BANKRUPTCY REFORM -- (Senate - July 20, 2000)
 

[Page: S7383]

---

   Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to take a brief moment to speak on bankruptcy reform legislation, which in my view, our Nation desperately needs. We 

[Page: S7384]
have a balanced bankruptcy reform bill. The administration is on record as saying they support it. If the President really wants a bill, and if my colleagues in the Senate really want a bill, then they should let us move to a formal conference. Furthermore, they should tell us why the clinic violence provision is even necessary.

   Current law already prevents perpetrators of clinic violence, as well as other types of violence, from discharging the judgments against them in bankruptcy. Given this, it is clear that the overbroad abortion clinic violence amendment serves no substantive purpose. No one has brought forth a single case in which current law has been used to discharge debts from clinic violence. I raised this issue in a letter to Senator SCHUMER last week, and am still awaiting a response.

   Let's move forward with a bankruptcy conference--we have waited long enough.

   I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   U.S. SENATE,

   COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

   Washington, DC, July 13, 2000.
Hon. CHARLES SCHUMER
Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

   DEAR CHUCK: I am writing you regarding your clinic violence amendment to the bankruptcy reform legislation. This amendment appears to be one of the final remaining issues holding up the overdue reform our bankruptcy laws truly need to both stop the abuse of the system by those who are able to pay back a portion of their debts and to implement new consumer protections such as enhanced credit card disclosures, which you played a major role in drafting.

   I respect your views and the general objective of your amendment to prevent criminals from paying their debts to society or to others by using our bankruptcy laws. Furthermore, I am committed to addressing any legitimate abuse of our bankruptcy laws. However, I am concerned that some who oppose the broadly supported proposed reforms have capitalized on the issue of abortion clinic violence and have spread some misconceptions regarding this issue. Such misconceptions, unfortunately, appear to be jeopardizing passage of the important bankruptcy reform legislation.

   For example, in a document circulated by one of our colleagues, it was represented that ``[t]he Schumer amendment prevents a documented abuse of the bankruptcy system. .....'' and the compromise language that is in the conference report ``would continue to allow many perpetrators of clinic violence to seek shelter in the nation's bankruptcy courts.''

   There has not been a single case reported or presented where the current bankruptcy laws were held to allow a perpetrator of clinic violence to ``seek shelter in the nation's bankruptcy courts,'' nor is this a ``documented abuse'' of the system. On the contrary, when those who have committed violence have tried to hide behind the bankruptcy laws, they have found their debts were non-dischargeable under current bankruptcy law. Given this, I do not think that the amendment you offer is necessary.

   Indeed, the abortion rights group NARAL recognized in a 1999 publication that ``[c]oncluding that clinic violence-associated debts are non-dischargeable under section 523(a)(6) is consistent with the Supreme court's interpretation of [current bankruptcy law's] ``willful and malicious injury.'' Therefore such true debts are non-dischargeable.

   Even given such interpretation of current law, and though the House-passed bill had no abortion-related provision, the current reform legislation goes further and incorporates compromise language that would expand current law and further make debts arising from willful and malicious threats also non-dischargeable. This is done in a politically neutral manner and protects debts from all threats of injury irrespective of the political message of the protestors. In addition, knowing that one of your biggest concerns regarding this subject is the ability of perpetrators to avoid debts arising from settlement or contempt orders, the compromise language specifically covers debts from settlement orders and violations of other orders of the court.

   I appreciate your consideration of these points and would welcome any response you might have.

   Sincerely,

   Orrin G. Hatch,
Chairman.

END