[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 87 (Thursday, June 21, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6603-S6607]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. GRASSLEY.
  S. 1076. A bill to provide for the review of agriculture mergers and 
acquisitions by the Department of Agriculture and to outlaw unfair 
practices in the agriculture industry, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as most of my colleagues know, 
agriculture is a crucial industry for Iowa. The small, independent 
family farmer is an important thread which holds together my State's 
cultural, economic and social fabric. In fact, the family farmer is one 
of the best things about Iowa's heritage. My colleagues are well aware 
that I'm committed to preserving and supporting this valuable member of 
Iowa's communities.
  Agriculture is a risky business. I know that from personal 
experience, I've lived and worked on a farm all my life. But these 
days, farmers feel especially vulnerable. ``Merger-mania'' has been 
running rampant, with large companies joining forces to create new 
business giants in every sector of the economy, including agriculture.
  The agriculture sector has witnessed a number of mega-mergers and 
alliances affecting grain and livestock. And the independent producer 
is seeing fewer choices of who to buy from and who to sell to. More and 
more family farmers and independent producers are feeling the pressure 
and impact of concentration in agriculture. Good men and women who have 
farmed for years and years are going out of business. Yet, the 
independent farmer is one of the most efficient businessman in our 
Nation's economy. That's why the United States can feed itself and a 
good portion of the world.
  I've said before that I am not of the belief that all mergers are in 
and of themselves wrong or unfair to family farmers. But we need to 
make sure that open and fair access to the marketplace is preserved for 
everyone. We need to make sure that large businesses are not acting in 
a predatory or anti-competitive manner. We need to make sure that 
family farmers and independent producers can compete on a level playing 
field. That's how we can keep our economy strong, our agricultural 
community vibrant and competitive, and our consumers happy.
  Now we've heard that a Delaware Court has ordered Tyson Foods and IBP 
to resume their merger discussions, because Tyson Foods did not have a 
contractually permissible reason to terminate its merger agreement with 
IBP when it announced in March that it was rescinding the transaction. 
While I do not want to take issue with the court's findings, I am 
concerned about the fact that this merger looks like it will go through 
and, consequently, the meat industry will consolidate even further. 
Beginning last September when Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette/Rawhide 
Holdings Corporation, then Smithfield Foods, and finally Tyson Foods 
started a bidding war for IBP, I pushed the Justice Department to 
carefully scrutinize each possible business combination. In January, I 
wrote the Justice Department urging it to vigorously review the Tyson-
IBP transaction from all angles, and to consult with the Agriculture 
Department to better ascertain the ramifications of such a merger on 
family farmers and independent producers. I would have thought that a 
combination of the Nation's largest poultry producer with the world's 
largest producer of beef and pork products would result in 
significantly reduced market opportunities, as well as increased the 
possibility of anti-competitive business practices. I shared the 
concerns of many farmers and producers that this transaction would 
adversely impact their ability to obtain fair prices for their 
products. I was also concerned that a combined IBP-Tyson presence in 
the retail market would negatively affect product choice and the prices 
consumers pay at the meat counter.
  But the Justice Department determined earlier this year that the 
potential negative impact on competition was insufficient to sustain an 
injunction against the merger under the antitrust laws. Because the 
Justice Department completed its antitrust review in January, I 
understand that there is nothing further for the Department to do in 
terms of an antitrust review if the parties re-engage their merger 
talks in due course and without changes to the transaction. But I 
remain seriously concerned about the impact this merger will have on 
our farm community and I hope that, if this merger is ultimately 
completed, the Justice Department will carefully monitor whether a 
merged IBP-Tyson will have unintended consequences on competition in 
the meat economy and, if it does, take appropriate action.
  Nevertheless, this development re-energizes my gut feeling that we 
need to somehow change the way ag mergers are reviewed and approved. 
So, today I'm re-introducing a bill I authored last year, the 
``Agriculture Competition Enhancement Act,'' to help address some of 
the competition concerns of America's family farmers and independent 
producers. My bill will refocus the merger review process as it 
pertains to agri-business, and will enhance the Department of 
Agriculture's ability to address anti-competitive activity in 
agriculture. I believe that bringing to the table a greater 
understanding of ag producers' needs when ag mergers are reviewed is 
the biggest missing element to making the merger review process as fair 
as possible. Closing this gap is the heart of my proposal.
  Several provisions in the ``Agriculture Competition Enhancement Act'' 
are based on proposals by the American Farm Bureau, the largest 
organization representing producers of agricultural commodities. 
However, I'd like to briefly discuss what I believe to be the most 
important components of this bill: the enhancement of the Department of 
Agriculture's role in the Hart-Scott-Rodino review process, the 
creation of a new ``impact on family farmers and independent 
producers'' standard of review by the Department of Agriculture for ag 
mergers, and the expansion of the Department of Agriculture's ability 
to take regulatory and enforcement action with respect to anti-
competitive and unfair practices in the agricultural sector.

  Far more than the Justice Department or the Federal Trade Commission, 
the Department of Agriculture has extraordinary knowledge and expertise 
in agricultural matters. The Department of Agriculture formulates ag 
policy for the Nation, and works closely with the farm community about 
their various concerns. So, I believe that the Department of 
Agriculture is the office that can best assess the true impact of ag 
mergers and other business transactions on farmers, ranchers and 
independent producers. That is why my bill seeks to expand and enhance 
the role that the Department of Agriculture plays in the antitrust 
review of ag mergers.
  Currently, when the Justice Department or the Federal Trade 
Commission assesses a proposed merger, the focus of their analysis is 
weighted heavily toward the impact of the transaction on consumers. 
However, agriculture is unique. The antitrust laws already recognize 
this with the ag cooperative exception. But I believe we need to go 
further by requiring the Justice Department and Federal Trade 
Commission to specifically take into account the effect ag mergers have 
on family

[[Page S6604]]

farmers and producers. The ``Agriculture Competition Enhancement Act'' 
would do just that by requiring the Department of Agriculture to 
conduct an assessment of how a proposed ag transaction will affect 
family farmers and independent producers and their access to the 
market.
  I realize that presently the Justice Department and Federal Trade 
Commission informally consult with the Department of Agriculture when 
they consider ag mergers. But I believe that the current process does 
not sufficiently ensure that the farm community's concerns are being 
adequately addressed. The approach I advocate will ensure that 
producers' concerns and needs are fully discussed when federal agencies 
examine proposed ag business mergers. By guaranteeing inclusion and 
openness for family farmers and independent producers, we can go a long 
way toward alleviating their understandable anxiety about an 
increasingly concentrated industry.
  So my bill requires the Department of Agriculture to do a merger 
review that focuses on the needs of producers by examining whether the 
transaction would cause substantial harm to farmers' ability to compete 
in the marketplace. This review would be conducted simultaneously with 
the Justice Department's antitrust review, in order to minimize 
disruption to the current merger review process. Further, my bill 
encourages the parties and the Department of Agriculture to resolve 
concerns about the proposed merger during this timeframe. If its 
concerns are not satisfied, the Department of Agriculture has the 
ability to challenge the merger in federal court to either stop the 
merger, or to impose appropriate conditions or limitations on the 
proposed transaction.
  Recognizing that the Department of Agriculture needs to have an 
individual who will perform this new antitrust responsibility, my bill 
calls for the creation of a Special Counsel for Competition Matters at 
the Department of Agriculture. My bill also provides for increased 
funding for competition matters, and authorizes additional specialized 
staff--including antitrust attorneys and economists--at the Justice 
Department and Department of Agriculture, to ensure that these agencies 
have the appropriate resources to accomplish the goals of this 
legislation.
  Furthermore, under my bill, the competition protection authorities of 
the Department of Agriculture's Packers and Stockyards Division are 
extended to include anti-competitive practices by dealers, processors 
and commission merchants of all ag commodities. This expanded 
authority, based on provisions in the current Packers and Stockyards 
Act, will give the Department of Agriculture an increased ability to 
look at unfair, deceptive and predatory business practices by all ag 
businesses, not just packers and poultry farmers.
  As my colleagues from rural States know, ag concentration is one of 
the most important issues in agriculture today. Other members here in 
Congress have introduced bills or are presently working to craft their 
own legislative proposals to respond to the concerns of America's 
farmers. I want it to be clearly understood that it is my desire to 
work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as well as the Bush 
Administration, so that we can make meaningful progress on this issue. 
I know that my proposal has its critics, but I am willing and ready to 
listen to their concerns and work on constructive changes to my bill. 
But I truly hope that we can achieve a bipartisan compromise sooner 
rather than later on this issue, so we can calm farmers' fears about 
high levels of ag concentration.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1076

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Agriculture Competition 
     Enhancement Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Agricultural commodity.--The term ``agricultural 
     commodity'' has the meaning given the term in section 102 of 
     the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5602).
       (2) Agricultural cooperative.--The term ``agricultural 
     cooperative'' means an association of persons that meets the 
     requirements of the Capper-Volstead Act (7 U.S.C. 291 et 
     seq.; 42 Stat. 388).
       (3) Agricultural input supplier.--The term ``agricultural 
     input supplier'' means any person (excluding agricultural 
     cooperatives) engaged in the business of selling in commerce, 
     any product to be used as an input (including seed, germ 
     plasm, hormones, antibiotics, fertilizer, and chemicals, but 
     excluding farm machinery) for the production of any 
     agricultural commodity.
       (4) Assistant attorney general.--The term ``Assistant 
     Attorney General'' means the Assistant Attorney General in 
     charge of the Antitrust Division of the Department of 
     Justice.
       (5) Broker.--The term ``broker'' means any person 
     (excluding agricultural cooperatives) engaged in the business 
     of negotiating sales and purchases of any agricultural 
     commodity in commerce for or on behalf of the vendor or the 
     purchaser.
       (6) Commission merchant.--The term ``commission merchant'' 
     means any person (excluding agricultural cooperatives) 
     engaged in the business of receiving in commerce any 
     agricultural commodity for sale, on commission, or for or on 
     behalf of another.
       (7) Dealer.--The term ``dealer'' means any person 
     (excluding agricultural cooperatives) engaged in the business 
     of buying, selling, or marketing agricultural commodities in 
     commerce, except that no person shall be considered a dealer 
     with respect to sales or marketing of any agricultural 
     commodity of that person's own raising.
       (8) Processor.--The term ``processor'' means any person 
     (excluding agricultural cooperatives) engaged in the business 
     of handling, preparing, or manufacturing (including 
     slaughtering) of an agricultural commodity, or the products 
     of such agricultural commodity, for sale or marketing in 
     commerce for human consumption but not with respect to sale 
     or marketing at the retail level.
       (9) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.
       (10) Special counsel.--The term ``Special Counsel'' means 
     the Special Counsel for Competition Matters at the Department 
     of Agriculture.

     SEC. 3. SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR COMPETITION MATTERS.

       (a) In General.--There shall be established within the 
     Department of Agriculture a Special Counsel for Competition 
     Matters whose primary responsibilities shall be to--
       (1) analyze mergers within the food and agricultural 
     sectors, in consultation with the Chief Economist of the 
     Department of Agriculture, as required by section 4; and
       (2) assure that section 5, and the Packers and Stockyards 
     Act and related authorities, are enforced appropriately.
       (b) Appointment.--The Special Counsel for Competition 
     Matters shall be appointed by the President subject to the 
     advice and consent of the Senate.
       (c) Prosecutorial Authority.--The Special Counsel for 
     Competition Matters shall have the authority to bring any 
     civil action authorized pursuant to this Act on behalf of the 
     United States.

     SEC. 4. AGRIBUSINESS MERGER REVIEW AND ENFORCEMENT BY THE 
                   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

       (a) Notice of Filing.--The Assistant Attorney General or 
     the Federal Trade Commission, as appropriate, shall notify 
     the Secretary of Agriculture of any filing pursuant to 
     section 7A of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18a) involving a 
     merger or acquisition described in subsection (b)(1), and 
     shall give the Secretary of Agriculture the opportunity to 
     participate in the review proceedings.
       (b) Special Counsel Review.--
       (1) In general.--In addition to the antitrust review 
     conducted by the Federal Trade Commission or Assistant 
     Attorney General pursuant to section 7A of the Clayton Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 18a), and notwithstanding any participation in 
     those antitrust review proceedings, the Special Counsel for 
     Competition Matters, in consultation with the Chief Economist 
     of the Department of Agriculture, shall, contemporaneously, 
     observing the time period limitations provided under the 
     antitrust laws and the Department of Justice merger 
     guidelines, and utilizing the factors set forth in subsection 
     (d), review, to determine whether the proposed transaction 
     would cause substantial harm to the ability of independent 
     producers and family farmers to compete in the marketplace, 
     any merger or acquisition involving--
       (A) a dealer, processor, commission merchant, agricultural 
     input supplier, broker, or operator of a warehouse of 
     agricultural commodities with annual net sales or total 
     assets of more than $100,000,000 merging or 
     acquiring, directly or indirectly, any voting securities 
     or assets of any other dealer, processor, commission 
     merchant, agricultural input supplier, broker, or operator 
     of a warehouse of agricultural commodities with annual net 
     sales or total assets of more than $10,000,000; or
       (B) a dealer, processor, commission merchant, agricultural 
     input supplier, broker, or operator of a warehouse of 
     agricultural commodities with annual net sales or total 
     assets of more than $10,000,000 merging or acquiring, 
     directly or indirectly, any voting securities or assets of 
     any other dealer, processor, commission merchant, 
     agricultural input supplier, broker, or operator of a 
     warehouse of agricultural commodities with annual net sales 
     or total assets of more than

[[Page S6605]]

     $100,000,000 if the acquiring person would hold--
       (i) 15 percent or more of the voting securities or assets 
     of the acquired person; or
       (ii) an aggregate total amount of the voting securities and 
     assets of the acquired person in excess of $15,000,000.
       (2) Exception.--The Special Counsel for Competition 
     Matters, at his or her discretion, may also request that the 
     Assistant Attorney General or the Federal Trade Commission 
     require section 7A of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18a) 
     notification of an agriculture merger or acquisition of a 
     size smaller than is required under paragraph (1), if the 
     Special Counsel for Competition Matters believes that such 
     transaction will cause substantial harm to the ability of 
     independent producers and family farmers to compete in the 
     market.
       (c) Notification on Failure To Proceed.--If the Assistant 
     Attorney General or the Federal Trade Commission determines 
     not to proceed against the parties of an agriculture merger 
     or acquisition under the antitrust laws, the Assistant 
     Attorney General or the Federal Trade Commission immediately 
     shall notify the Special Counsel for Competition Matters of 
     such decision.
       (d) Standard of Review.--
       (1) In general.--The Special Counsel for Competition 
     Matters, in consultation with the Chief Economist of the 
     Department of Agriculture, shall review, and may challenge, a 
     merger or acquisition described in subsection (b) based on 
     whether the merger or acquisition would cause substantial 
     harm to the ability of independent producers and family 
     farmers to compete in the marketplace.
       (2) Factors.--The review shall consider, among other 
     factors--
       (A) the effect of the acquisition or merger on prices paid 
     to producers who sell to, buy from, or bargain with, one or 
     more of the parties involved in the merger or acquisition;
       (B) the likelihood that the acquisition or merger will 
     result in significantly increased market power for the new or 
     surviving entity;
       (C) the likelihood that the acquisition or merger will 
     increase the potential for anticompetitive or predatory 
     conduct by the new or surviving entity; and
       (D) whether the acquisition or merger will adversely affect 
     producers in a particular regional area, including an area as 
     small as a single State.
       (e) Evidentiary Powers.--The Special Counsel for 
     Competition Matters shall have the same powers as possessed 
     by the Assistant Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
     Commission under the antitrust laws, to obtain evidence 
     necessary to make determinations for the review described in 
     subsection (b).
       (f) Access to Attorney General and Federal Trade Commission 
     Information.--The Assistant Attorney General or the Federal 
     Trade Commission, as appropriate, shall make available to the 
     Special Counsel for Competition Matters any information, 
     including any testimony, documentary material, or related 
     information relevant to the review conducted by the Special 
     Counsel under this section which is under the control of the 
     Assistant Attorney General or the Federal Trade Commission. 
     Each agency will share information, consistent with 
     applicable confidentiality restrictions, in order to provide 
     the others with information believed to be potentially 
     relevant and useful to the others' enforcement 
     responsibilities. Such information may include legal, 
     economic, and technical assistance.
       (g) Transmittal of Findings of Special Counsel for 
     Competition Matters.--After receiving notice pursuant to 
     subsection (a) and conducting the review required in 
     subsection (b), the Secretary of Agriculture shall report to 
     the Assistant Attorney General or the Federal Trade 
     Commission, as appropriate, and the parties, the findings of 
     the review, including any recommended conditions on the 
     merger or suggested remedies.
       (h) Response to Special Counsel Findings.--
       (1) Antitrust agency response to findings.--The Assistant 
     Attorney General or the Federal Trade Commission, as 
     appropriate, shall provide the Special Counsel for 
     Competition Matters a response, including the rationale as to 
     why such findings and recommendations are accepted or 
     rejected.
       (2) Party opportunity to address findings.--The parties to 
     the merger or acquisition affected by such findings shall 
     have the opportunity to make changes to their operations or 
     structure, and to negotiate with the Special Counsel for 
     Competition Matters an acceptable resolution to any concerns 
     raised in the findings.
       (i) Enforcement.--
       (1) Judicial action.--Not later than 30 days after 
     notification by the Assistant Attorney General or the Federal 
     Trade Commission of their determination not to proceed 
     against the parties, the Special Counsel for Competition 
     Matters, if he or she is not satisfied with the review of, or 
     the conditions placed on, the merger or acquisition by the 
     Assistant Attorney General or the Federal Trade Commission, 
     may challenge the transaction in Federal court based on the 
     findings conducted in the review under this section.
       (2) Enforcement and damages.--The enforcement and damage 
     provisions of the antitrust laws shall apply with respect to 
     a violation of the substantial harm to producers and family 
     farmers standard of subsection (d) in the same manner as such 
     sections apply with respect to a violation of the antitrust 
     laws.
       (j) Conforming Amendments to Antitrust Laws.--Section 7A of 
     the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18a) is amended by inserting at 
     the end the following:
       ``(k)(1) Notwithstanding the threshold requirements of 
     sections 1, 2, and 3, the Federal Trade Commission and the 
     Assistant Attorney General may require, at the request of the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, notification pursuant to the rules 
     under subsection (d)(1) from the parties to a proposed merger 
     or acquisition in the agriculture industry.
       ``(2) The Assistant Attorney General or the Federal Trade 
     Commission, as appropriate, shall give the Secretary of 
     Agriculture the opportunity to participate in the review 
     under the antitrust laws of any proposed merger or 
     acquisition involving the agriculture industry.''.

     SEC. 5. PROHIBITIONS AGAINST UNFAIR PRACTICES IN TRANSACTIONS 
                   INVOLVING AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES AND 
                   ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Unlawful Practices.--It shall be unlawful for any 
     dealer, processor, commission merchant, or broker of any 
     agricultural commodity to--
       (1) engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, 
     or deceptive practice or device;
       (2) make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or 
     advantage to any particular person or locality in any respect 
     whatsoever, or subject any particular person or locality to 
     any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage;
       (3) sell or otherwise transfer to or for any other dealer, 
     processor, commission merchant, or broker, or buy or 
     otherwise receive from or for any other dealer, processor, 
     commission merchant, or broker, any article for the purpose 
     or with the effect of apportioning the supply between any 
     such persons, if such apportionment has the tendency or 
     effect of restraining commerce or of creating a monopoly;
       (4) sell or otherwise transfer to or for any other person, 
     or buy or otherwise receive from or for any other person, any 
     article for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or 
     controlling prices, or of creating a monopoly in the 
     acquisition of, buying, selling, or dealing in, any article, 
     or of restraining commerce;
       (5) engage in any course of business or do any act for the 
     purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling 
     prices, or of creating a monopoly in the acquisition of, 
     buying, selling, or dealing in, any article, or of 
     restraining commerce;
       (6) conspire, combine, agree, or arrange with any other 
     person--
       (A) to apportion territory for carrying on business;
       (B) to apportion purchases or sales of any article; or
       (C) to manipulate or control prices; or
       (7) conspire, combine, agree, or arrange with any other 
     person to do, or aid or abet the doing of, any act made 
     unlawful by paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5).
       (b) Procedure Before Secretary for Violations.--
       (1) Complaint; hearing; intervention.--If the Secretary has 
     reason to believe that any dealer, processor, commission 
     merchant, or broker, has violated or is violating any 
     provision of this section, the Secretary shall cause a 
     complaint in writing to be served upon the dealer, processor, 
     commission merchant, or broker, stating the charges in that 
     respect, and requiring the dealer, processor, commission 
     merchant, or broker, to attend and testify at a hearing at a 
     time and place designated therein, at least 30 days after the 
     service of such complaint; and at such time and place there 
     shall be afforded the dealer, processor, commission merchant, 
     or broker, a reasonable opportunity to be informed as to the 
     evidence introduced against him (including the right of 
     cross-examination), and to be heard in person or by counsel 
     and through witnesses, under such regulations as the 
     Secretary may prescribe. Any person for good cause shown may 
     on application be allowed by the Secretary to intervene in 
     such proceeding, and appear in person or by counsel. At any 
     time prior to the close of the hearing the Secretary may 
     amend the complaint; but in case of any amendment adding new 
     charges the hearing shall, on the request of the dealer, 
     processor, commission merchant, or broker, be adjourned for a 
     period not exceeding 15 days.
       (2) Report and order; penalty.--If, after such hearing, the 
     Secretary finds that the dealer, processor, commission 
     merchant, or broker, has violated or is violating any 
     provisions of this section covered by the charges, the 
     Secretary shall make a report in writing in which the 
     Secretary shall state his findings as to the facts, and 
     shall issue and cause to be served on the dealer, 
     processor, commission merchant, or broker, an order 
     requiring such dealer, processor, commission merchant, or 
     broker, to cease and desist from continuing such 
     violation. The testimony taken at the hearing shall be 
     reduced to writing and filed in the records of the 
     Department of Agriculture. The Secretary may also assess a 
     civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each such 
     violation. In determining the amount of the civil penalty 
     to be assessed under this section, the Secretary shall 
     consider the gravity of the offense, the size of the 
     business involved, and the effect of the penalty on the 
     person's ability to continue in business. If, after the 
     lapse of the period allowed for appeal or after the

[[Page S6606]]

     affirmance of such penalty, the person against whom the 
     civil penalty is assessed fails to pay such penalty, the 
     Secretary may proceed to recover such penalty by an action 
     in the appropriate district court of the United States.
       (3) Amendment of report or order.--Until the record in such 
     hearing has been filed in a court of appeals of the United 
     States, as provided in subsection (c), the Secretary at any 
     time, upon such notice and in such manner as the Secretary 
     deems proper, but only after reasonable opportunity to the 
     dealer, processor, commission merchant, or broker, to be 
     heard, may amend or set aside the report or order, in whole 
     or in part.
       (4) Service of process.--Complaints, orders, and other 
     processes of the Secretary under this section may be served 
     in the same manner as provided in section 5 of the Federal 
     Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45).
       (c) Conclusiveness of Order; Appeal and Review.--
       (1) Filing of petition; bond.--An order made under 
     subsection (b) shall be final and conclusive unless within 30 
     days after service the dealer, processor, commission 
     merchant, or broker, appeals to the court of appeals for the 
     circuit in which he has his principal place of business, by 
     filing with the clerk of such court a written petition 
     praying that the Secretary's order be set aside or modified 
     in the manner stated in the petition, together with a bond in 
     such sum as the court may determine, conditioned that such 
     dealer, processor, commission merchant, or broker, will pay 
     the costs of the proceedings if the court so directs.
       (2) Filing of record by secretary.--The clerk of the court 
     shall immediately cause a copy of the petition to be 
     delivered to the Secretary, and the Secretary shall thereupon 
     file in the court the record in such proceedings, as provided 
     in section 2112 of title 28, United States Code. If before 
     such record is filed the Secretary amends or sets aside his 
     report or order, in whole or in part, the petitioner may 
     amend the petition within such time as the court may 
     determine, on notice to the Secretary.
       (3) Temporary injunction.--At any time after such petition 
     is filed, the court, on application of the Secretary, may 
     issue a temporary injunction, restraining, to the extent it 
     deems proper, the dealer, processor, commission merchant, or 
     broker, and his officers, directors, agents, and employees, 
     from violating any of the provisions of the order pending the 
     final determination of the appeal.
       (4) Evidence.--The evidence so taken or admitted, and filed 
     as aforesaid as a part of the record, shall be considered by 
     the court as the evidence in the case.
       (5) Action by the court.--The court may affirm, modify, or 
     set aside the order of the Secretary.
       (6) Additional evidence.--If the court determines that the 
     just and proper disposition of the case requires the taking 
     of additional evidence, the court shall order the hearing to 
     be reopened for the taking of such evidence, in such manner 
     and upon such terms and conditions as the court may deem 
     proper. The Secretary may modify his findings as to the 
     facts, or make new findings, by reason of the additional 
     evidence so taken, and the Secretary shall file such modified 
     or new findings and his recommendations, if any, for the 
     modifications or setting aside of his order, with the return 
     of such additional evidence.
       (7) Injunction.--If the court of appeals affirms or 
     modifies the order of the Secretary, its decree shall operate 
     as an injunction to restrain the dealer, processor, 
     commission merchant, or broker, and his officers, directors, 
     agents, and employees from violating the provisions of such 
     order or such order as modified.
       (8) Finality.--The court of appeals shall have 
     jurisdiction, which upon the filing of the record with it 
     shall be exclusive, to review, and to affirm, set aside, or 
     modify, such orders of the Secretary, and the decree of such 
     court shall be final except that it shall be subject to 
     review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon 
     certiorari, as provided in section 1254 of title 28, United 
     States Code, if such writ is duly applied for within 60 days 
     after entry of the decree. The issue of such writ shall not 
     operate as a stay of the decree of the court of appeals, 
     insofar as such decree operates as an injunction unless so 
     ordered by the Supreme Court.
       (d) Punishment for Violation of Order.--Any dealer, 
     processor, commission merchant, or broker, or any officer, 
     director, agent, or employee of a dealer, processor, 
     commission merchant, or broker, who fails to obey any order 
     of the Secretary issued under the provisions of subsection 
     (b), or such order as modified--
       (1) after the expiration of the time allowed for filing a 
     petition in the court of appeals to set aside or modify such 
     order, if no such petition has been filed within such time;
       (2) after the expiration of the time allowed for applying 
     for a writ of certiorari, if such order, or such order as 
     modified, has been sustained by the court of appeals and no 
     such writ has been applied for within such time; or
       (3) after such order, or such order as modified, has been 
     sustained by the courts as provided in subsection (c);

     shall on conviction be fined not less than $500 nor more than 
     $10,000, or imprisoned for not less than 6 months nor more 
     than 5 years, or both. Each day during which such failure 
     continues shall be deemed a separate offense.

     SEC. 6. REPORT ON CORPORATE STRUCTURE.

       A dealer, processor, commission merchant, or broker with 
     annual sales in excess of $100,000,000 shall annually file 
     with the Secretary a report which describes, with respect to 
     both domestic and foreign activities, the strategic 
     alliances, ownership in other agribusiness firms or 
     agribusiness-related firms, joint ventures, subsidiaries, and 
     brand names, interlocking boards of directors with other 
     corporations, representatives, and agents that lobby Congress 
     on behalf of such dealer, processor, commission merchant, or 
     broker, as determined by the Secretary.

     SEC. 7. PROHIBITION ON CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSES IN LIVESTOCK 
                   AND POULTRY PRODUCTION CONTRACTS.

       Confidentiality clauses barring a party to a contract from 
     sharing terms of such contract for the purposes of obtaining 
     legal or financial advice, are prohibited in livestock 
     production contracts and grain production contracts (except 
     to the extent a legitimate trade secret (as applied in the 
     Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq.) is being 
     protected).

     SEC. 8. PROTECTIONS FOR CONTRACT POULTRY GROWERS.

       (a) Removal of Poultry Slaughter Requirement From 
     Definitions.--Section 2(a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 
     1921 (7 U.S.C. 182) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (8) and inserting the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(8) the term `poultry grower' means any person engaged in 
     the business of raising or caring for live poultry under a 
     poultry growing arrangement, whether the poultry is owned by 
     such person or by another person;'';
       (2) in paragraph (9), by striking ``and cares for live 
     poultry for delivery, in accord with another's instructions, 
     for slaughter'' and inserting ``or cares for live poultry in 
     accord with another person's instructions''; and
       (3) in paragraph (10), by striking ``for the purpose of 
     either slaughtering it or selling it for slaughter by 
     another''.
       (b) Administrative Enforcement Authority Over Live Poultry 
     Dealers.--Sections 203, 204, and 205 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 
     193, 194, 195) are amended by inserting ``or live poultry 
     dealer'' after ``packer'' each place it appears.
       (c) Authority To Request Temporary Injunction or 
     Restraining Order.--Section 408 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 229) is 
     amended by striking ``on account of poultry'' and inserting 
     ``on account of poultry or poultry care''.
       (d) Violations by Live Poultry Dealers.--Section 411 of 
     such Act (7 U.S.C. 228b-2) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``any provision of 
     section 207 or section 410 of''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``any provisions of 
     section 207 or section 410'' and inserting ``any provision''.

     SEC. 9. AUTHORITY TO MAKE BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY GUARANTEED 
                   LOANS FOR FARMER-OWNED PROJECTS THAT ADD VALUE 
                   TO OR PROCESS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS.

       Section 310B(a)(1) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(a)(1)) is amended by inserting 
     ``(and in areas other than rural communities, in the case of 
     insured loans, if a majority of the project involved is owned 
     by individuals who reside and have farming operations in 
     rural communities, and the project adds value to or processes 
     agricultural commodities)'' after ``rural communities''.

     SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL STAFF AND FUNDING FOR 
                   AGRICULTURE COMPETITION ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Additional Staff.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     hire sufficient staff, including antitrust and litigation 
     attorneys, economists, and investigators, to appropriately 
     carry out the agribusiness merger review and prohibition 
     against unfair practices responsibilities, described in 
     sections 4 and 5.
       (b) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     such sums as are necessary to hire the staff referenced in 
     subsection (a) to implement this Act.

     SEC. 11. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL STAFF AND FUNDING FOR 
                   THE GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS 
                   ADMINISTRATION.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to enhance the capability of the Grain Inspection, 
     Packers and Stockyards Administration to monitor, 
     investigate, and pursue the competitive implications of 
     structural changes in the meat packing industry. Sums are 
     specifically earmarked to hire litigating attorneys to allow 
     the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration 
     to more comprehensively and effectively pursue its 
     enforcement activities.

     SEC. 12. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR AGRICULTURAL 
                   ANTITRUST MATTERS.

       (a) In General.--There shall be established within the 
     Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice an Assistant 
     Attorney General for Agricultural Antitrust Matters, who 
     shall be responsible for oversight and coordination of 
     antitrust and related matters which affect agriculture, 
     directly or indirectly.
       (b) Appointment.--The Assistant Attorney General for 
     Agricultural Antitrust Matters shall be appointed by the 
     President subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.

[[Page S6607]]

     SEC. 13. INCREASE IN HART-SCOTT-RODINO FILING FEES.

       (a) In General.--The filing fee the Federal Trade 
     Commission assesses on a person acquiring voting securities 
     or assets who is required to file premerger notifications 
     under section 7A of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18a) for 
     mergers and acquisitions satisfying the $15,000,000 size-of-
     transaction requirement is increased to $100,000 for those 
     transactions valued at more than $100,000,000.
       (b) Fees Earmarked.--The filing fee increase described in 
     subsection (a) is partially earmarked to pay for the costs of 
     staff increases at the Transportation, Energy and Agriculture 
     section at the Department of Justice, as considered necessary 
     by the Assistant Attorney General, to enhance their review of 
     agriculture transactions.
                                 ______