CHOSEN. AND SO WE'LL WORK TOGETHER WITH CHAIRMAN HATCH AND
           SENATOR GRASSLEY, SENATOR TORRICELLI AND THE HOUSE CONFEREES
           AND THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION ON A CONFERENCE REPORT THAT I
           THINK WILL BE WELL WORTHWHILE. I WOULD HOPE WE WOULD NOT MAKE
           THE MISTAKE OF THE PAST YEAR WHERE WE CAME OUT OF CONFERENCE
           WITH SOMETHING THAT JUST NEVER WENT ANYWHERE. WE'VE
           DEMONSTRATED IN THE SENATE NOW TWICE IN LOPSIDED VOTES THAT WE
           COULD PASS A BANKRUPTCY ACT. NOW I HOPE THAT WE'LL COME OUT OF

           THE CONFERENCE WITH SOMETHING THAT WE CAN PASS. AND LASTLY, I
           KNOW A NUMBER OF STAFF MEMBERS, ALL OF WHOM DESERVE PRAISE,
           HAVE BEEN MENTIONED ON THIS FLOOR. BUT AS I'VE OFTEN SAID,
           SENATORS ARE USUALLY ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL NECESSITIES TO THE
           STAFF, WHO REALLY DO THE WORK AROUND HERE. IN THAT REGARD,
           BRUCE COHEN AND NED PEGANO OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
           STAFF HAVE WORKED LONG HOURS, MANY WEEKEND WEEKENDS, LATE
           NIGHTS TO GET US THIS FAR AND THEY DESERVE A GREAT DEAL OF THE

           CREDIT. AND I SEE MY GOOD FRIEND FROM NEW JERSEY, THE RANKING
           MEMBER OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON BANKRUPTCY, WHO TOLD US IT WOULD
           BE POSSIBLE TO GET A BILL THROUGH HERE BACK WHEN MANY THOUGHT
           IT WOULDN'T BE POSSIBLE. HE WAS RIGHT. HE WORKED VERY HARD AND
           HE DESERVES A GREAT DEAL OF CREDIT. AND I YIELD THE FLOOR TO
           HIM.
           

           MR. TORRICELLI: I THANK SENATOR LEAHY FOR VERY FINE COMMENTS
           AND HIS LEADERSHIP ON THIS LEGISLATION IN BRINGING IT TO THE
           FLOOR, AND OF COURSE SENATOR GRASSLEY AS WELL, WHO BEGAN THIS
           EFFORT SO LONG AGO AND WHO WORKED SO VERY HARD. SO MANY
           SENATORS HAVE PLAYED AN IMPORTANT ROLE THAT I THINK IT BEARS
           SOME ANALYSIS OF HOW WE CAME TO THIS POINT. AND SOME PROVISIONS
           OF THE BILL THAT SHOULD BE MENTION BRD WE GO TO CONFERENCE IN
           ORDER TO SET OUR AGENDAS CLEAR. I KNOW THAT THERE ARE THOSE WHO

           FROM THE OUTSET WHO DOUBTED WHETHER, INDEED, A REAL REFORM OF
           BANKRUPTCY LAWS COULD BE ACHIEVED IN THIS CONGRESS. AND THERE
           WAS SOME REASON TO BE SKEPTICAL BECAUSE THERE WERE SOME
           CONFLICTING PROVISIONS. AND SOME OF US HAD SOME VERY REAL NEEDS
           THAT HAD TO BE MET BEFORE THE BEGINNING LEGISLATION COULD EVER
           BE ENACTED. IN MY MIND --
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IF THE SENATOR WOULD SUSPEND. THERE IS A
           PREVIOUS ORDER AND IT WILL TAKE UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO DEPART
           FROM THAT ORDER.
           

           MR. TORRICELLI: I WOULD ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO BE POSTPONED
           FOR TEN MINUTES.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE OBJECTION?
           WITHOUT OBJECTION.
           

           MR. TORRICELLI: MOST IMPORTANT OF THESE OBJECTIVES IN MY MIND
           WAS DEALING WITH THE NEED FOR SOME SECURABLE CREDIT PROTECTION.
           BECAUSE, INDEED, WHILE THERE MAY BE ABUSES IN BANKRUPTCY BY
           DEBTORS TO BE CERTAIN, THERE ARE CLEARLY PROBLEMS IN THE CREDIT
           INDUSTRY. I BELIEVE SEVERAL IMPORTANT AMENDMENTS HAVE ACHIEVED
           THIS GOAL. MOST IMPORTANTLY IN MY MIND WAS THE ADOPTION OF THE
           GRASSLEY-TORRICELLI DISCLOSURE AMENDMENT AND OTHER IMPORTANT
           ADDITIONS WITH AMENDMENTS BY SENATOR SHUMEER AND SENATOR

           SARBANES THAT HAVE PROVIDED TOGETHER REAL CONSUMER PROTECTION
           IN THIS LEGISLATION. ALL THREE AMENDMENTS ARE BASED ON THE
           BELIEF THAT IF CONSUMERS HAVE KNOWLEDGE, THEY WILL MAKE
           RATIONAL CHOICES. SIMPLY PROVIDING INFORMATION WILL AVOID MANY
           CREDIT PROBLEMS THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE CURRENTLY
           SUFFERING. THESE HAVE INCLUDED IF YOU LOOK AT THE
           TORRICELLI-GRASSLEY-SCHUMER AND SARBANES AMENDMENT, A

           COMBINATION OF DISCLOSING PROMINENTLY ON CREDIT DOCUMENTS THE
           EFFECTS OF ONLY MAKING MINIMUM PAYMENTS ON YOUR ACCOUNT EVERY
           MONTH. SECOND, WHEN LATE FEES WILL BE IMPOSED. THIRD, THE DATE
           ON WHICH INTRODUCTORY ORTIZR RATES WILL EXPIRE AND -- OR TEASER
           RATES WILL EXPIRE AND WHAT THE PERMANENT RATE WILL BE UPON THAT
           EXPIRATION. ADDITIONALLY, THE GRASSLEY-TORRICELLI AMENDMENT
           INCLUDES A PROVISION AUTHORED BY SENATOR JACK REED PROHIBITING
           THE CANCELING OF AN ACCOUNT BECAUSE THE CONSUMER PAYS THE

           BALANCE IN FULL EVERY MONTH. WHAT WAS A RISING PROBLEM WHERE
           PEOPLE WITH GOOD CREDIT AND GOOD BILL-PAYING HABITS WERE BEING
           PENALIZED UNNECESSARILY. THAT IS NOW IN THE BILL. NOW, FOR ALL
           THESE GOOD ADDITIONS THAT HAVE MADE THIS BETTER LEGISLATION,
           THERE ARE SOME PROBLEMS WHICH I HOPE AND I TRUST CAN BE
           RESOLVED IN CONFERENCE SO THAT THIS CAN GENUINELY BE BIPARTISAN
           LEGISLATION, BROADLY ACCEPTED AND SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT. THE

           PRINCIPAL OBSTACLE BETWEEN WHAT WE WANT TO ACHIEVE AND THAT
           REALITY IS OBVIOUSLY THE MINIMUM WAGE PROVISIONS IN THIS
           LEGISLATION. 12 MILLION AMERICANS CONTINUE TO EARN THE MINIMUM
           WAGE. AND ALTHOUGH THEY WORK ALL DAY EVERY DAY THROUGHOUT THE
           YEAR ARE IN A DAILY STRUGGLE TO SIMPLY SURVIVE. A MOTHER OF TWO

           WORKING AT THE MINIMUM WAGE EARNS ONLY $10,71 PER YEAR. 20%
           BELOW THE POVERTY LINE. A WAGE AT WHICH IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO
           PROVIDE HOUSING AND FOOD AND CLOTHING FOR A CHILD, NO LESS TWO
           CHILD. OR EVEN A PERSON, NO LESS A FAMILY. IT IS NOT A MINIMUM
           WAGE, IT IS A POVERTY WAGE. IN THE LAST 15 YEARS, INFLATION
           ROSE BY 86%. BUT THE MINIMUM WAGE ROSE BY ONLY 37%. THE FACT

           REMAINS THAT THE UNITED STATES TODAY IS ALLOWING A STANDARD OF
           LIVING BY WORKING PEOPLE BELOW WHAT THOSE WHO STOOD IN THIS
           INSTITUTION ONLY 15, 20 AND 25 YEARS AGO WERE PERMITTING BY
           LAW. WE ARE ALLOWING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW PERMANENT
           UNDERCLASS IN AMERICA OF WORKING PEOPLE DOOMED TO POVERTY AND
           CHILDREN WHO DO NOT HAVE A CHANCE OF BREAKING OUT OF THESE
           CIRCUMSTANCES, WHO ARE LIKELY TO ENTER LIFE MALNOURISHED,

           POORLY CLOTHED, INADEQUATELY HOUSED, KNOWING ONLY POVERTY. WE
           NEED TO REACH THE SAME JUDGMENT THAT OUR GRANDPARENTS AND OUR
           PARENTS HAVE REACHED FOR 70 YEARS -- A WORKING, FAIR MINIMUM
           WAGE. WITH THE PROPOSED NEW MINIMUM WAGE, A FULL-TIME WORKER
           WILL HAVE AN ANNUAL INCOME OF $12,700, AN INCREASE OF $2,000 A
           YEAR. THE PROBLEM WITH OUR BILL IS THAT THIS CHANGE IS BROUGHT
           OVER THE COURSE OF THREE YEARS RATHER THAN TWO YEARS, AS MANY

           OF US HAVE PROPOSED. IF IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO, UPON WHICH
           MOST SENATORS SEEM TO AGREE, IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO NOW,
           LEAVING MILLIONS OF AMERICAN CHILDREN IN POVERTY FOR THIS EXTRA
           TIME MAKES NO SENSE AND IT IS INDEFENSIBLE. INDEED, IT DENIES
           $1,200 TO FAMILIES DURING THE EXTRA TIME WHO ARE TRYING TO
           STRUGGLE THEIR WAY OUT OF POVERTY. I CAN THINK OF NO BETTER
           ADDITION TO LEGISLATION DEALING WITH DEBTS AND THE STRUGGLING

           REALITIES OF AMERICAN ECONOMIC LIFE IN THIS REFORM OF
           BANKRUPTCY LEGISLATION THAT THAN INCLUDING A REAL MINIMUM WAGE.
           IT IS OBVIOUSLY MY HOPE THAT WHEN THE BILL RETURNS FROM
           CONFERENCE, WE WILL RETURN TO A TWO-YEAR INCREASE IN MINIMUM
           WAGE RATHER THAN THE THREE-YEAR PROVISIONS IN THIS LEGISLATION.
           THE SECOND AREA OF CONCERN FOR ALL THAT WE HAVE ACHIEVED IN
           THIS LEGISLATION IS THE CREATION OF A NEW SCHOOL VOUCHER
           PROGRAM WHICH WAS CONTAINED IN A REPUBLICAN ANTIDRUG AMENDMENT.
           I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT I VOTED AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT LAST

           FALL. I DID SO NOT BECAUSE OF OBJECTIONS TO THE UNDERLYING
           AMPHETAMINE PROVISIONS IN THE LEGISLATION, WHICH I VOTED FOR IN
           JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, BUT TO THE VOUCHER PROGRAM. WHEN WE
           CONSIDERED SOMETHING SIMILAR IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, IT DID
           NOT HAVE THIS VOUCHER PROVISION. IT ACTUALLY WAS DEALING WITH
           NARCOTICS PROBLEMS WITH SCHOOLS AND YOUNGER PEOPLE, AND IT WAS
           A GOOD PROVISION. IT HAS NOW BEEN CHANGED ON THE FLOOR TO
           INCLUDE THIS VOUCHER PROGRAM. IT IS A SIMPLE DIVERSION OF

           DESPERATELY-NEEDED PUBLIC MONEYS IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, WHICH
           CAN ONLY MAKE THE PROBLEM WORSE. MONEY THAT WOULD GO TO
           CHILDREN AT RISK TO DEAL WITH MANY PROBLEMS, INCLUDING NARCOTIC
           PROBLEMS, WOULD NOW BE REMOVED FROM THE SCHOOLS. THIS PROVISION
           DOES NOT MAKE SENSE AND IT SHOULD BE REMOVED. I BELIEVE, MR.
           PRESIDENT, THAT IF THESE OBJECTIONS ARE DEALT WITH, WE CAN
           RETURN TO THIS FLOOR WITH A CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT OF
           WHICH WE CAN ALL BE PROUD. FOR ALL THE DIVISIONS THAT WE MIGHT

           HAVE FACED WHEN THIS LEGISLATION BEGAN, I THINK WE ALL NOW
           UNDERSTAND THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH BANKRUPTCY ABUSE IN THE
           UNITED STATES. IN 1998, 1.4 MILLION AMERICANS SOUGHT BANKRUPTCY
           PROTECTION. SOMETHING IS WRONG. THERE EITHER ARE NOT ADEQUATE
           CREDIT PROTECTIONS TO ENSURE THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE
           CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THEY BORROW MONEY, OR THE LAW DOES NOT
           PROPERLY DEAL WITH THEIR FILINGS FOR BANKRUPTCY OR BOTH AND

           OTHER FACTORS. IN MY JUDGMENT, IT IS ALL OF THESE THINGS.
           CURRENTLY, 70% OF BANKRUPTCY PETITIONS ARE FILED IN CHAPTER 7,
           WHICH PROVIDES RELIEF FROM MOST UNSECURED DEBT. JUST 30% OF
           PETITIONS WERE FILED UNDER CHAPTER 13, WHICH REQUIRES A
           REPAYMENT OF DEBT. MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE, IN ADDITION TO THE
           CONSUMER PROTECTION, WE WILL ASSURE THAT PEOPLE WHO CAN PAY
           BACK PART OF THESE DEBTS WILL DO SO SO. THAT IS NOT SIMPLY A
           BENEFIT TO THE FINANCIAL INDUSTRIES. IT IS ALSO A BENEFIT TO

           EVERY MOM-AND-POP STORE, EVERY SMALL BUSINESS IN AMERICA THAT
           IS BEING ABUSED BY THESE UN UNNECESSARY FILINGS FOR BANKRUPTCY.
           INDEED, IT IS ESTIMATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THAT
           182,000 PEOPLE EVERY YEAR CAN AFFORD TO PAY BACK SOME OF THE
           DEBTS THAT THEY ARE NOW ESCAPING BY INAPPROPRIATE FILINGS. THIS
           MEANS $4 BILLION TO CREDITORS. FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, TO BE
           SURE, BUT ALSO MANY SMALL BUSINESSES THAT CANNOT AFFORD LOSING
           THESE FUNDS. MR. PRESIDENT, I CONCLUDE ONCE AGAIN BY THANKING

           SENATOR GRASSLEY FOR HIS EXTRAORDINARY LEADERSHIP, SENATOR
           LEAHY FOR HIS PATIENCE THROUGH THIS PROCESS, SENATOR HATCH, IN
           CHAIRING OUR COMMITTEE AND BRINGINGS TO THIS POINT, AND THE
           VERY GREAT CONTRIBUTIONS MADE BY SENATOR BIDEN, SENATOR REED,
           SENATOR SCHUMER, SENATOR DURBIN, WHO, INDEED, WORKED ON THIS
           LEGISLATION SO TIRELESSLY IN THE LAST CONGRESS. THIS IS GOOD
           LEGISLATION. WE CAN BE PROUD OF IT. WITH MODEST ADJUSTMENTS, WE
           CAN, INDEED, MAKE IT SOMETHING THAT BOTH PARTIES IN BOTH

           CHAMBERS CAN BRING TO THE PRESIDENT FOR HIS SIGNATURE. MR.

           PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE FLO FLOOR. A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON.
           

           MR. GORTON: MR. PRESIDENT, I DO UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE ABOUT TO
           GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE
           NOMINATION OF ALAN GREENSPAN. I WISH TO SPEAK ON ANOTHER
           SUBJECT, SO I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT I BE -- THAT THAT
           ORDER BE SET ASIDE AND THAT I BE PERMITTED TO SPEAK FOR UP TO
           TEN MINUTES AS IF IN MORNING BUSINESS.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
           

           MR. GORTON: MR. PRESIDENT, EARLIER THIS AFTERNOON THE
           DISTINGUISHED SENATOR FROM VERMONT, MR. LEAHY, WELCOMED TO THE
           CHAIR IN WHICH THE ACTING PRESIDENT NOW SITS THE VICE PRESIDENT
           OF THE UNITED STATES IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE
           SENATE. IT WAS OUT OF ORDER FOR ME TO SPEAK AT THAT POINT, AND
           I REGRET THE FACT THAT I WAS UNABLE TO DO SO BECAUSE MY MESSAGE
           IS TO THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES STATES. LEAVING
           THIS PLACE, HE IS NOW ON HIS WAY TO SEATTLE, IN MY HOME STATE,

           IN PURSUANCE OF THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION FOR THE PRESIDENCY.
           ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS DURING THE COURSE OF THE LAST YEAR,
           WHEN THE VICE PRESIDENT HAS GRACED US WITH HIS PRESENCE
           PRESENCE, I HAVE ASKED ON THIS FLOOR AND ELSEWHERE THAT HE
           ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONTROVERSIAL AND BURNING ISSUES IN THE
           PACIFIC NORTHWEST NORTHWEST, USUALLY WITHOUT GETTING A
           PARTICULARLY SIGNIFICANT RESPONSE. I DON'T INTEND TO DO THAT
           HERE TODAY, MR. PRESIDENT. I WELCOME THE VICE PRESIDENT TO
           SEATTLE, AND I'M GOING TO ASK HIM FOR HIS HELP AND FOR A FAVOR

           TO THE PEOPLE OF THAT CITY AND THE REGION. EARLY LAST YEAR, MR.
           PRESIDENT PRESIDENT, THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION PICKED SEATTLE
           OUT OF 40 CITY APPLICANTS TO HOST THE CONFERENCE BY THE WORLD
           TRADE ORGANIZATION FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME, CAREFUL
           PREPARATIONS FOR THAT MEETING WERE MADE BY THE ADMINISTRATION,
           BY STATE OFFICIALS, BY OFFICIALS IN THE CITY OF SEATTLE AND IN
           THE SURROUNDING AREAS, AND BY PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS THAT

           DESIRED TO TAKE PART IN THE W.T.O. MEETINGS. WE HERE, AS IS
           CUSTOMARY WHEN A MAJOR CONFERENCE GOES TO AN AMERICAN CITY,
           RECOGNIZE THE EXTRA COSTS THAT WOULD ACCRUE TO SEATTLE AND THE
           REGION, BY DIRECTING THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO REIMBURSE SEATTLE
           AND SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES UPWARDS OF $5 MILLION FOR THE EXTRA
           COSTS OF LAW. -- COSTS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT WERE INEVITABLY
           TO BE A PART OF THAT W.T.O. CONFERENCE. SENATOR MURRAY, MY
           COLLEAGUE AND I, JOINED IN STRONGLY SUPPORTING THAT PROPOSAL

           AND IT WAS ACCEPTED, NOT ONLY BY THIS HOUSE BUT BY THE
           CONGRESS, MEMORIALIZED IN THE COMMERCE-STATE-JUSTICE
           APPROPRIATIONS BILL. AS WE ALL KNOW NOW, TO OUR REGRET, THE
           PREPARATIONS FOR THAT W.T.O. MEETING WERE INADEQUATE TO MEET
           THE DELUGE OF DEMONSTRATORS WHO DESCENDED ON SEATTLE, SOME OF
           THEM QUITE
{END: 2000/02/02 TIME: 14-15 , Wed.  106TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}