18 Senators Have Questions to Answer

[Berserker]

http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=526

In 1991, 18 Senators who still serve today voted for a bill by Sen. Al D’Amato (R-NY) to limit the interest rate credit card companies can charge to 14 percent (the measure was consequently stripped out of the final bill). Those same 18 Senators voted a few weeks ago against a bill by Sen. Mark Dayton (D-MN) to limit the interest rate credit card companies can charge to 30 percent.

Why would 18 Senators, including co-sponsors of the original measure, vote for a tougher pro-consumer measure in 1991, and then vote against a weaker measure in 2005? Could it be that the more than $2 million these Senators took from the credit card/banking industry in the interim made them change their mind? Or, was there another reason? I’d say the public deserves an answer.

Here is a list of the Democrates that voted Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Obama (D-IL), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

[Mass]

1. Yes and so should those who voted for it.

Dayton should be ashamed to propose 30 %. This is way too high.

I am happy Kerry, Durbin, and others voted against a usury rate that is HIGHER than in MA and many other states.

Sarbannes explained during the debate that the amendment would have implications in other states that the amendment sponsors did not see and that the question should be revisited as an independant bill.

[billkurtmeyer]

2. Here is the lame response that I got from Kohl, who I will never vote for

again!

Thank you for taking the time to contact me. I value the
correspondence that I get from people back home in Wisconsin,
and I would like to take this opportunity to address your concerns
about bankruptcy legislation.

The dramatic rise in bankruptcies is troubling and is likely
attributable to numerous factors, all indicating the need for
bankruptcy reform. Both the House and the Senate have been
considering various bankruptcy reform measures for several years,
and are currently working to pass bankruptcy reform legislation.

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) introduced the "Bankruptcy
Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005" on
February 1, 2005. This legislation would amend the Federal
bankruptcy law to revamp guidelines governing dismissal or
conversion of a Chapter 7 liquidation to Chapter 13 (Repayment
Plans).

On March 10, the Senate passed an amended version of the
"Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Act of 2005" by a
bipartisan vote of 74-25. This legislation included a provision,
which I sponsored, to prevent wealthy debtors from using state
"homestead" exemptions to protect multimillion dollar homes even
after declaring bankruptcy. I supported this bill because it simply
requires that people who can repay some of their debts do so. The
bill will not affect the vast majority of people -- 80 percent or more
- who will still use bankruptcy the same way that they do now.
This bill targets only the people who are taking advantage of the
bankruptcy system, those who can and should repay some of their
debts to their local retailer or credit union.




Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I am
sorry that we disagree on this issue, but I am sure that there are
others on which we do agree.




Sincerely,


Herb Kohl
U.S. Senator

[Mass]

3. I agree but this is not what the amendment was about.

Many (half of those 18 at least) of those who voted against this amendment voted also against cloture and against the bill.

[Berserker]

4. Here is the amendment to the bill S. 256

http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=526

SA 31. Mr. DAYTON
(a) Cap on Interest Chargeable.–A creditor who extends credit to any consumer shall not impose a rate of interest in excess of an annual rate of 30 percent with respect to the credit extended.

(b) Preemption of State Law.–The provisions governing rates of interest under subsection (a) shall preempt all State usury laws.

© Exemption to Preemption.–If a State imposes a limit on the rate of interest chargeable to an extension of credit that is less than the limit imposed under subsection (a), that State law shall not be preempted and shall remain in full force and effect in that State.

[Mass]

5. Sarbanes' s explanations were too technical for me

but there was a problem in the amendment, apparently. It would be nice to know what it is in simple terms.

[cestpaspossible]

7. Could you post them here, please?

Maybe together we can figure it out.

[madfloridian]

6. Bill Nelson's letter to me on his support of the bill, saying nothing.

Thank you for contacting me regarding bankruptcy reform.

As you may know, on March 10, the Senate passed S. 256, the
Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act, by a vote of 74-25. I voted
for this bipartisan legislation because it protects Americans most in need,
while embodying the principle of personal responsibility. People making
less than their state's median income will not be forced to repay their
creditors; only those who can do so would be required to repay most of
their debts over time. In Florida, the median income is $30,475 a year for
individuals, and $57,473 for a family of four.

There were several important consumer protections added to the bill
on the Senate floor. I worked hard with my colleagues to ensure special
accommodations for active-duty military members who are disabled and people
with serious health conditions. Another improvement to the bill guards the
privacy of sensitive information contained in court documents.

As always, I will continue to advocate for the best interests of
consumers and fight to ensure that the Senate considers balanced consumer
legislation. I appreciate hearing from you. Feel free to contact me in
the future.

[Clarkie1]

8. Another example of why senators should not be presidential candidates

Regardless of the details of the reasons for or a against this vote, it's another example of the difficulty of explaining what goes on in the senate to the American people.

That's my immediate observation, and I'm not an expert on why senators voted for or against this, and don't have the time to study it to become an expert.

[TayTay]

9. I don't know, I think that's too simplistic

There were 31 amendments on that bill (I think) and then the vote on the Bankruptcy Bill itself. You could just as easily argue that most of the Dems who voted against that usury amendment also voted for all the other consumer protections that didn't pass. That sounds like a commercial to me on the positive side. We need better ads. There will always be something for the other side to attack on. If we get over worried about this, we ought to just put up political neophytes and that is just plain dumb.

I think the whole thing about a Senator not running because they cannot win is a truism; it's true until it isn't. (Kind of like when everyone thought the Red Sox couldn't win, then they could.)