Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Michigan be given 5 minutes and then the floor come back to me at the conclusion of his remarks.

Mr. HATCH. Let me suggest the absence of a quorum, and I will immediately see if I can get this done.

Mr. HATCH. If you will be willing to take less time, we can allow 5 minutes for Senator Levin; and how much time does the Senator from Delaware need?

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator withhold before I ask unanimous consent myself? I am trying to accommodate the distinguished Senator from Minnesota. If Senator Durbin wants to come to the floor and do his amendment, personally I do not have any objection to that. Let me check with our side and make sure we can do that, as long as we have an opportunity to amend the Durbin amendment. Would it be possible to cut down the time so we could accommodate both amendments before the vote?

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator withhold?

Mr. HATCH. I am not aware of the promise to Senator Durbin, but I am trying to accommodate the distinguished Senator. We have a limited time prior to the cloture vote.

Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Let me finish. Then we will vote on that amendment, as modified. As I understand it, Senator Levin wants to speak--is that correct?--for 5 minutes, and Senator Biden wants to speak for how much time?

Mr. HATCH. Let me accommodate my colleague. I am trying to accommodate the Senator. I am trying to be reasonable, and I am trying to make this matter acceptable. We have a cloture vote at 4. I am willing to accommodate the Senator so he can have a debate on his amendment equally divided until 3:40 when we vote on the amendment.

Mr. HATCH. You already yielded the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield for a comment?

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HATCH. Excuse me, if I may finish. I would have preferred not to have filed cloture. I would have preferred to agree to a small number of amendments and we go forward on those amendments and then have a vote on final passage, but we were not able to get that agreement, or at least have not been able to up to now. As far as I know, there is only one Senator stopping that agreement. I say this to my distinguished friend from Minnesota: As far as I am concerned, I have no real objection to the Senator proceeding on his amendment and having a vote prior to the cloture vote. I prefer to vitiate the cloture vote. If the Senator feels aggrieved, I am going to try to accommodate him, but I hope our colleagues on both sides will be willing to work with us to get this bill completed because it is an important bill. Yes, there are a variety of viewpoints in this bill, but this is a very important bill. We believe we have bent over backwards to try to work it out with both sides in this matter. I ask unanimous consent--I hope the distinguished Senator from Minnesota will listen--that a vote occur in relation to the pending Wellstone amendment No. 36, as I understand it, as modified, at 3:40 p.m. today, and the time between now and then be equally divided and no second-degree amendments be in order prior to the vote, and at some point it be in order to lay aside the amendment for up to 5 minutes for consideration of a managers' amendment.

Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield, Mr. President, as the Senator knows, we have been here for almost 2 weeks on this bill. This is a bill that has been modified. Some of the amendments of the other side have been agreed to. Some have been on the floor. This bill passed 70-28 last December. Frankly, there appears to us to be an effort to have amendment after amendment, and some of these amendments are not even germane. In fact, quite a few of them are not germane. Our side exercised a prerogative of the rules to file cloture, to end what really is a debate that is going out of bounds.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have to object to that unless we can work out some matters that have to be worked out.

Mr. HATCH. We are going to try to work with the Senator. It may take a unanimous consent postcloture.

Mr. HATCH. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HATCH. It is on your desk.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HATCH. I cannot agree to that at this time, but I will certainly run that by the appropriate people.

Mr. HATCH. We are working on that, but we don't have it put together yet. I don't know if we can do that before the cloture vote, but we will continue to work on it.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. So long as I don't lose my right to the floor after he finishes his 1 minute.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I appreciate the feelings of my colleague from Connecticut. He is a good man. I think this is a discriminatory amendment which would unduly restrict access to credit cards for adults between the ages of 18 and 21. It is a paternalistic amendment and some believe it is paternalism at its worst. It puts a complete prohibition on the issuance of a credit card to those adults unless, one, their parent, guardian, spouse, or someone else with means agrees in writing to joint liability for the debt; or, two, if a person submits proof of independent means of repayment; or, three, the consumer proves he has completed a credit counseling program. These hurdles, targeted at adults between the ages of 18 and 21, in our opinion, are not warranted. In short, adults between the ages of 18 and 21 can vote, serve in the military, obtain a driver's license, and under longstanding law enter into legally binding contracts. Discriminating against them when it comes to obtaining credit cannot be justified. The unnecessary and burdensome requirements of making various paperwork submissions under this amendment will make the cost of credit more expensive for everybody and the process inefficient. Of course, this amendment strikes me also as ironic. Those who oppose parental consent for abortion for those under the age of 18 want parental consent for individuals over 18 to get credit cards. Something is wrong with that picture. That, it seems to me, is ironic. Finally, we have already had a 55-42 vote to table an amendment that attempted to restrict access to credit to adults between the ages of 18 and 21. This amendment by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut is even more restrictive and unfair than that amendment. One last comment I have is this amendment is based on the myth younger borrowers are less responsible than older borrowers. The truth is that they are more responsible. As of 1999, 59 percent of all college students in America paid their balance in full at the end of each month compared to only 40 percent of the general population, And 86 percent of students pay their credit cards with their own money, not with their parents' money. Frankly, there is little or no reason to have this amendment. I know it is well intentioned, but just the costs alone would be passed on to every person in the country. Frankly, I think this amendment discriminates against young people between 18 and 21, the age of accountability in the eyes of most States, where they can legally enter into contracts. What are we going to do next, take away their rights to enter into contracts because we don't trust them or we don't think they are adult enough to be able to handle these matters? Again, I think this amendment is well intentioned, but these young people have all these obligations in life that they have to live up to, and they are living up to them. Yes, there are horror stories such as those the Senator has indicated, but I can give you horror stories among adults, too, 40, 50, 60 years of age who just didn't live up to the obligations to pay their debts. I think bankruptcy is a sorry thing for everybody. I wish nobody had to go into bankruptcy. But I will tell you one thing: To pass on additional costs and additional burdens to everybody else because there are some people who are irresponsible is not the right thing to do. Last but not least, under this bill, if they are under the average median income in their particular area, they will not have the obligation of going into the other chapter and having to try to pay back some part of these debts. I think society understands that. What we are trying to do is get people to be more responsible in this area. I think this bill will go a long way towards doing that. I appreciate my colleague, but I have to move to table this amendment. I am prepared to yield the remainder of my time. Does the Senator need any more time? I am prepared to yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. HATCH. How much time remains?