Orrin Hatch: “when we had this amendment in the committee, it had to be a…”

On the recordMarch 7, 2001

when we had this amendment in the committee, it had to be a substantive violation. The current amendment, as we view it, would provide for triggering with even a technical violation. That would be catastrophic in bankruptcy law. We just cannot support this amendment. I know the distinguished Senator is trying to do something worthwhile, and I do not believe there should be predatory lending any more than he does, but I do think we take care of it in this bill. But under this current amendment, it is even worse than the amendment he was prepared to offer in committee because even a technical violation would trigger what he wants to do. So I just need to make that point for the record, and I am happy to yield the floor.

Said by

Orrin Hatch

Republican · Utah

Source

govinfo.gov

Editor's note · Context

Discussing concerns about an amendment related to bankruptcy law and predatory lending.

Share on X Share on Facebook Email this quote

Orrin Hatch: “when we had this amendment in the committee, it had to be a substantive violation. The current amendment, as we view it…”

Editor's note · Context