LAWMAKERS APPOINTED to hammer out a proposal to rein in predatory lending in South Carolina must stay focused on the goal to provide relief for poor, elderly and unsophisticated borrowers who are being duped out of their hard-earned cash.

House and Senate conferees, who are expected to meet for a second day of negotiations today, have an opportunity to shape a meaningful bill by accepting the strongest language from the proposals adopted by each chamber. We know there will be pressure from some in the lending industry to implement less restrictive rules. But it is possible for lawmakers to pass a strong predatory lending law that does not infringe upon legitimate lenders' ability to make loans -- and money.

The legislation being considered would not prevent lenders from charging higher interest rates to higher-risk borrowers. It would, however, reduce unscrupulous lenders' ability to prey on borrowers. In South Carolina, such lenders rip borrowers off to the tune of $107 million a year, according to a study released last year by the Coalition for Responsible Lending in Durham, N.C.

Of the bills passed by the House and Senate, the one fashioned by senators is the stronger. But there are good qualities about both these bills that lawmakers should consider putting into the final version in order to provide borrowers some real protections.

The provisions to keep from the Senate bill are its requirement for mandatory consumer counseling for high-cost loans, regulations for title lenders, and limitations on what kind of fees and points can be financed in high-cost loans. Another element of the Senate bill that should be adopted is one that holds lenders responsible for making loans that they knew or should have known a consumer was unable to pay.

Provisions to keep from the House bill include its start date of January 2004. The Senate bill calls for delaying implementation until July 2004; that is too long to wait. Lawmakers should also include the House's strong language placing a fiduciary duty upon mortgage brokers to work in the best interest of consumers.

Both bills would prohibit the financing of credit life insurance and limit flipping, which is the repeated refinancing of loans (which adds cost and strips equity from homes). It is one of the worst predatory practices. The Senate's requirement to prohibit flipping every four years is preferable. The House would allow it every three years. However, the House language outlining presumptions to determine whether a refinancing is in the best interest of a consumer -- and not flipping -- is better than the Senate's.

Legislators should throw out the House bill's provision that would prohibit cities and counties from refusing to do business with predatory lenders. That is an unwarranted intrusion into local decision-making.

When members of the conference committee -- Sens. Darrell Jackson, Linda Short and Wes Hayes and Reps. Harry Cato, Joe Neal and Converse Chellis -- gather today, they should strive to make it plain to lenders that South Carolina will no longer allow its most vulnerable consumers to be cheated.

This opportunity must not be lost. The conferees must not send a watered-down bill to the full House and Senate. It is time for the legal loan-sharking that has dashed the hopes and dreams of many of South Carolina's poor and elderly to end.