calling Card Consumer Protection Act. Consumers should not need a Ph.D. in math and a law degree to figure out how many minutes they’re buying on a prepaid calling card.  The problem is particularly egregious when the cards are marketed by the rogue operators that prey on immigrant groups. Some sell what they call preferred destination cards with cheaper rates that turn out to come equipped with undisclosed fees and charges that dramatically reduce the card’s actual value. 
   
“I support the goal of this bill and support the amendment that will be offered to further improve it. The amendment will include changes supported by Republicans to create a single national disclosure standard that will provide consumers everywhere more transparent and reliable pricing information.
  
“Turning to H.R. 3655, I want to again express my sympathies to those impacted by the tragedy at Burr Oak Cemetery last year and to those impacted by the stories we’ve heard from Georgia and Florida in recent years. However, as I stated at the legislative hearing on this bill, when a problem has arisen, the States have reacted promptly and effectively. 

“I will reiterate my specific concerns with this bill:

•    Other than addressing the sad state of record-keeping, this bill would have done nothing to prevent the shocking events that occurred at Burr Oaks. Laws are for the law-abiding, and the individuals responsible in this case certainly were not; existence of a law is never a guarantee of perfect compliance.

•    Further, some of the alleged mismanagement is based on something permitted by state law – such as term leases on burial plots or stacked burials – and I do not believe it is the federal government’s role to overrule the judgment of a state legislature on a law that governs solely intrastate activity.

•    Many cemeteries are run by nonprofits. The burdens of these new federal regulations could easily drain these outfits, some of which are run solely by volunteers. 

•    Finally, the FTC promulgated its rule covering the provision of funeral services and products without Congressional prompting. It then appears that if the FTC believed there was widespread fraud in the provision of burial plots, it has the power to address the issue – and the FTC has never been shy about asking us for what it requires if their authority falls short. 

“In this instance, I still believe that it is our job in Congress to provide sunshine, and not to enact unnecessary federal law in this area. Mr. Chairman, while I cannot support a federal rulemaking in this area, I intend to offer an amendment that I think captures the spirit of your bill: It directs the FTC to study the scope of the problem, study state responses and the recommendations of any appointed commissions or industry bodies, and make recommendations on what laws states could enact to protect their citizens.

“Mr. Chairman, with regard to the formaldehyde legislation that you have decided to mark up, I want to strongly disagree that H.R. 4805 is a solution to any problem. I understand that many of our colleagues from California believe that the Golden State shows the way in all things, and the rest of us are foolish not to follow. I don’t happen to agree, as I’ve mentioned before, that what’s good for California is good for America. If anything, recent events have demonstrated that America should pray for California to find a way out of its economic suffering instead of spreading the fiscal misery caused by its politics and its policies to the rest of the country. 
   
“There are fundamental flaws with this bill that we should not endorse. H.R. 4805 allows EPA, by regulation, to nullify or eliminate, statutory language that we enact. Regardless of party, the executive branch routinely does a fine job of misinterpreting congressional intent, we should not give them the power to change our laws if they disagree or want to do something else. Moreover, I question whether EPA, under TSCA, should be regulating consumer products in this way. Finally, I think the lack of federal pre-emption in this bill creates the chance that chicanery rather than sanity will follow passage of the bill. If we mean to create a federal standard that protects the public and does not frustrate interstate commerce, we should not open the door to incongruous actions by states.”