[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 21]
[Senate]
[Pages 29904-29915]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     BANKRUPTCY REFORM ACT OF 1999

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 625, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 625) to amend title 11, United States Code, and 
     for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Feingold amendment No. 2522, to provide for the expenses of 
     long term care.
       Hatch/Torricelli amendment No. 1729, to provide for 
     domestic support obligations.
       Wellstone amendment No. 2537, to disallow claims of certain 
     insured depository institutions.
       Wellstone amendment No. 2538, with respect to the 
     disallowance of certain claims and to prohibit certain 
     coercive debt collection practices.
       Feinstein amendment No. 1696, to limit the amount of credit 
     extended under an open end consumer credit plan to persons 
     under the age of 21.
       Feinstein amendment No. 2755, to discourage indiscriminate 
     extensions of credit and resulting consumer insolvency.
       Schumer/Durbin amendment No. 2759, with respect to national 
     standards and homeowner home maintenance costs.
       Schumer/Durbin amendment No. 2762, to modify the means test 
     relating to safe harbor provisions.
       Schumer amendment No. 2763, to ensure that debts incurred 
     as a result of clinic violence are nondischargeable.
       Schumer amendment No. 2764, to provide for greater accuracy 
     in certain means testing.
       Schumer amendment No. 2765, to include certain dislocated 
     workers' expenses in the debtor's monthly expenses.
       Dodd amendment No. 2531, to protect certain education 
     savings.
       Dodd amendment No. 2753, to amend the Truth in Lending Act 
     to provide for enhanced information regarding credit card 
     balance payment terms and conditions, and to provide for 
     enhanced reporting of credit card solicitations to the Board 
     of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and to Congress.
       Hatch/Dodd/Gregg amendment No. 2536, to protect certain 
     education savings.
       Feingold amendment No. 2748, to provide for an exception to 
     a limitation on an automatic stay under section 362(b) of 
     title 11, United States Code, relating to evictions and 
     similar proceedings to provide for the payment of rent that 
     becomes due after the petition of a debtor is filed.
       Schumer/Santorum amendment No. 2761, to improve disclosure 
     of the annual percentage rate for purchases applicable to 
     credit card accounts.
       Durbin amendment No. 2659, to modify certain provisions 
     relating to pre-bankruptcy financial counseling.
       Durbin amendment No. 2661, to establish parameters for 
     presuming that the filing of a case under chapter 7 of title 
     11, United States Code, does not constitute an abuse of that 
     chapter.
       Torricelli amendment No. 2655, to provide for enhanced 
     consumer credit protection.
       Wellstone amendment No. 2752, to impose a moratorium on 
     large agribusiness mergers and to establish a commission to 
     review large agriculture mergers, concentration, and market 
     power.
       Moynihan amendment No. 2663, to make certain improvements 
     to the bill with respect to low-income debtors.


                           Amendment No. 2752

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 1 
hour of debate on the Wellstone amendment No. 2752.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, maybe to be fair to everybody, I better 
suggest the absence of a quorum and that time would be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. 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. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to Senator Dorgan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, first of all, I commend Senator Wellstone 
for his leadership on this issue. I rise to support the amendment that 
he has offered. I have been involved with Senator Wellstone in 
constructing this proposal. The proposal very simply is to try to have 
a time out of sorts with respect to the mergers that are occurring in 
the agricultural processing industries. The question at the root of all 
of this is, What is the value of a family farm in our country and do we 
care about whether this country has family farmers in its future?
  If we do, if we care about keeping family farmers in our country's 
future, then we must do something about the concentration that is 
occurring and plugging the arteries of the free market system in the 
agricultural economy. Family farmers are not able to compete in a free 
and open system. It is just not happening. Why? Because of these 
mergers and concentration in the large agricultural industries.
  Let me show you with this chart what is happening to family farmers. 
The family farm share of the retail cereal grains dollar has gone down, 
down, and way down. Why? Why is the family farm share of the food 
dollar going down? Because as my friend from Minnesota likes to say, 
the big food giants have muscled their way to the dinner table. He is 
absolutely correct. They are grabbing more of the food dollar. The 
family farmer gets less. The food processors are making substantial 
amounts, record dollars, and the family farmers are, unfortunately, not 
able to make it.
  The farm share of the retail pork dollar is down, down, way down. The 
family farm share of the retail beef dollar? Exactly the same thing.

[[Page 29905]]

  Why is all of this occurring? Because concentration in these 
industries means there are fewer firms. For example, in market 
concentration in meat processing, in beef, the top four firms control 
80 percent of the profits; in sheep, 73 percent; pork, 57 percent. 
Exactly the same is true in grain. Wet corn milling, 74 percent, the 
top four companies.
  The point is, this massive concentration is plugging the arteries of 
the market system. There isn't competition, or at least the kind of 
competition that is fair competition for family farms.
  Now, our proposal is very simple. It proposes a moratorium on certain 
kinds of mergers. We are talking only about the largest firms. And then 
during that moratorium for 18 months we have a commission review the 
underlying statutes that determine what is competitive and what is 
anticompetitive.
  There are people here who don't care about family farmers. They say, 
if the market system would decide that family farms should continue, 
then they will continue. And if the market system is ambivalent to it, 
then we won't have family farmers. But that is because the view of such 
people matches the view of economists, which is that you can value only 
that which you can measure in quantitative terms. If you can attach 
dollars and cents to it, then it has value. If you can't, it doesn't. 
The fact is, family farm enterprises have value far beyond their 
production of corn or wheat. Family farms in my State produce much more 
than their crops. They also produce a community. They have a social 
product as well as a material product.
  Now, this product is invisible to economists and to policy experts 
who only see what they can count in money, but it is crucially 
important to our country. We tend to view our economy as a kind of 
Stuff Olympics: Those who produce the most stuff win. We are a country 
that produces more stuff than we need in many areas but much less of 
what we really need in other areas. And one such thing we lack is the 
culture and the opportunity we get when we continue a network of family 
farms. Europeans call this contribution ``multifunctionality.'' That is 
just a fancy way of saying that an enterprise can serve us in more ways 
than an economist can give credit for. A small town cafe is much more 
to that small town than its financial statement. It is the hub of the 
community. It is the hub of interaction, the crossroads where people 
meet rather than be blips on a computer screen. The same is true with 
family farms. It is much more important to this country than the 
financial receipts would show.
  To those who do not care much about family farms, none of this 
matters. To those of us who believe a network of family farms preserved 
for our future enhances and strengthens this country, we believe very 
strongly that we must take actions to give family farmers a chance to 
survive.
  One of those actions--only one--is to say, let us stop this massive 
concentration in the giant food industries that is choking the life out 
of family farms. Why is it that when you buy a loaf of bread, the 
amount of money the farmers get from that loaf of bread is now not even 
the heel, it is less than the heel?
  Why is it that anyone in the food processing industry who touches 
that which farmers produce--wheat, corn, soybeans, and more--makes 
record profits, but the farmers are going broke?
  Why is it that a farmer who gases a tractor, plows the land, and 
nurtures the grain all summer, combines it and harvests it in the fall, 
goes to the elevator only to be told the county elevator and the grain 
trade have described that food as worthless. Then someone gets hold of 
that same grain and crisps it, shreds it, flakes it, puffs it, puts it 
in a box and gets it on the grocer's shelf. The grain then sells for $4 
or $5 a box, and all of a sudden it has great value as puffed or 
shredded wheat. The processor makes record profits and family farmers 
are making record losses.
  Why is that? Because this system does not stack up. It does not stack 
up in a manner that allows fair, free, and open competition. When you 
have this kind of concentration, there is not a free market. That is 
true in the grain processing industry, it is true in meat, and it is 
true as well in the other areas I have discussed.
  Family farmers are seeing record declines in their share of the 
cereal dollar while everyone else who handles the grain the farmer 
produced is making a record profit. That is the point.
  I am for a free, fair, and open economy and fair competition. But our 
economic system today is not providing that because some are choking 
the life out of family farmers by clogging the marketplace with unfair 
competition. We have antitrust laws to deal with this. They are not 
very effective, frankly. When Continental and Cargill can decide to 
marry, and are then sufficiently large to create a further 
anticompetitive force in this market, then there is something wrong 
with the underlying antitrust laws.
  This bill is not a Cargill-Continental bill, incidentally. It is not 
aimed at any specific company. It is aimed rather at having a timeout 
on the massive orgy of mergers that is occurring at the upper level of 
the corporate world, $100 million or more in value, and at evaluating 
what is happening to the market system.
  If we believe in the free market, we have to nurture that free market 
and protect it. A free market exists when you have free, fair, and open 
competition.
  The last antitrust buster of any great note was Teddy Roosevelt at 
the start of the century saying the robber barons of oil could not 
continue to rob the American people.
  My point is that if we want to keep family farms in our future, we 
must take bold and aggressive action to make certain that competition 
is fair to family farms. Today, it is not. They are losing their shirts 
primarily because of the unfair competition that comes from substantial 
concentration.
  My point, to conclude, is we lose something very significant, much 
more than economists can measure, when we decide we will not care about 
the destruction of the network of family farms in this country. Europe 
has 7.5 million family farms dotting the landscape because they decided 
long ago that these contribute much more to their culture and economy 
than what the balance sheet shows in numbers. They do in this country 
as well. It is time we take bold action to do something about it.
  The first step, a modest step in my judgment, proposed by the Senator 
from Minnesota, myself, and others is to do something about antitrust, 
the concentration that is clogging the free market, taking money away 
from family farmers and putting us in a position where the family farm 
in this country is devastated.
  We can stop this. This is not rocket science. Good public policy 
directed in the right area will give economic help and opportunity to 
families who are attempting to farm in America.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise again to oppose the 
Wellstone amendment. I stand here as perhaps one of the only Members of 
the Senate who has made his living from agribusiness, specifically as a 
food processor. I think I know of what I speak this morning.
  I tell my colleagues, if they are listening via TV or however, this 
is a vote about whether or not you believe and trust in the free-market 
system.
  I also rise as somebody who cares a great deal about farmers. I have 
voted consistently for farm aid in its many forms as we try to provide 
it in the Senate. But I am saying the Wellstone amendment will not turn 
around the ag economy. It does nothing to open overseas markets. It 
does nothing about global oversupply of grain, and it does nothing to 
relieve the onerous regulatory burdens placed on family farmers by the 
Federal Government, such as estate taxes, the unworkable H-2A program, 
the way the Food Quality Protection Act is being implemented, or the 
loss of water rights. It goes on and on.

[[Page 29906]]

  The family farmer is more under assault by regulation by this 
Government than it has ever been by the food processing industry. 
Frankly, what we are saying is the food processor who perhaps wants to 
buy 100 million pounds of grain but is offered 200 million pounds 
because it is produced is somehow to be penalized by the Senate for 
participating in the free market. It is not right. It is not our 
system.
  The Wellstone amendment implies that the Antitrust Division at the 
Justice Department is incapable of handling these agribusiness mergers. 
Yet the evidence is to the contrary. This is the same Antitrust 
Division that has required numerous divestitures in recent agribusiness 
acquisitions, such as the Cargill-Continental, Monsanto-Dekalb Genetics 
Corporation. This is the same Antitrust Division that rigorously 
pursued antitrust proceedings against Microsoft.
  Antitrust policy has an important implication to American business 
and deserves the scrutiny of the Judiciary Committee, not posturing on 
the floor of the Senate. Senator Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, has already announced there will be in his committee 
hearings on agribusiness concentration, as there ought to be, but not 
here, not this way, not this amendment.
  The Wellstone amendment additionally is not evenhanded in its 
approach. It exempts agricultural cooperatives, some of which are large 
agribusinesses in their own right. I know from my own experience how to 
take a small company and make it big by the inefficiencies of the large 
companies. The Wellstone amendment will prevent mergers that are often 
necessary to keep plants competitive, employing people in rural and 
urban areas, and providing important outlets for farm products.
  It does not distinguish between good mergers and bad mergers. Some of 
these things have to happen because there is an oversupply of food 
processors, in fact. The same market forces that are affecting the 
farmer also affect the food processor.
  The Wellstone amendment will effectively guarantee that no medium-
size agribusiness will be capable of growing large enough to rival the 
scale of the existing large agribusinesses. Again, I say the American 
dream is for the little guy to become a big guy. This says the food 
processor has one of two options if he is in trouble: He can either 
struggle and try to continue or else he can go bankrupt. I point out if 
you are interested in farmers, remember that more than two-thirds of 
the farmers of this country do not grow for the agricultural 
cooperatives; they grow for stock-held-owned companies.
  The Wellstone amendment will not deconcentrate agribusiness, but it 
will ensure small- and medium-size agribusinesses are prevented from 
taking advantage of the same efficiencies enjoyed by their larger 
competitors. Frankly, the kind of distrust of the market represented by 
this amendment is the kind of thing we should expect from the Duma in 
Russia and the National Assembly of France but never from the Senate.
  In conclusion, I appeal to my colleagues' common sense. This 
amendment is before us today in the name of saving family farmers.
  I ask my colleagues to consider for a moment just who supplies the 
family farmer with critical crop inputs, such as seed and fertilizer. 
Who does the family farmer sell their production to for processing and 
marketing? The answer, in most cases, of course, is agribusinesses, the 
one sector of the economy that is being singled out today for a 
federally mandated merger moratorium that is certainly a counter to the 
free market that I believe we value in this country.
  I remind my colleagues that agribusinesses and farmers are 
intertwined and interdependent. They are under the same market forces 
on both sides. When the very visible hand of government intervention in 
the market place is raised in an attempt to punish agribusinesses, 
inevitably it will punish family farmers, too.
  I say again, most farmers do not grow for agricultural cooperatives. 
They often grow for small family food processors. So what happens to 
them? Ultimately, no matter the good intentions of those who are behind 
this amendment because I stand with them when it comes to trying to 
help the family farmer, I just simply say this is not the way.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an editorial 
from not my paper but I believe it is Senator Wellstone's paper, the 
Star Tribune in Minneapolis.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From the Star Tribune, Nov. 15, 1999]

           Giant Killer: Wellstone's Misguided AG Merger Plan

       In the great tradition of prairie populism, Sen. Paul 
     Wellstone has responded to the current farm recession by 
     calling for a federal moratorium on big agribusiness mergers. 
     As a cry of alarm for farmers, this is useful politics. But 
     as a device to restore commodity prices, it is practically 
     pointless, and as a tool of antitrust policy, it is 
     exceedingly blunt.
       When it resumes debate on the topic this week, the Senate 
     should embrace Wellstone's plan for an agricultural antitrust 
     commission, but it should reject the notion of blocking all 
     mergers, good and bad.
       Wellstone is right about one thing: Consolidation in 
     agribusiness is perfectly real and genuinely troublesome. A 
     series of agronomy mergers has greatly reduced the number of 
     companies that sell seed and fertilizer to farmers. 
     Meanwhile, the top four meatpacking companies have doubled 
     their share of the beef and pork markets since 1980, to 80 
     percent and 54 percent respectively.
       But that trend has nothing to do with this year's 
     commodities collapse, which stems almost entirely from a glut 
     of grain in world markets. Just three years ago, farmers were 
     receiving near-record prices, yet the grain and meat 
     industries already were highly concentrated. Milk processing 
     is just as concentrated as grain or meat, yet dairy farmers 
     earned huge profits last year.
       Whether consolidation inflicts long-term damage is harder 
     to know. One federal study found that large meat packers 
     discriminate against small livestock farmers, and another 
     found that big beef processors were able to drive down cattle 
     prices by about 4 percent. But several other studies by the 
     U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have found that big, 
     efficient meatpackers improve quality control and save money 
     for consumers. One USDA study even found that livestock 
     farmers got higher prices as the beef industry consolidated, 
     apparently because highly efficient meatpackers passed along 
     some of their savings in the form of higher prices to 
     farmers.
       To support an outright merger moratorium, you would have to 
     believe that all mergers are wrong or that the current group 
     of federal antitrust regulators is incapable of sorting good 
     from bad.
       But neither proposition holds up. The 1986 merger of Hormel 
     Foods and Jennie-O Foods, for example, greatly expanded the 
     state's turkey industry while improving the competitiveness 
     of two venerable Minnesota companies. When Michael Foods of 
     St. Louis Park bought Papetti Hygrade of New Jersey in 1997, 
     it enabled two modest egg-processors to survive against much 
     bigger world rivals. Nor is it clear that federal regulators 
     are asleep at the switch. The Justice Department put Cargill 
     Inc. through an antitrust wringer this year before downsizing 
     its purchase of part of Continental Grain.
       As usual, however, there is something smoldering when 
     Wellstone smells smoke. The Justice Department needs more 
     staff and more money to keep up with a tidal wave of merger 
     applications. His proposed antitrust commission should study 
     whether consolidation in agribusiness is reducing the 
     diversity and independence of American farming.
       Wellstone isn't grandstanding when he says that thousands 
     of farmers are in genuine trouble this year. But that doesn't 
     mean the populists should get whatever they want, or that 
     what they want would be good for farmers if they got it.

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. The first paragraph states:

       In the great tradition of prairie populism, Sen. Paul 
     Wellstone has responded to the current farm [crisis] by 
     calling for a federal moratorium on big agribusiness mergers. 
     As a cry of alarm for farmers, this is useful politics. But 
     as a device to restore commodity prices, it is practically 
     pointless, and as a tool of antitrust policy, it is [an] 
     exceedingly blunt [instrument].

  I join with this editorial in saying that Senator Wellstone's motives 
are good, but his means are just simply misdirected in this case.
  Ultimately, no matter the good intentions of those who are behind 
this amendment, it is the family farmers who will pay the greatest 
price for hobbling the innovation and competitiveness of small- and 
medium-sized agribusinesses in such a sweeping way.

[[Page 29907]]

  The consequences of the Wellstone amendment run contrary to the 
stated objectives of its supporters. It will not spur new competition 
in the large agribusiness sector. It will not induce higher commodity 
prices for producers. It would be a vote of no confidence in the 
ability of the antitrust division to enforce our existing antitrust 
statutes.
  So I plead with my colleagues, if they can hear my voice. I ask them 
to vote no on the Wellstone amendment. This is not the way to help the 
family farmer. We should trust the marketplace, unless we as a 
government are prepared to subsidize even more and more aspects of our 
agriculture in this country. We already do a great deal. We may yet 
need to do more. But we must not do more in this way, in this Senate, 
in this time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Chair be kind enough to notify me when I have 
used up 10 minutes of my time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes; the Chair will do that.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, before we get right into the debate, I wish to also 
mention another debate in agriculture and say to my colleagues from 
some of our Midwest dairy States that I share their indignation at the 
way in which the extension of the Northeast Dairy Compact and the 
blocking of the milk marketing order reform by the Secretary of 
Agriculture--kind of two hits on us--has been put into a conference 
report. We voted on this on the floor of the Senate. This was not 
passed by either House. Yet it was tucked into a conference report.
  I think it is an outrageous process. I think people are sick and 
tired of these backroom deals. I intend to be a part of every single 
effort that is made by Senators Kohl, Feingold, Grams, myself, others, 
to raise holy heck about this.
  After having said that, let me respond to some of the comments on the 
floor. First of all, I thank my colleague, Senator Dorgan, for offering 
this amendment with me. As long as my colleague from Oregon represents 
that tradition of populism, this is Senator Dorgan. It is who he is. 
Frankly, I think it is all about democracy and all about the market.
  Also, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Johnson and Feingold be 
added as cosponsors to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Oregon and others, that as 
much respect as I have for the Minnesota Star Tribune, I am not all 
that troubled that sometimes we disagree and that there is an editorial 
that is in opposition to this amendment because, frankly, this 
amendment comes from the countryside. This comes from the heartland. 
This comes from the heart of our farm and rural communities. That is 
where this amendment comes from. I say that to all Senators, Democrats 
and Republicans alike.
  I also say to my colleague from Oregon, actually this is all about 
the market. This has nothing to do with Russia or whatever country he 
mentioned. Quite to the contrary, this is all about putting some free 
enterprise back into our economy. This is about putting free enterprise 
back into the free enterprise system. This is about the Sherman Act and 
the Clayton Act and Senator Estes Kefauver and a great tradition of 
antitrust action. That is what this is about.
  This is about making sure we have competition. This is making sure 
that our producers--the one, if you will, free enterprise sector in 
this food industry--have a chance to survive. That is what this is 
about. This is as old fashioned and pro-American and a part of the 
history of our country as you can get, from Thomas Jefferson to Andrew 
Jackson, right up to now.
  Let me be clear about that. This is a very modest amendment. What it 
says is that until we develop some kind of comprehensive solution to 
the problem of extreme concentration in our agricultural markets, and 
anticompetitive practices of the few large conglomerates that have 
muscled their way to the dinner table, and are driving our producers 
out, we ought to take a ``timeout'' on these mergers and acquisitions--
not of small businesses but of large agribusinesses.
  This timeout could last as long as 18 months but no longer. It could 
also be terminated well short of 18 months by passage of some 
legislation, which is what I hope we will be serious about, to deal 
with this problem of concentration.
  This is a historic debate and a historic vote because, you know what, 
we are going to have to deal with the whole question of monopoly power 
and whether or not we need to have more competition and free enterprise 
in our free enterprise system in a lot of sectors of this economy. That 
is what Viacom buying up CBS is all about. That is what the proposed 
merger of Exxon and Mobil is all about. That is what the rapid 
consolidations and mergers in all these sectors of the economy, where 
you have a few firms that dominate, I think to the detriment of our 
consumers and our small businesses, is all about.
  If we pass this timeout, we are still going to need to revisit this 
problem of concentration within the next 18 months. We have to do so 
and pass legislation. What we cannot do is pass this legislation today. 
So what we want to do is put a hold on these colossal agribusiness 
mergers that are occurring on an almost daily basis. What we are saying 
is, let's pass legislation that puts some competition back into the 
food industry, that gives our family farmers, our producers a chance. 
But until we do that, let's take a timeout so we can put a stop to some 
of these colossal agribusiness mergers that are taking place at a 
breathtaking pace every single day.
  This amendment also is intended to create an incentive for the 
Congress to develop a more comprehensive solution on an expedited 
basis.
  Last week, if my colleagues need any evidence, the Wall Street 
Journal reported that Novartis and Monsanto, two of the largest 
agribusiness giants, may be merging. The Journal accurately states:

       . . . the industry landscape seems to be changing every 
     day.

  In fact, the ground is constantly shifting beneath our feet, and soon 
it is going to be too late to do anything about it. That is exactly why 
we need a timeout. These mergers build momentum for more mergers, and 
these large companies are all saying that we have no other choice, 
given what is going on right now, but to merge and get bigger and 
bigger and bigger. Just imagine what the effect of a merger between 
Monsanto and Novartis would mean. It would obviously put more pressure 
on more firms to join in on one of these emerging handful of food chain 
clusters that are poised to control our agricultural markets.
  This timeout we are proposing today is intended to lessen those 
pressures and to arrest this trend before it is too late. That is what 
this is all about. This amendment is all about whether or not our 
producers are going to have a chance. This is an amendment that is all 
about whether or not rural communities are going to be able to make it. 
This amendment is all about whether or not farmers are going to be able 
to get a decent price. When you are at an auction and you are trying to 
sell something and you only have three buyers, you are not going to get 
much of a price. That is exactly what is happening in agriculture 
today.
  This is all about competition. This is all about America. This is all 
about Jeffersonian tradition and whether or not Senators are on the 
side of family farmers or whether they are on the side of these large 
conglomerates. We have horizontal concentration taking place. Whether 
we are looking at the beef packers or at pork or grain or whether we 
are looking at every single sector, we have four companies that control 
50, 60, 70 percent of the market. That is not competition. Economics 
101: It is oligopoly, at best, when you have four firms that control 
over 50 percent of the market.
  The scarier thing is the vertical integration. When one firm expands 
its

[[Page 29908]]

control over various stages of food production, from the development of 
the animal or plant gene to production of fertilizer and chemical 
inputs, to actual production, to processing, to marketing and 
distribution to the supermarket shelf, is that the brave new world of 
agriculture we want to see? That is exactly the trend we are 
experiencing today.
  I quote an April 1999 report by the Minnesota Land Stewardship 
Project. I think it is right on the mark:

       Packers' practice of acquiring captive supplies through 
     contracts and direct ownership is reducing the number of 
     opportunities for small- and medium-sized farmers to sell 
     their hogs;

  As a matter of fact, our hog producers are facing extinction, and 
these packers are in hog heaven. We want to know, who is making the 
money? How can it be that these corporate agribusinesses are making 
record profits while our producers are going under?
  The Land Stewardship Project goes on to say:

       With fewer buyers and more captive supply, there is less 
     competition for independent farmers' hogs and insufficient 
     market information regarding price; and lower prices result.

  Leland Swensen, president of the National Farmers Union, recently 
testified:

       The increasing level of market concentration, with the 
     resulting lack of competition in the marketplace, is one of 
     the top concerns of farmers and ranchers. At most farm and 
     ranch meetings, market concentration ranks as either the 
     first or second priority of issues of concern. Farmers and 
     ranchers believe that lack of competition is a key factor in 
     the low commodity prices they are receiving. So our corporate 
     agribusinesses grow fat, and our farmers are facing lean 
     times.

  I wasn't born yesterday. I understand what has been going on since we 
introduced this amendment. I know the folks who have been making the 
calls. We are up against some of the largest agribusinesses, some of 
the largest multinational corporations, some of the largest 
conglomerates you could ever be up against.
  Let us talk about this very practical and modest proposal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). As requested by the Senator, he 
has used his first 10 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  First, the standard we use is the standard that now exists under the 
Clayton Act, which is whether or not a merger may be substantially to 
lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. Second, we are talking 
about the largest mergers in which both parties have annual net 
revenues over $100 million. This is not small business--both parties 
with annual revenues over $100 million.
  Third, some of my colleagues were concerned about the possibility of 
facing financial insolvency. We address the problem. In this amendment 
is language which makes it clear that the Attorney General would have 
the authority to waive this moratorium in extraordinary circumstances, 
such as financial insolvency or similar financial distress. We have 
another waiver authority which goes to the Secretary of Agriculture.
  Some colleagues said, what about mergers and acquisitions that 
actually are procompetitive? What we are going to do is to say, under 
modification, that USDA could waive the moratorium for deals that don't 
increase concentration to levels that are determined to be detrimental 
to family farmers. This moratorium or timeout won't even take effect 
for 18 months because presumably we are going to act earlier.
  We have to do something about this merger mania. We have to do 
something about getting some competition back into the food industry. 
We have to do something that is on the side of family farmers. This 
timeout, with all of the provisions we have which make it so 
reasonable--and we are still in negotiation with our colleague from 
Iowa, who I know cares fiercely about this--ought to lead to an 
amendment that should generate widespread support.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the 
amendment by the Senator from Minnesota that would impose an 18-month 
moratorium on mergers in the food processing industry. While I oppose 
this amendment, I understand Senator Wellstone's motivation in offering 
it. I share his concern over the rapid vertical and horizontal 
integration in the food processing industry and the effect this trend 
may have had on family farmers.
  The livestock industry for beef cattle and hogs has experienced low 
prices for too long. In fact, the price for live hogs recently reached 
its lowest level since the Great Depression. Family farms are the 
backbone of our rural communities, yet family farms are failing. 
Farmers now receive 36 percent less for their products than they did 15 
years ago. Mr. President, there are not many other honest, hardworking 
Americans who can say that their salaries have gone down by 36 percent 
over the last decade. Some farmers have complained that the 
concentration within the industry has restricted their choice of buyers 
for their products.
  Many factors have contributed to the troubles farmers have faced 
recently--consolidation within the food processing industry may not be 
the sole cause of these troubles, though I recognize it could well be a 
cause. The recent rate of consolidation, however, is a concern to me, 
and for this reason I recently pledged a full and comprehensive review 
of this matter by the full Senate Judiciary Committee. We need to look 
at the entire spectrum of the food industry to explore the extent to 
which consolidation within the industry is adversely affecting family 
farmers. We also need to examine whether existing antitrust statutes 
are being adequately enforced and whether any changes to federal law 
are warranted.
  While I sympathize with the amendment offered by Senator Wellstone, I 
am afraid that it does nothing to shed further light on the matter. Not 
only does the amendment fail to address the heart of the matter, it may 
even do more harm than good for our farmers. We cannot possibly 
understand all of the implications of placing an 18-month moratorium on 
agribusiness mergers. It is very likely, Mr. President, that smaller 
food processing plants will rely on mergers with larger processors if 
they are to survive. Placing a moratorium on mergers could actually 
cause smaller firms to go out of business. In such a case, this 
amendment would surely stop a merger, but putting a smaller firm out of 
business is a less desirable outcome than allowing mergers to go 
forward. Many of these smaller processors are actually owned by 
farmers.
  We cannot afford to lose our family farms in this country, and I 
think everyone recognizes that. Let us deal with this issue 
pragmatically. Let us get to the bottom of this problem. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against this amendment. We should first allow the 
Judiciary Committee to fully examine these issues and prudently 
determine what effect, if any, consolidation in the industry has on the 
plight of the family farmer. The type of market interference proposed 
by this amendment is simply wrong and I urge my colleagues to reject 
it.
  Mr. President, I would like to make some additional remarks regarding 
concentration in the food processing industry. I have been as concerned 
about concentration in the food processing industry as any Member of 
this body. My concern over the concentration in the food processing 
industry led me to break the logjam on the Livestock Concentration 
Report Act in the 104th Congress and get it through the Senate 
Judiciary Committee and the full Senate.
  My concern over concentration in the processing industry led me to 
introduce the Interstate Distribution of State-Inspected Meat Act of 
1997 in the 105th Congress. This bill would have helped to shore up and 
enhance competition in the meatpacking industry.
  My concern over this issue led me to pass an amendment in the fiscal 
year 1999 Agriculture appropriations bill that required the USDA to 
produce a proposal with regard to the interstate distribution issue. I 
am also considering legislation, along with Senator Daschle, to codify 
the USDA's proposal, which goes even further toward

[[Page 29909]]

shoring up competition in the meatpacking industry.
  Finally, I have recently unveiled my plan for the Judiciary Committee 
to provide a full and comprehensive review of the concentration issue. 
So far, we have had some excellent studies on this issue. Here is just 
a small sampling of the many studies already completed with regard to 
consolidation in the food processing industry:
  (1) A GAO Report entitled: ``Packers and Stockyards Administration: 
Oversight of Livestock Market Competitiveness Needs to Be Enhanced'' 
(October 1991).
  (2) ``Concentration in Agriculture: A Report of the USDA Advisory 
Committee on Agricultural Concentration'' (June 1996).
  (3) A USDA report entitled: ``Concentration in the Red Meat Packing 
Industry'' (February 1996).
  (4) A GAO report entitled: ``Packers and Stockyards Program: USDA's 
Response to Studies on Concentration in the Livestock Industry'' (April 
1997).
  (5) A report of the USDA Officer of Inspector General entitled: 
``Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration: Evaluation 
of Agency Efforts to Monitor and Investigate Anti-competitive Practices 
in the Meatpacking Industry'' (February 1997).
  I believe the next step is not another study. The next step is to 
examine whether existing antitrust statutes are being adequately 
enforced and whether any changes to Federal law are warranted to help 
remedy the situation. I suggest that a moratorium on mergers has the 
potential for causing more harm than good. A moratorium is not an issue 
that has been studied, and frankly, the unintended consequences could 
be that some processors are forced to go out of business due to the ban 
on mergers. This would have exactly the opposite effect that we are 
hoping for. I might add, that farmers from my State who have been very 
concerned about the concentration issue have also expressed their 
opposition to the Wellstone amendment, for this reason.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to support the amendment 
offered by my friend Senator Wellstone. Let me explain both why I 
support this amendment and why my support is somewhat qualified.
  On the one hand, I agree that agricultural concentration is a problem 
which increasingly undermines the viability of family farms and 
negatively affects the well-being of our agricultural communities. On 
our Antitrust Subcommittee, we have watched with growing concern the 
wave of agricultural mergers and joint ventures in agriculture that 
have reduced the marketing options available to producers, and which 
may ultimately reduce--or may already have reduced--the prices they 
receive from the marketplace. While these merging corporations often 
contend that the mergers will result in better service for farmers and 
cost-savings for consumers, it's unclear whether that is true. And 
farmers face continued pressures from giant conglomerates against whom 
they have little bargaining power.
  But, on the other hand, I am concerned that a blanket ban against all 
agricultural mergers would prevent those mergers that are pro-
competitive as well as those that are undesirable. In addition, 
singling out a particular industry for merger moratoria, I fear, will 
lead to other calls for similar ``carve-outs.''
  Perhaps a better way to address the problem of consolidation in the 
agricultural industry is do what the administration has already 
promised. The Antitrust Division of the Justice Department has given me 
a commitment that it will appoint a Special Counsel for agricultural 
antitrust issues--and it should do so expeditiously. This official will 
help ensure that agribusiness mergers no longer are a poor stepsister 
to mergers in the computer, telecom, finance, and media industries.
  Mr. President, in moving a measure such as this one, we need to take 
care that we do not harm the very people we are trying to help. But 
until we see real signs that the administration is prepared to 
seriously scrutinize concentration in the agricultural industry, this 
approach is preferable to no action at all.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will vote against the Wellstone-Dorgan 
agribusiness merger moratorium because I believe the solution to this 
problem is not a temporary moratorium. Instead, the Department of 
Justice should enforce the anti-trust laws that now exist to prevent 
the problems arising from industry concentration. That's why, last 
February, I signed a letter to the President, along with 22 of my 
colleagues, urging the administration to conduct a full-scale detailed 
examination of the impacts of market concentration on our nation's 
family farmers and ranchers. We requested that the study be completed 
within six months and the findings reported to Congress. We have yet to 
receive that study. I will continue to press the Department of Justice 
to exercise particular diligence in reviewing proposed mergers or 
acquisitions involving major agribusiness firms.
  Our family farmers and ranchers need and deserve our full support. I 
have worked hard to provide emergency funding in times of natural 
disaster, and to address the economic disasters created by trade and 
world economic conditions. I am working to reform the federal crop 
insurance program to address the needs of specialty crop producers. And 
I will continue to advocate for full adherence to existing anti-trust 
laws, and the procedures for investigating market concentration in 
agriculture.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to Senator 
Wellstone's amendment. I know that my friend and colleague from 
Minnesota is proposing this amendment with the welfare of America's 
family farmer in mind. I, too, think of America's family farmer, but I 
have concerns that placing a moratorium on agribusiness mergers and 
acquisitions now may do more harm in my State than good. This is an 
important issue and I commend Senator Hatch's willingness to hold 
hearings on this matter in the Antitrust Subcommittee. We need to have 
the time to carefully consider how agribusiness mergers and 
acquisitions affect America's producers.
  I am very proud of the farmers in my State. Arkansas ranks in the top 
10 rice, chicken, catfish, turkey, cotton, sorghum, eggs, and soybean 
producing States in America. Despite their productivity, there are 
fewer this season than last season. An ailing national agriculture 
economy has pushed many farmers to the breaking point. I visited 27 
counties in Arkansas over the August recess and saw the strain on their 
faces and heard the frustration in their voices. Their deep concern for 
the future of farming comes from knowing that agriculture is the 
lifeblood of my State's economy.
  Arkansas is dominated by small farms and cooperatives, but Arkansas 
is also home to national processors like Tyson Foods. I do not believe 
that we should trade the interests of one for another. Instead, we must 
develop a balanced policy that will help small farmers and not penalize 
those companies which are helping drive my State's agriculture 
recovery. In many communities, these cooperatives and agribusinesses 
are the foundation of the farm economy in that area. Right now, many of 
those communities are still hurting. That is why I am more concerned 
about the overall survivability of the cooperatives and agribusinesses 
in Arkansas than the possibility that some of them may someday decide 
to merge with a larger entity. In reality, if an agribusiness in 
Arkansas is struggling to stay alive, and Senator Wellstone's 
moratorium on agribusiness mergers and acquisitions is imposed, that 
greatly limits an ailing business' ability to sell to survive. In other 
words, if the owners of an agribusiness have only two choices to 
survive--either sell or declare bankruptcy--and the option to sell is 
denied, then their going out of business doesn't help anyone.
  While America's farmers are slowly recovering from low commodity 
prices, high production costs and poor trade, I believe now is not the 
time to destabilize agribusinesses in Arkansas. On the other hand, I 
know that producers

[[Page 29910]]

in many farm states have serious concerns about the impact larger 
agribusinesses, especially the meat processing industry, have on their 
ability to recover from poor prices. Let me be clear, I do not advocate 
inaction, but I am concerned that producers and processors in my state, 
both large and small, may be unintentionally harmed by the Wellstone 
amendment.
  Many meat processing agribusinesses in Arkansas provide stability for 
producers and have good working relationships with them. Because most 
of their producers work under contract, both the agribusinesses and 
producers suffer when prices are low. Tyson Foods, known for their 
poultry processing, is involved in raising hogs. As the price for hogs 
began to fall, Tyson felt the financial strain of production without 
the ability to process. In the mind of Tyson's contract pork producers, 
the company's situation had reached a critical level when they received 
letters telling them that sustained low hog prices were forcing Tyson 
to only offer 30-day contracts. Producers were left wondering how they 
would pay off debt and survive if Tyson could not renew their 
contracts. Recently, Smithfield announced that it will be taking over 
Tyson's Pork Group, effectively stabilizing the future of Tyson's 
contract producers. Unlike Tyson who only raised hogs, Smithfield has 
the capacity to both raise and process their livestock.
  Clearly, if Senator Wellstone's moratorium on mergers and 
acquisitions was in pace at the time of the Smithfield acquistion of 
Tyson's Pork Group, contract producers would still be living under a 
cloud of uncertainty in an ailing hog market. With that in mind, I 
encourage my colleagues to vote against the Wellstone amendment so that 
Senator Hatch may be afforded the time to thoroughly address the impact 
agribusiness mergers and acquisitions are having on the American family 
farmer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  If no one yields time, time will be charged equally to both sides.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized 
for 2 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we only have 20 additional minutes to 
debate this. There will be a vote this morning.
  I have always had the greatest respect for my colleague from Oregon. 
I think he is a really excellent Senator and a good thinker. On this 
issue, the purpose of our being here is about competition. I don't 
think anyone can dispute that family farmers have been squeezed by a 
system in which highly concentrated industries are taking more of the 
profits, saying we want more of the profits and we want to give family 
farmers less profits. That is not a sign of good competition; it 
happens because these industries have the economic power to do it.
  I taught economics briefly. Some would suggest you are not fit for 
other work when you have done that. But I have gone on nonetheless. 
Economists will argue this both ways. I understand that. But there is a 
commonsense aspect to this.
  Harry Truman used to say that nobody should be President who first 
doesn't know about hogs. The Senator from Minnesota talked about hogs 
and concentration in the hog industry. Hogs are just one. Beef, 
grains--in every single area, industries are more and more 
concentrated, choking the economic life out of the little guy, out of 
the little producer. Why? Because they can. They want to increase their 
profits, increase their size, and choke the life out of family farmers. 
Our point is, that is not free, fair, and open competition. That is not 
a marketplace that is working.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. I will yield on the Senator's time.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Of course.
  For the record, no one should be President who doesn't know something 
about green peas either.
  In all seriousness, I understand what the Senator is saying. I think 
what the Wellstone amendment, hopefully, is doing--if it does not pass 
today, I hope it has the Justice Department going to work on this 
issue. In my view, what we don't need is more layers of second-guessing 
the marketplace from the Department of Agriculture.
  We already have a system of antitrust laws. They need to enforce 
them, and there are serious problems of too heavy a concentration. I 
just simply tell you that I have seen, in my own experience, when these 
companies get too big, they create companies coming up behind them. It 
happens time and time again--for the little guy to become a big guy. It 
happens also on the farm, as a small family farm. Now you have huge 
corporate farms.
  It is a process of the marketplace working. Usually, when we 
intervene in these ways, we do it incorrectly, bluntly, ineffectively, 
and we end up hurting the people we are trying to help. I believe we 
have laws that ought to be employed and, if they are employed, the 
concerns of the Senators from the Great Plains will be addressed, and 
they should be addressed.
  Mr. DORGAN. This little guy/big guy notion of economics reminds me of 
the old parable that the lion and lamb may lie down together but the 
lamb isn't going to get much sleep. That is also true in economics. It 
is certainly true in this economy. The little interests are 
disappearing. That is true of agriculture. Family farmers are having 
the life choked out of them by the concentration in industries which 
they have the muscle to say: We want more of our food dollar coming 
from that bread, and we want you to have less. That is what they are 
saying to family farmers.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Yes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that I have 5 minutes at the 
very end to summarize this because we may make some changes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We will watch the time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. May I have 5 minutes at the end? Otherwise, my time 
will burn off.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, the leadership has suggested to 
me they want an up-or-down vote on this. If there are amendments that 
the Senator has, he would very much like those to be a part of the 
hearing that Senator Hatch already announced will be occurring in the 
next session of this Congress.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I would like that. I don't want to have all my time 
burned up. I would like to have 5 minutes at the end.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, in my concluding 30 seconds, I will say 
that the Jeffersonian notion of how this system ought to work is broad-
based economic ownership. That is what Thomas Jefferson envisioned--
broad-based economic ownership in this country which not only 
guarantees economic freedom but political freedom as well.
  The point is, the concentration that is occurring is unhealthy, 
especially in agriculture, because it is choking the life out of family 
farmers. We are talking simply about a timeout here.
  When I talked about Harry Truman's description of hogs, incidentally, 
that would have lost its luster had he said that nobody should become 
President without first knowing about green peas. He was talking about 
hogs because he was talking about broad-based economic ownership on 
America's family farms. He had it just right. That is what we are 
trying to get back to with this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has 4 minutes 59 
seconds remaining on his time.
  Who yields time?
  If no one yields time, it will have to be subtracted from both sides 
of the debate.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the unanimous consent I am asking for 
is whether or not, if the other side is not going to use the time, I 
could reserve for the end when we run out of time the final 4 minutes 
59 seconds to summarize this because I am waiting for Senator Grassley. 
We have been involved in negotiations. I would like to summarize where 
we are.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

[[Page 29911]]

  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I want to say, in a larger sense, 
if we can single out agribusiness in this way for sort of super-
antitrust treatment, if you will, we can single out any industry. I 
have noticed, in my 3 years as a Senator, we have sort of a merry-go-
round of unpopular businesses in this country and we pick them off one 
at a time. I am very concerned about this process of intervening in a 
marketplace that works because there are winners and losers in the 
marketplace. Agriculture is a very difficult industry. I don't know the 
profits of these big food processors. I, frankly, don't know most of 
these kinds of industries. Most of the food processors I think of may 
actually have revenues of $100 million. But that is sales; that doesn't 
mean profit. They may have losses of $110 million. I don't know. I 
don't see their books.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Yes, I am happy to yield.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. First of all, let me be clear again. I want to tell 
the Senator that there are two very important, if you will, safety 
valves. One has to do with the very point he just made. If, in fact, a 
business says, look, we will be insolvent if we don't do this 
acquisition or merger, then they will get a waiver to do that. I want 
to make that clear, as to what this is and is not. That might get you 
support. I think there are provisions in here that are important.
  Second, this is just a timeout; that is all this is. This comes from 
some pretty solid empirical evidence about the wave of mergers. And, 
again, three or four firms dominate well over 50 percent of the market 
and its effect on producers.
  Finally, I do believe that, again, if USDA uses this criterion, it 
can also be a second safety valve that says, look, in this particular 
case, this acquisition or merger would be procompetitive given the 
situation. That would be another way.
  So we are trying to deal with the most extreme of circumstances. This 
is eminently reasonable. It is a cooling off; it is a message from the 
Senate that we care about what is going on out there. We want to have 
more free enterprise built into the system. This is pro-free 
enterprise, pro-competition. We don't have the competition now.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes, I will.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I appreciate the chance to talk 
so the American people can hear this. The problem we are talking about 
is that, for agriculture, we are not going to create just an antitrust 
division that ought to be going to work every day evaluating these 
things, but now we are going to create a whole new role for USDA to 
make judgments about the marketplace. I don't trust Government to make 
those judgments about the marketplace; I really don't. I think we mess 
it up more than we help it. So I really don't think that satisfies my 
concern.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. If the Senator will yield again, let me be clear about 
this on two issues. First of all, if it weren't for the wave of mergers 
and this breathtaking consolidation of power--and then we look at the 
Sherman Act and the Clayton Act and wonder what is going on here--we 
would not even be talking about a timeout. That is the only reason we 
are doing this. I don't think anybody can deny the reality of what 
happened.
  Second, the USDA would only be involved if a company said: Listen, we 
would like to get a waiver from this timeout period. It is only if a 
company makes the request or a company says: Look, we would like to get 
a waiver from this timeout period. We are big, but we need to be 
involved in this acquisition or merger and it will actually be 
procompetitive. We are just trying to give a company a place to go.
  So, with all due respect, it is not the kind of Government 
involvement my colleague fears. There does come a point in time in the 
rich history of our country where public power is there. Where is Teddy 
Roosevelt when we need him today? That is all this is, a cooling-off 
period to give us incentive, I say to my colleague from Oregon, to 
write some laws and do something that will put the competition back in 
place, so our producers have a chance.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I am 
all for the rules Teddy Roosevelt created. If they were enforced, we 
would not need to develop more Government.
  I guess I would understand the Senator's amendment more if he didn't 
exempt agricultural cooperatives. I don't understand that. It is a 
different forum of how you do agribusiness. It is farmer-owned. But, 
frankly, it is unfair to other farmers who do not process for nonfarmer 
cooperatives. I just think if it is good for the goose, it is good for 
the gander. But it is not in this amendment. It is unfair, and it isn't 
right. Treat them all the same or, frankly, let's defeat this 
amendment. I sincerely hope the Senate will not interfere in the 
marketplace as proposed by this amendment. Allow the Judiciary 
Committee to go forward and hold its hearings, and let's ask the 
antitrust department and Justice Department to go to work and enforce 
the laws we already have.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to proceed for 3 minutes, not to come out of the time that has been 
established for this bill, realizing that would make the vote 3 minutes 
later--just to let people know where we are on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, just so that colleagues on both sides will 
know, last week, and again yesterday for that matter, we made more 
progress on this bill.
  We have been able to clear 27 amendments to improve the Bankruptcy 
Reform Act. Those are amendments offered by both Republicans and 
Democrats.
  Senator Torricelli, Senator Harry Reid, and I have been working in 
good faith with Senator Grassley and Senator Hatch to clear amendments. 
We have been able to do that, and we will try to clear even more.
  I am pleased, on a personal point, that the majority accepted my 
amendment regarding the mandate to file tax returns under the bill. 
That will save $24 million over the next 5 years. But there are a lot 
of amendments similar to this that have improved it.
  Senator Torricelli and I are working together with the deputy 
Democratic leader, and we are preparing to enter a unanimous consent 
request to limit the remaining Democratic amendments to 27 amendments. 
Fifteen of these have already been offered to the bill and are the 
pending business. All 27 were filed by November 5. Most of these are 
going to have very short time agreements. Many will be accepted. From a 
total of 320 amendments that were filed by both Republicans and 
Democrats on November 5, the managers of the bill on both sides have 
boiled down the remaining Democratic and Republican amendments to about 
35--from 320 to 35.
  Many of them are going to be acceptable either with modifications or 
in the present form. The remaining ones are critical to the debate on 
this bill.
  Remember that for the first time in our Nation's history this bill 
would restrict the rights of Americans to file for bankruptcy based on 
the debtor's income. If we are going to adopt a means-tested bankruptcy 
law, we should have a full and fair debate on that. The American people 
would ask for nothing more.
  The credit card industry is going to get billions out of this and 
should have to bear some responsibilities for its lax lending 
practices. We have heard a lot of stories about 5-year-olds getting 
credit cards in the mail with a multi-thousand-dollar limit.
  Then we have the Truth in Lending Act on here.
  I would like to get as close to a fair and balanced bill as we passed 
last year.
  But we have come to the floor to offer amendments. We had only 4 
hours of debate on Monday, and a disrupted

[[Page 29912]]

day yesterday with caucuses and other things. But we have moved very 
quickly on this. We have disposed of 35 amendments with only 8 
rollcalls.
  I urge Senators to move forward. The leaders are trying to move 
forward.
  I thank my colleagues for allowing me to break in to bring people up 
to date.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send a modification to my amendment 
to the desk and ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified. I 
will explain the two provisions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It takes unanimous consent.
  Is there objection?
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Reserving the right to object, I certainly don't 
mind the Senator offering an explanation of the amendment. But I have 
been asked by the majority leader and Senator Hatch to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would appreciate it before we have 
this vote. My colleagues were with Senator Lott when I was very 
involved in the unanimous consent agreement as to which amendments were 
going to come up and how we were going to deal with nonrelevant 
amendments.
  Senator Daschle asked Senator Lott. I was right out here on the 
floor. In fact, I had made the request that if, in fact, we weren't 
changing the meaning or the scope of our amendment, but we were going 
to make a correction, we would be able to do that. Senator Lott said if 
this didn't change the meaning of the amendment, or the scope of it, 
then, of course, that would be all right.
  This is not a different amendment. This is in violation, or I would 
never have agreed to this unanimous consent agreement. All we are doing 
is listening to colleagues who have said there should be $10 million to 
$100 million on both parties. We think that would make a big difference 
from the point of view of small businesses, and at least give 
businesses another place where they can go if they believe their merger 
or acquisition is not procompetitive.
  Those are the two changes. I cannot believe that now I am being told 
I can't do this. This was a part of the unanimous consent agreement. I 
was on the floor. I will get the Congressional Record out of the 
exchange.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. If the Senator will yield, I was not a part of 
that agreement. I know what I have been told by the majority leader and 
by Senator Hatch. Whether the scope is narrowed or not, the principle 
is the same. If there is an invasion of the free enterprise system, it 
potentially penalizes all the farmers who rely upon the stock-owned 
companies in advantage of a few others.
  I think that is the wrong way to do it. We have some laws. I think 
they need to be enforced. But this is too blunt of an instrument. If 
you want to help farmers, this is not the way to do it. If you want to 
help farmers, you go after the regulations that are strangling them. 
You open up the international markets. And, yes, you enforce antitrust 
laws. But you don't create a regulation that interferes in a very blunt 
fashion with the free enterprise system.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me try this again. My colleague can 
object to the amendment. But that is a different issue. That is a 
different issue. I now come to the floor with a modification. When we 
came up with this original unanimous consent agreement, the majority 
leader made it crystal clear in an exchange with the minority leader--I 
was out here on the floor--if we wanted to have a technical correction 
in our bill and it was not changing the scope or meaning, that it 
would, of course, be all right. Now you are denying me my right to make 
that modification. Why are you afraid of a modification? I am just a 
little bit outraged by this. I was here. I was on the floor. I know 
what was discussed. I know what the majority leader said.
  I also believe if my colleagues want to have an up-or-down vote, 
fine. But you ought to give me the right to make a modification to my 
amendment that I think would make this a stronger and a better 
amendment.
  I want to send the amendment to the desk again. Did I send it? Do you 
already have it?
  I appeal to the Senator to please not object to my unanimous consent 
request to modify my amendment with what I have sent to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A modification is not in order without 
unanimous consent.
  Objection has been heard.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to modify my 
amendment, which is exactly what we agreed to in terms of how we deal 
with these amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I object.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my colleagues are afraid to have a vote 
and an honest debate on what we are talking about, and this is a 
violation of the agreement that we made when we talked about how to 
proceed.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I am in no way questioning what 
the Senator was saying. I wasn't a party to the agreement he was 
talking about. What I am objecting to is the principle, whether it is a 
little or a lot. What I am saying is we have the laws to fix these 
kinds of problems. The Justice Department ought to go to work, and we 
ought not to be intervening in the agricultural marketplace in this 
way.
  If you want to help farmers, help them with their water rights, help 
them with their labor problems, help them with closed international 
markets, help them with subsidies, and help them with a whole range of 
things we do in great abundance around here. But, frankly, get off 
their air hose when it comes to regulation. They are being strangled by 
regulation. This is not the way to help farmers; therefore, I object on 
my own basis--not on the basis of Senator Lott or any other leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under regular order, the amendment cannot be 
modified without unanimous consent.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, might I ask the Senator for 1 minute for 
the purpose of making an inquiry?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. I understand the point made by the Senator from Oregon.
  First of all, I was not here during the discussion on the floor. So I 
am not someone who can describe what happened during that discussion. 
But if the Senator from Minnesota is correct--and he may well be--that, 
in fact, the majority leader made representations, I think he would not 
want to abridge them at this point. I think it is a matter of finding 
the record; the majority leader has always acted in good faith to honor 
an agreement he made on the floor.
  Before denying the opportunity to the Senator from Minnesota, we 
ought to get that record and find out to what the majority leader 
agreed. I am certain what he agreed to then he would agree to today. If 
he agreed to allow a modification, the Senator from Minnesota should be 
allowed to pursue that modification.
  I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I don't want to deny the Senator from Minnesota 
his chance to modify his amendment on the basis of an agreement he had 
with the leader. I don't want to not pursue an issue this important 
today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator suspend?
  The Senator from North Dakota made a point of order that a quorum is 
not present.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 29913]]


  Mr. WELLSTONE. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard. The clerk will 
continue to call the roll.
  The legislative clerk continued the call of the roll.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The clerk will continue to 
call the roll.
  The legislative assistant continued the call of the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. 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. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I want to find 
out from the Chair whether or not I can amend, provide direction to my 
amendment without requiring unanimous consent; whether I have a right 
to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the Senate rules, the Senator cannot do 
that.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have how much time left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes 45 seconds.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have said it all, along with Senator 
Dorgan, about the why of this amendment and how important it is for our 
producers, how important it is to take a timeout so we can have some 
competition, how important it is to farmers and rural communities. 
Given the ruling of the Chair, I want to be crystal clear as to what 
has now happened.
  I wanted to come to the floor of the Senate--it was my understanding 
I would be able to do so, but I have been told I would not be able to 
do so--and improve upon this amendment in the spirit of compromise.
  Some colleagues are concerned about this timeout and they said: Why 
don't we have companies with $100 million. And the other threshold for 
an acquisition merger would be $100 million as well. They would be more 
comfortable with that. I wanted to provide this direction to my 
amendment to improve upon it. I wanted to compromise.
  I was also told by some colleagues they are a little worried that 
during this cooling off period, maybe some of the acquisitions and 
mergers would be procompetitive. I worked very hard to have some very 
specific language which would enable such a company to go to USDA and 
say: Listen, this would be procompetitive. And USDA, based upon clear 
criteria, would say: You are right.
  I come to the floor of the Senate today as a Senator from the State 
of Minnesota to try to modify my amendment. It is very clear what the 
modification would be. Based upon discussions with other Senators, in 
the spirit of compromise, so we can at least move this forward and 
provide a message to our producers that we care, so that some Senators 
who may now have to vote against this because of their concerns would 
be able to support it so we can actually adopt something that will make 
a difference, I am told I do not have the right to modify my amendment.
  Also--this is my final point because I cannot help but be a little 
bit angry about this--the majority leader came to me last week when 
Senators wanted to leave. We were scheduled to have a debate, and we 
were scheduled to have a vote. The idea was, to enable people to leave, 
we would hold this over, and I said yes. It is not as if I have waited 
to the last minute. We could have had negotiations then. We have just 
come back to this.
  I must say to my colleague from Oregon and others, I am skeptical 
about this. It is pretty rare that a Senator cannot come to the floor 
and modify his amendment. Whatever the procedural ruling is, it seems 
to me it is crystal clear what is going on. I wanted to modify it. I 
wanted to compromise. I wanted to make an amendment that would generate 
more support, maybe even adopt it, and I have been denied the 
opportunity to do so. That is very unfortunate.
  It is about time my colleagues gave some serious thought to being on 
the side of some of the interests in our country that do not have all 
the money and are not so well connected and such big investors and do 
not have such power. When my colleagues start with that, think about 
the producers and the people who live in our rural communities because 
right now we are seeing merger mania. We are seeing a lack of 
competition. We need to go back, I guess, to Teddy Roosevelt politics. 
It is a shame I have been denied the right to provide direction to my 
amendment or a modification to my amendment which would have been a 
good compromise.
  How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 25 seconds remaining.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, other than I do not have strong 
feelings about any of it, I will not take the last 25 seconds. I feel 
too strongly to say anything more in the last 25 seconds. It is rare 
that a Senator cannot modify his amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2752. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative assistant called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) 
and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich) are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 27, nays 71, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 366 Leg.]

                                YEAS--27

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Moynihan
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--71

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Robb
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     McCain
     Voinovich
       
  The amendment (No. 2752) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 2663

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 4 
minutes of debate on amendment No. 2663.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, this amendment retains existing 
bankruptcy law for low-income persons. A feature of the law as it now 
exists and which is perfectly sensible is the presumption that people 
who incur debt shortly before declaring bankruptcy have acted 
fraudulently. Clearly, this can be the case, is often the case, and is 
proven so.
  However, the bill presently before the Senate extends the time (from 
60 days to 90 days for consumer debts, for instance) in which this 
presumption of fraudulent activity takes place, and it changes the 
dollar amounts. We propose to keep the law as it is for low-income 
persons--people below the median income level, who already live hand-
to-mouth, who often find themselves in a bind, with no intent to 
defraud, and keep borrowing until they are in bankruptcy situations. 
They won't have lawyers and can't defend against presumptions.
  We simply keep the existing law. Deal with true fraud and important

[[Page 29914]]

bankruptcies as the bill proposes to do but leave the small and hapless 
folk to their small and hapless fortunes.
  The administration supports this measure, as does my friend, the 
senior Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, and his associate in these 
matters, Ms. Landrieu of Louisiana.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, in its current form, the bankruptcy reform 
bill attempts to resolve a major area of bankruptcy abuse, known as 
``load up.'' In plain terms, load up occurs when a debtor goes on a 
spending spree shortly before filing for bankruptcy.
  Under S. 625, limits are placed on a debtor's ability to buy luxury 
goods and take out large cash advances on the eve of bankruptcy. The 
bill accomplishes this by creating a rebuttable presumption that 
certain debts are not dischargeable. Specifically, the bill provides 
that debts of more than $250 per credit card for luxury goods, that are 
incurred within 3 months of bankruptcy, and cash advances of more than 
$750, incurred within 70 days of bankruptcy, are presumed to be 
fraudulent and are non-dischargeable.
  These provisions, while an improvement over current law, are by no 
means a solution to the load up problem. Debtors still essentially are 
free to take out a cash advance of $750 and buy luxury goods valued at 
$250 on each of their credit cards before even the presumption of 
nondischargeability kicks in. It also is important to note that under 
the bill, luxury goods specifically exclude ``goods or services 
reasonably necessary for the support or maintenance of the debtor or a 
dependent of the debtor.''
  Many have complained that these provisions do not go far enough to 
close the load up loophole. The amendment by the Senator from New York, 
in contrast, undermines the bill's modest anti-load up provisions by 
applying them only to those with income above the national median. 
Simply stated, the amendment would create an unjustified double 
standard, with those who fall under the national median income being 
permitted to load up on luxury goods and cash advances before filing 
for bankruptcy, as permitted by current law.
  If we seriously intend to reform our bankruptcy laws and eliminate 
fraud in the system, we cannot let this major loophole continue without 
any reasonable limits.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment because it sets 
up a double standard which lets below median-income bankrupts load up 
on debt on the eve of bankruptcy and then get those debts wiped away 
without judicial scrutiny. I know the Senator from New York is well-
intentioned, but this amendment is a very bad idea.
  Last night, the Senator from New York, in proposing his amendment, 
correctly noted that there is no evidence whatever that below median-
income debtors could ever pay a significant amount of their debts. We 
have taken care of the problem the Senator from New York has raised by 
totally exempting below median-income debtors from the means test. I 
think that is fair and reasonable. It is a fact of life. It means the 
poor won't be forced into repayment plans they could never complete.
  However, this amendment raises an entirely different question. This 
amendment isn't about whether the poor should be given a pass in terms 
of being forced to repay their debts. This amendment says people below 
the median income can purchase over $1,000 in luxury goods, such as 
Gucci loafers, and get over $1,000 in cash advances just minutes before 
declaring bankruptcy and they won't have to justify their debts to a 
bankruptcy judge.
  This is not good bankruptcy policy. Anybody who loads up on debt on 
the eve of bankruptcy should have to justify their debts. When it comes 
to suspicious and perhaps fraudulent behavior, we should treat everyone 
the same, below median income or above median income. Anybody who loads 
up on debt right before filing for bankruptcy should have to explain 
themselves; otherwise, we open the door to an obvious abuse.
  Last week, we defeated the Dodd amendment which contained very 
similar provisions. I ask my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his inquiry.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Is it in order for me to offer a second-degree 
amendment that would preclude any purchase of Gucci loafers?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would be in order.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I so move.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator send the amendment to the 
desk?
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I made my point.
  I withdraw my request.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the amendment No. 2663. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FITZGERALD (when his name was called). Present.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) 
and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich) are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 367 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Robb
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner

                                NAYS--43

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Fitzgerald
       

                             NOT VOTING--2

     McCain
     Voinovich
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             CHANGE OF VOTE

  Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on rollcall No. 367, I voted ``aye.'' 
It was my intention to vote ``no.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent 
that I be permitted to change my vote. It would in no way change the 
outcome of the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)


Amendment Nos. 1695, as modified; 2520; 2746, as modified; and 2522, as 
                           modified, en bloc

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on the 
consideration of these amendments: 1695, as modified; 2520; 2746, as 
modified; 2522, as modified. I send the modifications to the desk and 
ask for their immediate consideration, that they be adopted, and the 
motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc.

[[Page 29915]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, is 2520 the McConnell 
amendment?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
  Mr. REID. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 1695, as modified; 2520; 2746, as modified; and 
2522, as modified) were agreed to as follows:


                    AMENDMENT NO. 1695, AS MODIFIED

 (Purpose: To increase bankruptcy filing fees, increase funds for the 
       United States Trustee System Fund, and for other purposes)

       On page 124, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

     SEC. 322. UNITED STATES TRUSTEE PROGRAM FILING FEE INCREASE.

       (a) Actions under chapter 7 or 13 of title 11, United 
     States Code.--Section 1930(a) of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) For a case commenced--
       ``(A) under chapter 7 of title 11, $160; or
       ``(B) under chapter 13 of title 11, $150.''.
       (b) United States Trustee System Fund.--Section 589a(b) of 
     title 28, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1)(A) 40.63 percent of the fees collected under section 
     1930(a)(1)(A) of this title in cases commenced under chapter 
     7 of title 11; and
       ``(B) 70.00 percent of the fees collected under section 
     1930(a)(1)(B) of this title in cases commenced under chapter 
     13 of title 11;'';
       (2) in paragraph (2) by striking ``one-half'' and inserting 
     ``three-fourths''; and
       (3) in paragraph (4) by striking ``one-half'' and inserting 
     ``100 percent''.
       (c) Collection and Deposit of Miscellaneous Bankruptcy 
     Fees.--Section 406(b) of the Judiciary Appropriations Act, 
     1990 (28 U.S.C. 1931 note) is amended by striking ``pursuant 
     to 28 U.S.C. section 1930(b) and 30.76 per centum of the fees 
     hereafter collected under 28 U.S.C. section 1930(a)(1) and 25 
     percent of the fees hereafter collected under 28 U.S.C. 
     section 1930(a)(3) shall be deposited as offsetting receipts 
     to the fund established under 28 U.S.C. section 1931'' and 
     inserting ``under section 1930(b) of title 28, United States 
     Code, and 31.25 percent of the fees collected under section 
     1930(a)(1)(A) of that title, 30.00 percent of the fees 
     collected under section 1930(a)(1)(B) of that title, and 25 
     percent of the fees collected under section 1930(a)(3) of 
     that title shall be deposited as offsetting receipts to the 
     fund established under section 1931 of that title''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2520

  (Purpose: To amend section 326 of title 11, United States Code, to 
 provide for compensation of trustees in certain cases under chapter 7 
                             of that title)

       At the appropriate place in title III, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 3__. COMPENSATION OF TRUSTEES IN CERTAIN CASES UNDER 
                   CHAPTER 7 OF TITLE 11, UNITED STATES CODE.

       Section 326 of title 11, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) In a case that has been converted under section 706, 
     or after a case has been converted or dismissed under section 
     707 or the debtor has been denied a discharge under section 
     727--
       ``(1) the court may allow reasonable compensation under 
     section 330 for the trustee's services rendered, payable 
     after the trustee renders services; and
       ``(2) any allowance made by a court under paragraph (1) 
     shall not be subject to the limitations under subsection 
     (a).''.
                                  ____



                    AMENDMENT NO. 2746, AS MODIFIED

          (Purpose: To change the definition of family farmer)

     At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

     SEC.  . DEFINITION OF FAMILY FARMER.

       Section 101(18) of title 11, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A) by--
       (A) striking `$1,500,000'' and inserting ``3,000,000''; and
       (B) striking ``80'' and inserting ``50''; and (2) in 
     subparagraph (B)(ii) by
       striking ``$1,500,000'' and inserting ``$3,000,000''.
                                  ____



                    AMENDMENT NO. 2522, AS MODIFIED

        (Purpose: To provide for the expenses of long term care)

       On page 7, line 15, strike ``(ii)'' and insert ``(ii)(I)''
       On page 7, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
       ``(II) In addition, the debtor's monthly expenses may 
     include, if applicable, the continuation of actual expenses 
     paid by the debtor that are reasonably and necessary for care 
     and support of an elderly, chronically ill, or disabled 
     household member or member of the debtor's immediate family 
     (including parents, grandparents, and siblings of the debtor, 
     the dependents of the debtor, and the spouse of the debtor in 
     a joint case) who is not a dependent and who is unable to pay 
     for such reasonable and necessary expenses.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Glen Powell 
be given floor privileges for the duration of the day.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________