[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 124 (Thursday, September 17, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10459-S10473]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 CONSUMER BANKRUPTCY REFORM ACT OF 1998

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 3596

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 5 
minutes of debate equally divided on the Reed amendment, No. 3596. Who 
yields time? The distinguished Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, this amendment is a very straightforward 
one. It would prohibit credit card companies from penalizing or 
terminating customers who pay their bills on time.
  The core principle of this bankruptcy legislation that we are 
debating today is responsible borrowing, and being responsible for your 
debts. Here, we have a population of the most responsible borrowers, 
those who pay their bills timely and full each and every month. But 
what is happening is that there is a growing movement among credit card 
companies to penalize these individuals or to terminate their credit 
arrangements. I think it is wrong and I think we should do something 
about it here today.
  The credit card industry claims it is too expensive to maintain these 
accounts. Frankly, if you look at the charges that they receive from 
merchants on each transaction, the very substantial interest rate that 
they charge for outstanding balances, and also the membership fees 
which now seem to be ubiquitous, those claims seem to be very hollow. 
Indeed, this should be an issue about not only responsibility but 
fairness, and also about whether we really do believe that if people 
conduct their lives appropriately, pay their bills on time, are 
responsible, that they should end up being penalized.
  If we are talking, today, in this legislation, about responsible 
borrowing, how can we allow the most responsible borrowers in our 
society, ones who pay their bills each and every month, to be punished 
by these credit card companies?
  I urge adoption of this amendment. I retain the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I consume.
  We have the chairman of the appropriate subcommittee willing to work 
with Senator Reed to address this problem in the Banking Committee. My 
opposition to this is not so much a matter of substance but of 
procedure and not usurping the authority of that committee. It does 
need to be studied. I can tell you that in the Grassley-Durbin 
amendment, we have enhanced disclosure requirements to help consumers.
  While I respect the Senator's view on price controls, my view is that 
forcing a credit card company to offer credit when it has made a 
business determination that it would lose money will only force 
increased prices on other consumers. This is something that the Banking 
Committee needs to take a very serious look at and do it before we do 
something that may help some but may also hurt others.
  Mr. President, I am going to ask that this amendment be tabled after 
the Senator from Alabama speaks. I yield my remaining time to the 
Senator from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama has 1 minute 58 
seconds.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The effect of this will be to require mandatory lending at no 
possible profit for a credit card company. We have 6,000 credit card 
issuers today. They are all providing different services; some charge a 
fee and you have to pay monthly, others don't. It is just not right for 
us, without a hearing, to even impose on a credit card company a duty 
to lend money in a way in which they will never be able to make a 
return.
  I don't think we need to be entering into wage-and-price controls. We 
have a very vigorous free market, and, for the first time, interest 
rates are beginning to come down because we do have a lot of credit 
card companies competing out there. I think we ought not to intervene 
at this time. This is an unwise amendment. I understand the motivation 
behind it. It is not appropriate, and I oppose it strongly at this 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty-nine seconds.
  Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The credit card companies make a great deal of money even on those 
individuals who pay their bills on time. They have membership fees, 
fees from merchants when the transaction is processed, and they have 
additional ways to acquire fees.
  I do not think it is a question of forcing an enterprise to give 
money away. What it is is a situation in which the credit card 
companies have come to us and said, ``There are all these irresponsible 
borrowers out there; we have to amend the bankruptcy laws so we are 
protected.'' Yet, when we point out they are punishing responsible 
borrowers, they rise up and say, ``That is an imposition on us.''
  If we believe in responsible borrowing, we should support this 
amendment.
  I yield back my time.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to table the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table amendment No. 3595, offered by the Senator from Rhode 
Island, Mr. Reed. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
Hollings) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 273 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--52

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Hollings
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3596) was rejected.

[[Page S10460]]

  Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3596) was agreed to.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GLENN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent we now move to the D'Amato 
amendment, regarding ATMs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. As soon as this is disposed of--which we don't think 
will take very long--we will move to the Dodd amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator restate his unanimous consent 
request.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we now move 
to the consideration of Senator D'Amato's amendment to the bankruptcy 
bill, and immediately upon disposing of that, which we hope to do 
fairly shortly, we move then to the Dodd amendment, and we would have 
40 minutes on the Dodd amendment, evenly divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, and to inquire of the 
managing Member, there would be no second-degree amendments.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. That is in the agreement. We have to certify which 
amendment it is.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I notify the managing Member that it is the 
amendment on the credit card age limit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, is there going to be a 
time limitation on the D'Amato amendment?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. We felt that Senator D'Amato would offer his amendment, 
and then I will move to table.
  Mr. DURBIN. Is there a time limitation?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. There is not.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we are 
supposed to conclude by 2 p.m. to take up another matter.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that we have 15 minutes for the 
D'Amato amendment and 5, which probably won't be used, by the 
opposition prior to the motion to table.
  Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, I would like 2 or 3 minutes 
on the D'Amato amendment.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I will give the Senator my time.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we have 20 
minutes for the proponents. I have a number of people who would like to 
speak. It is an important amendment and one we have tried to have 
considered by the full body. Then if the opposition wants 5 minutes, 
that is fine. That would still keep it under a half hour.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, that is OK--with a motion to table at 
the end of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York is recognized.


                Amendment No. 3597 to Amendment No. 3559

   (Purpose: To amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to limit fees 
   charged by financial institutions for the use of automatic teller 
                   machines, and for other purposes)

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato], for himself, Mr. 
     Chafee, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Bryan and Ms. Moseley-Braun, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 3597 to amendment No. 3559.

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC. ____. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN ATM FEES.

       (a) Definition.--Section 903 of the Electronic Fund 
     Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 1693a) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (10), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (11), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(12) the term `electronic terminal surcharge' means a 
     transaction fee assessed by a financial institution that is 
     the owner or operator of the electronic terminal; and
       ``(13) the term `electronic banking network' means a 
     communications system linking financial institutions through 
     electronic terminals.''.
       (b) Certain Fees Prohibited.--Section 905 of the Electronic 
     Fund Transfer Act (12 U.S.C. 1693c) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Limitation on Fees.--With respect to a transaction 
     conducted at an electronic terminal, an electronic terminal 
     surcharge may not be assessed against a consumer if the 
     transaction--
       ``(1) does not relate to or affect an account held by the 
     consumer with the financial institution that is the owner or 
     operator of the electronic terminal; and
       ``(2) is conducted through a national or regional 
     electronic banking network.''.

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, this amendment would end the 
monopolistic, anticonsumer, anticompetitive practice of ATM double 
charges once and for all. It is cosponsored by Senators Chafee, Dodd, 
Harkin, Bryan, and Moseley-Braun.
  The amendment corresponds to my bill, S. 885, called the Fair ATM 
Fees for Consumers Act, which currently has 11 cosponsors. It would 
amend section 903 of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to prohibit ATM 
surcharges imposed by ATM operators directly upon noncustomers using 
their machines.
  The big banks would have you believe that if this amendment passes, 
ATMs are going to disappear. Absolute nonsense. Hogwash. It is simply 
not true. If they get rid of ATMs, then they are going to have to open 
up more branches and hire more people, and it is going to cost banks 
more money. Well, a transaction performed by a teller at a bank branch 
does cost more money.
  Let's take a look at the genesis of the ATMs. When they were 
initially introduced to the consumer, great promises were made. Indeed, 
the banking community, I believe, had the support of just about 
everybody, including consumer groups, when they said: Look, we're 
moving into the modern era and the utilization of ATMs will save 
consumers money, it will reduce transactional costs.
  Those benefits, indeed, were supposed to be passed on to the 
consumer. It made sense. Indeed, a network was set up--a network owned 
by Cirrus and Plus, really owned by the large money center banks. 
Interestingly, in order to induce others who may have started rival 
networks, they said: Don't worry, use our network, use the ATMs that we 
establish, because we will prohibit a double charge, a surcharge on top 
of an initial fee. So, therefore, those who might go into competition, 
such as the credit unions, the small community banks, and others, do 
not have to go through the cost and expense of setting up your own 
ATMs, because we will let your customers use our ATMs without any 
additional charge.
  Indeed, up until April 1, 1996, the networks prohibited double 
charges. That was a self-imposition to see to it that all of the 
financial services that were offered in the banking community would be 
available, there would be one charge that the consumer's own bank could 
impose and pass along the money to the ATM operator. The bank would be 
compensated, but there would not be any additional charge for those who 
used an ATM that was not their bank's.
  Let me say that the Congressional Budget Office reported that there 
were more than 122,000 ATMs in the United States before double charges 
were permitted nationwide. So this rubric, this nonsense, this 
incredible claim that, ``Oh, we are concerned about consumers and their 
choices, and we're concerned that they won't have these ATMs,'' that is 
just a lot of nonsense. Look at the facts--122,000 of the existing 
ATMs, or 74 percent, were in place before double charges.
  Now, at last count, there were 165,000 ATMs. So in the past 2 years, 
you have had approximately 43,000 new machines come into use. That 
means that 74 percent--three-quarters of all the ATMs in

[[Page S10461]]

the United States--were in place before they were allowed to double 
charge.
  Now, under the amendment, which has been cosponsored by many of my 
colleagues, ATMs would still be profitable. They have been raking in 
huge profits.
  The banks were saving money because they saved a dollar for each 
transaction performed at an ATM rather than at a bank branch--and they 
made a profit on the use of the ATMs. But they weren't satisfied with 
that. Oh, no. They had to say that: On top of that, we are now going to 
add another charge. Guess what we are going to tell the consumer? A 
little flag goes up and says you will pay $1.25 more.
  What is a person who, at lunchtime, has to take out $20, $30, or $40 
supposed to do? Go running around looking for an ATM that doesn't have 
a double charge? No. The people are stuck. They are running late, or 
maybe it is getting dark. Are you going to go searching for an ATM that 
doesn't have that little flag going up? Or are they going to look for 
one that doesn't exist, because their bank, under the inducement years 
ago that they need not participate and open up their own ATMs, they 
said, ``We will rely on the network rather than try to find that 
mythical one''?
  If you tried to find one in Washington, DC, you would not find one. 
Ninety percent of them in this region double charge. If you don't go to 
the institution where you do your banking, you are going to get 
whacked. This whacking costs the American people more than $3 billion 
more--$3 billion. The average family that uses another bank's ATM six 
times a month is going to pay about $200 a year more.
  Do you know who it hurts? It hurts the little guy. It hurts the 
person who draws out that $30, $40 or $50, because the surcharge, which 
averages about $1.27, is paid in addition to the initial charge. 
Consumer groups have estimated the two charges average about $2.68 
together.
  Here is somebody trying to get out their $20 or $30 or $40--a senior 
citizen, a college student--and there is a $2.68 charge. That is a lot 
of money coming from the little guy. That is a heck of an interest 
rate. Years ago that would be called ``usury''--usury to get your own 
money. That is really incredible.
  That is why we have come forth with this amendment. Some people say, 
``Why are you getting into the private sector?'' I will tell you why. 
What you have today is anticompetitive. Banks say consumers always have 
a choice to use an ATM that does not double charge. That is a joke. 
Seventy-nine percent of the ATMs are now double charging. I predict 
that by the end of the year that number will be over 90 percent. This 
is a situation where the consumer has little, if any, choice.
  Many of my colleagues have said to me, ``What is the big deal? It is 
only a couple of dollars.'' It may not be a big deal to us to pay an 
extra $3 when you are taking out $100 or $200. But it is a very big 
deal to senior citizens, to students and to working families who take 
out $20, $30 or $40 at a time.
  ATM surcharges account for more than $3 billion a year. The fees 
themselves are skyrocketing out of control. The most common surcharge 
has increased from $1 to $1.50. That is right, when they introduced it, 
it started at $1. It is now $1.50. Forty-four percent of the ATMs 
charge $1.50 or more. It is going to go higher and higher unless 
Congress acts to stop it now. Keep in mind that this is a charge on top 
of a fee that the consumer is already paying to his or her own bank. It 
is a hidden bank fee. But they are paying.
  A recent U.S. PIRG survey found that 83 percent of the banks charge 
their own customers an average of $1.18 per transaction whenever they 
use another ATM. When you add the most common charge to the average 
fee, that is $2.68. That is about $200 a year for a family that uses an 
ATM six times a month. That is outrageous.
  Several States, including Connecticut--the State of my colleague, 
Senator Dodd--Iowa, and Massachusetts are waging battles to ban double 
charges at the State level. But there is a question as to whether these 
measures would apply to federally chartered banks.
  That is why Congress has to act. It has to act in order to preserve 
competition--in order to see to it that this monopolistic practice does 
not deprive people of real choice.
  Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will look to help the little guy. 
This is an opportunity to give them the protection they so desperately 
need.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much time remains on the amendment of 
the Senator from New York?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes 29 seconds.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask that I use, say, 5 minutes and be 
notified when 5 minutes have transpired so that the author of the 
amendment has some additional time at the end to conclude his remarks.
  Mr. President, there is little question that the surcharges seem to 
have become the No. 1 complaint by many consumers and consumer groups 
all across the Nation. Part of the reason for the increasing complaints 
in this area is the speed with which the surcharges have become 
attached to the ATM machines.
  Frankly, I say to the Chair, and my colleagues, I was not an early 
supporter of the prohibition of these fees. When it was first proposed 
by the Senator from New York, I argued that we ought to let the market 
dictate how these fees would be set, convinced, as had happened with 
the credit card issue, that competition within the marketplace actually 
had the desired effect of creating a good level, a less decent level, 
and an understandable and rational level for fees and surcharges and 
grace periods, and the like, when it comes to credit cards.
  It was my hope that would occur here with the ATM issue. The problem 
is that it just hasn't happened at all. We have had the opposite 
effect, in fact. Banks seem to have become more interested in acting 
like sort of an electronic Jesse James--taking their cut when the 
consumer wants to get access to their money. In fact, the Congressional 
Budget Office puts this a little more seriously in their study, noting:

       Paradoxically, the increase in supply of ATM machines has 
     not led to the kind of reduction that would generally follow 
     from supply and demand solutions.

  This is the Congressional Budget Office testimony. My concern over 
the practice of surcharging was augmented by some other developments as 
well.
  First was the decision by a major national bank to sue the State of 
Connecticut, my home State, to overturn my State's ban on surcharges. 
This demonstrated to me that the banking industry was unwilling to 
allow the individual States to make their own public policy decisions 
about this practice. As a result, it has become very clear that only 
Federal legislation would allow my State of Connecticut to maintain the 
protections for its citizens that it has chosen to enact.
  In fact, the attorney general of my State, Richard Blumenthal, came 
to Washington and testified strongly in favor of the D'Amato amendment. 
Let me quote him. He said:

       Federal legislation is vitally necessary to clarify our 
     State's ability [a State rights issue] to enact such a 
     prohibition. In addition, Federal legislation is necessary to 
     ensure that consumers are protected from such fees whenever 
     they use an ATM.

  Also, let me note that despite Connecticut's ATM surcharge ban, the 
largest bank in my State announced, on July 14, that it was going to 
close some branches and open more ATMs around the State. The results 
rebut the argument that banks won't open new ATMs if this amendment 
passes. This is a living example where you have a ban, a moratorium on 
any new surcharges, and, yet, they are expanding the ATMs in my State.
  So, clearly this ban, this legislation that is being offered by the 
Senator from New York, would not produce the results that its opponents 
are claiming.
  Second, community banks in my State have expressed deep concerns that 
ATM surcharging could be used to give large banks with extensive 
proprietary networks an unfair advantage over community banks with 
fewer machines. Smaller banks are worried about this--not only 
consumers, but smaller banks are. This is particularly troublesome 
because of the regulatory and legislative decisions that allow banks to 
use the ATMs in the first place where, based upon the concept of 
universal access to the network, the

[[Page S10462]]

large banks are reneging on that commitment. That is how they got this 
in the first place. This was going to be universal access. They have 
basically backed off that commitment.

  Lastly, I have become very concerned over changes in bank 
underwriting standards for commercial loans and for credit card 
companies, which I have raised before and which was the subject of a 
front page Washington Post article today. It is a great concern where 
you have now these normal banking fees being replaced by surcharges and 
the like as a way of offsetting lowering the standards for credit. This 
ought to be a great concern of all of us. And the Washington Post 
article highlights this. You can lower your standard on credit card 
allocation, because you can make up whatever the losses would be in 
this area. I think putting this issue aside is a very dangerous road 
for us to be going.
  As I reviewed the materials in preparation for the Banking Committee 
hearing, I couldn't help but be struck by the fact that loan standards 
and credit card underwriting standards have slipped as revenues from 
fees, which are almost pure profit, have escalated. I can't help but 
wonder whether the profit from these fees--$3 billion in ATM fees and 
$1.1 billion from fees charged their own customers when someone else 
bounces a check--aren't giving bank officials a false sense of security 
about their lending practices. If true, then this may be the most 
corrosive effect aspect of the recent boom in consumer banking fees of 
all types.
  For those reasons, Mr. President, I believe the D'Amato amendment 
deserves to be adopted by this body. I urge my colleagues to do so.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. D'AMATO. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Senator from New York. I congratulate 
and commend the Senator from New York for his leadership in this area.
  Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment to ban 
ATM surcharges. Over the past two years, the Banking Committee on which 
I serve has held numerous hearings on this issue. I think it is 
important to note that every time we have one of these hearings, more 
studies confirm what we have said all along: the practice of 
surcharging is anticompetitive, it exploits consumers and it should be 
banned.
  When I was in law school at the University of Chicago, I was taught 
that competition in a free market is supposed to be all about lowering 
prices and providing better services to your customers in order to 
maintain market share. However, competition in a world of surcharging 
is like Alice in Wonderland, where nothing is as it should be. 
Surcharging actually encourages the abuse of a dominant position in the 
marketplace, promoting predatory prices. Competition in this instance 
is not about providing the best services for the best prices, rather it 
is about forcing your rivals out of the marketplace by raising their 
costs.
  And these costs are spreading. ATM surcharges have soared since 1995, 
and consumers paid between $2.5 and $3 billion in surcharges last year. 
This figure is in addition to the almost $1 billion in interchange fees 
already collected for these same transactions. Seventy percent of all 
banks currently impose a surcharge, and the most common surcharge has 
risen from $1 to $1.50 over the last year.
  If current trends continue, few ATMs will remain that have no 
surcharge, and consumers, despite surcharge warnings most institutions 
post on the computer screen or on the machine, will truly have no 
alternative but to be charged twice for the same transaction--
especially now that some institutions are surcharging their own 
customers.
  I am aware that there are some costs to convenience. The number of 
ATM machines has more than quintupled over the last decade. Americans 
used ATM machines billions of times last year, accessing their bank 
accounts and other financial services 24 hours a day, seven days a 
week. However the practice of surcharging has actually resulted in less 
convenience for many customers. The result of surcharges is ``the 
incredible shrinking ATM network,'' far less convenience, longer 
searches and longer waiting lines for those who seek to avoid these 
double fees. As the Federal Reserve Bank of New York concluded, ``to 
avoid surcharges, many consumers are likely visiting ATMs that are less 
convenient than those used previously.'' I know there are costs 
associated with deploying these new machines, handling increased 
transactions, and other maintenance and safety issues. However, 
consumers are paying quite a bit for the marginal ``convenience'' of 
these additional machines. According to David Balto of the Federal 
Trade Commission, assuming that surcharging has lead to the deployment 
of 40,000 new ATMs, the more than $2.5 billion in surcharges last year 
means that customers paid over $60,000 for each new ATM. Furthermore, 
banks do not just surcharge on new ATMs in remote locations, but on all 
of their machines. Therefore, many customers who may never use one of 
these new, remote ATMs pay for the ``convenience'' of having it exist.
  Moreover, it should not be forgotten that banks moved customers to 
ATMs because, compared to teller transactions, ATMs were cheaper. 
According to a 1996 Mentis Corporation study, an ATM cash withdrawal 
from an in-branch ATM costs an average of 22 to 28 cents, while the 
cost of a teller transaction is 90 cents to $1.15. And in some cases, 
banks charge customers for completing transactions with a teller if 
those transactions could have been completed at an ATM.
  Certainly ATMs are a convenience for customers, but the truth is that 
banks have deployed more ATMs because it means lower costs to banks.
  I remember when banks paid their customers for the use of their 
money. Today, however, it's increasingly expensive for the average 
working family to manage even a simple banking account. Americans who 
make timely credit card payments, or no payments at all, face higher 
fees. Americans who avoid special banking services are considered 
unprofitable customers, and face higher fees.
  Now, with ATM surcharges, Americans are discovering that they must 
pay banks more than an additional $155 each year simply to access their 
own money.
  The market is out of whack. The public knows this is unfair, and 
their visceral reaction is a response to market excess.
  I am hopeful that the financial industry will take the necessary 
steps to remedy this problem. If they do, I do not believe this 
provision should become law. Banks in some states have demonstrated a 
willingness to address this issue. I call on the rest of the industry 
to follow their lead. Otherwise, the government has a duty to correct 
the abuse of double charging people for accessing their own hard-earned 
dollars. In an era of unprecedented bank profits, it is clearly a case 
of greed over need. I strongly support this amendment and urge all of 
my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. President, there are sound economic reasons why this proconsumer 
amendment ought to be passed. Whether you care about consumer issues or 
banks, you ought to support Senator D'Amato's amendment, which I am 
proud to cosponsor.
  I thank the Chair. I thank Senator D'Amato. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I do not know if there is anyone here 
ready to speak in opposition.
  I see the Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I know this is a good-sounding and popular-appearing 
bill, but I am not one who enjoys going to banks and going in banks. 
Over the years, I have thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to obtain the 
cash I need on a daily basis from ATM machines. In fact, it allows you 
to carry less cash in your pocket, and you can find ATM machines 
everywhere. They are exploding to every corner of America. Businesses 
have them. Grocery stores have them. And they cost money--$30-, $40-, 
$50-, $80,000 to put in one of those machines.
  So it has been a remarkable, wonderful advancement for the people of 
America, that they can obtain money

[[Page S10463]]

on virtually any corner of a city, at their grocery store, at their 
bank, at their gas station, and so forth. This has been a wonderful 
advancement.
  It seems to me particularly odd that we would say that a bank which 
is servicing someone who is not their customer, who does not have an 
account at their bank, and yet they might have spent $50,000 to put in 
this ATM machine, cannot charge a fee for it; that someone can use 
their machine without being able to charge a fee. It seems to me that 
would be an unreasonable thing. I think most banks don't have it free 
for their own customers.
  I wish to make a number of points. While this fee, I don't suggest, 
would eliminate all ATM machines, I think it is quite reasonable to 
suggest that it would eliminate marginal machines, and as we know when 
we take money out of an ATM machine, it pops up on the screen how much 
the fee is. So if you are at a grocery store and you have your own bank 
machine down the street, but you would like to get your cash in the 
grocery store and they are not going to service you but for $1.50, you 
do have a choice. You have your choice of going to your bank or going 
to a machine that may charge less.
  I hope and expect that as we have an expansion of machines, we may 
well find some of these fees will begin to drop rather than increase, 
and that has been the pattern in free enterprise since its beginning. 
So it seems to me that what we are suggesting is that on a bankruptcy 
bill, where at least with regard to this committee that deals with 
bankruptcy we are tacking on a credit card banking issue that was not 
part of the markup on this bill, it could jeopardize the bill and not 
be relevant to what we are considering.
  I note that the Banking Committee on July 30 on a bipartisan 11-to-7 
vote rejected this amendment. They considered it in some detail, and 
that committee, after careful consideration, balancing the great 
utility and advantage of having ATM machines at virtually every corner 
versus the cost of it, have opted in favor of allowing the continued 
expansion and convenience of more and more machines. I do not think 
there is any doubt that the growth in availability of machines will end 
and, in fact, it is likely that we will have a reduction in the number 
of machines, therefore reducing convenience.
  Many bank machines are totally dependent on access fees, and many of 
these are particularly convenient to small businesses and small grocery 
stores. Many new ATMs in rural and other low-volume, high-convenience 
sites operated by nonbanks will be economically unfeasible. They will 
be closed. They will not exist. You simply have to be able to make a 
profit if you are going to provide a service. Nobody is going to invest 
$30-, $40-, $50,000 if they do not have any prospect of a return. We 
know that. We talk about the big banks, but it is not always big banks 
that are involved.
  Mr. President, I believe that on this bankruptcy bill, we ought not 
to be dealing with banking issues and credit card issues. Those are 
matters that ought to be held in those committees and, in fact, they 
have been considering it. I urge the Members of this body to wait for 
another forum, another time to deal with this issue and reject this 
amendment because it is not good economics. It is not good public 
policy to limit the expansion and the convenience and accessibility of 
ATM machines.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the Senator from New York. First let me say that I have a 
great deal of sympathy for the problem that the Senator is attempting 
to address. When banks first began to install ATM machines, I remember 
the reluctance many consumers expressed about this new technology. They 
were worried about whether their deposits would be safe, whether 
strangers would find it easier to get into their bank accounts and 
steal their money. The banks initially sold consumers on the use of the 
machines by calling them a cost-saving measure--ATMs were supposed to 
help banks cut costs by allowing them to serve more people for longer 
hours, without the need for high employee salaries or costly new 
branches.
  In those early years, it appeared that these claims were paying off. 
And consumers became addicted to the convenience. No longer did you 
have to spend your lunch hour at the bank's drive-in window to deposit 
a paycheck--you could do it after work at the ATM instead. Consumer 
demand also led to an unexpected growth of ATM machines located in 
businesses other than banks. Now you can do your banking at the grocery 
store, the convenience store, the airport--any other place where there 
is demand.
  But the economics of operating ATMs in those remote locations are not 
the same as operating them in the bank building itself. It is a lot 
more expensive to service the machines, collect and process deposits 
every day, or to provide security. And the networking banks have 
provided means more consumers are using ATM machines at banks other 
than their own--again with higher operating costs.
  The convenience of banking virtually any place at any time has its 
cost. ATM fees allow banks to recoup at least some of those costs from 
the consumers using the services.
  I know that ATM fees rankle those of us who don't appreciate having 
to pay a fee to have access to our own money. And I also understand the 
arguments of the Senator from New York and others who claim big banks 
are making large profits from their fees.
  However, I also believe that ATM fees represent the purest form of 
user fee. If consumers don't want to pay the fees, they don't have to 
use the ATMs. But for those who are willing to pay, the fees allow 
banks to provide ATMs in more locations, making it more convenient to 
do our banking.
  If the D'Amato amendment is approved, two things will happen.
  First, banks will immediately re-evaluate the economics of all their 
ATMs, and those that are the least cost-effective will simply be 
removed. Rural areas, like those in my State of Montana, will be 
particularly hard hit. The low volume of usage, combined with the 
higher cost of maintenance because of the distances involved, will make 
many rural ATMs unaffordable for the sponsoring banks.
  Let me give you just one example sent to me by the 1st Bank of 
Sidney, Montana. Sidney is a town representative of a lot of towns 
throughout Montana and other rural parts of our country. 1st Bank has 
an ATM machine at a 24-hour gas station and convenience store located 
on the main street through town. Even with the current ATM fee, 1st 
Bank lost almost $8,000 on that machine in 1997. Now $8,000 doesn't 
sound like a lot of money, but in states like Montana, believe me it 
can be.
  I don't know whether 1st Bank will close this particular ATM if they 
are not allowed to recoup at least part of their costs by charging a 
fee. I do know that right now, hundreds of Montanans who used that 
machine in 1997 had a choice--if they didn't think the convenience of 
the machine was worth the $1.00 fee, they didn't have to use the 
machine.
  If the ATM is removed because the bank decides it isn't worth the 
cost, we have legislatively taken from these consumers the ability to 
make that choice. They won't be able to decide on their own whether the 
convenience is worth the cost. We will force them to find other ways to 
do their banking.
  Approval of the D'Amato amendment will also have a second 
consequence, that I believe we need to consider. Right now, those who 
use ATMs pay for the convenience. In places where the fees don't cover 
the costs of operating the machines, those of us who don't use ATMs, or 
don't use them frequently, help subsidize those who do. Eliminating the 
ability to charge those who benefit from the convenience of an ATM 
simply makes it that much more difficult for the rest of us to avoid 
these charges.
  The old adage ``there is no free lunch'' is very applicable here. 
Someone has to pay the cost of operating an ATM. If we prohibit banks 
from charging those who use ATMs, it simply means everybody else will 
end up picking up the tab. And it won't matter whether we discipline 
ourselves to do our banking inside the bank, through the drive-in 
window, or electronically in order to avoid the fees. Every transaction 
will carry part of the cost of operating that ATM, because it will be 
built into the banks' operating costs.
  Mr. President, I don't think those of us here in Washington, DC, 
should be

[[Page S10464]]

dictating to consumers how to do their banking. I believe consumers 
should be allowed to continue deciding for themselves whether the 
convenience of an ATM is worth the cost. If enough consumers decide the 
answer is no, the marketplace will correct itself. Banks will be forced 
to reduce fees and cull out less profitable locations.
  But this will happen in response to consumer demand, not legislative 
fiat. I believe this it the right answer.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the D'Amato amendment.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the amendment 
offered by the Senator from New York (Mr. D'Amato).
  This amendment is about simple fairness.
  Mr. President, banks, credit unions, and the other owners of 
automatic teller machines are entitled to be compensated for the 
service they offer.
  But consumers are also entitled to be treated fairly.
  The D'Amato amendment strikes that balance.
  This amendment does not fix prices.
  It does not limit what ATM owners may charge for using their 
machines.
  It simply prohibits charging consumers twice for the same service.
  Mr. President, consumers become subject to ATM charges when they 
obtain an ATM card through their bank or credit union.
  While the consumer's bank or credit union often has its own ATM 
machines at which account holders can bank, increasingly, banks and 
credit unions join a network of ATMs to give their account holders 
greater access.
  Mr. President, when your bank or credit union joins an ATM network, 
it pays what is called an interchange fee to the network, and your bank 
or credit union may pass the cost of that interchange fee directly to 
you, or it may just add it into their overall cost of doing business--a 
cost that account holders help to bear.
  But, Mr. President, consumers are now being forced to pay an 
additional fee, a surcharge, for using a network ATM.
  When that happens, the consumer is being billed twice for the same 
transaction--once by their own bank, and once by the ATM owner.
  Mr. President, consumers who are already charged by their own banks 
or credit unions for using an ATM feel that once is more than enough.
  When consumers are charged twice for the privilege of accessing our 
own hard-earned money through an ATM, it's time for this body to take 
some action.
  Mr. President, not only are consumers now being asked to pay twice 
for the privilege of accessing their own money, the second fee, or 
surcharge, often represents a big portion of the cash they want to 
withdraw.
  The Senator from New York noted consumers may be hit with a surcharge 
of $3 or more just to take $20 out of their account.
  This is especially a problem for consumers in under-served areas.
  Because they lack ready access to their bank or credit union, those 
consumers are much more dependent on ATMs for every day financial 
services.
  Mr. President, let me note here that not all ATM networks subject 
consumers to this double billing.
  I understand there have been efforts, especially by community banks, 
to form networks that explicitly do not charge consumers twice.
  While I applaud those efforts, they may not be enough.
  Mr. President, in addition to the fundamental unfairness of these 
double charges to consumers, I am troubled that this fee structure may 
also put smaller banks and credit unions at a competitive disadvantage.
  Customers seeking to avoid these double charges may move their 
accounts to larger banks that own these broad-based ATM networks, and 
as we've seen recently, these big banks are now merging with each 
other, which will only make matters worse for their smaller 
competitors.
  Indeed, Mr. President, in this regard there have been some troubling 
developments in the past few weeks.
  In particular, I was disturbed to hear reports that the Department of 
Justice is investigating whether or not some of the large ATM networks 
are engaging in illegal restraint of trade by seeking to prevent 
smaller banks from forming those very alliances that promise not to 
double charge consumers.
  Mr. President, this amendment will end double-billing at ATMs.
  It will ensure fairness for consumers, and it will put a stop to 
efforts that undermine the ability of our smaller community financial 
institutions to retain their customer base.
  Mr. President, it's time to demand fairness for ATM users.
  Paying additional fees at the ATM is something consumers can afford 
to live without.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator D'Amato's 
amendment to ban ATM surcharge fees.
  This is good policy, and we all ought to vote in favor of it.
  These fees, which in some instances have reached exorbitant levels 
like $5 or $10 per transaction, are charged against consumers to access 
their own money.
  The large bank networks, which typically operate the automatic teller 
machines, already charge a transaction fee to smaller banks for the use 
of their network.
  These surcharges are a second charge, directly to the consumer, for 
the privilege of using the machine.
  Some have argued that consumer behavior has changed, so that 
consumers can learn how to minimize surcharges. They can do this by 
getting cash back on debit card purchases, or by taking more money out 
at one time.
  But these are the savvy consumers, or those who are able to take out 
a large amount of money at one time. The consumers who end up paying 
these fees are those who have the fewest options: their money is 
tighter, or they are in an emergency situation, or they don't 
understand the system enough to avoid these fees. Do we want to protect 
the rights of the banks to take advantage of those consumers?
  The banks now charge the consumer at every turn. They first said that 
tellers were too expensive and encouraged us to use machines. Now they 
charge both the consumer, and the consumer's bank, for the privilege of 
using the ATM machine.
  This gouging of the consumer has to stop!
  Some have argued that we should allow banks to police themselves on 
this issue. In my home state of Massachusetts, for example, the 
Massachusetts Bankers Association has worked to organize fee free 
alliances between big and small banks so that consumers can use 
machines statewide and avoid surcharges. This is a terrific program, 
and I compliment the MBA for developing it.
  Truly progressive organizations, like Fleet Bank which operates 
throughout New England, have agreed not to charge fees for ATM use in 
low and moderate income communities. This is progressive corporate 
policy, and I salute them for it.
  These financial institutions can be a model for the nation.
  Unfortunately, there are not enough banks like those in my home 
state.
  And so we must pass this amendment. We have heard from consumers, and 
they have had enough.
  I know banks have heard from their customers in response to these 
charges. They have complained about it, loud and clear.
  If banks had been proactive and responded by policing themselves, we 
would not be compelled to pursue an amendment such as this.
  These exorbitant charges are an outrage! The Senate must act to 
protect the consumer from excessive charges.
  In a time in which we are debating bankruptcy legislation, which has 
been supported strongly by banks and credit card companies, we also 
need to enact some provisions which will help the working men and women 
of this country.
  We must end the gouging of the American consumer! I urge my 
colleagues to join with me in supporting Senator D'Amato's amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the D'Amato amendment to limit fees 
charged by financial institutions for the use of automatic teller 
machines is a very close question, in my opinion, because it pits the 
consumer's interest in avoiding potentially excessive bank charges 
against existing market forces where ATM machines provide significant 
convenience for the depositor's access to cash.
  On this state of the record, I do not believe that there has been a 
showing

[[Page S10465]]

of excessive charges on the part of the banks. This issue might well be 
revisited in the Banking Committee with hearings, as opposed to being a 
floor amendment on this bill where the Judiciary Committee, on which I 
serve, did not have the benefit of an evidentiary record on the issue 
of excessive charges.
  On the other hand, I do believe that there is substantial benefit and 
convenience to the consumer who has access to a cash withdrawal, far 
from home, at unusual hours and under circumstances where it is a 
significant convenience to be able to get the cash.
  I know that when I go to a convenience store, for example, to buy 
milk, and pay a higher price, I dislike it; but I am mindful of the 
fact that it is late at night or I don't have to stand in a long line 
in a supermarket or it is on my way home. So, I grin and bear the 
somewhat higher charge.
  In addition, there may be substantial merit to the contention that if 
the Congress acts to affect the market on this issue that the ATM 
machines will not be available or may be very few in number to reduce 
this convenience.
  Accordingly, on this state of the record, on a very close question, I 
am voting against the D'Amato amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss briefly my thoughts 
about the automated teller machine (ATM) fee ban amendment offered 
today by Senator D'Amato to the bankruptcy reform bill.
  I share the concerns that Senator D'Amato and others have about the 
rapid, and seemingly unchecked, increases in ATM fees across this 
country over the past few years. There is compelling evidence that some 
banks are charging exorbitant ATM charges that impose an unnecessary 
and unfair financial burden on bank customers. For many consumers, this 
happens every time they use an ATM that's not owned by their bank. And 
there appears to be no end in sight to this explosion in ATM fees. I do 
applaud the work of Senator D'Amato and others for bringing attention 
to this growing problem.
  But regrettably, I was forced to vote against Senator D'Amato's 
amendment, as drafted, because it failed to recognize that many of our 
rural communities have significantly higher costs for providing many 
kinds of services. I'm afraid that adopting Senator D'Amato's approach 
may actually be harmful for people living in these higher-cost areas. 
In my judgment, this amendment might have forced some of our banks to 
shut down existing ATMs in more sparsely populated areas in our state 
or made it too costly for them to install new ones in places where they 
are needed.
  Let me be clear on this point. I would have liked to support a 
proposal to stop those ATM owners who are charging excessive and, in 
some cases, outrageous fees. And I'm willing to consider other 
approaches to help put the brakes on ATM price gouging. Unfortunately, 
the amendment that Senator D'Amato offered today is one that I could 
not support because it may inadvertently hurt rural America.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the 
debate, the pending D'Amato amendment be temporarily laid aside and the 
Senate proceed to the debate on the Dodd amendment. I further ask that 
at 2 p.m. the Senate proceed to a vote in relationship to the Dodd 
amendment, to be followed immediately by a vote on or in relationship 
to the D'Amato amendment, with no intervening action and 2 minutes of 
debate between each vote. I further ask that the partial-birth abortion 
debate begin immediately following the vote in relationship to the Dodd 
amendment under the 4 hours outlined in the previous consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, I think the Senator means 
the D'Amato amendment, at the conclusion of the vote on the D'Amato 
amendment.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
  Mr. DODD. I think the Senator said the Dodd amendment. I think he 
means the D'Amato amendment. Is that correct?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Might I inquire how much time I have remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 53 seconds.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, because I do not 
believe it will impede on the time allocated for consideration of the 
Dodd amendment--we will not go past 2 o'clock--that we have an 
additional 5 minutes for the proponents because I have some Members 
here who would like to speak to this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there are 
a number of amendments on this bill, and we have to finish this bill by 
2 o'clock. I just think that there has always been an advantage on 
floor time for the proponents and not opponents. I know Senator 
Grassley has no time. I reluctantly object.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I suggest we amend it by giving 5 minutes to Senator 
Sessions.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Sure. If he would like, 5 minutes each. I would ask that 
we have----
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would certainly go along with Senator Grassley. I am 
not sure I will use any time. If Senator Grassley is comfortable with 
it, I withdraw my objection.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the Senator.
  I yield 3 minutes to Senator Bryan.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee for his leadership on this issue. The banking industry is 
enjoying its sixth straight year of record profits, which topped $60 
billion last year. That is good news. But unfortunately, as part of a 
growing trend, these record profits are coming from an increasing 
proliferation of fees on bank customers. The number of these separate 
bank fees has grown from 90 to 250 over the last 5 years.
  Last year, banks made more than $3 billion alone on ATM surcharges. 
That is the new cash cow. And this is in addition to the $1 billion 
banks are paid as part of the interchange fee, which covers their cost 
of ATM transactions. So, that is where the surcharge comes in. The 
banks are already compensated through an interchange system. They are 
imposing an additional fee, a surcharge, which Senator D'Amato and I 
and others object to, which, in effect, imposes a charge twice on the 
customer.
  Mr. President, $1.50 or $2 for every ATM withdrawal may not seem like 
a lot, but over the course of a full year it adds up to several hundred 
dollars. Many banks for years prohibited these ATMs. In fact, three out 
of every four ATMs that are in place today were built before surcharges 
were prohibited, so the argument that somehow prohibiting the surcharge 
would limit the availability of ATMs is simply a specious argument. Two 
States that come to mind immediately, Connecticut and Iowa, prohibit 
ATM surcharges, and there is no evidence to suggest that customers in 
those two States are deprived of the option to use ATMs.
  So, people, in effect, kind of feel entrapped. Initially the banks 
offered ATMs because they reduced the costs of their transactions. They 
are much less expensive than the teller transactions. Customers 
responded because of the convenience. A win-win proposition. Once 
customers got induced to use ATMs, then they got hooked, and now they 
are being reeled in by the bankers with these new charges, because the 
average ATM transaction cost is about 27 cents while a transaction 
involving a teller costs the bank roughly $2.93.
  ATM charges are unfair, because the consumer is charged twice for the 
same transaction. Additionally, ATM surcharges have the anticompetitive 
effect of pressuring people to leave small banks--which may be their 
choice--for their larger banks, to avoid this double charge or the 
surcharge. I urge my colleagues to support the able and distinguished 
chairman and to support this.
  Let me just tell you, both in Nevada and around the world, this is 
how the public views the ATM surcharge. You

[[Page S10466]]

will note from the chart there, the ATM reaches out with a loaded 
pistol and the customer is held hostage. That is what these ATM 
surcharges are all about.
  I urge support for my colleague's thoughtful legislation, I yield the 
floor, and thank the Senator for extending the privilege of the floor 
to me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I commend both my colleague from 
Connecticut and Senator Bryan from Nevada for their thoughtful 
presentations.
  I tell you, when I look at the ATM cartoon over there, that Senator 
Bryan has put up, it is interesting because that is exactly what is 
taking place, particularly to so many young people who don't have a 
choice, to the student who is at his college campus and there are only 
one or two of those ATMs around and everyone of them is double 
charging. It is excessive--to think they are paying $2.68 to take out 
their own money. If you are taking out $30 or $40 at a time, as many of 
the young people are, and many of our senior citizens, that is usurious 
by any standard.
  The argument that somehow this is going to hurt competition is rather 
pathetic. This has really hurt the small banks, the credit unions, 
because they were deceived into not getting into competition while a 
huge network was built; 122,000 out of the 165,000 machines were 
installed well before the double charges.
  Let's take a look and see. Since the double charges, in the past 2 
years, have been imposed--17 percent double charged going into 1996. 
The next year, it jumped to 59 percent. And the following year, 79--79 
percent of all of the ATMs are now double charging. They came into 
existence and were making a profit before the surcharges. This is just 
a way of really doing what Senator Bryan's description, the chart, 
showed so eloquently. You are really holding up the consumer, because 
it is anticompetitive, antichoice. This number, 79 percent--that is 
temporary. We have seen them grow. You will top out at over 90 percent 
by the end of next year, there is no doubt.
  So there is little choice. There is no reason. It is anticompetitive, 
antipeople, and we should have the courage to say enough is enough. Let 
our States determine whether or not this should be permitted. When the 
State of Iowa and the State of Connecticut have attempted to ban double 
charges, surcharges, they have not seen a diminution. But now, even 
their law will be threatened, and is in court, as it relates to those 
States that want to protect consumers. So we are whipsawing them both 
ways, and there is only the Federal Government that can make a 
difference.
  I hope my colleagues will join with me in voting to give people a 
real choice without that additional burden being placed on them.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I thank my colleagues for 
permitting us the additional time to make known our thoughts and our 
views.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, may I inquire of the manager, does he 
intend to make a motion to table now? And then we will lay that aside 
and we can ask for the yeas and nays now? Would that save time?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to table the D'Amato amendment.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I move the D'Amato amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By a previous order, the Senator from 
Connecticut is recognized.


                Amendment No. 3598 to Amendment No. 3559

(Purpose: To amend the Truth in Lending Act with respect to extensions 
              of credit to consumers under the age of 21)

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3598 to amendment numbered 3559.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC. ____. EXTENSIONS OF CREDIT TO UNDERAGE CONSUMERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 127(c) of the Truth in Lending Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 1637(c)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
       ``(5) Applications from underage consumers.--
       ``(A) Prohibition on issuance.--No credit card may be 
     issued to, or open end credit plan established on behalf of, 
     a consumer who has not reached the age of 21 unless the 
     consumer has submitted a written application to the card 
     issuer that meets the requirements of subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Application requirements.--An application to open a 
     credit card account by an individual who has not reached the 
     age of 21 as of the date of submission of the application 
     shall require--
       ``(i) the signature of the parent or guardian of the 
     consumer indicating joint liability for debts incurred by the 
     consumer in connection with the account before the consumer 
     has reached the age of 21; or
       ``(ii) submission by the consumer of financial information 
     indicating an independent means of repaying any obligation 
     arising from the proposed extension of credit in connection 
     with the account.''.
       (b) Regulatory Authority.--The Board of Governors of the 
     Federal Reserve System may issue such rules or publish such 
     model forms as it considers necessary to carry out section 
     127(c)(5) of the Truth in Lending Act, as amended by this 
     section.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair might say, under the previous order, 
there is 40 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, one of the most troubling developments in 
the hotly contested battle among the credit card issuers to sign up new 
customers has been the aggressive way in which they have targeted 
people under the age of 21, particularly college students. We are 
engaged, obviously, in a debate about the bankruptcy bill here. The 
authors of this bill, and I commend them for it, recognize there has 
been an explosion of people who are taking advantage of the Bankruptcy 
Act to avoid their financial obligations.
  It seems appropriate in the context of this bill that we also 
recognize that there has been an explosion of efforts to sign up 
younger people, particularly on college campuses, to credit cards, 
recognizing that, as many have pointed out, these students are ill 
prepared to meet their own financial obligations. Inevitably, they 
either incur debt and end up in tremendous difficulty or their parents 
assume the responsibilities, which can occur with upper-income people 
who can afford it.
  Just this past August, to make the point, a fellow by the name of 
John Simpson, who is an administrator at the University of Indiana, 
said:

       This is a terrible thing. We lose more students to credit 
     card debt than academic failure, at the University of 
     Indiana.

  What I am trying to lay out here is a proposal that is not 
outrageous. Basically, what it says is if you are between the ages of 
18 and 21--no contract is valid for someone under 18, so a credit card 
obligation for someone under 18 would be voided anyway. But between 18 
and 21, either show that individual has independent economic means--a 
job or whatever--or parental permission. If you can do that, fine, then 
you can market and issue a credit card to those individuals. We set up 
separate standards on drinking in this country for those 21 and under, 
and for tax purposes. It seems to me this little window in here could 
save an awful lot of students, an awful lot of families, the kind of 
hardship.
  Let me lay out the case for you here on a factual basis. 
Solicitations to this age group have become more intense for a variety 
of reasons. First, it is one of the few market segments in which there 
are always new faces to go after. It is also an age group in which 
brand loyalty can be established. In the words of one major credit card 
issuer, we are in the relationship business and we want to build 
relationships early on. Recent press stories have reported that people 
hold on to their first credit card for up to 15 years.
  In fact, people under the age of 21 are such a hot target for credit 
card marketers that the upcoming card marketing conference this year--
this is the

[[Page S10467]]

card marketing conference 1998, which is going to be held in Las Vegas. 
They have a seminar beginning at 12 noon on the day of this conference 
that is entitled ``Targeting Teens: You Never Forget Your First Card,'' 
to give you an idea of how much a part of this the credit card 
companies have in mind. As I say, this is indicating their deep 
interest in this constituency.
  Credit card issuers are also enticing colleges and universities to 
help promote their products. Professor Robert Manning at Georgetown 
University here in Washington told my staff that some colleges receive 
tens of thousands of dollars per year for exclusive marketing 
agreements. Other colleges receive as much as 1 percent of all student 
charges from credit card issuers in return for marketing or affinity 
agreements.
  Even those colleges who don't enter into such agreements are making 
money. Robert Bugai, president of College Marketing Intelligence, told 
the American Banker that colleges charge up to $400 per day for each 
credit card company that sets up a table on campus. That can run into 
the tens of thousands of dollars by the end of just one semester.
  Last February, I went to the main campus of the University of 
Connecticut to meet with student leaders about this issue. Quite 
honestly, I was surprised by the amount of solicitations going on in 
the student union, and I was also surprised the degree to which the 
students themselves were concerned about the constant barrage of offers 
they were receiving.
  The offers seemed very attractive, Mr. President. One student intern 
in my office this summer received four solicitations in just 2 weeks. 
One promised ``get eight cheap flights now while you still have 18 
weeks of vacation.'' That is the solicitation, part of it geared to 
this young woman in my employment.
  Another promised a platinum card with what appeared to be a low 
interest rate, until you read, of course, the fine print that it 
applied only to balance transfers, not to the account overall.
  Only one of the four, Discover card, offered a brochure about credit 
terms, but in doing so, often offered a spring break sweepstakes in 
order to attract these students. In fact, the Chicago Tribune reported 
just last month that the average college freshman will receive 50 
solicitations during their first few months at college. The Tribune 
further reported that college students get green-lighted for a line of 
credit that can reach more than $10,000 just on the strength of a 
signature and a student identification card.
  Mr. President, there is a serious public policy question about 
whether people in that age bracket can be presumed to be able to make 
the sensible financial choices that are being forced on them from this 
barrage of marketing. While it is very difficult to get reliable 
information from the credit card issuers about their marketing 
practices to people under the age of 21, those statistics that are 
available are deeply, deeply troubling.
  The American Banker newspaper reported that Visa found that 8.7 
percent of bankruptcy filers were under the age of 25. A Chicago 
Tribune article from August 16 of this year cited that bankruptcies 
``among those under 25 have doubled over the last 5 years from 250,000 
to 500,000.''
  The bankruptcy legislation, the underlying bill, is going to make it 
harder to take the bankruptcy act. I understand that. I am not opposed 
to that idea. But if simultaneously you are going out and aggressively 
sending eight solicitations to an 18-year-old in my office promising 
them free vacation breaks or flights, I think there is something wrong 
here.
  I don't mind getting tougher on the bankruptcy laws, but I think we 
have to get a little tougher to say the 18-, 19- and 20-years-olds who 
have no independent financial means and without parental permission are 
getting signed up merely on a student ID card and signature, incurring 
$10,000 worth of debt.
  The same survey found that 27 percent of undergraduate student 
applicants had four or more credit cards--27 percent, four or more 
credit cards--and found that 14 percent had credit card balances 
between $3,000 and $7,000, while 10 percent had credit card balances 
greater than $7,000. This figure of 24 percent with credit card debts 
in excess of $3,000 is more than double the number from last year.
  Moreover, while there is evidence that student debt is skyrocketing, 
some surveys by credit card issuers themselves show that this same 
group of consumers is woefully uninformed about the basic credit card 
terms and issues. A 1993 American Express/Consumer Federation of 
America study found that only 22 percent of more than 2,000 college 
students surveyed knew that the annual percentage rate is the best 
indicator of the true cost of a loan. Only 30 percent of those surveyed 
knew that each bank set the interest rate on their credit card, so that 
it is possible to shop around for the best rate. Only 30 percent knew 
that interest was charged on new purchases if you carry a balance over 
from the previous month.
  Some college administrators, bucking the trend to use credit card 
issuers as a source of income, have become so concerned that they have 
banned credit card companies from their campuses and have even gone so 
far as to ban credit card advertisements from the campus bookstores. 
Roger Witherspoon, Vice President of Student Development at John Jay 
College of Criminal Justice in New York, banned card solicitors saying 
indebtedness was causing students to drop out:

       Middle-class parents can bail out their kids when this 
     happens, but lower-income parents can't--

  Mr. Witherspoon said in an interview.

       Kids only find out later how much it messes up their lives.

  That is a quotation from the American Banker.
  The amendment I am proposing today does not take any such Draconian 
action against the credit card companies. Let me state, by the way--and 
I should have said this at the outset--many credit card companies do 
require parental notice or approval or evidence of independent means. 
There are many who do this, but there are some who do not at all. As 
most laws, it is not targeted to those who show good judgment and good 
sense, but to the few who do not. Unfortunately, here we have a few who 
do not at all.
  This amendment does not go so far as to ban credit cards or ban 
advertising. It merely says, look, between the ages of 18 and 21, 
either show you have the independent means to meet the obligations or 
get a signature from a parent that they understand that their child is 
about to take out a credit card.
  I agree with those who argue, as I said, there are millions of people 
under the age of 21 who hold full-time jobs who are as deserving of 
credit as anyone over the age of 21. I agree with that. I also believe 
students should continue to have access to credit, and we should not 
prohibit the market from making that available.
  I also recognize the period of time from 18 to 21 is an age of 
transition from adolescence to adulthood, and as we do many places in 
Federal law, extra care is needed to make sure mistakes made from 
youthful inexperience does not haunt these people for the rest of their 
lives or a good part of it.
  All my amendment does is require a credit card issuer, prior to 
granting credit, to obtain one of two things from the applicant under 
21: Either they get the signature of a parent or guardian, or they 
obtain information that demonstrates the existence of an independent 
means of paying off the amount of credit offered.
  Federal law already says people under age 21 shouldn't drink alcohol. 
Our Tax Code makes the presumption if someone is a full-time student 
under the age of 23 that they are financially dependent on their 
parents or their guardians.
  Is it so much really to ask that credit card issuers, in the midst of 
a bankruptcy bill that will make it tougher for people to take this 
act, is it so much to ask that we try to find out if someone under the 
age of 21 is financially capable of paying back their debt or that 
their parents are willing to assume the financial responsibility?
  Mr. President, it is my understanding that most, as I said, 
responsible credit card issuers already require this information in one 
form or another. Is it too much to ask the entire credit card industry 
to strive to meet their own best practices when it comes to our 
children?
  Mr. President, I do not believe this amendment is either unduly 
burdensome on the credit card industry nor is

[[Page S10468]]

it unfair to the people under the age of 21. The fact of the matter is 
that these abusive solicitations assume that if the young adult is 
unable to pay, they will be bailed out by their parents. Many times 
this means that parents must sacrifice other things in order to make 
sure their child does not start out their adult life in a financial 
hold with an ugly black mark on their credit history.
  By adopting this amendment, Mr. President, the Senate will send a 
clear message to those aggressive credit card companies that we will no 
longer countenance this abusive behavior. This amendment corrects that 
behavior by making those overly aggressive companies, credit companies, 
exercise their best judgment--instead of their most craven instincts--
when it comes to people obtaining their own credit cards for the very 
first time.
  Mr. President, I note as well in an interview on an NPR program just 
a few days ago on this very issue, Nancy Lloyd, who is the editor-at-
large for Kiplinger's Personal Finance magazine, had this to say about 
this practice. She said:

       . . . that the real reason that credit-card companies are 
     going after college students is that they know that after a 
     parent has spent several tens of thousands of dollars to 
     educate their student, that if they fall behind on their 
     bills that the parent will bail them out, even though legally 
     they don't really have to [if they are younger than 18].

  Mr. President, I do not think this is a radical proposal here. It is 
again a huge problem. NBC, I think last evening, ran a special report 
on the ``Fleecing of America'' where they talked about this problem. I 
think there have been a number of other reports on this.
  We began this issue last December in raising the question when I went 
to my own campuses in Connecticut, as I mentioned a moment ago, to find 
out how widespread this was. And, again, the information we have been 
able to gather indicates, I think based on the data we have, limited as 
it is, that this is a growing problem. The debt has doubled now in the 
last year. It is going to get worse.
  If we adopt the underlying bill, which I hope we do, then obviously 
the ability to use the Bankruptcy Act to excuse obligations are going 
to get tougher. So it seems to me if we are going to do a favor to the 
banks by making it tougher for people to avoid their financial 
responsibilities, which we should, we should also send a message that 
we do not believe you ought to be dumping, as we did last year in this 
country, 3 billion credit card solicitations but particularly dumping 
these where there is a student ID and a signature from a 19-year-old, 
without independent means or parental approval, to assume $3,000, 
$4,000, $5,000, $6,000, $7,000, $8,000, $9,000, $10,000 worth of 
financial debt. I think that is wrong. I think we ought to try to stop 
it. I think this amendment brings us in the right direction, and I urge 
its adoption.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I know this amendment is well intentioned, 
but, look, I was a building tradesman as a young 16-year-old. I made a 
pretty good living as a building tradesman. I could have wound up as a 
building tradesman, which I was very proud to be. In fact, I have had 
some colleagues say I should have stuck with it. In fact, one of them, 
when they found out I was a janitor at one time putting myself through 
college, said I should have stuck with it. Maybe so.
  But I would hate like heck to have some artificial rule or some 
regulatory rule by some regulatory agency of Government say that I, as 
a hard-working carpenter, would not be able to get a credit card and 
get credit that I might need for my family to make our lives a little 
easier because of artificial rulings like what happens as a result of 
this well-intentioned amendment.
  This is a slap in the face of every 18-, 19-, 20-year-old--and 17-
year-old, 16-year-old even--people who can work; 16-, 17-, 18-, 19-
year-olds who work hard, who are supporting their families. They may 
not be college graduates, they may not look like they quite have the 
future of some who have gone to college and done the things that they 
have done--might look like--but they are not going to be able to get 
credit cards under this without going through some big rigmarole 
decided by Government.
  This amendment would unfairly discriminate against young adults. I 
think it has to be opposed. I hope our colleagues will think about 
this. The amendment would require parental consent for extensions of 
open-ended credit to young adults under the age of 21--think of that--a 
lot of young adults who are supporting their families and doing what is 
right but have not been to college, or even those who have been to 
college or who are working well in college, as I had to do, unless they 
could demonstrate ``an independent means of repaying'' the obligation.
  While it is not entirely clear what would constitute an ``independent 
means of repaying'' a debt, one thing is clear: This amendment would 
have the bizarre effect of requiring an emancipated but temporarily 
unemployed 20-year-old mother to obtain her parent's consent before 
receiving a credit card, or an unemployed 20-year-old carpenter who, 
because of seasonal layoffs, might not have a job for a couple of 
weeks, or maybe 3 weeks or maybe a month or two. I understand that 
life; I understand how difficult it is.
  The same would be true with respect to a 20-year-old plumber or a 
construction worker, like I have mentioned, who is between jobs, in 
between jobs, and with respect to a 20-year-old recently discharged 
from the U.S. military and looking for civilian employment--somebody 
who is honorable and decent, would pay back any debt no matter what 
happened but could not get a credit card because of these artificial 
restraints.
  Moreover, the amendment makes no provision whatsoever for a young 
adult whose parents or guardians may be deceased. It is also not clear 
what responsibility, if any, the amendment would impose on a lender to 
verify that the signature of a parent or a guardian was authentic.
  In short, discriminating against individuals between the ages of 18 
and 21 when it comes to obtaining credit simply cannot be justified 
just because we know it is pretty easy to get a credit card out there 
and it is abused from time to time. But this amendment furthers the 
abuse only in the opposite direction. Also, it is important to note 
that individuals under 18 cannot enter into binding contracts and, 
therefore, any credit inadvertently extended to them is unenforceable.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment, 
notwithstanding some of the arguments on the other side of the aisle. 
It is important to note that not all 18-, 19- or 20-year-old kids are 
college students or unemployed or irresponsible or bums, if you want to 
say it. Some have families, some serve in the military and are asked to 
defend our country. It puts their ability to gain credit in doubt. Or 
should we just call it the way it is? In the hands of Federal 
regulators.
  You know, there is a limit to everything. Yes, there are some abuses 
here. Yes, some of these credit card companies get some of these young 
people hooked on credit cards just thinking they can live with that 
credit card. But in the interest of solving that problem, do you abuse 
all the other honest, hard-working, decent young people between the 
ages of 18 and 21? Do you discriminate against them so that they cannot 
get a credit card that might make their lives maybe a little bit better 
or a little more livable or a little more sustainable?
  My attitude is that this amendment ought to be defeated because it is 
a one-sided amendment that, in my opinion, has not been well thought 
through. That is not a knock at my colleague because I know he is 
sincere. I know he has good intentions here. I know there are some 
values that he is trying to defend. But I think the overwhelming weight 
of maturity is on the side of young people in that age group who 
deserve to have a credit card, who would pay back their credit card, 
who are responsible citizens, and who do not need the Federal 
Government to tell them what they can or cannot do in this area. The 
fact that we have a few credit card companies that abuse the system 
does not mean we should pass this type of an amendment.
  I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah for his

[[Page S10469]]

excellent remarks in pointing out a lot of people age 18 to 21 are not 
in college. I just had two children graduate from college, and I still 
have one in college. I believe a credit card is a good thing for them 
to have. Almost every college student is going to have a credit card. 
The fact that we have some competition in the credit card industry--
they are offering lower rates and less charges if you will use their 
credit card--that is good. We have needed that.
  In my opinion, the biggest complaint about credit cards is they 
charge too much interest. Those rates have been driven down because of 
competition. There are 6,000 credit card companies, and they are 
sending out mailings, and they are encouraging people to use their 
credit cards. What is bad about that?

  What troubles me is we are saying if you want a young person to have 
a credit card, they may have to get their parents to sign as a cosigner 
and be financially responsible for their debt. That doesn't seem to me 
to be fair or correct. Maybe a parent says if you want to get a credit 
card you can, but it is your debt to pay, not mine. The requirement we 
are debating now would prohibit them from getting a credit card under 
those circumstances.
  What about young persons whose parents are deceased?
  The Federal Government should not be stepping in and telling a credit 
card company you can't take a chance on a young person, or that you 
have to get the parent to cosign before giving a young adult a credit 
card. This seems unhealthy to me. I am sure it is true that credit card 
companies like to get young people accustomed to using their cards and 
hope they will use them throughout their career. I don't know that 
there is anything wrong with that.
  Mr. President, a 20-year-old who may be temporarily unemployed may 
find a credit card to be very valuable. Suppose you have to drive to a 
job interview and the guy down at the car inspection place says your 
vehicle emits too much pollution and you have to spend $400 to fix it; 
or your tire blows out and you have to have $75 to get the car towed 
and another $50 to put a tire on it. A person may not have that cash in 
their pocket at times such as these, when they really need it. That is 
why credit cards are a good thing.
  Credit cards have been helpful in many ways for citizens in America. 
The problem is with people who abuse them and who don't show personal 
discipline. We all know that is a problem. We need to encourage 
personal discipline, not have the Federal Government telling a young 
person they can't have a credit card unless their parent agrees to pay 
their debt.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, we have no intervening business between now 
and 2 o'clock. Several of our colleagues want to speak on this 
amendment. I ask unanimous consent we take the time between now and 2 
o'clock and equally divide it between opponents and proponents of this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment. I have 
listened to the debate; it is an interesting debate, but I think all of 
us know what is happening in this country with respect to credit cards.
  I noticed an article this morning in the Washington Post on the front 
page:

       Banks Risk New Wave of Bad Debt: Report Cites Easing of 
     Credit Standards.

  They are talking about commercial loans in response to competition; 
even though the risks will rise, they are easing standards, lowering 
lending standards.
  What are the standards of lending for credit cards? Go to a college 
campus and look in the mailboxes and see the solicitations for these 
kids that have no jobs, no income, no independent means of paying. They 
get solicitations from companies halfway around the country.
  The solicitation says we have something to offer you. You don't have 
money? We have money. We will give you a piece of plastic, and you get 
a preapproved range of credit. Sign this, send it in, and it is all 
yours.
  It is Byzantine to me to see what is happening with the 
``blizzarding'' of these credit cards all around the country, even to 
people without money.
  Yesterday in our mail, my son got a solicitation from the Diners 
Club. My son, Brendon, is a great young guy. In fact, do you know what 
Brendon told me he wanted to do when he gets big? Brendon told me he 
wants to be like his grandpa.
  Now, I know that doesn t sound surprising. But do you know why? It s 
because he wants to be retired, just like his grandpa.
  You see, Brendon went to Arizona to see his grandpa, and Brendon 
watched his granddaddy and thought, that's what I want to do--sleep 
late, get up and golf a little bit, come home, have some lunch, take a 
nap, then watch television.
  Brendon says, ``I like what grandpa has. I want to be retired.'' 
Brendon is only 11.
  The Diners Club wrote to Brendon. Doreen Edelman, Senior vice 
president at Diners Club, wrote:

       Dear Brendon, Whether you travel for business or pleasure, 
     wouldn't you like a Card that rewards your spending with 
     something you could really use--frequent flyer miles on the 
     major airline of your choice?

  It says get our Diners card. You can go to lounges, you can go to 
fancy restaurants, you can rent cars, you can pay for your airline 
ticket.
  I didn't show Brendon this last night because the fact that Brendon 
would like to be retired might persuade him that he would like a Diners 
Club card, too, but he is only 11. He doesn't have a job. He doesn't 
have any money. He isn't going to have a Diners Club card.
  I don't know whether Doreen Edelman, senior vice president of the 
Diners Club, listens to this debate. In fact, it looks like she is from 
Sioux Falls, SD. Holy cow, I didn't think anybody from either of the 
Dakotas would think this way--that an 11-year-old boy ought to get a 
Diners Club card.
  I know why he got this. They don't know him from a head of lettuce. 
They don't know Brendon Patrick Dorgan. They gathered the name 
someplace and sent him a little letter that says they would like him to 
get a Diners Club card.
  It would serve them right to have all these 11-year-olds send this 
in, get the Diners Club card and go spend some money.
  I come from a town of 300 people. If someone in business on the main 
street of my hometown said, Do you know what I want to do? I want to 
send some 11-year-old an invitation to have credit with us. That person 
would have to be drunk or just dumb. What are they thinking? That is 
what is happening.
  I know this debate is a little more serious than that. It is about 
the explosion of credit cards to college kids and so on. I understand 
that. But this is a wonderful example of how ridiculous it has become, 
isn't it? It is just indiscriminate. Are you alive? Do you breathe? Do 
you have a name? Are you on a list? Congratulations, we would like to 
offer you some preapproved credit.
  What kind of standard is that? What kind of business behavior is 
that?
  I happen to support the underlying bill. I believe the pendulum has 
swung too far on bankruptcy. I think it ought to swing back some. I am 
prepared to support the underlying bill. I also believe those in this 
country who run these businesses and send solicitations to 11-year-old 
boys and solicit every college student in the country with credit cards 
with preapproved limits, I think they have some responsibility, as 
well. That is what the Senator from Connecticut is saying today with 
his amendment. They have some responsibility, too.
  I am pleased, on behalf of Brendon, to support the amendment by the 
Senator from Connecticut. Perhaps we will make some progress in saying 
to those who extend credit in this country, yes, we believe bankruptcy 
laws ought to be adjusted some; you are right about that. We also 
believe you have some responsibility, which you have been ignoring with 
the solicitations you are making indiscriminately around this country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his eloquent, and 
if it weren't so sad, quite humorous story.
  Unfortunately, Brendon is not alone. This wasn't just a mistake. 
Unfortunately, parents can tell you all across the country that this 
happens with regularity.
  Let me address, if I can, the argument of my good friend and 
colleague

[[Page S10470]]

from Utah and why he is opposed to this bill. The great irony is the 
20-year-old who is out working and not in college is disadvantaged. 
That individual has to prove that they have independent economic means.
  Listen to this recent report:

       All the rules have been suspended when it comes to college 
     students. They get a green light, a line of credit that can 
     reach more than $10,000 just on the strength of a signature 
     and a student ID. Almost comically, [the report says], low 
     standards become much different after graduation and bona 
     fide adulthood.

  So the individual who is out working, who is not in school, who may 
have a real need for a credit card, has to go through far many more 
hoops than the students between the ages of 18 and 21 who can get these 
solicitations.
  This wasn't Brendon. This was a 19-year-old--get eight cheap flights 
now while you still have 18 weeks of vacation. How about a platinum 
card to a 19-year-old without any indication of whether or not she can 
meet her payments?
  I don't think it is outrageous to say, look, just show your 
independent economic means. You have a job, fine. Or get a parental 
signature. That is not asking too much. Just listen to the 
administrators at these universities.  A terrible thing. We lose more 
students to credit card debt than academic failure now. The numbers 
have doubled. It is not overreaching to say to an 18- or 19-year-old 
that we are going to insist that you prove an independent economic 
ability to pay--the same as an 18- or 19-year-old would have to do were 
they not in college--or have a parental signature. Everybody knows that 
if you are under 18, you can't enter into a contract and have it 
binding. People have said, ``Why not just make it 18?'' Well, those 
contracts don't hold up and the bankruptcy laws would not cover it.

  So between 18 and 21, we are just trying to cover those areas here, 
statistically. I talked about this study that was done and I failed to 
identify who did it. Nellie Mae, a major student loan provider in New 
England, conducted a survey of students who had applied for student 
loans. ``The results of the credit card examination is alarming.'' 
Those are their words, not mine. They found that 27 percent of the 
undergraduate student applicants had four or more credit cards, and 14 
percent of the credit card balances, debt, between $3,000 and $7,000, 
and 10 percent in excess of $7,000. That is before they graduated from 
college, in addition to student loans.
  So our efforts here--while the credit card companies see this, 
apparently, as draconian--will provide relief in the underlying bill. 
Requiring a little higher standard for college students before they get 
credit cards is not asking too much. I know the ranking member on the 
committee wanted to be heard on this, and I see my colleague from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator from Utah is 
recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I find it somewhat ironic and, frankly, 
indefensible that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
who are now arguing for parental consent here in order to obtain a 
credit card, would also argue against requiring parental consent for 
children who want to get an abortion. I have spent 22 years listening 
to that.
  Now, Mr. President, they are arguing for parental consent for young 
adults between the ages of 18 and 21. Look, if they are willing to 
amend the amendment--every State in this Union, to my knowledge, 
refuses to give credit or allow credit to be granted to young people 
less than 18 years of age. So I think Senator Dorgan's son already fits 
within that category. We are talking about 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds 
who work, who are in the service, are capable of doing this, who should 
not have to get parental consent, should not have to justify it. I am 
talking against discrimination against young people of that age.
  My friends on the other side argue for parental consent for young 
adults between 18 and 21. These are not even minor children. How can 
anybody argue, on the one hand, that if you are between 18 and 21 and 
you want a credit card, you have to get your parents' consent, and on 
the other hand you should not have to get parental consent if a minor 
wants to get an abortion? I don't know about you, Mr. President, but to 
me that sounds a little bit inconsistent--maybe a smidgen.
  Every State in the Union, to my knowledge, refuses to give the right 
to grant credit to young people below 18 years of age. At least that is 
my understanding. So that is not even an issue. Despite all of the 
enjoyment we had from the remarks of the Senator from North Dakota, 
that isn't an issue. Are we going to discriminate against hard-working 
young people who are 18, 19 and 20 years of age, who should have a 
right to credit, just because we have some excesses in our society that 
really are not justified?
  Mr. President, one of the arguments that I hear again and again is 
that the bankruptcy crisis in this country is the fault of credit card 
companies because they offer credit too freely to low- and moderate-
income Americans. Opponent of reform have, during the hearing process, 
shown us piles of credit card solicitations to make their point. They 
want us to believe that the nation's bankruptcy crisis is the fault of 
easy access to credit, and not of the individual who abuses the 
bankruptcy system with all of its present loopholes.
  First, I would like to say a few words about taking personal 
responsibility for our actions. In a free world, each of us is 
confronted with a variety of offers on a daily basis, some of which we 
should accept, and some of which we should not. It is the 
responsibility of the individual to decide whether or not to take on 
debt and it is the responsibility of the individual to live with the 
consequences of that decision. Before we can begin to make meaningful 
reform to the bankruptcy laws, we simple must stop the finger pointing 
and accept personal responsibility for our spending and borrowing 
practices. That said, if we look at the objective facts, it is apparent 
that credit card debt is only a small fraction--about 16 percent--of 
the debt of a typical bankruptcy filer.
  The reason I have this chart up is because the yellow part of that, 
the higher part of it, shows the total consumer debtload. You will 
notice that between 1980 and 1997 the consumer debtload has remained 
about the same. But look at the red part, increase in consumer 
bankruptcy filings, which this bill would help to resolve. The increase 
in consumer bankruptcy filings has continued to go up off the charts. 
So the debtload doesn't appear to be the major problem. What is the 
major problem is the abuse of the bankruptcy system, which this bill 
would correct.
  Surprisingly, as Americans continue to use consumer credit at about 
the same level as they have historically over the last few years, 
bankruptcy filings have more than quadrupled. In other words, as this 
chart demonstrates, the debt load that individuals carry has not 
changed very much. What has changed is the attitude of Americans toward 
bankruptcy. People turning to bankruptcy today are not in significantly 
more difficult debt that those in the past. But rather than taking 
responsibility and working their way out of debt, too many people are 
choosing bankruptcy as a first resort.
  As I have said before, excessive bankruptcy filings hurt all of us. 
When someone who could pay their debts instead opts for bankruptcy, the 
rest of us effectively pay their unpaid bills for them. Bigger 
businesses and creditors raise prices and interest rates to offset 
their losses, and small businesses may actually be forced into 
bankruptcy themselves.
  But his issue is not just about the impact of bankruptcy on the rest 
of us. It is about personal integrity and personal responsibility. When 
you borrow money from someone else, you make an implicit promise to do 
whatever you can to pay that money back. Our present bankruptcy laws 
undermine this basic principle. This bill will help solve that. They 
allow people who can repay their debts to avoid doing so because they 
find their debts ``inconvenient'' or because repaying their debts would 
require them to change their lifestyle.
  Ironically, many of the people who say that we do not need to reform 
the bankruptcy code because easy access to credit is to blame, are the 
very same people who argue that poor and moderate income individuals 
desperately need, and should not be denied, credit. These are the same 
groups who, fifteen

[[Page S10471]]

years ago, complained that the credit industry granted credit only to 
the elite and wealthy, and deprived lower-income Americans of the 
important opportunity to use credit. And, these are the same people who 
vociferously argued just a few weeks ago in favor of the Community 
Reinvestment Act or CRA, which requires banks to extend loans and 
credit to low and moderate income Americans who live in low income 
areas.

  Rather than reform the bankruptcy code, some have suggested imposing 
burdensome credit qualification standards on the credit card companies. 
Let me be clear: amending this bill to require onerous credit 
qualification standards will result in an immediate reduction in the 
availability of credit to lower-income individuals. And, imposing 
burdensome requirements on credit card companies that do nothing to 
help consumers--and that in fact hurt consumers by adding to the cost 
of being a credit card holder--is nothing more than an obvious attempt 
to derail bankruptcy reform. On the other hand, I remain open to 
measures that will help people become fully aware of the implications 
of debt before they incur it.
  Mr. President, the explosion in bankruptcy filings has less to do 
with causes and more to do with motivations. The stigma of bankruptcy 
is all but gone. Bankruptcy has become a routine financial planning 
device used to unload inconvenient debts, rather than a last resort for 
people who truly need it. The rest of us end up footing the bill for 
abuses in the bankruptcy system in many forms, including higher prices 
and higher interest rates. What this legislation will accomplish is 
straightforward: If a person is able to repay some of what they owe, 
they will be required to do so. We must restore personal accountability 
to the bankruptcy system. If we do not, every family in America, many 
of whom struggle to make ends meet but manage to live within their 
means, will continue to shoulder the financial burden of those who 
abuse the system.
  Mr. President, I do not mean to suggest that the bankruptcy system 
has failed us altogether. It provides a way for individuals who have 
experienced a a financially devastating event to get back on their 
feet. The problem we face is that current law does not simply allow 
bankruptcy filers to get back on their feet * * * it allows abusers of 
the system to get ahead of Americans who make good on their debts. S. 
1301 is a common-sense bill that will provide a much needed adjustment 
to the bankruptcy system.
  Again, I will end with what I started with. If my colleagues on the 
other side want to exclude those below 18 years of age, as the States 
basically do, so that credit card companies cannot solicit them, I 
would be more than happy to do that. I would be more than happy to 
grant that right now, right here on the floor. But if they are going to 
discriminate against 18-, 19-, and 20-year-old people who are hard-
working, decent kids, some of them working at trades in society as I 
did, some of them working in the military, some of them who may be 
temporarily out of work but are good, honest people, then I have to say 
we have to fight against this amendment.
  Last but not least, I will say that I find it ironic that they would 
require parental consent to get credit card credit while at the same 
time not requiring parental consent with regard to getting an abortion.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes, 40 seconds.
  Mr. DODD. How much time remains on the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes, 30 seconds.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield our remaining 
time to the distinguished Senator from North Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized 
for 4 minutes.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I thank Senator Hatch.
  Mr. President, I agree with Senator Dodd. I, too, have been concerned 
about the problem that we see as a mounting one. We ought not to be 
putting college students in debt, particularly at such an early stage 
of their life. But my concern is that this law has to be carefully 
crafted. I do not feel that it has been. My concern is that this has to 
be put together in such a way that we do not deny credit to students 
who might need it while they are away from home. But further, I don't 
want to stop or impede credit to non-college students under the age of 
21.
  We have not had hearings on this. And we have not attempted to curb 
the credit cards through any private methods. Senator Dodd is on the 
Banking Committee. So am I. I would prefer to defer this, and hold 
hearings, and move legislation independently out of the Banking 
Committee, where it should begin, and then to the floor.
  I think the Senator from Connecticut has certainly identified a real 
and continuing problem. But I have struggled with how to legally cut 
off credit to college students for some time. I have noticed card 
solicitations at college bookstores and the marketing efforts that have 
been put forth that are aimed solely at young people. But why do we 
tell someone in the U.S. Army, who is under the age of 21, whom we 
without any hesitation send into harm's way to be killed, or whatever, 
that they can't get a credit card? This will diminish the chances of 
getting one, very likely.
  That is why I think we should take more time and care in crafting 
this proposal so that we do it right. It needs to be done, but it needs 
to be done right. What do you do with the people who lie on their 
application? These are some of the things that are going to be 
difficult to legislate unless we take time and do it right.
  You have to remember that while there may be only really a few credit 
card brands, they are offered by literally thousands and tens of 
thousands of institutions. All of the burden of administering this 
requirement is going to be absorbed by them. Those costs are going to 
be passed along to you know who. And that is all of us who do business 
with banks or use credit cards.
  Again I say, let's carefully consider this before we legislate. Let's 
bring it to the Banking Committee. Let's have hearings on it and at 
that point craft a bill that would serve the purposes and go in the 
direction that Senator Dodd is trying to go. I would be happy in the 
subcommittee that I chair to hold hearings on it just as soon as 
possible. It really is a problem. But we need to take our time and 
correct it.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Connecticut.
  I would like to ask several brief questions to clear up this debate.
  It has been said on the floor of the Senate that because of the 
amendment of the Senator from Connecticut, that someone serving in the 
U.S. military under the age of 21 could not get a credit card. Is that 
true or false?
  Mr. DODD. That is absolutely false. That person has independent 
economic means, being a paid member of the military.
  Mr. DURBIN. It has also been said that someone with a job with low 
income under the age of 21 would be unable to get a credit card under 
the Dodd amendment. Is that true or false?
  Mr. DODD. That is false. A person who is unemployed might have 
unemployment compensation and independent means, and would certainly 
qualify.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Connecticut, because I think 
there have been some things said on the floor which mischaracterize his 
amendment.
  This debate has had a lot of reference to personal responsibility. We 
ought to keep a board up here to check off every time someone says 
``personal responsibility.'' We are talking about bankruptcy, and I 
think people who go into bankruptcy court should be personally 
responsible. I agree. Most Democrats agree. Most Republicans agree. 
There are some people abusing the bankruptcy system. We ought to change 
it.
  The purpose of this bill is to tighten it up so that the abusers 
cannot take

[[Page S10472]]

advantage of bankruptcy to the disadvantage of everybody else in 
America.
  But in addition to personal responsibility, can't we discuss 
corporate responsibility here? Don't the credit card companies have 
some responsibility to make certain that they don't offer risky credit, 
luring children and people who are unwitting into credit situations, 
and then watching it topple over them? Those same credit card companies 
which come to us and say, once these people have fallen deep in debt, 
once they have all this credit card debt that they can't get out of, 
and go to bankruptcy court, be strict and tough with them--I agree with 
that, but shouldn't we also have a standard which says these companies 
should be responsible in dealing with American consumers?
  Senator Dodd offers an amendment which is timely. Listen to this. 
Bankruptcies among those under the age of 25 have doubled in the last 5 
years. It is estimated that a college student in the first few months 
on campus will receive 50 solicitations for credit cards. A student 
without virtually any income is going to be that target customer. As 
Senator Dodd has said over and over again, too many kids who are lured 
into easy credit before they have an income or the maturity to handle 
it end up deeply in debt, and many of them jeopardize their education 
as a result of it.
  The Senator from Alabama said he wanted his children to have a credit 
card at college. I wanted mine to have one as well. He would have 
gladly signed for that. I would have as well. That is exactly what the 
Dodd amendment says. If a parent will put a signature on the line, the 
credit card is there for the college student.
  But I salute the Senator from Connecticut. I support his amendment. I 
think we are talking about corporate responsibility and personal 
responsibility.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut has 1 minute.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois.
  Just to make the case once again, we have watched consumer debt 
double to $455 billion in the last couple of years. It has tripled and 
quadrupled. It seems to me that to listen to what university people are 
saying, we have more people dropping out of school--as the official at 
the University of Indiana said, ``We lose more students to credit card 
debt than academic failure''--we have some indication of what is going 
on here. To say between the ages of 18 and 21 just to get a parental 
signature, or an indication of independent economic means, as you would 
if you were not a student, is not asking too much. It seems to me that 
is the bare minimum standard of what we ought to be asking of the 
credit card companies. It is my understanding that most responsible 
credit card issuers already require them.
  Is it asking too much that the credit card companies strive to meet 
their own best practices in order to do something to protect our 
children? If you are under 18, the law already protects you. It is that 
window between 18 and 21.

  Mr. President, I hope that our colleagues will recognize that it is 
really not fair for middle-income families to get saddled with a 
$10,000 debt because of solicitations that were made to a student in 
school. This is a license for us to do something about it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DODD. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to table the Dodd amendment and 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the Dodd amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell] 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. 
Hollings] is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 274 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--40

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Coats
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Graham
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Smith (OR)
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Coverdell
     Hollings
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3598) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3597

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now consider amendment No. 
3597, the D'Amato amendment, with 2 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next 
vote in this series be limited to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  The Senate will come to order. The Senator from New York is 
recognized. The Senate will please come to order. The Senate will 
please come to order for 1 minute of debate on each side before we 
vote.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, my amendment would stop one of the most 
predatory, outrageous practices that consumers throughout America are 
facing, double charging at ATMs. There are fewer opportunities to avoid 
that. Since the ban has been lifted, we have gone from 17 percent of 
the ATMs double charging to 79 percent in 2 years. There is no consumer 
choice. At the end of next year, it will be over 90 percent, and it 
will cost the average consumer $2.68 for that transaction.
  For people who say, ``Oh, we'll lose the ATMs if we do not have these 
double charges,'' 74 percent of the ATMs that are in existence today 
existed prior to the double charges.
  If you want to help the little guy, here is an opportunity. Vote for 
the ATM ban; vote for the consumer. Give that little guy a choice and 
give people an opportunity to vote. I am urging people to vote no 
against the motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Who yields 
time?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered on the 
motion to table the D'Amato amendment.
  Mr. LOTT. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. I did want to move to table and ask for the yeas and nays. 
Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That motion has been made.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to lay on the table the 
D'Amato amendment, No. 3597. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Coverdell) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
Hollings) is necessarily absent.

[[Page S10473]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 72, nays 26, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 275 Leg.]

                                YEAS--72

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--26

     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Chafee
     D'Amato
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Sarbanes
     Torricelli
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Coverdell
     Hollings
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3597) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 minutes to 
make some comments with regard to this vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, first let me thank my colleagues who have 
given me the opportunity to at least bring this to a vote. Needless to 
say, the great power and the great number of dollars involved were 
felt. It is a lot of money that a lot of little people are paying that 
they shouldn't be paying.
  Indeed, some Members have indicated to me that notwithstanding their 
opposition to intruding generally into the private sector, they would 
reconsider their votes in the future if they continue to see the 
predatory price-gouging practices that are anticonsumer and 
monopolistic; if they continue to see not only the number of ATMs that 
are double charging continue, but lack of consumer choice; and 
escalating fees.
  Indeed, the Senate majority leader told me, and he is on the floor 
now, that he has indicated to those in the banking community that they 
had better look carefully at what they are doing. If they continue to 
impose these fees on the little people, he may not be nearly as 
supportive.
  This is a close issue as it relates to when should government become 
involved in the private sector. I believe that time has come.
  Having said that, this is a battle, but it is not the end. I lost 
this battle, but I am prepared to continue this battle and win the war 
until and unless we see a rollback in what is taking place now--and 
that is taking advantage of the consumer, the little guy, the working 
families of America.
  Again, I thank my colleagues who have yielded me this time to make 
this observation. We lost the battle, but not the war.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________