Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that I have 5 minutes at the very end to summarize this because we may make some changes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. May I have 5 minutes at the end? Otherwise, my time will burn off.

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. 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.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator 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. WELLSTONE. Yes, I will.

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. WELLSTONE. Yes.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I object.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have how much time left?

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?

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.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Iowa. I ask unanimous consent that following the votes, we move to the Kohl amendment, but if there is not agreement to do so, we then move to my amendment No. 2752 which deals with a merger moratorium.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague from Iowa.

Mr. WELLSTONE. If my colleague will yield for 1 second, I ask unanimous consent that following the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Vermont, I may then speak on this amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I understand my colleague from Michigan has wanted to propound a unanimous consent request.