This week I have highlighted three items of interest on the City Council formal agenda.  Below you will find a consent item which is a quarterly update on the City’s Legal Debt Margin.  I thought the public would like to know where we stand on our debt limit.  I am also including the presentation made by our new City Manager Marcus Jones, regarding the mid-year budget update.  Click here for the presentation. I was impressed with the presentation as he broke it down in terms of Economics 101.  This was helpful to those who are new to council and might not understand budget terminology.

On the Regular Agenda are two items of interest.  R-1 is an ordinance to allow an automobile title loan establishment.  This item was passed by at a previous council meeting because some members wanted additional information.  I voted against tabling it to the next meeting because I read the document and was ready to vote NO on allowing this business to establish.  This business falls into a category of predatory lender and preys on people who are desperate for cash by allowing them to sign over the title of their pre-paid car for a higher-interest loan.  Here is a link from cnn.com explaining why car title lenders are bad ideas.

R-2 deals with language missing out of the City Code dealing with the operation of “mobile power equipment”  (lawnmowers).  This ordinance will reestablish the allowable times of 7:00am-9:00pm.  Does anyone else think that 7:00am is too early and 9:00pm too late for your neighbor or local landscaping company to be cutting  grass?

Informal Agenda 2.8.11

Formal Agenda 2.8.11

C-1 Statement of Legal Debt Margin – December 31, 2011 – The purpose of this quarterly notice is to advise City Council of the compliance with the City’s Legal Debt Margin. The Commonwealth of Virginia limits the City’s ability to issue general obligation bonds (which pledge the full faith and taxing power of the City as security for repayment) in excess of 10% of the City’s Taxable Assessed Value. As of December 31, 2010, the City’s existing general obligations are 4.46% of assessed value (44.60% of legal capacity). No action is requested from City Council.  Click here for more information.

R-1 Special Exception – 6400 East Virginia Beach Blvd – Titlemax If approved, this ordinance would permit Titlemax to operate an automobile title loan establishment at 6400 East Virginia Beach Boulevard. The applicant would be required to make a number of site improvements, including the installation of landscaping on both East Virginia Beach Boulevard and George Street. Approval is recommended, based on compliance with technical ordinance requirements, consistency with approved plans, and considering the application of accepted standards for determining a concentration of uses that potentially pose problems for a neighborhood. Click here for more information.

R-3 Correction and Clarification of Section 26-3(b)(1) – Sound Levels If approved, this ordinance will amend the City Code § 26-3(b)(1) in order to state the exact hours of operation of mobile power equipment and remove a reference to a code section that no longer exists. Approval is recommended.  Click here for more information.

Sorry, but the City Council agenda for this week is not that interesting.  This is one of those meetings that validates my point that we do not need to be meeting weekly.  With only six public hearings and four resolutions on the agenda, the formal session should be completed in less than 15 minutes.  Last week, we had over 20 speakers - mostly addressing the police chief and building a police station in Berkley/Campostella.  The meeting lasted over two hours and it was nice to see a full council chambers.  With a 2:30pm start time and light agenda, there will be more city staff in the audience than citizens Tuesday.

On the informal agenda are presentations from Norfolk’s new City Manager, Marcus Jones.  Marcus starts on Tuesday and will be updating Council on the budget.  He will also present on “Community Outreach” and I am excited to see some of his ideas on how we can engage our citizens.   Marcus is a breath of fresh air and I am excited about the new style he will bring to the management of our city government.  Since we do not televise our informal meetings, you will have to come down to the 10th floor at 12:00pm to hear him speak.

Last week I told you about a predatory lender wanting permission to set up on Little Creek Road.  The applicant pulled their request off the agenda before the meeting.  I am glad they did, although I was looking forward to voting NO to their application.

2/1/2011 Informal Agenda

2/1/2011 Formal Agenda

You can also visit my constituent web site at http://norfolkward5.com/ to learn more about me and how to get involved.

City Council Informal Agenda 1/25/11

City Council Formal Agenda overview 1/25/11

edit by vjp: City Council Formal agenda is here and includes the items highlighted below.

REGULAR AGENDA

R-1  Letter from the City Manager and an Ordinance entitled, “An Ordinance granting a Special Exception to permit the operation of a Check Cashing Establishment on property located at 1301 East Little Creek Road, Suite #7,” will be introduced in writing and read by its title.  Click here for more info.

R-9  Letter from the City Manager and an Ordinance entitled, “An Ordinance authorizing the City Manager to negotiate an Agreement in substantial conformity with the terms and conditions of the attached Purchase and Sale Agreement, for the purpose of purchasing a certain parcel of real property known as 3575 Mississippi Avenue, in the City of Norfolk, authorizing the purchase of said property, authorizing the expenditure of a sum of up to $168,000.00 for such purpose, up to $25,000 for the reimbursement of relocation costs to the seller, and $20,000.00 for closing costs, from funds heretofore appropriated, and authorizing a Possession Agreement with the seller,” will be introduced in writing and read by its title.  Click here for more info.

R-12 Letter from the City Manager and an Ordinance entitled, “An Ordinance appropriating up to $8,255,365.00 pursuant to the Federal Education Jobs Fund (EJF) as allocated to the Norfolk Public Schools (NPS) by the Commonwealth of Virginia for fiscal years and uses authorized under the EJF,” will be introduced in writing and read by its title. Click here for more info.

R-1 is an ordinance to grant a special exception for the operation on a Check Cashing Establishment or what most refer to as a “predatory lender” on Little Creek Rd.  This location happens to be in Ward 5.  Two civic leagues and the planning commission voted against it.

R-9 is an ordinance to authorize the City Manager’s office to negotiate a purchase of a property adjacent to the light rail line.  This is to create a buffer between the neighborhood and the light rail line.  Make sure to read the attached document carefully.  Some citizens may have an issue with the actual purchase price of the house, as well as some of the extras being thrown in.

R-12 is an ordinance for the city to accept the Federal Education Jobs Fund Money and allocate it to Norfolk Public Schools.  This issue was recently in the news because the Norfolk Federation of Teacher’s President criticized the city for giving teachers the “royal run-around” with allocating the money.  This ordinance will pass, but will most likely draw some comments from council members because of the union’s criticism.  I expect some NPS employees to be there as well to speak about not having a raise in almost four years.

§ 24.2-959. Requirements for campaign telephone calls sponsored by a candidate or candidate campaign committee.

It shall be unlawful for any candidate or candidate campaign committee to make campaign telephone calls without disclosing, before the conclusion of each telephone call, information to identify the candidate or candidate campaign committee who has authorized and is paying for the calls unless such call is terminated prematurely by means beyond the maker’s control.

The person making the telephone call shall disclose the name of the candidate.

It shall also be unlawful (i) for any candidate or candidate campaign committee who contracts for campaign telephone calls to fail to provide to the persons making the telephone calls the identifying information required by this section or (ii) for any person to provide a false or fictitious name or address when providing the identifying information required.

I have been provided a recording of a poll being conducted in Norfolk in which the polling firm fails to identify who paid for the call, despite being asked. (Because the call has voter identifying information on it (including the phone number of the person receiving the call and the first name of the person receiving the call), I have decided not to post the audio.) The questions asked were typical, and included asking the respondent’s opinion of various people, including Senator Mark Warner and Governor Bob McDonnell.

There was one question asked that makes me think that I know who paid for the poll. The firm conducting the poll was identified once the respondent asked. Financial reports for local races are due April 15, so if the Florida-based polling firm is identified in the expenditures, my suspicions will be confirmed. Regardless, a complaint will be filed as such behavior should not be tolerated.

The penalty for violating telephone call disclaimers is $2,500 per occurrence. There is no doubt that this call violates the disclaimers and whoever paid for it should be punished.

By the way – I wouldn’t rely on the results of this poll. It was really, really sloppy. The respondent’s answers were not the same as the choices provided, which meant that the surveyor plugged in whatever he thought the responses meant.

The pilot program, a partnership between the Commonwealth of Virginia Campaign (CVC) and Virginia Credit Union (VACU), will offer small loans-$100 to $500-to state employees facing financial difficulties.

OK, so just who is the CVC?

The Commonwealth of Virginia Campaign (CVC) facilitates state employee giving in Virginia.

And this (emphasis mine):

Loans will be backed by the Virginia State Employee Assistance Fund (VSEAF), a 501(c)3 charity administered by the CVC team within the Department of Human Resource Management. Both CVC and VSEAF programs are run by state employees for state employees, and are funded solely from employee contributions, with no state tax dollars involved.

So the money is coming from the employees and will be loaned to employees. Where’s the problem with that? For those who are not familiar, the term for this is micro lending and it has been used successfully across the globe. Here is one source.

As for complaints about the stated interest rate of 24.99%: would you rather the employee go to a payday lender and pay a much higher rate? Remember, there has been an effort underway to put a cap of 36% on payday loans for the last several years but the caps have been resisted.

But hey, don’t let the facts get in the way when you can rely on misrepresentations of the MSM.

State employees interested in the program can check out the website here.

OK, it’s been a busy day and week so updating this legislative agenda issue got a little behind, though I did mention this earlier in the week. Thursday, the General Assembly passed legislation that will make some changes in payday lending. HB12 as amended includes:

• A change in the fee. Currently lenders can charge $15 per $100, with a loan limit of $500. The new fee will be 20% of the loan amount plus a $5 filing fee and plus interest at 36%.
• Borrowers are allowed one extended payment term loan per year. The term is 4 payments over at least 60 days, with no additional interest charged.
• There is a 90-day waiting period after the borrower pays off an extended payment loan before another loan can be made.
• Borrowers are allowed 5 loans in a 180-day time frame but only one loan at a time.
• A database will be established to track loans.
• The minimum term of the loan has been changed from 7 days to two times the borrower’s pay cycle.

There is one little interesting item in the bill that I haven’t heard anyone mention:

§ 6.1-469.1. Application of chapter to Internet loans.

The provisions of this chapter, including specifically the licensure requirements of § 6.1-445, shall apply to persons making payday loans over the Internet to Virginia residents, whether or not the person making the loan maintains a physical presence in the Commonwealth.

So, for the first time, out-of-state payday lenders will be licensed in and regulated by Virginia. That is a significant change and one that I suspect may be a bit difficult to enforce. Nevertheless, it makes sense. To do otherwise would be to allow those lenders not only to circumvent the rules here but would put those who are either based in Virginia or have a Virginia nexus at a disadvantage.

So while this bill isn’t perfect (and didn’t got as far as I would have liked), I’m glad that we have had some reform in this area.

You know, if the payday lenders didn’t make so much money, they wouldn’t have the resources to make all those campaign contributions.

UPDATE: The article linked above has been updated by the Pilot to reflect that the bill does indeed include a 36% cap. Good for them!

Big news on the payday lending issue came yesterday. At a morning press conference, it was announced that legislators had reached a compromise on this. (Not just GOP legislators, Brian.)

Key legislators from both parties in the House of Delegates have signed onto a compromise to regulate payday lenders that is intended to prevent unwary consumers from getting trapped into debt.

Newport News Republican Glen Oder will carry the bill, a revised version of his HB12, which will be heard by the House Commerce and Labor committee Tuesday. Key components of the bill:

• No more than 5 loans per year
• No more than one loan outstanding at a time
• A 24-hour cooling off period between loans
• Longer repayment term
• Lenders can charge 10% of the loan amount plus $5 verification fee, with interest capped at 36%
• Can only borrow up to $500

There will be a database to track these loans, something that has been the subject of many of the bills on payday lending this year. No word on how the database will be paid for. Several of the earlier bills charged the borrower a fee for this.

The Legislative Black Caucus made payday lending one of it legislative priorities and was also present at the press conference. While this bill isn’t perfect, it is a step in the right direction.

Technorati Tags: Payday Lending

Still no action on any of the payday lending legislation I previously listed. It appears that the conversation is continuing on reaching a compromise.

In the meantime, take a look at this article from The Virginian Pilot.

Lenders are targeting middle-income neighborhoods, usually near shopping malls, and avoiding poor areas.

[...]

Jay Speer, executive director of the Virginia Poverty Law Center, an outspoken opponent of payday loans, said he was surprised at The Pilot’s findings.

“It’s almost sadder that they’re hitting the middle-income folks,” he said.

I’m surprised, too. I have to wonder: is this a convenience thing, rather than a “lender of last resort” thing?

Technorati Tags: Payday Lending

There has been no action on any of the payday lending legislation I previously listed. According to The Daily Press, both sides of the debate were supposed to have had a meeting last Saturday to try to hash out some compromise. Of course, having the second largest payday lender pay $100,000 to settle charges of “widely violating state laws” doesn’t help their cause.

One of the points made by proponents of payday lending is that they are the lenders of last resort, the only source of these small, short-term loans. Not true. Credit unions, churches and nonprofits are stepping up to provide these loans. I only wish they had stepped into the breech before the payday lending law was passed.

Technorati Tags: Payday Lending

Once again, not much to report except committee assignments. Nearly all of the bills are in the HC&L (House Commerce & Labor) committee or the SC&L (Senate Commerce & Labor) committee. The HC&L committee meets Tuesdays and Thursdays, 1/2 hour after adjournment, while the SC&L committee meets Mondays, 1/2 hour after adjournment. None of these bills appear on the dockets yet.

Cap bills:

• HB12 -(Oder) – caps rate at 36%. In HC&L committee.
• HB249 – (O’Bannon) – caps rate at 36% plus requires borrower to acknowledge in writing that s/he has received and read a copy of the latest SCC Consumer Guide to PaydayLending. In HC&L committee.
• HB1377 - (Morrissey) – caps rate at 36%. In HC&L committee.
• HB1404 – (D Jones) – caps rate at 36%. In HC&L committee.
• SB24 – (Reynolds) – caps rate at 36%. In SC&L committee.
• SB238 – (Locke) – caps rate at 36%. In SC&L committee.
• SB279 – (J Miller) – caps rate at 36%. In SC&L committee.
• SB670 – (McEachin) – caps rate at 36%. In SC&L committee.

Repeal bills:

• HB730 – (McClellan) – repeal effective 7/1/2010. In HC&L committee.
• SB25 – (Reynolds) – repeal effective 7/1/2008. In SC&L committee.
• SB156 – (McEachin) – repeal effective 7/1/2010. In SC&L committee.
• SB278 – (Locke) – repeal effective 1/1/2009. In SC&L committee.

Database bills (creation of database for lenders to query to see if borrower is eligible):

• HB176 – (O Ware) – contract for database by 1/1/2009. Borrowers to pay fifty cents for query. In HC&L committee.
• HB1103 – (Sickles) – contract for database by 1/1/2009. Also caps payday loans to lesser of 25% of borrower’s gross income or $1,000 ($500 if second loan) and other requirements (see link). In HC&L committee.
• HB1351 – (L Ware) – contract for database by 7/1/2009. Lenders prohibited from making loan if it would cause borrower to have more than 2 loans outstandin and other requirements (see link). In HC&L committee.
• SB588 – (Puckett) – contract for database by 7/1/2009. Borrowers to pay fifty cents for query. In SC&L committee.

Other:

• HB189 – (Marshall) – allows localities to regulate. In HC&L committee.
• HJ168 – (Sickles) -JLARC to study the industry. In House Rules committee.

UPDATE: The Daily Press has an interactive map that you can look at and locate the payday lenders in your area. And take a look at the tag cloud: Virginia Beach and Richmond seem to have the most locations, followed by Norfolk.

Technorati Tags: Payday Lending

Payday lending is another issue that has been the topic of discussion throughout the country. The following video could have just as easily been made in Virginia.

From a Virginian Pilot editorial:

Payday companies loaned out $1.3 billion last year, up from $655 million in 2003, the year after they received permission to charge more than 36 percent interest. More than 433,500 people obtained a short-term, high-interest loan in 2006, with nearly 97,000, or nearly one in four, taking out 13 or more loans.

Payday lenders filed lawsuits against 12,500 borrowers last year, more than double the number reported in 2003.

Targeting the working poor, payday lenders have mushroomed in Virginia since the law first allowed them. Exemption from the 36% interest rate cap has made this business extremely profitable. Have you seen the TV ads they have been running lately? They make payday lending sound like a good thing. In the background, they are making significant contributions to legislators and joining local business groups, who are then less likely to take a stand against predatory lending.

HB12 and SB24 have been introduced which will cap interest rates at 36%. SB25 has been introduced to repeal the 2002 statute. The law prohibiting loans above that rate to military members went in effect in October. From the same editorial:

In September, the City Council of Washington, D.C., voted to cap payday loans at a 24 percent annual interest rate. Many of those companies are expected to flee across the state line into Virginia, where state laws allow interest rates of nearly 400 percent.

North Carolina banned predatory lending last year, while Maryland and West Virginia have never granted state approval for payday companies.

It is time for Virginia to step up and end this practice.

Technorati Tags: Payday lending

Contact your legislators, ask them to sign on as a patron of this bill and ask them to support it.

Melvin will be recognized at the 2007 Annual meeting of the organization, which will be held December 6. The keynote speaker for the event is Democratic Caucus Chair Brian Moran. Details on the event can be found here.

Congratulations to Delegate Melvin! Perhaps this year, with a little more work, the issue of payday lending can be resolved. I see that the City of Newport News has identified a ban on payday lending as its top legislative priority. And Melvin will have some help: Del. Glen Oder (R-94th) and Del.-elect Brenda Pogge (R-96th) both support stricter legislation of payday lenders.

Technorati Tags: Ken Melvin

Graphic credit: The Virginian Pilot (click to enlarge)

The state legislators who are so willing to do the bidding of a predatory business should check the latest evidence. The numbers for 2006 are in, and what they reveal is that the amount of misery and destruction wrought by payday lenders is growing.

The General Assembly had opportunities to bring these lenders in line with other consumer lending rules in Virginia and failed to do so. With all 140 seats up for re-election this fall, we need to make sure that the voters are aware of the voting records of those who continue to support such practices.

“You can’t make your payroll on that kind of return,” [bill patron Del. Lee] Ware said.

OK, so they don’t make payroll and the industry dies. Seems like a reasonable response to predatory lending. The federal government seems OK with that, since they mandated a maximum of 36% on loans to active duty military and their families.

What is obvious to me is that the pay day lending industry will go to whatever lengths necessary to protect their obscene profits. The amount of money they have spent on advertising (ads in the Virginian-Pilot almost daily) as well as the money they spread around to legislators is probably a drop in the bucket compared to what they make. 380% interest is just unconscionable.

Five years ago, tellers at State Employees’ Credit Union in North Carolina noticed a different group of people coming in to cash checks: payday lenders with checks written by members of the Raleigh-based credit union.

This concerned the credit union, which realized that its customers paid interest rates in the triple digits, charged by the payday lenders. State Employees’ responded by devising a low-cost alternative that provides loans as large as $500 at an annual percentage rate of 12 percent.

Since then, State Employees’ has made more than 1.5 million of the loans, amounting to $600 million.

Our neighbors to the south, North Carolina, gave payday lending a go for four years and then allowed the statute which authorized them to expire. No one in NC is clamoring for their return. Instead, other lenders stepped into the breach.

Here in Hampton Roads, Langley Federal Credit Union began offering “Quick Cash” loans to its members two years ago. Most of the loans are for $500 and carry an 18% interest rate.

FDIC has issued guidelines encouraging banks to make “small, short-term loans,” acknowledging that the demand is there.

While Delegate O’Bannon’s (R-Henrico) bill to repeal the payday lending statute was defeated in committee, he has indicated that he will propose the legislation again. In the meantime, Delegate Jennifer McClellan (D-Richmond) has already prefiled a bill (HB 1684) to eliminate payday lending effective 7/1/09.

With others stepping up to the plate to provide these loans, an appeal of the payday lending statute, with its exorbitant interest rates, is appropriate.

In a 10-8 vote, the Commerce and Labor Committee defeated a bill from Del. John O’Bannon, R-Henrico, aimed at repealing the 2002 law that began a new chapter in consumer lending. It led to an explosion of storefront payday lenders in Hampton Roads and elsewhere.

[...]

Rather than forbid the practice, several lawmakers said they favored tighter regulations aimed at preventing consumers from falling into the debt trap.

I have written previously about HB619 and why I thought it should be repealed. The fact that Congress restricts the charging of exorbitant interest rates to active duty service members and their families should have given a clue to our lawmakers that all Virginians deserve the same protection.

According to LIS, voting in favor of the ban were Morgan, Tata, Purkey, Griffith, Jones, D.C., Joannou, Alexander, and McClellan. Voting against the ban were Callahan, Hargrove, Kilgore, Byron, Ware, R.L., Nixon, Suit, Hugo, Abbitt, and Sickles. (Interestingly enough, four members of the committee – Dudley, Plum, Johnson, Melvin – did not vote at all.)

In its post on the subject, Bored Young Professionals Inc. pointed out who on the House Commerce and Labor Committee received campaign contributions from Anderson Financial Services/LoanMax Title Loans. From that post, I have incorporated their votes:

• Y – Harry Purkey $3,250
• N – Terry Kilgore $3,000
• X – Kenneth Plum $2,750
• N – Timothy Hugo $2,500
• Y – Johnny Joannou $2,000
• N – Samuel Nixon $2,000
• N – Terrie Suit $1,750
• N – Frank Hargrove (Vice Chair) $1,500
• X – Allen Dudley $1,250

So of the nine members of the Committee receiving contributions, five voted against the ban, two did not vote, and two voted in favor.

Delegate Glen Oder (R-NN) has already filed HB912, which puts certain restrictions on pay day lenders and creates a database for tracking borrowers. Perhaps this bill will get back on the calendar and we will at least have some regulation of the industry. Or maybe Delegate Bannon can re-introduce his bill to ban them.

With the members of the Committee being so split on this issue, it seems that allowing the full house to vote on it would make sense.

On Tuesday, December 5th, the Virginia House Commerce and Labor Committee will vote on HB 619, a bill sponsored by Delegate John O’Bannon that would repeal the Payday Loan Act of 2002. It’s important that this bill be approved and sent to the House floor when the Legislature convenes in 2007.

Background

The Payday Loan Act of 2002 granted exemption from the Consumer Finance Act to payday lenders, lifting the 36% APR cap on loans made by these lenders. The result has been a proliferation of payday lending in Virginia. The 2002 Act has enabled payday lenders to impose a triple-digit APR (often more than 300%, but up to 780% is now legal).

In 2005, more than 3,372,000 payday loans were made by payday lender licensees in Virginia. The total dollar amount of these loans was $1,197,105,629. The number of individuals to whom payday loans were made was 445,891. Of these, 90,859 received 13 loans or more (within that year alone) from a single lender — and this figure does not reflect the number of borrowers who got loans from more than one lender).

Repealing the Payday Loan Act of 2002 does not translate to lack of support for home-grown businesses; it would only require that they operate under the same regulations as all other lenders. In addition, more than 50% of the payday loan businesses in Virginia are owned by out-of-state companies. As a consequence, over $167 million in fees flowed out of Virginia in 2005 alone.

Research shows that the payday lending business model is designed to keep borrowers in debt, not to provide one-time assistance during a time of financial need. To secure a loan, borrowers give a payday lender a personal check that the lender does not attempt to redeem (as a rule, there are insufficient funds in the borrower’s checking account — that’s why he/she is seeking a loan). In return the borrower receives cash minus the lender’s fees, which are $15 for every $100 borrowed. No credit check is done, and the loan is not related in any way to the borrower’s ability to repay.

A payday loan only postpones a financial crisis for two weeks, and few borrowers (just 1%) are able to repay the loans within that period. Instead they become trapped in a cycle of debt driven by repeated loans and fees. Each additional loan is used to pay off previous ones made by the lender.

Repealing the Payday Loan Act of 2002

The Virginia Partnership to Encourage Responsible Lending (VaPERL) is a coalition of organizations working to repeal this act through passage of HB 619.

Members of the coalition include such Virginia organizations as the AARP, Virginia Poverty Law Center, Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy, Richmond Better Business Bureau, Virginia Organizing Project, Voices for Virginia’s Children, Legal Aid Justice Center, and the Virginia Association of Area Agencies on Aging.

Furthermore, when the House Commerce and Labor Committee held a hearing on HB 619 on October 3, 2006, speakers urging the Committee to support this bill included representatives of the Consumer Federation of America, the NAACP, the National Military Family Association, and the Joint Leadership Council of Veterans Service Organizations.

What You Can Do

Sign a letter. On the internet, go to Virginiafairloans.org (Virginia Fair Loans, A Partnership to Encourage Responsible Lending). Under “Action Alerts,” click “Repeal the Payday Lending Act.” Enter your name and contact info in the appropriate spaces to automatically send a letter (posted there) to your State Delegate and State Senator — with copies to Del. Harry Morgan and Sen. Harry Wampler (Chairs, respectively, of the House and Senate Commerce and Labor Committees).

Contact individual members of the House Commerce and Labor Committee in advance of their vote on Tuesday, December 5th. (Sending them a communication or calling them by November 30th would be a good idea.)

Note that Congress this fall enacted a 36% cap on interest rates charged to active duty military and their families. This law was aimed squarely at payday lenders. The repeal of the Payday Loan Act of 2002 goes a long way toward providing other Virginia consumers protection from predatory lending practices

Contact the members of the committee (click on name for email):

• Harvey B. Morgan, Chairman
• Frank D. Hargrove, Sr., Vice Chair
• Watkins M. Abbitt, Jr.
• Kenneth C. Alexander
• Kathy J. Byron
• Vince F. Callahan, Jr.
• Allen W. Dudley
• H. Morgan Griffith
• Timothy D. Hugo
• Johnny S. Joannou (no email – contact info here)
• Joseph P. Johnson, Jr.
• Dwight Clinton Jones
• Terry G. Kilgore
• Jennifer L. McClellan
• Kennth R. Melvin
• Samuel A. Nixon, Jr.
• Kenneth R. Plum
• Harry R. Purkey
• Mark D. Sickles
• Terrie L. Suit
• Robert “Bob” Tata
• R. Lee Ware, Jr.