LAST WEEK, TWO DOZEN lobbyists representing lenders swarmed the State House, bending the ears of lawmakers working on an anti-predatory lending bill.

Some lenders brought folks in from out of state to address the conference committee in an attempt to get key provisions left out of the bill aimed at protecting consumers. One came from Atlanta. Another, who came from Pittsburgh, said he flew in on less than a day's notice. The inordinate amount of time and money lenders are spending in an attempt to get this bill watered down is troublesome. What are they afraid of?

Why would legitimate lenders have a problem with a law that would require mandatory counseling for high-cost loans and hold mortgage brokers responsible for working in the best interest of borrowers? Why would they have a problem with limiting repeated refinancing? Why would title lenders be so afraid of lawmakers' weak proposals to limit the number of times lenders can roll over short-term loans in an effort to keep people from paying through the nose and still losing their cars in the end?

The answer seems clear: Predatory lenders are making tons of cash by ripping off poor and elderly people through high-cost loans. South Carolina consumers are losing millions upon millions of dollars to unscrupulous lenders each year as they are submitted to repeated refinancing, excessive fees, balloon payments and other abusive practices.

South Carolina borrowers lose an estimated $107 million a year to predatory lenders, according to a study released last year by the Coalition for Responsible Lending in Durham, N.C. A strong anti-predatory lending law would help stop this legalized fleecing of our state's most vulnerable borrowers. That is what has happened in North Carolina, whose law the S.C. bills are modeled after. The Coalition for Responsible Lending estimates North Carolina's law, adopted in 1999, saved borrowers about $100 million in 2000 without interrupting the free flow of credit.

Conference committee members -- Sens. Wes Hayes, Darrell Jackson and Linda Short and Reps. Harry Cato, Joe Neal and Converse Chellis -- ought to want the same for South Carolina's consumers. The three senators and Rep. Neal have made it clear they do. It is not clear yet, however, whether Reps. Cato and Chellis will stand up for consumers.

The proposed legislation is not aimed at reputable lenders who play fair. It is not aimed at legitimate subprime lenders, who understandably charge higher rates to people who are a higher risk. It is meant to stop the small percentage of lenders who willfully take advantage of unsophisticated borrowers.

Bankers, title lenders and mortgage brokers are working together in opposition to this legislation. It is troubling that even legitimate lenders are working against efforts to stop exploitation of the poor. It seems they would favor legislation calling for lenders to be responsible and accountable.

Even with these proposed regulations, lenders will still make huge profits. Conference committee members must remember that when they meet today to debate what protections should be put into place to help consumers. The least they should do is give poor and elderly borrowers a fighting chance at paying off their debt and keeping their homes and cars.