[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 44 (Wednesday, April 20, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 20, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                THE EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE ACT OF 1994

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Madam President, I send to the desk a bill, The 
Education Infrastructure Act of 1994.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The legislation will be referred to at 
appropriate committee.
  (The remarks of Ms. Moseley-Braun pertaining to the introduction of 
S. 2034 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you very much. I yield the floor and I thank 
Senator Heflin and Senator Grassley for their indulgence in allowing me 
this time on the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. HEFLIN. I am under the impression Senator Cochran has an 
amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I do have an amendment, and I hope to 
be able to offer it soon.
  I was told the managers would like me to offer the amendment as soon 
as the distinguished Senator from Illinois completed her remarks. I was 
here on the floor for that purpose.
  I understand now, though, the Senator from Ohio has some questions 
that he wants answered about the amendment. He is trying to get the 
answers, and I will be back about 5 o'clock to offer the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Madam President, as I indicated to my friend from 
Mississippi, I do not know enough about his amendment. I do not think I 
have any objections to it. I am not trying to stall him in going 
forward with it.
  There are numbers of amendments that are kicking around right at the 
moment. And by 5 o'clock we will be able to see if we can work it out. 
If we can do it earlier, I will call him at his office and urge him to 
come back to the floor if he would.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Madam President, I would like to proceed with this bill 
and get this bill moving.
  There are a number of amendments that we have that have been cleared 
by both sides, the Democratic amendments, Republican amendments, and 
all of this.
  I am afraid we are getting caught up in playing games. I think each 
amendment ought to be like a barrel and stand on its bottom and on its 
own merits.
  I would hope that as to both sides that indicated some matter 
pertaining to this we could proceed with the amendments that have been 
cleared by both sides. For example, there is an amendment by the 
Senator from California, who is presiding right now. There is no 
objection to it.
  But we are getting into a situation of where because of an amendment 
that is controversial and may have to be voted on everything else is 
being held up. It is sort of a leverage situation.
  I would hope that we could start proceeding on this and the 
amendments that are agreed to and go ahead with them.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HEFLIN. Yes.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Is it my understanding from the remarks of the manager 
of the bill that the managers would like Senators to proceed to offer 
their amendments? Is that the understanding?
  Mr. HEFLIN. Yes, we would like to do it. The Senator's amendment, I 
understood, was cleared by both sides.
  If there are objections to it, do it, but I would like to proceed 
here and move forward and try to get as many of these amendments either 
adopted or withdrawn or voted on or in one way or the other if we 
could.
  Mr. COCHRAN. If the Senator would yield further, I sympathize with 
the situation, and I am perfectly happy and prepared to send an 
amendment to the desk and lay it before the Senate. If there are 
discussions or questions, I will be happy to try to respond to them.
  So, if that is the view of the managers of the bill, I am certainly 
happy to oblige and hope that we can answer whatever questions the 
Senator from Ohio or any other Senator may have about the amendment.
  Mr. METZENBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Madam President, I want to say to my colleague--and 
all three of us have been around here a long time--all three of us know 
the procedures of the Senate are such that it is not too difficult, if 
you stay on the floor, to delay consideration of a matter. I do not 
intend to do that and I have no desire to do that.
  But it is my understanding that certain amendments of the Senator 
from Ohio had been cleared. I now understand one of them may be in some 
controversy or some difficulty.
  I came over to the floor in order to try to work out that amendment. 
Once that amendment is given a green light--and I do not believe it to 
be controversial--then it seems to me we might be able to pass about 15 
or 20 amendments, including the amendment of the Senator from 
Mississippi, a number of the amendments of the Senator from Ohio, and a 
number of amendments of other Members of this body.
  So if I have to stay here on the floor with reference to the 
amendment of the Senator from Mississippi, protecting the floor in 
order to get this--I am not at liberty and I am not in a position to 
try to work out the one more controversial amendment that seems to be 
creating the problem at the moment.
  I am frank to say to both the Senator from Mississippi and the 
Senator from Alabama that I do not know why the amendment of the 
Senator from Ohio, which has to do with retiree benefits, is at issue 
or is a problem. I thought the matter had been worked out. As a matter 
of fact, the Senator from Ohio has retreated from an earlier position 
that he had taken with respect to the same matter, and an earlier 
position that this body adopted.
  But I think that, if given a little time in order to try to work it 
out, I think that, hopefully, I will be able to do so. I am not sure 
where the stumbling block is. I do not mean to suggest either the 
Senator from Mississippi or the Senator from Alabama is the stumbling 
block, but I do not know that answer. I am waiting to discuss the 
subject with my staff, whom, I might say, I do not see on the floor at 
this very moment. They may be in the cloakroom.
  I just urge both of my colleagues to just give me a little time, and 
I will be glad to get back in here. I do not have any really basic 
opposition to the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Of course.
  Mr. COCHRAN. If I understand what the Senator has said, he is going 
to obstruct or would be prepared to obstruct the passage of my 
amendment, which may be meritorious and to which there is no objection 
on either side for any reason, in an effort to try to get leverage to 
pass his amendment, which is controversial and with which many Senators 
may disagree on the merits? I do not know what the Senator's amendment 
is.
  But is my understanding of what the Senator is stating to the Senate 
correct?
  Mr. HEFLIN. Might I intervene here as a referee?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. HEFLIN. No. 1, Madam President, there are two amendments that I 
know of which Senator Metzenbaum has offered that are agreeable, but 
they are being held hostage. There are, on the other hand, because of 
that, or maybe for other reasons, Senator Cochran's amendment and 
several other amendments on that side of the aisle which are being held 
hostage.
  Now, what I am saying is, let us quit this leverage and hostage 
holding. Let us go ahead and pass all amendments, and the amendment 
that is causing all the fire and creating all the controversy, either 
work it out or vote it up or down.
  I do not think we ought to hold hostage these other amendments on 
either side. And, in effect, maybe Senator Metzenbaum is wrong; but, on 
the other hand, it started out that they were refusing to allow Senator 
Metzenbaum's amendment, on which there had been no controversy, to be 
passed.
  So it is a matter of, again, Newton's third law of motion, that there 
is a corresponding force that is affected. It comes in one side, then 
the force comes back from the other side.
  So let us try to get it done. I am trying to get the bill passed and 
to do it as harmoniously as I can. But there are a lot of leverages and 
there is a lot of hostage holding and that sort of thing. Let us not 
play games. Let us proceed with the bill.
  Mr. METZENBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Madam President, there is sometimes a time to fight; 
sometimes a time to agree; and sometimes a time to suggest the absence 
of a quorum, which I do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I do not know how many hours, days, 
months, and years, my friend from Alabama has been on this legislation, 
or its antecedent legislation. It seems as though every time he gets 
close, very few people have any disagreement with the underlying 
substance of what he is attempting to do, and what needs to be done is 
obvious. And yet he always seems to get himself caught in a crossfire 
on matters that do not directly relate to the legislation he brings out 
of the Judiciary Committee, out of his subcommittee, and to the floor.
  I hope that whatever ancillary issues there are, unrelated issues 
there are, could be resolved in another context, because we really 
should be moving ahead with this legislation.
  As I said, he has worked tirelessly on it. No one knows more about 
the issue than the distinguished senior Senator from Alabama.
  And, besides, I do not want it back in the Judiciary Committee again. 
I would like very much for him to succeed in seeing this moved.
  But I never underestimate the tenacity and the ability of my friend 
from Ohio and those on the Republican side who tend to be his nemesis, 
or he theirs.
  I hope that sooner, rather than later, order will prevail and our 
friend from Alabama, the manager of this legislation, will be able to 
move it off his plate, off the Senate floor, to the House, to a 
conference, and to the President. I suspect that is his desire.
  I hope that is what we can do, because I ask the Senator from Alabama 
a question. How long has this been going on, trying to resolve the 
underlying issues here?
  Mr. HEFLIN. Well, it has been going on about two Congresses, I would 
say. The Senate passed it before, unanimously, 97 to zero. We passed 
the conference report. The House failed to pass the conference report 
in the last session of the last Congress.
  We are moving ahead this time, and hopefully the House can move on 
it.
  Of course, tactics are part of the game in the parliamentary 
proceedings, and somebody holds something hostage. But I think we ought 
to try to determine these things on the merits of each and every 
individual amendment.
  I appreciate the kind remarks of the distinguished chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee. He has been very tolerant of all of our activities 
on various and sundry bills. He has to face, many times, filibusters in 
his own committee--the only committee that I belong to where usually 
you will have a filibuster in a committee--but he always comes through. 
Somehow or another, we will come through. We will persevere in the long 
run. But it takes time, and it is a little frustrating.
  Mr. BIDEN. My mother used an expression that she heard used somewhere 
else. I think it comes out of some work of literature. When I say, 
``Mom, in the long run--'' she says, ``Honey, in the long run, we'll 
all be dead.''
  In the long run, we will be here 2 years later still working on this 
legislation. I hope we can move it.
  As I said, no one has worked any more tirelessly producing a solid 
piece of legislation, badly needed, than the Senator from Alabama. I 
think we should reward his hours and, in this case, years in the 
vineyard by moving on it quickly.
  Again, the vast majority of the Congress is for this. The courts are 
looking for it, and I believe the President is, as well.
  So I thank him and again implore my colleagues to let us move on to 
the merits of the legislation, if we can.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wellstone). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote 
ordered for 5:30 p.m. be moved to 5:45 p.m., with all other provisions 
of the previous agreement remaining in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HEFLIN. The reason for that is I understand there have been 
several Senators called to the White House and therefore they will be 
back by that time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1638

                    (Purpose: Committee amendments)

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1638.

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is located in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, this is a managers' amendment by which we 
try to make a lot of technical changes. There are some issue changes 
that have come to the attention of the Subcommittee on Courts after the 
markup of the bill by the Judiciary Committee. The issues which are 
included in this amendment are related directly to concerns in 
bankruptcy that should be addressed in this bill.
  We have included a number of changes which are in response to the 
letter which the Department of Justice sent to the committee. This 
letter was a review of S. 540, as well as their suggestions as to form 
and substance of some of the provisions in the bill.
  First, in response to the Department of Justice concern, the effect 
of S. 540 regarding curing mortgage arrearage under section 1322 of the 
code, we offered the suggested changes by adding specific language to 
the amendment in section 301 of S. 540 to ensure that there is finality 
to the time period in which a debtor may cure residential mortgage 
arrearage under chapter 13 plans. Without this language, the present 
provision could have a detrimental effect on residential mortgage 
markets in over 17 States.
  To ensure maximum price at sale for the debtor and to give the 
purchaser of foreclosed property, as well as the mortgage holder, some 
sense of finality, we have amended section 301 to include the words 
``prior to the consummation of a foreclosure sale'' after the word 
``judgment'' in paragraph C.
  Second, we have added additional language to the provision which 
encourages the circuits to set up bankruptcy appellate panels to hear 
appeals from bankruptcy courts. The Department of Justice voiced 
concern in its letter over whether the amendments in S. 540 were too 
restrictive on the circuits.
  To address this concern, we have added an additional standard for the 
circuit council to consider when determining whether or not to adopt a 
bankruptcy appellate panel service.
  Third, we offer in this amendment some other changes suggested by the 
Department of Justice:
  To amend section 105 by replacing the word ``subsection'' with 
``section'' in the two places it appears in subsection (D);
  To amend subsection 204 of S. 540 to list the correct subsection, 
365(D)(3), which is being amended;
  To correct the reference to the subparagraph in section 216 of S. 
540;
  To amend section 302 of S. 540, to avoid confusion with an existing 
statute, 18 U.S.C. section 3613(F), which provides no fine imposed 
under the Sentencing Reform Act is dischargeable in bankruptcy. Thus, 
we offer the additional language ``unless otherwise provided by 18 
U.S.C. section 3613(F),'' be inserted after the words ``extent such 
fine exceeds $500.''
  A significant part of this amendment is the deletion of the entire 
chapter 10 provisions in S. 540. We still firmly believe there is a 
need in the code to allow small business to reorganize cheaply and 
expeditiously. After much time and discussion with interested parties, 
we have crafted amendments to chapter 11 which will accomplish much of 
what we set out to accomplish in chapter 10.
  The next addition that we have included in the managers' amendment 
standardizes the treatment of residential home mortgages throughout the 
code. A debtor is not allowed to cram down such a mortgage in 
proceedings under chapter 13 and 7. This same protection of the home 
mortgage industry is not provided under chapter 11 of the code.
  We propose to extend to chapter 11 the same language that is included 
in section 306 of S. 540. By extending this same language to apply to 
home mortgages under chapter 11, we make sure the congressional intent 
that a debtor not be allowed to modify the contract on their home 
mortgage is sustained throughout the code.
  Next, we have introduced substitute language to amend section 207 of 
S. 540 which deals with antialienation of retirement plans. This 
language makes clear Congress's intent to protect and provide fair 
treatment for pension plans and their members. In this substitute 
amendment, we have included the teachers and public employees 
retirement systems which provide retirement disability and other 
benefits to nearly 9 million active retired teachers and other public 
employees.
  The amendment to section 110 of this bill, premerger notification, is 
an accepted compromise of all parties concerned. The changes in this 
section are designed to put bankrupt mergers on the same fast track 
that cash tender offers have outside of bankruptcy. As you know, time 
is an important factor in the sale or reorganization of a bankrupt 
company, and this amendment will make sure that sales of these 
companies move swiftly.
  There is also a provision in this amendment which will assure the 
court that it has the power to issue an injunction and create a trust 
which is used for the payment of claims and demands pursuant to a 
reorganization plan.
  The amendment contains a modification of section 113, service of 
process, in the bill. The new language addresses the need to serve by 
certified mail federally insured deposit institutions. This will ensure 
that the cost of administering the estate will be kept at a minimum.
  We have also extended for bankruptcy and other nonlife-tenured judges 
similar life insurance benefits now available to all article III 
judges. This provision was included in S. 1673 and passed as a part of 
S. 1569 but was deleted by the House for jurisdictional reasons. It 
allows these judges the option of continuing to pay premiums throughout 
their retirement and thus maintain the value of their life insurance 
and provide security for their families.
  The amendment will address needed changes in section 365 of the code. 
This provision will protect the leasehold mortgagee as well as the 
tenants in the development of a ground lease property. The language is 
to simply make clear the intent of the section to protect the rights of 
lessees and mortgage lenders.
  The amendment contains noncontroversial provisions that have been 
crafted with input from bankruptcy experts. I am confident that the 
inclusion of these provisions in the bill will help to create a bill 
that will address many important bankruptcy issues.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. If I could, and I cannot do better than the chairman 
has done on the explanation of this amendment, I would take just a 
little bit of time to stress a couple of points within it that I think 
need to be explained because these are things, at least one of them on 
the original amendment coming out of committee, where some concerns 
were expressed and probably the way they have been addressed here in 
the rewrite makes the final product even better than when it came out 
of committee because, as passed by the committee, the bill would have 
created a separate chapter 10 pilot program relating to the bankruptcy 
procedures for small business.
  The managers' amendment deletes those provisions. Instead, the 
managers' amendment will modify chapter 11 and streamline the process 
of small business bankruptcies. At the same time, these changes will 
take effect on a nationwide basis immediately upon enactment.
  There were concerns raised during the time that this bill came out of 
committee and the present about the constitutional requirement for 
uniformity of bankruptcy laws around the United States. Obviously, the 
pilot programs would not be uniform, and so we felt we had to satisfy 
the constitutional requirements that they be uniform, and we should 
particularly express our appreciation to Senator Hatch for his 
cooperation in working on this issue as well as Senator Heflin's 
efforts.
  The managers' amendment will also prohibit cramdowns of residential 
mortgages in chapter 11. The bill was always designed to prevent these 
cramdowns and was originally drafted to prohibit individual residential 
cramdowns in all chapters open to individual debtors. However, the 
Supreme Court unexpectedly ruled that chapter 11 filings could be 
brought by individuals as well as by business debtors. To ensure that a 
loophole that would otherwise exist be closed, this managers' amendment 
includes provisions extending the same cramdown language to Chapter 11 
as well.
  So I fully support this amendment and feel it is a good addition to 
the original legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, the manager's amendment also includes a 
provision passed by the Senate last Congress to rectify a serious 
inequity in the current retirement system for Federal judges. This 
provision was included in S. 1673, and passed as part of S. 1569, last 
Congress, but delete by the other body for jurisdictional reasons. I 
believe it is crucial to correct this injustice.
  In 1984, Congress sought to compensate Federal judges in some way for 
the fact that they, unlike all other Federal employees, may not retire 
at age 55, but must wait until 65. At age 65, life insurance options 
are fairly limited and expensive. Thus we granted Federal judges the 
option of maintaining their optional life insurance, at cost to them. 
Unfortunately, article I judges were not included. This amendment 
provides these valuable members of the Federal judiciary the same 
opportunity as article III judges currently enjoy.
  Under the current system all Federal employees receive basic life 
insurance in an amount equal to their annual salary. All employees may 
opt to pay for additional life insurance at a value equivalent to one 
to five times their annual salary. The monthly insurance premiums vary 
depending on the level of coverage they choose and their age. Upon 
retirement article I judges no longer pay life insurance premiums, but 
they witness a decrease in their policy value by 2 percent per month. 
The security they have built up for their family and the substantial 
premiums they have paid for years of dedicated service essentially 
dwindles to nothing within 4 years. This amendment would give 
bankruptcy and other non-life-tenured judges the option of continuing 
to pay premiums throughout their retirement, and thus maintaining the 
value of their life insurance and providing security for their family. 
Upon the death of a judge, the full value of the life insurance policy 
would be available for his or her survivor.
  This amendment would eliminate the discrepancy between retiring 
article III judges and retiring article I judges, at little, if any, 
cost to the Government. The Congressional Budget Office has done an 
initial analysis on the cost of this program and concluded that if 
there is low participation by article I retirees, there could be a net 
savings to the Government of $1 to $5 million. At worst, there would be 
a cost of $1 to $5 million. Despite our extending this option to 
article III judges in 1984, rates have gone down over the past decade 
and the Office of Personnel Management reports a current significant 
surplus in the fund.
  The men and women who choose to serve as U.S. bankruptcy, magistrate 
and claims court judges are dedicated, intelligent, and talented 
individuals. They represent 45 percent of the Federal judiciary. Most 
have given up lucrative careers in the private sector to devote their 
lives to public service--improving the administration of justice 
throughout the United States. We need to maintain this level of 
excellence by providing programs that continue to attract strong 
candidates to the Federal bench. I hope that you join Senator Sasser 
and myself in support of this mission and its goal of providing 
retiring article I judges with a fair and cost-effective life insurance 
program.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I would like to thank my distinguished 
colleague from Alabama for including in his substitute amendment a 
provision passed by the Senate during the last Congress to rectify a 
serious inequity in the current retirement system for Federal judges. 
As a member of the Subcommittee on Civil Service, I am acutely aware of 
the need to maintain an equitable benefits package for all Federal 
employees.
  Currently, Federal judges are alone among Federal employees unable to 
retire at age 55, under the so-called rule of 80. We sought to offset 
this inequity by enacting, in 1984, the Bankruptcy Amendments and 
Federal Judgeship Act. This legislation allowed federal judges to 
maintain their optional additional life insurance after retirement, 
recognizing the limited availability of insurance options--and the 
costliness of them--to 65-year-old retirees.
  Unfortunately, article I judges--non-life-tenured judges were not 
included. Today we will redress this oversight.
  The current system provides article III judges with a valuable 
option--to continue their optional additional life insurance upon 
retirement. Article I judges--and those article III's who do not take 
advantage of this option--cease to pay premiums upon retirement, but 
see the value of their policy drop two percent per month. Thus, by age 
69, despite their years of service and payments in the FEGLI fund, 
these retired judges are left without this valuable financial 
protection for their spouse.
  The provision that the chairman has included in S. 540 would 
eliminate the discrepancy between retiring article III judges and 
retiring article I judges, at little, if any, cost to the government. 
As Chairman Heflin has indicated, there could even be a net savings to 
the Government. As a member of Civil Service Subcommittee, I believe 
there is a need for this legislation and that it is essential to 
maintaining a fair life insurance and retirement package for Federal 
employees.
  I want to tell you all about a distinguished constituent of mine, 
Judge Ralph Kelley, of Chattanooga. He began his career at age 14 as a 
page to one of the greatest men to ever serve in Congress, Sam Rayburn. 
He went on to serve as assistant Attorney General for Hamilton County, 
TN, as a member of the Tennessee House of Representatives, and was 
elected mayor of Chattanooga in 1962. He was a mayor of Chattanooga 
during the time that the civil rights movement reached its peak, and 
guided that city wisely through some very rough times.
  In 1969, Ralph Kelley went on to serve eastern Tennessee as a 
bankruptcy judge, a position he had held now for 25 years. He has 
dedicated his career to public service. He has enjoyed a successful 
career, the respect of his colleagues, and the appreciation of his 
fellow Tennesseans.
  I tell my colleagues this because Judge Kelley is an example of the 
kind of dedicated and compassionate public servants who are 
disadvantaged by the current system. He has opted to protect his wife 
and family by investing--for 25 years--in a life insurance policy with 
the Federal Government.
  However, as soon as he retires, the value of his life insurance will 
decrease by 2 percent per month, and in 4 years, he will have nothing 
to leave his wife in the way of financial security. This provision will 
not affect a lot of people, but it will dramatically affect a few, such 
as Ralph Kelley, who have devoted their lives to public service.
  I thank the chairman for including this valuable provision and I urge 
my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I urge adoption of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1638) was agreed to.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Campbell of Colorado be added as a cosponsor to the amendment offered 
previously today by Senator Brown of Colorado dealing with the 
supplemental injunction.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I will ask unanimous consent that a letter 
from the Congressional Budget Office, dated February 2, 1994, be 
printed in the Record, along with the attachments therein. This 
basically shows that the savings over the year for 1994 will amount to 
about $52 million savings by the adoption of this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that this material be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                 Washington, DC, February 2, 1994.
     Hon. Howell Heflin,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts and Administrative 
         Practices, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
     prepared the enclosed revised cost estimate for S. 540, the 
     Bankruptcy Amendments Act of 1993. This estimate supersedes 
     our transmittal of October 12, 1993, and incorporates 
     information that we have recently received from the Joint 
     Committee on Taxation regarding the revenue impact of section 
     115 of the bill.
       Enactment of S. 540 would affect direct spending and 
     receipts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures, as required by 
     section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, would apply to the bill.
       If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
     pleased to provide them.
           Sincerely,
                                             Robert D. Reischauer,
                                                         Director.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

       1. Bill number: S. 540.
       2. Bill title: Bankruptcy Amendments Act of 1993.
       3. Bill status: As reported by the Senate Committee on the 
     Judiciary on October 28, 1993.
       4. Bill purpose: S. 540 would:
       Authorize the appropriation of $1.5 million to establish a 
     National Bankruptcy Review Commission to investigate and 
     study issues relating to the Bankruptcy Code;
       Establish a new bankruptcy chapter (chapter 10) for small 
     businesses with debts less than $2.5 million, to be tested in 
     eight districts for a three-year period;
       Prohibit small business investment companies (SBICs) from 
     filing for bankruptcy under chapter 7;
       Increase the debt limit for filing a chapter 13 case from 
     $350,000 to $1,000,000 and remove the limit altogether in 
     certain cases;
       Require that bankruptcy trustees, at meetings of creditors, 
     ask debtors a series of questions regarding the consequences 
     of filing for bankruptcy;
       Expand the list of cases for which the filing of a 
     bankruptcy petition does not operate as a stay;
       Establish civil and criminal penalties for persons who 
     negligently or fraudulently prepare bankruptcy petitions;
       Amend current law with respect to a debtor's pension fund 
     obligations; and
       Make many other changes and additions to the federal laws 
     relating to bankruptcy.

              5. ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:              
                [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 1994   1995   1996   1997   1998   1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenues: Estimated revenues..      6     27     17     -1  (\1\)  (\1\)
Direct spending:                                                        
    Estimated budget authority    -52      0  (\1\)  (\1\)  (\1\)  (\1\)
    Estimated outlays.........    -52      0  (\1\)  (\1\)  (\1\)  (\1\)
Authorizations:                                                         
    Estimated authorization of                                          
     appropriations...........     -1      2      0      0     -1     -1
    Estimated outlays.........     -1      1  (\1\)  (\1\)     -1     -1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Less than $500,000.                                                  
                                                                        
Note: Negative revenue numbers indicate a loss of revenues and an       
  increase in the deficit.                                              

       The spending effects of this bill fall within budget 
     functions 370 and 750.
       Basis of Estimate: Revenues. CBO expects that the federal 
     government would lose revenues because of bankruptcy cases 
     filed under chapter 10. Under current law, such cases would 
     be filed under chapter 11 and quarterly fees would be paid, 
     with 60 percent of the fees recorded as governmental receipts 
     and the remainder as offsetting collections. Under S. 540, no 
     quarterly fees would be required for cases filed under 
     chapter 10. CBO estimates that, net of income and payroll tax 
     offsets, the resulting revenue loss would likely be about $1 
     million annually over the three-year test period, beginning 
     in fiscal year 1995. This estimate assumes that quarterly 
     fees would average about $2,000 per case per year, and that 
     about 1,000 such cases would be filed annually under current 
     law. This estimate also assumes that the eight districts 
     selected will be average in terms of the number and size of 
     bankruptcy filings. If the districts chosen are above average 
     in terms of the number and size of bankruptcy filings, the 
     revenue loss would be larger.
       Section 115 of the bill would expand the list of cases for 
     which the filing of a bankruptcy petition does not operate as 
     a stay. This change would result in the earlier collection of 
     taxes in certain situations. The Joint Committee on 
     Taxation estimates that this provision would generate 
     additional revenue of $52 million over the fiscal years 
     1994-1996 and small amounts in subsequent years.
       A number of other provisions could affect revenues, but we 
     expect that the budgetary impact would be insignificant. The 
     government would lose revenues to the extent that small 
     business investment companies would no longer file for 
     bankruptcy under chapter 7, and thus would no longer pay the 
     bankruptcy filing fee. Because there would be few such cases, 
     CBO does not expect this loss to be significant.
       S. 540 also would increase the debt limit for filing a 
     chapter 13 case from $350,000 to $1,000,000 and would 
     eliminate the limit altogether in certain cases. These 
     changes could result in a shifting of cases from chapter 7 to 
     chapter 13. To the extent that additional cases are filed 
     under chapter 13, revenues would increase by $45 per case. 
     CBO does not expect this additional revenue to be 
     significant, because the number of additional chapter 13 
     cases would be small.
       Finally, section 304 would impose civil and criminal 
     penalties for persons who negligently or fraudulently prepare 
     bankruptcy petitions. Both criminal and civil fines increase 
     receipts to the federal government. Criminal fines would be 
     deposited in the Crime Victims Fund and would be spent in the 
     follwing year. CBO does not expect this additional revenue or 
     direct spending to be significant, however, because the 
     proposed penalties are expected to deter such activity, which 
     is not widespread.
       Direct Spending. Under current law, SBICs may self-
     liquidate, file for bankruptcy under chapter 7 or 
     reorganization under chapter 11, or liquidate pursuant to 
     receivership laws under the aegis of the Small Business 
     Administration (SBA). Under S. 540, SBICs would be prohibited 
     from filing for bankruptcy under chapter 7. As a result, more 
     SBICs would be liquidated using the receivership laws under 
     the supervision of the SBA. This change would result in 
     additional collections by the SBA from SBIC loans that have 
     already been made and guaranteed. Since 1990, roughly 50 
     percent of liquidating SBICs have chosen to use chapter 7. 
     When a SBIC seeks protection under chapter 7, the SBA 
     recovers little or nothing, as the SBA's claim is unsecured 
     and subordinated to the SBIC's other debts. When the SBA has 
     acted as receiver, it has recovered up to 100 percent of its 
     guarantee. In addition, a SBIC's liquidation by a court-
     appointed receiver can be substantially more costly than a 
     similar liquidation with the SBA acting as receiver.
       CBO estimates that these changes would result in increased 
     collections to the federal government totaling $39 million 
     over the 1994-1998 period and additional amounts thereafter, 
     resulting from guarantee authority that has already been 
     provided. Under credit reform, such changes in receipts are 
     recorded in the budget on a present value basis. We estimate 
     the resulting budgetary impact over the life of the 
     guarantees to be a decrease in outlays of $52 million in 
     fiscal year 1994.
       Section 207 would clarify current law to protect pension 
     plans and would restrict a bankruptcy court's ability to 
     require a pension plan to disburse pension funds to a 
     creditor. This amendment could result in savings to the 
     federal government by reducing the Pension Benefit Guaranty 
     Corporation's (PBGC's) liability in the event that a pension 
     plan is terminated and underfunded. Because of the 
     uncertainty of future claims to the PBGC, a precise estimate 
     of the potential savings is not possible at this time.
       Spending Dependent on Appropriation Action. CBO assumes 
     that the $1.5 million authorized to be appropriated for the 
     National Bankruptcy Review Commission would be appropriated 
     for fiscal year 1995 and spent in fiscal years 1995-1997.
       CBO expects that recoveries from liquidating SBICs would 
     increase for guarantee authority provided after 1992 as well 
     as for that already provided. The latter has a direct 
     spending impact, as discussed above, and the former would 
     affect future appropriation actions. As a result of credit 
     reform, the Congress must annually appropriate subsidy budget 
     authority for credit programs. This subsidy budget authority 
     is essentially the amount a credit program is expected to 
     lose, on a net present value basis, on loans or guarantees 
     made during that fiscal year. Increased recoveries would 
     decrease the amount the program would be expected to lose, 
     and thus decrease the subsidy budget authority the Congress 
     would have to appropriate for a given level of loan 
     guarantees. CBO estimates that prohibiting SBICs from seeking 
     protection under chapter 7 would decrease the necessary 
     subsidy appropriation for the SBIC program from 15.4 percent 
     of the face value of loan guarantees to 14.9 percent. The 
     subsidy rate for minority enterprise SBIC direct loans would 
     decline from 38.1 percent to 37.6 percent, and the subsidy 
     rate for minority investment company loan guarantees would 
     decline from 28.9 percent to 28.4 percent. Because of these 
     declines in subsidy rates, CBO estimates that the SBA would 
     need $1 million less in annual subsidy appropriations to 
     maintain these programs at the baseline levels of activity.
       CBO estimates that the government would lose offsetting 
     collections--about $1 million annually in fiscal years 1995 
     through 1997--associated with cases that would be filed under 
     chapter 10. Under current law, such cases would be filed 
     under chapter 11 and quarterly fees would be paid. Forty 
     percent of the fees are recorded as offsetting collections to 
     the U.S. trustee system fund and are available for spending 
     from that account. The loss of fees would reduce the amount 
     available for spending by the trustee system from offsetting 
     collections and thus would necessitate an increase in 
     appropriations if the same level of activity is to be 
     maintained. This estimate therefore includes $1 million a 
     year in additional appropriated spending for the three years 
     of the test program.
       The requirement that bankruptcy trustees ask debtors a 
     series of questions at meetings of creditors would probably 
     not impose a significant burden on the U.S. trustees. 
     Currently, private trustees attend meetings of creditors, 
     but U.S. trustee program personnel generally do not. To 
     the extent that private trustees would be able to fulfill 
     this requirement, any additional costs to the federal 
     government would probably not be significant. However, if 
     this provision were interpreted to require that U.S. 
     trustee program personnel attend all meetings of creditors 
     and ask debtors the series of questions, the additional 
     staffing costs associated with this requirement would be 
     $10 million to $20 million annually.
       Other provisions of the bill would not result in 
     significant costs to the federal government.
       6. Pay-as-you-go considerations: Section 252 of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
     sets up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting 
     direct spending or receipts through 1998. CBO estimates that 
     enactment of S. 540 would affect direct spending and 
     receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to 
     this bill. The following table summarizes the estimated pay-
     as-you-go impact of S. 540.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        1994   1995   1996   1997   1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in outlays....................    -52      0      0      0      0
Change in receipts...................      6     27     17     -1      0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       7. Estimated cost to State and local governments: None.
       8. Estimated comparison: None.
       9. Previous CBO estimate: CBO prepared a cost estimate for 
     S. 540 on October 12, 1993, which did not include any revenue 
     effects of section 115. This estimate supersedes the previous 
     one and incorporates an estimate of the budgetary impact of 
     section 115 recently provided by the Joint Committee on 
     Taxation. It also projects the budgetary impact of the bill 
     through fiscal year 1999.
       10. Estimate prepared by: Mark Grabowicz, Susanne Mehlman, 
     and John Webb (226-2860); Wayne Boyington (226-2820); Melissa 
     Sampson (226-2720).
       11. Estimate approved by: C.G. Nuckols, Assistant Director 
     for Budget Analysis.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Conrad). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1639

(Purpose: To amend section 507(a)3 of title 11, United States Code, to 
 give priority to certain claims of independent sales representatives)

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
that it be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1639.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the end of title II add the following:

     SEC. 222. PRIORITY FOR INDEPENDENT SALES REPRESENTATIVES.

       Section 507(a)(3) of title 11, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) Third, allowed unsecured claims, but only to the 
     extent of $2,000 for each individual or corporation, as the 
     case may be, earned within 90 days before the date of the 
     filing of the petition or the date of the cessation of the 
     debtor's business, whichever occurs first, for--
       ``(A) wages, salaries, or commissions, including vacation, 
     severance, and sick leave pay earned by an individual; or
       ``(B) sales commissions earned by an individual or by a 
     corporation with only 1 employee, acting as an independent 
     contractor in the sale of goods or services for the debtor in 
     the ordinary course of the debtor's business if, and only if, 
     during the 12 months preceding that date, at least 75 percent 
     of the amount that the individual or corporation earned by 
     acting as an independent contractor in the sale of goods or 
     services was earned from the debtor;''.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment establishes the priority 
for expenses and claims of bankruptcy as it relates to independent 
sales representatives.
  Section 507 of title 11 of the Bankruptcy Code provides for the 
priority order for expenses and claims in bankruptcy. The third 
priority set out in this section, specifically section 507(a)3, is for 
unsecured claims up to $2,000 for wages, salaries or commissions, 
including vacation, severance and sick leave pay earned by individuals 
within 90 days before the bankruptcy petition was filed or the date of 
cessation of the debtor's business, whichever comes first.
  The purpose of this priority is to ensure that employees, including 
those who work on commission, are provided a minimum degree of 
protection when their employer files for bankruptcy.
  Under current law, other individuals who derive their income as 
independent sales representatives by selling products or goods for the 
debtor firm are not provided any protection for their loss of income 
when the firm files for bankruptcy.
  My amendment would amend this section to include the independent 
sales representatives and permit them to enjoy the same status as a 
commissioned sales employee of a debtor firm which goes into 
bankruptcy. In some instances, corporations exist in the name of one 
employee truly acting as an independent contractor for the debtor firm 
in the sale of goods and services, and in those instances the 
corporation would be included under the terms of my amendment.
  The intent and the effect of the amendment is to provide equitable 
treatment--we consider it equitable--tantamount to that which is 
provided for employees of a firm, even though they may be called 
independent sales representatives and they may not technically be 
considered a direct employee.
  To ensure that that is the only class that would be described by the 
amendment, the amendment provides that the employee or the sales 
representative would have to earn at least 75 percent of his income 
during the previous year from the debtor firm.
  Only upon meeting that threshold of 75 percent for the previous 12 
months would an independent sales representative share in the 
bankruptcy estate in this priority order and, of course, then only up 
to the amount of $2,000, as provided for others in this same class, 
which would have been earned in the 90-day period prior to the 
bankruptcy filing.
  We have submitted this amendment for comment and consideration to the 
National Bankruptcy Conference, and we have received a favorable 
report. I am reading from a memorandum now, addressed to Members of the 
U.S. Senate, and included here is the amendment offered by this 
Senator, priority for independent sales representatives. The comment of 
the National Bankruptcy Conference is; ``Senator Cochran's language is 
an excellent clarification of existing law.''
  The independent sales representatives amendment will allow certain 
independent sales agents or independent contractors to enjoy the same 
priority in the bankruptcy estate as the employees of the bankrupt 
debtor.
  Until recently, section 507(a)(3), which gives employees of a 
bankrupt firm priority for a limited amount of wages and benefits they 
have earned was narrowly interpreted to only be available to employees 
of the bankrupt debtor and not to independent sales representatives.
  This interpretation is unfair in many circumstances and has led to 
inequitable results where independent contractors who make their living 
as independent contractors--particularly as sales agents have been 
unable to recover lost income from the bankruptcy estate.
  Typically, the work performed by an independent sales representative 
is similar to, and in many cases identical to, the work performed by an 
employee of a firm, but such an individual may be excluded under the 
Bankruptcy Code for no other reason than the characterization of his or 
her work status.
  While some independent sales representatives may derive their income 
from a number of firms which limits the effect of a single firm's 
bankruptcy, those who derive most of their earnings from a single firm 
are not so fortunate, as they cannot recover even the limited amount 
that is currently available to firm employees.
  The Cochran amendment is intended to address the latter circumstance 
where an independent sales representative stands to lose a significant 
amount of income due to the bankruptcy of a single firm.
  The amendment requires that the independent sales representative must 
have derived at least 75 percent of his or her income during the 
previous 12-month period from the single firm filing a bankruptcy 
petition.
  Even after meeting that significant income threshold, an independent 
sales representative would not receive any windfall from the provision, 
and in fact, could receive no more than an employee currently 
receives--priority for a claim of up to $2,000 that may have been 
earned during the 90-day period prior to the bankruptcy filing.
  Every year, thousands of sales agents lose money owed to them because 
they do not fit into the priority classification's definition of 
employee.
  The unfairness of this situation is amplified because independent 
contractors work without the security of many employee benefits such as 
health insurance, profit sharing plans, life insurance, and other 
benefits available to employees, but not to independent sales 
representatives.
  The amendment would codify the inclusion of independent contractors 
in the priority section 507(a)(3) that has historically been limited to 
employees.
  The amendment would also eliminate another inequitable result of the 
current exclusion of independent contractors under the priority section 
of the Bankruptcy Code.
  Under current interpretations of section 507(a)(3), an individual or 
mom-and-pop business incorporated to limit potential liability, but run 
as an unincorporated sole-proprietorship is excluded from coverage.
  The judicial interpretation that this section is an exclusive remedy 
for natural persons, excluding all corporations, has the effect of 
putting form over substance.
  Individuals who are incorporated or incorporated mom-and-pop 
businesses are being shut out from the priority due to the form in 
which they run their business not as a result of the way the business 
is actually run.
  The amendment is narrowly drawn to provide an exception for only 
those corporations which are in fact individuals conducting business 
and would exclude from the priority all businesses with more than one 
employee.
  The amendment will establish a fair priority in the Bankruptcy Code 
for those independent sales representatives who, like employees, derive 
all or most of their income from a single firm in bankruptcy.
  This amendment will be especially helpful to the most vulnerable 
manufacturers agent who is on his own and can least afford to have his 
manufacturer declare bankruptcy.
  Mr. HEFLIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I believe that the services that are 
provided by independent sales representatives of this country are 
equally as important to the survival of a company as is the work 
performed by the employees at the factories of those companies. It is 
in that same vein that I support the idea behind this amendment to give 
priority to certain claims of the independent sales representative. 
Senator Cochran's amendment would make the claim of the independent 
sales representative equal to the claim presently allowed, under the 
Bankruptcy Code, for an employee.
  The Bankruptcy Code specifies the kinds of claims that are entitled 
to priority in distribution, as well as the order of priority. This 
system was designed to address special circumstances or special needs 
which warrant certain exceptions. In particular, wages, salaries, or 
commissions of employees, which without the priority exception would be 
unsecured claims, are accorded a third priority in distribution of the 
estate.
  The purpose behind this third place in priority is, in part, to 
insure that employees will not abandon a failing business for fear of 
not being paid; thus, they will contribute to the rehabilitation of the 
company. This same rationale also holds true for the independent sales 
representatives. He or she plays a major part in the rehabilitation of 
a company by making sure that company's goods are marketed throughout 
the country and that the orders for those goods continue.
  I support this amendment and the provisions which limit its 
applicability to independent sales representatives who derive at least 
75 percent of their previous year's income from the debtor corporation. 
By limiting the applicability of the amendment, we assure that those 
people who can really affect the rehabilitation of the debtor company 
are rewarded for their perseverance.
  The independent sales representatives who will be greatly affected by 
the bankruptcy of a company are the type of employees which the 
drafters of the code intended to benefit from the special priority 
employees are granted in section 507 of the code.
  For these reasons I support this amendment with the provision with 
the limitation language.
  The impasse we have been in with regard to the submission of other 
amendments is present. But Senator Metzenbaum has agreed that Senator 
Cochran lay down his amendment, and that we not vote on it at this 
time, or not pass it.
  I do not think there are any objections to his amendment. The 
amendment was submitted. There have been a lot of negotiations going 
on. Senator Cochran has been amenable to working out an amendment that 
meets the agreement of both Senator Grassley and myself and our staffs, 
as well as interested parties like the National Bankruptcy Conference, 
and I think maybe the American Bankruptcy Institute. They have helped 
in regard to looking at some of these matters.
  We appreciate very much Senator Cochran's working with us and working 
out an agreement. I think it is a good amendment. Basically, it applies 
where a sales representative derives at least--I believe--75 percent of 
his income from one employer, and therefore he really is almost in the 
position of being an employee. It does not allow for those sales 
representatives who maybe have 6 or 7, and maybe get 10 percent here 
and that sort of thing. That would certainly be an abuse if that were 
to be allowed. But I think this limits it and limits it properly.
  It is a good amendment, and I think we ought to adopt it. But at this 
time, I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings on this 
amendment be set aside, subject to it being called back before the 
floor with the agreement of Senator Cochran, Senator Grassley, and 
myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HEFLIN. I further ask unanimous consent that no second-degree 
amendment be in order to the Cochran amendment, No. 1639.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HEFLIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote 
ordered for 5:45 be moved to 6 p.m., with all other provisions of the 
previous agreement remaining in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1639

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, in regard to the Cochran amendment which 
we laid aside and delayed, Senator Cochran is now agreeable to passing 
it. My understanding is Senator Grassley is agreeable, and I am 
agreeable. Senator Metzenbaum has no objection to it.
  So I ask unanimous consent that the Cochran amendment dealing with 
independent sales representatives now be in order to be considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the Cochran amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
Mississippi.
  The amendment (No. 1639) was agreed to.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________