Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, March 14, 2001, at 10 a.m., in Dirksen 226.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 14, 2001, at 9:30 a.m., in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting to consider the committee's views and estimates on the President's FY 2002 Budget Request for Indian Programs to be followed immediately by a hearing on S. 211, the Native American Education Improvement Act of 2001.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 14, 2001, to hear testimony on Encouraging Charitable Giving.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 14, for purposes of conducting a full committee business meeting which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this business meeting is to consider pending calendar business.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 14, 2001, at 9:30 a.m., on Internet tax.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HATCH. We are prepared to yield back. cloture motion

Mr. HATCH. Is that all the time that is remaining?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I hate to disagree with my friend and colleague from Minnesota, but he could not be more wrong. This bill actually will do an awful lot of good for people in our society. I will not go into all the details on that. All I have to say is that a vote at this stage against cloture is a vote against bankruptcy reform. The bill we are voting on is the same bill that got 70 votes last year, plus it includes the Schumer-Hatch violence amendment among a number of other Democratic Party amendments. Let me remind my colleagues, and everyone else who wants bankruptcy reform, that many of those who voted against this bill that passed 70-28 last December said if the Schumer violence language had been included, they would have voted for it. Well, it is included. We have worked that language out. It is a shame we have been forced to file cloture after all of the accommodations we have made. I would have preferred not to file cloture, but I believed that was the way we needed to proceed. We have been very fair on this bill. I hope our colleagues will realize this is a very important bill. It makes very important changes that are needed in the bankruptcy laws of this country. We have accommodated both sides in virtually every way we possibly could. I hope everybody will vote for cloture, and let's get this bill passed and get it enacted into law. Is there any time remaining?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 36, As Modified

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, lest there be a failure to talk about the other side, I might just do that. Although the amendment is described as only attacking ``payday loans,'' it imposes new and burdensome regulation on virtually any company that offers consumer loans, including automobile or truck loans, or that cashes personal checks and charges a fee. It represents an attempt to use Federal law to in effect abolish ``payday loans'', intruding into an area traditionally reserved to the States. Although lenders who provide ``payday loans'' are an easy target because the credit they offer is expensive, they in fact provide access to legitimate, short term credit for many poor families who otherwise would be forced to borrow from loan sharks to cover short term emergencies. Some borrowers, particularly poor borrowers, cannot qualify with conventional lenders. For that reason, some States permit ``payday'' lenders to operate. This amendment would in effect drive payday lenders out of business. It also is vastly overbroad, imposing new, burdensome regulation on many legitimate businesses. The amendment amends the Bankruptcy Code to deny the claim of any creditor who charged more than a new, Federal maximum price ceiling for any type of automobile or consumer credit. The amendment also imposes a maximum Federal price limit of 100 percent annual percentage rate on what any consumer creditor, automobile dealer, or check casher could charge in fees or interest for a loan or check cashing service, possibly preempting State regulation setting a lower or higher price limit. Violations of the maximum Federal price limit would result in denial in bankruptcy proceedings of the claim of the creditor, auto dealer or check casher. This amendment strikes at any lender or merchant who charges flat fees permitted by State law in a lending transaction. For example, a $10 cash advance fee or a $15 Federal Express fee permitted by State law for quickly sending a check back to the borrower could exceed the limit if the credit was short term. This amendment intrudes into an area traditionally regulated by the states. Some States permit ``payday'' loans, but this regulation would initiate federal regulation of the service. Oppose this unwise and overbroad attempt to federally regulate an area traditionally regulated by the States. This could hurt the very poor people who have to have these instant loans the Senator is trying to help. In fact, he hurts them. I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished Senator from Texas.

Mr. HATCH. Right, before the motion to table.

Mr. HATCH. No. We have to wait until the Wellstone--my motion to table has been approved?

Mr. HATCH. As I said before, the Durbin amendment would upset 4 solid years of negotiations between both sides of the aisle on both sides of Capitol Hill. It is lacking in all kinds of areas. There is no enforceable means test. It does not include the improved child support provisions that have been requested and desired by the child support community. It does not have the Leahy-Hatch privacy language. It does not have the reaffirmation provisions. It lacks the Debtors' Bill of Rights. It lacks 4 years of improvements in the financial netting provisions. It does not address the abuse of the bankruptcy system by those who wish to discharge debts arising from violence, the Schumer-Hatch compromise. It has much weaker antifraud provisions, such as weakened audit provisions. You can just go on and on. It deletes current law provisions in allowing the courts to consider charitable contributions when making a determination as to whether the debtor's filing is an abuse. It does not provide for retroactive enactment of chapter 12 filings that benefits our farmers from July 1, 2000, to the date of enactment. The amendment would create an immediate effective date which, given the scope of the legislation, is wholly inappropriate, and it lacks improvements to the small business bankruptcy provisions that are in the bill currently before the Senate. In my opinion, it is an attempt to turn back the clock and force considerable renegotiation of all of these provisions, and many other provisions, that we have worked so hard to put together over the last 4 years. The bankruptcy bill is a bipartisan bill. It is not a Republican bill; it is not a Democrat bill. It is a bipartisan bill. We worked very strongly all these years to bring it about. I have to say, there are certain Senators in this body who have a right to do this but who have never wanted a change in the bankruptcy laws, at least the way the bill has been negotiated by the vast majority of people in both Houses of Congress. But a vote for this substitute is a vote to kill the bankruptcy bill. I hope, after all of these years, and all of these months, and all of the time we have spent on the floor on this bill, that my colleagues will vote to table the amendment. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and move to table the amendment, and ask for the yeas and nays. And I ask unanimous consent that the votes occur as we had in the original unanimous consent.

Mr. HATCH. Thank you.

Mr. HATCH. I will yield to the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, without losing my right to the floor, for the purpose of modifying his amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, how much time?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let's understand the Senator's amendment. His amendment does not have the Schumer language in it that was passed yesterday. It doesn't have the Schumer language on abortion in it that we worked out very meticulously with the distinguished Senator from New York. That is very important language. It doesn't have the privacy language that Senator Leahy and the distinguished Senator from Vermont and I worked out over a long period of time. That is very critical language. Frankly, it is just an amendment that would substitute the current legislation with the bankruptcy reform bill that passed the Senate in the 105th Congress. This amendment by the distinguished Senator from Illinois is a transparent attempt to kill bankruptcy reform. It was hastily produced and does not even include the amendments to keep it current; that is, some of the bankruptcy judgeship provisions that have been overtaken by them. The Durbin amendment throws away 4 years of revision, compromise, and improvement. The Durbin amendment is lacking in several important areas: The amendment has no enforceable means test; The amendment does not include the improved child support provisions requested by the child support community; The amendment does not include the Leahy-Hatch ``Toysmart'' consumer privacy amendment; The amendment does not have the reaffirmation provisions in the current bill which substantially improved consumer protections; The amendment lacks the important consumer protections such as the ``Debtors' Bill of Rights''; The amendment does not include 4 years of improvements for the financial netting provision; The amendment does not address the abuse of the bankruptcy system by those who wish to discharge debts arising from violence; that is, the Schumer-Hatch compromise. That is a very important part of what we hope will be the final bill. The amendment has much weaker anti-fraud provisions, such as weakened audit provisions and being more tolerant of repeated abusive filings. The amendment deletes current law provisions allowing the court to consider charitable contributions when making a determination as to whether the debtor's filing is an abuse. The amendment does not provide for retroactive enactment of Chapter 12 filings--farmers--from July 1, 2000 through the date of enactment. The amendment would create an immediate effective date, which, given the scope of the legislation, is wholly inappropriate. The amendment lacks improvements to the small business bankruptcy provisions in the bill. This is a blatant effort to turn back the clock and force considerable renegotiation of provisions that have been negotiated in good faith by literally hundreds of Senators and Congresspeople over the last 4 years. Make no mistake. A vote for this substitute is a vote to kill bankruptcy reform. We oppose the Durbin amendment. I hope my colleagues on the other side will oppose it as well because basically it will upset everything we have tried to do and tried to accommodate Democrats on and Republicans on over the last 4 years. A vote for this amendment is a vote against meaningful bankruptcy reform. I appreciate the fact the distinguished Senator believes deeply and he doesn't like this bill. He is one of a few who does not like this bill. He is one of the 28 who voted against the bill when it passed last year. If anything, the bill from last year has been modified with amendments from the other side. The bill we ultimately, hopefully, will vote on and vote to invoke cloture on has been modified to please Members on the other side in a wide variety of ways. We have tried to accommodate our friends on the other side. I certainly believe I have been fair as the manager of the bill; and I intend to continue to be. But this amendment would work against almost everything we have tried to accomplish over the last 4 years. With that, does the distinguished Senator need some time?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I admire our colleague. He is very articulate. He is a very effective Member of this body. We have filed an amendment to his amendment that basically, if we vote for it, would enact the bill we passed last year 72-28 in the Senate, which I think would be a fitting conclusion to what has gone on here over the last number of weeks. But I know it causes heartburn for our colleague from Illinois. So, as a courtesy to him, I am going to withdraw my amendment at this time. I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be withdrawn. And we will have a vote. I will move to table the Senator's amendment at the appropriate time, and I will also, if he needs more time for his amendment, grant him some of my time.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent the Wellstone time be reserved to follow the 30 minutes equally divided between Senator Durbin and myself.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time prior to the vote in relation to the pending Wellstone amendment numbered 36, as modified, be limited to 10 minutes equally divided and no second- degree amendments be in order prior to the vote, and following that time, the amendment be laid aside and Senator Durbin be recognized to call up his amendment No. 93, and following the reporting, Senator Hatch be recognized to offer a second degree, and time on both amendments be limited to 30 minutes equally divided. Further, then, these votes occur first in relation to the second degree to Durbin, then in relation to the Durbin amendment, as amended, if amended, and finally in relation to the Wellstone amendment, with 2 minutes between each vote for explanation, and the votes to begin no later than 3:20, and Senator Wellstone's time as previously ordered be limited to 5 minutes, and the majority leader be recognized for 5 minutes just prior to cloture.