Charles E. Grassley: “I rise in opposition to this amendment by the distinguished Senator from Nevada. Perhaps there is some problem here and…”

“I rise in opposition to this amendment by the distinguished Senator from Nevada. Perhaps there is some problem here and perhaps that needs to be dealt with, but we feel it can be dealt with in a little different manner. I think that his approach could be characterized as using a cannon to go after a fly. I think there are some ways, if there is a problem here, to deal with it, but not this way. And I will suggest some alternatives. But let me say, if you remember what I said in my opening comments, that part of the purpose of this legislation was to encourage the use of chapter 13 and promote reorganization as opposed to the alternative that is often used now, the liquidation that comes out of chapter 7 for individual consumer debtors. Let me say, as a matter of fact, that most chapter 13 plans now only last 3 years. A 3-year bar would very harshly single out chapter 13 for treatment not found anywhere else in the code, I think, contrary to the intent of our legislation, which is to encourage chapter 13. And it would be discouraged, even though this chapter is widely regarded to be favored by creditors, who receive, as a result thereof, a greater percentage of repayment, and by the debtors who sincerely wish to repay their obligations. So considering the motivation of this portion of the bill before us, it seems to me that this amendment by the Senator from Nevada just detracts to too great of an extent from what we are trying to accomplish.”