[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Page 15624]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                           BANKRUPTCY REFORM

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to take a brief moment to speak on 
bankruptcy reform legislation, which in my view, our Nation desperately 
needs. We have a balanced bankruptcy reform bill. The administration is 
on record as saying they support it. If the President really wants a 
bill, and if my colleagues in the Senate really want a bill, then they 
should let us move to a formal conference. Furthermore, they should 
tell us why the clinic violence provision is even necessary.
  Current law already prevents perpetrators of clinic violence, as well 
as other types of violence, from discharging the judgments against them 
in bankruptcy. Given this, it is clear that the overbroad abortion 
clinic violence amendment serves no substantive purpose. No one has 
brought forth a single case in which current law has been used to 
discharge debts from clinic violence. I raised this issue in a letter 
to Senator Schumer last week, and am still awaiting a response.
  Let's move forward with a bankruptcy conference--we have waited long 
enough.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                    Washington, DC, July 13, 2000.
     Hon. Charles Schumer
     Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chuck: I am writing you regarding your clinic violence 
     amendment to the bankruptcy reform legislation. This 
     amendment appears to be one of the final remaining issues 
     holding up the overdue reform our bankruptcy laws truly need 
     to both stop the abuse of the system by those who are able to 
     pay back a portion of their debts and to implement new 
     consumer protections such as enhanced credit card 
     disclosures, which you played a major role in drafting.
       I respect your views and the general objective of your 
     amendment to prevent criminals from paying their debts to 
     society or to others by using our bankruptcy laws. 
     Furthermore, I am committed to addressing any legitimate 
     abuse of our bankruptcy laws. However, I am concerned that 
     some who oppose the broadly supported proposed reforms have 
     capitalized on the issue of abortion clinic violence and have 
     spread some misconceptions regarding this issue. Such 
     misconceptions, unfortunately, appear to be jeopardizing 
     passage of the important bankruptcy reform legislation.
       For example, in a document circulated by one of our 
     colleagues, it was represented that ``[t]he Schumer amendment 
     prevents a documented abuse of the bankruptcy system. . . .'' 
     and the compromise language that is in the conference report 
     ``would continue to allow many perpetrators of clinic 
     violence to seek shelter in the nation's bankruptcy courts.''
       There has not been a single case reported or presented 
     where the current bankruptcy laws were held to allow a 
     perpetrator of clinic violence to ``seek shelter in the 
     nation's bankruptcy courts,'' nor is this a ``documented 
     abuse'' of the system. On the contrary, when those who have 
     committed violence have tried to hide behind the bankruptcy 
     laws, they have found their debts were non-dischargeable 
     under current bankruptcy law. Given this, I do not think that 
     the amendment you offer is necessary.
       Indeed, the abortion rights group NARAL recognized in a 
     1999 publication that ``[c]oncluding that clinic violence-
     associated debts are non-dischargeable under section 
     523(a)(6) is consistent with the Supreme court's 
     interpretation of [current bankruptcy law's] ``willful and 
     malicious injury.'' Therefore such true debts are non-
     dischargeable.
       Even given such interpretation of current law, and though 
     the House-passed bill had no abortion-related provision, the 
     current reform legislation goes further and incorporates 
     compromise language that would expand current law and further 
     make debts arising from willful and malicious threats also 
     non-dischargeable. This is done in a politically neutral 
     manner and protects debts from all threats of injury 
     irrespective of the political message of the protestors. In 
     addition, knowing that one of your biggest concerns regarding 
     this subject is the ability of perpetrators to avoid debts 
     arising from settlement or contempt orders, the compromise 
     language specifically covers debts from settlement orders and 
     violations of other orders of the court.
       I appreciate your consideration of these points and would 
     welcome any response you might have.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Orrin G. Hatch,
     Chairman.

                          ____________________