Dale Bumpers

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Is it also the understanding of the Senator from Alaska that his amendment would not reduce the ability of Federal agencies to ensure the quality of fish and fish products purchased under these authorities?

Mr. BUMPERS. Would the Senator add that to the unanimous-consent request?

Mr. BUMPERS. Let me ask the distinguished Senator if there is not also a Dole amendment on the IRS commission, which he did not list.

Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator from Alaska, [Mr. Murkowski], has offered an amendment relating to the purchase of domestic fish or fish products by the Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies. It is the understanding of the Senator that his amendment would impose no new requirement on the Federal Government to purchase these items?

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. I do not understand the time. How much time is left on the Coats amendment?

Mr. BUMPERS. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment by the junior Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski], which authorizes the Greens Creek Land Exchange. This amendment gives the Kennecott mining company 7,500 acres in the Admiralty Island Monument area of Alaska, in addition to the 340 acres they already own. They received the 340 acres they already own from the U.S. Government in the traditional way. They paid $2.50 an acre for it. For a while Kennecott had to shut down their silver, copper, and gold mine at the site because they were losing money. Now metal prices are higher and Kennecott has reopened the mine. I am glad they reopened the mine because it is good business for them. But more than anything else, Kennecott has agreed to pay a 3-percent net smelter return royalty on everything they mine from the additional 7,500 acres they are receiving as long as metal prices are at least $120 a ton. If prices go below $120 a ton, their royalty will decline. I want to pay a little tribute to Kennecott. That is what I call good corporate citizenship. They got the 340 acres for a song because of the 1872 mining law which continues to this day to be the biggest scam in America. And the U.S. Senate has consistently ratified that scam at the same time this body is willing to cut Head Start, student loans so kids can go to college, school lunches, Medicaid, 40 percent of which is used to keep elderly people in nursing homes, and another 40 percent for children. They are willing to cut all of that but not to address this scam. As I say, I am happy to support the amendment of the Senator from Alaska. It is a good deal for them. It is a good deal for the taxpayers of America. That is what we ought to be doing around here. But that is not what we are doing. Mr. President, when I took this issue on 7 years ago, 7 long years ago, the price of gold in this country was $300 an ounce. Every time I have attempted to stop the giveaway of Federal lands for $2.50 an acre, I got my brains beat out. Fortunately, I have been successful in gaining passage of a moratorium on the processing of new mining patent applications. The small progress I have made has been glacial. The mining companies want the taxpayers of this country to deed them Federal lands that belong to all of us for $2.50 an acre, $5 max, mine the gold, silver, copper, platinum, and other minerals off of this land and then, oftentimes, leave an unmitigated environmental disaster for the taxpayers to clean up--and not pay one thin dime. When I first took this issue on, gold was $300 an ounce. And the mining industry said, ``Well, if you put a 3- or 4- percent royalty on us, we will go broke. We will have to shut down, and all of these poor miners will be out of a job.'' Today gold is $400 an ounce. And what do you think their argument is? ``We will lose money. We will have to shut down and put all of those poor miners out of work.'' And like Pavlov's dog, Senators in the U.S. Senate grab it like a raw piece of meat and think that is the most wonderful thing they ever heard--``Keep all of these people working, if we will just not put a royalty on it.'' We charge people 12.5 percent for every ounce of coal they take off Federal lands--12.5 percent. We make people who mine underground coal-- a very expensive undertaking--pay 8 percent for every ounce of coal they mine. We make the natural gas companies and the oil companies pay 12.5 percent for every dollar's worth of oil and gas they take off Federal lands. And here is what we get for gold--zip. Here is what we get for silver--zip. And here is what we get for platinum--zip. Do you know what platinum is selling for as of this moment? It is $413 an ounce. We have given billions and billions of dollars worth of platinum and palladium away in Montana in the process of doing it, and we will not get one thin dime out of it. Just look at this chart: ``Miners Get the Gold and the Taxpayers Get the Shaft.'' Here is Barrick Gold Co., the stock of which has climbed in accordance with the price of gold. About a year and a half ago Secretary Babbitt was required by law to give Barrick Resources 11 billion dollars' worth of gold. Do you know what the Secretary and the taxpayers of the United States got for that $11 billion? Yes, $9,000. Ask Senators who own land with gold or silver or platinum or palladium: How many of you are willing to give the gold companies that kind of a deal? You know the answer to that question. Then just recently the Secretary was required by law to give a Danish company--Faxe Kalk--1 billion dollars' worth of travertine. Travertine converts into a powder which has very special uses. What do you think the taxpayers of the United States got for that $1 billion? Why, they got a whopping $700--enough to take your family out to dinner about five times. Do you think I am making this up? If you think I am making it up, invite all Senators who think this is just such a wonderful thing to come to the floor and refute it. In the past year, we gave Asarco, a copper and silver company, lands that have underneath them--who cares about the value of the surface? We just gave Asarco 3 billion dollars' worth of copper and silver. What did the taxpayers get for their $3 billion? Yes, $1,745. We are going to be required--we have not done it yet, but under the law, because of the 1872 law that Ulysses Grant signed when he was President, we are going to be required to give the Stillwater Mining Co. 44 billion dollars' worth of platinum and palladium. Mr. President, this is their figure, not mine. You want to go and find out where I got that figure? Look at their prospectus. And the taxpayers of this country in exchange for their $44 billion are going to get the whopping sum of $10,000. We are trying to balance the budget. It makes a mockery of it. It makes an absolute mockery of it. You talk about corporate welfare. That is the reason I applaud the Kennecott Co. At least in the land exchange, the grant we are going to give Kennecott in the Murkowski bill, they had the decency to say, ``We will give you a 3-percent net smelter return for all the copper we mine.'' That is still less than private property owners charge, but it is at least reasonable. If the taxpayers of this country were getting a severance tax or a net smelter return royalty over the next 7-year period when we are trying to balance the budget, it is a big piece of money. When we look at some of the things we are doing to the environment, even after the add-back in the amendment we are going to vote on here in about 2 hours, even after we add that back into the environmental fund, EPA is still going to be cut significantly. Mr. President. When I came to the Senate, 65 percent of the streams and lakes of this country were not swimmable and not fishable. Today, in 1996, that figure has been reversed; 65 percent of the streams and lakes are fishable, are swimmable. And I do not care where you go. If you go to Main Street America--you pick the town--and you ask people: Do you think we are doing enough for the environment? Seventy percent of the people say, no. Do you want to reverse that figure to 35 percent of the streams and lakes not being fishable and swimmable from the point that 65 percent of them are? No. Nobody wants to turn the clock back on the environment. The air we breathe, the water we drink goes to the very heart of our existence, and we are cutting the Environmental Protection Agency's budget. Too much regulation, they say. That may be true. Cut the regulations back, but do not cut back the quality of water and air. Here is an opportunity to find an awful lot of money that we have been giving away since 1872, originally to encourage people to move west. You think about the rationale for the 1872 law--to encourage people to move west--124 years ago. What is the rationale now? Corporate greed. Political campaign contributions. That is it, pure and simple. People will not vote to impose a royalty on mining companies because they give away a lot of money around here. Until we straighten that out, this is not going to be straightened out. Mr. President, I have made the same speech on this floor many times. The figures keep changing. The companies that are benefiting from it keep changing. I do not know how much longer I am going to be in the Senate, but I promise you one thing: The last day I serve here I will be standing right here, unless this is rectified, making the same speech. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the chairman of the Small Business Committee, my colleague, Senator Bond, made a magnificent statement on this very comprehensive bill. As Mo Udall used to say, ``Just about everything that needs to be said has been said, but everybody hasn't said it.'' I know that what I have to say will be largely repetitious, but let me start, first, by just complimenting Senator Bond for his tenacity and determination in getting this bill out of the committee and getting it to the floor. I believe I can truthfully say this is one of the two or three times since I have been in the Senate where Members, if this becomes law, will have an opportunity to go home and actually tell the small business community that we have done something for them that was actually meaningful, that they can relate to and that they will applaud. Sometimes the small business community can get very volatile and vocal about the fact that nobody here hears them or really cares about their problems. And there is some merit to that. Very few of the recommendations they have made at these various White House conferences on small business have ever resulted in legislation here. In 1980, when we passed the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we patted ourselves on the back and gave ourselves the good government award and went home and told the small business community what we had done for them. Not much time elapsed before they said, ``You didn't do anything for us.'' They were absolutely right about that. The Regulatory Flexibility Act simply has not worked. If it had, we would not be here this morning. So really the initiative taken by Senator Bond is to correct that, and to fulfill a promise to the small business community--oh, yes, if you want to put the political aspect to it--to enable the Members of the U.S. Senate to go home and appear before small business groups and tell them how much you love them, but this time you can actually justify it by pointing to this legislation, if it becomes law, which I feel sure it will. Why did the Regulatory Flexibility Act not work? Because it had a provision in it that said the agencies who write the rules that govern the people subject to their jurisdiction, it said that those agencies, first of all, had to make a determination that the rules they were writing were or were not unduly burdensome on the small business community. If they were, of course, then they had to do a regulatory analysis of how it affected small business as opposed to others. They have to do that to make a determination anyway. If they found that this was burdensome on the small business community, then they had to go through a lot of hoops. Agencies do not like to jump through hoops. So what did they do? Almost without exception they would simply say these regulations are not unduly burdensome on the small business community; therefore, they did not have to do anything more to accommodate the burden of that regulation on small business. What was really the biggest omission of all in the Reg Flex Act of 1980 was that once the agency said, no, this does not hurt small business, small business could not do anything but stand there and take it because there was no judicial review. Under this bill, if they make a decision that a regulation is not burdensome, unduly harsh on small business, if they make that decision, they are going to have to defend it in court because the small business community has a right of judicial review on that determination. So they are going to be much more circumspect about the regulation and certainly going to be much more circumspect about finding that the rules are not harsh on small business. There are people who do not much like the judicial review part of this and say, you are going to clog the courts up with small business people contesting every regulation that has ever been written. That is powerful nonsense. Small business people do not like to spend money in court more than anybody else does. But let me tell you, if I were going to summarize the vitality and the effectiveness of this bill in one sentence, or the reasons for it, it is because the small business people of this country spend 60 to 80 percent more dollars per employee to comply with Government regulations than big business does. How would you like to be a small business making widgets, and let us assume General Motors, one of the biggest corporations in America, also makes widgets, and you have to compete with General Motors, and then they come out with all these burdensome regulations, which are a piece of cake to General Motors, but, you know, you are going to have to spend 60 to 80 percent more than they are per employee to comply with those rules? That is what this is all about, Mr. President. It is going to sail through. If there is a vote against this bill I am going to be surprised because everybody here knows those things I just described to you make sense. The equal access to justice, which gives the small business community the right to go two court and to challenge some of the findings of the agencies, is long overdue. The equal access to justice, which says if the Government sues you for $1 million, and they wind up getting an award of $10,000 or even $50,000, the Justice Department, the small business person can sue for his attorney fees. This is a point that the Justice Department helped us with. And we accepted it. I applaud the Justice Department for it because the language says that if the award is disproportionately smaller than that requested, you are entitled to attorney fees.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I just want to close my part of the program by complimenting my very able and long-time assistant, John Ball, who has been with the Small Business Committee as both staff director and director for the ranking member now for many, many years. He has performed yeoman service on this. I also hasten to say that the work of Keith Cole and Louis Taylor has been truly outstanding. Between these three people, and Senator Bond and myself, but especially the staff members, we think we have crafted a pretty good bill. I want to pay my special thanks publicly to these staffers who have labored very hard to make this possible. I am prepared to go forward with final passage.

Mr. BUMPERS. How much time does the Senator from Virginia wish? Five minutes? I yield the Senator 5 minutes.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I compliment Senator Hutchison on a very fine statement. She is also one of the faithful attendants at the Small Business Committee. Sometimes we have difficulty getting a quorum. She is dedicated to the small business community and manifests that dedication by being a good steward on that committee.

Mr. BUMPERS. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor S. 942 and the pending managers' amendment with the distinguished chairman of our committee, Senator Bond. This bill is one of the most significant accomplishments of the 104th Congress, and it is one of the best bills for the small business community in the last 15 years. It is important because it resolves major concerns to the small business community that have been unresolved for many years. And, it follows by less than 1 year the conclusion and recommendations of the 1995 White House Conference on Small Business. Senators who support this bill can say to their small business constituents, ``We not only hear you; we agree with much of what you are saying, and we are responding.'' With this bill, Senators can do more than give platitudes for small business. We can do something that will effect the lives of every business owner who deals with a Federal regulator. S. 942 makes important, positive changes in two statutes which grew out of the 1980 White House Conference on Small Business: The Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Equal Access to Justice Act. This is a bill--all too rare in this Congress--which I can assure my colleagues that we would be considering if my party were in the majority. Some of today's bill's issues--particularly the judicial enforceability of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or Reg Flex--have been the subject of consternation among small business owners almost since the act was passed in 1980. The recommendations of the White House Conference, as well as the work done by the National Performance Review under Vice President Gore, are the foundations of today's bill. I want to emphasize that the spirit of S. 942 is one of reforming the regulatory environment--a cause which President Clinton's administration has championed since its inception both in the National Performance Review and in Executive orders which the President has signed. We are not only endorsing the Clinton administration's new regulatory philosophy, we are writing some of its program into law so that this new attitude does not change under some future President. Section 202 of the bill is specifically based on an Executive order, which President Clinton signed, providing for waiver or reduction of penalties and fines for small businesses in certain circumstances. His Executive order is exactly that approach to take if we are to change the climate of animosity between Government and small business which has existed for years. There are several specific provisions of this bill which deserve mention. First, however, I want to compliment the chairman for the way he has handled this bill in our committee and since it was reported. Although the administration did not testify on the bill before the Small Business Committee, in subsequent days the chairman, the staff and I have held literally dozens of consultations with various agency officials about the bill. More importantly, we have worked very hard to accommodate the views and suggestions of the Clinton administration. Without exception, the suggestions and requests both from the administration and from Senators on and off the committee have been constructive and helpful. The staffs of the Finance Committee and the Governmental Affairs Committee have been especially helpful in crafting this far-reaching bill. The Managers' amendment incorporates dozens of changes, some quite significant, in either language or policy from the bill reported by the committee. However, it does not retreat in any way from the main purpose of the bill. In fact, the administration's views have helped us to make the bill stronger and more effective for small business. I want to dispel any notion that the so-called bureaucrats have opposed this bill for fear that it would create more work for their agencies. The General Counsels' offices at Treasury, Justice, Labor, and other departments have offered advice which has improved upon what our committee originally approved 2 weeks ago. Allowing judicial enforcement of the rights created under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980--which S. 942 for the first time does--removes a bone that has been stuck in the throat of small business owners for over 15 years. The original act did not permit anyone to go to Federal court to enforce the promise that agencies would: First, consider whether a proposed rule significantly affected a substantial number of small entities; and second, consider whether steps should be taken to account for the special problems of small entities. The only enforcement of the act was the moral authority of the law and SBA's Chief Counsel for Advocacy who is charged with monitoring agencies' implementation of Reg Flex. Small firms, according to the GAO, pay between 60 and 80 percent more, per employee, for the cost of complying with Government regulations than do the big businesses who are often their competitors. Small business owners do not have armies of accountants, clerks, and lawyers to help them comply with the Government's endless demand for information and enforcement of rules. For several years, the SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy has reported to the Senate Small Business Committee on the performance of agencies in following the mandate of the Reg Flex Act. Some agencies have been conscientious, others sadly have not. That report, to date, has been almost the only means of enforcing agency compliance with the act. There is at least a perception that some agencies of the Government have routinely used the act's escape clause by saying that a significant number of small entities would not be substantially affected. This has occasionally been done when the facts were obviously to the contrary. Yet there was no legal recourse for businesses affected. Today, all that changes. Those who should be protected by the Reg Flex Act will be. Small business owners, small town governments, and small nonprofit associations will be empowered to go into Federal court and obtain justice if a Federal agency has not followed the law. This law puts the Reg Flex Act on the same footing with other parts of the Administrative Procedure Act--which is to say that individuals are protected against actions which are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accord with the law. Judicial review of reg flex was one of the top recommendations of the 1995 White House Conference on Small Business, as was overall regulatory reform. Less than a year after the end of that conference, Congress is acting on those recommendations--a large part of them--by enacting these major changes in Federal regulatory law and policy. Important as judicial enforcement is, however, it is not the only big change made in this bill. Perhaps the headline for this bill should be: IRS made subject to reg flex law. For the first time, the scope of the Reg Flex Act is being extended to cover so-called interpretative rulemakings. IRS and a few other agencies issue what are termed interpretative rules which, they say, merely explain the requirements of the statute. Nonetheless, these rules have great weight in the courts. They must be observed if the business owner wants to avoid a confrontation with the Government. Until the present moment, interpretative rules have not been subject to the requirements of the Reg Flex Act. Today, that also changes. IRS will be required to conduct an analysis under the act if a new rule substantially effects a significant number of small entities. And that finding will itself be subject to judicial review under section 5 of the Administrative Procedures Act. Let me hasten to add that we do not believe allowing judicial review will result in a flurry of spurious lawsuits against the Government. Instead, we believe that agency rule writers will follow the new reg flex law and perform analyses which will avoid the necessity of anyone going to court. IRS particularly has a problem with tax protesters filing frivolous suits against the Government. The courts should deal summarily with such people, including imposing costs and fines in appropriate cases for those who sue to obstruct the Government. The Equal Access to Justice Act [EAJA] which this bill amends deserves special mention. This important law allows individuals of small firms who have been sued by Government to recover their attorneys fees if they prevailed in the suit. This law has often failed of its purpose because it contained a two-part test which court decisions made nearly impossible to achieve. Under existing law, the small company must first show that he or she is a prevailing party. So, if the Government alleged 10 or 100 violations, and then only proved one minor one, the company was not a prevailing party. Second, even if someone prevailed on each and every count, he has to show that the Government's action was not substantially justified. Courts have interpreted this phrase to mean that the Government's suit must have been without foundation in law or fact--virtually a frivolous suit under rule 11 of the civil rules. This is an almost impossible task, since the Government invariably has some basis for acting, even if it is not enough to persuade a judge or jury. Our bill changes both these standards and makes it possible for the business owner to recover his fees by showing that the Government's final judgment was disproportionately less than an express demand by the Government during the course of the suit. So, if the Government sought $1 million to settle the case, and the judge or jury awarded, for example, $1,000 or $5,000, the defendant should be able to recover his fees. The phrase ``disproportionately less'' than an express demand by the Government was suggested by the Justice Department, and it was a very helpful suggestion. Obviously, this will not prohibit any agency from telling anyone the maximum legal penalty for a violation. Additionally--and this should be emphasized by all who read and apply this section--the court or agency can deny attorneys fees if it finds that ``special circumstances make such an award unjust.'' This phrase also came from the Justice Department, and it is contained in the current law. Clearly, we do not want to pay attorneys fees for someone who escaped conviction on a mere technicality but who was, nonetheless, probably guilty. It is certainly not our intention to pay the lawyers for people who are essentially bad actors but who escaped punishment by the grace of the Almighty. Many circumstances, such as an exclusionary rule challenge, can be imagined where it would be wrong for the taxpayers to reimburse someone's attorneys fees, and the courts are empowered to use some reasonable discretion. Finally, the courts are not obliged to allow the maximum rate of $125 per hour in every case. This is an increase from the $75 per hour maximum in current law, a figure which has not been changed in many years. The courts should look to existing law under section 1988 of the Civil Rights Act for guidance. Fees should be set in relation to prevailing fees actually charged in the community. Moreover, courts should require attorneys to substantiate their fees through time-sheets or other appropriate records. The Justice Department is still not entirely satisfied with this language, as the statement of administration policy indicates. But the administration has my assurance, and that of Senator Bond, that we will continue to work with them to improve upon this language in conference with the House. The House previously passed a bill allowing for some judicial review of reg flex decisions, but our bill is broader. Moreover, the House bill does not amend the EAJA, does not contain an ombudsman provision, and does not allow for Regulatory Advisory Boards. It is a rather narrow bill, and I hope that we will be able to persuade the House to substantially broaden it or, better yet, to accept our bill. To this point, the House has not been able to bring major regulatory reform to a conclusion, just as the Senate failed to complete debate on S. 343 earlier in this session. This bill, however, can and should go forward regardless of the outcome of those debates. This bill can only help our economy's small business sector, and I hope our colleagues in the other body will move expeditiously to send this bill to the President for his signature. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill. The small business community will undoubtedly appreciate those who have helped us today. Again, I want to thank Senator Bond and his staff, particularly Keith Cole and Louis Taylor, for their cooperation and support during the development and consideration of this bill. This bill shows that reasonable people of good will can still accomplish a great deal in this Congress, and I hope it will be a precedent for other bills. Mr. President, on the equal access to justice, I point out it was the Justice Department that came up with the phrase which I think is almost a stroke of genius when they said, ``Why don't you use the term `disproportionate award'?'' That is, if the Government sues for $1 million and they get a disproportionately smaller amount than that, then the small businessperson is entitled to his attorney fees. There are some exceptions to that, of course--if he has been guilty of a criminal act or willful wrongdoing or something like that--but normally he not only will be entitled to attorney fees, but the equal-access-to- justice provision, which is essentially incorporated here with Senator Feingold, essentially the amendment he offered on the floor--I think it passed 98-0--that increased the amount the small businessperson could recover from $75 an hour to $225 an hour. We have put that in this bill. Now, Mr. President, there are some cases in which offenses can be waived, penalties can be waived, under a certain set of conditions. If you really want, sometimes, to enforce a regulation, no exception, cross every ``t'' and dot every ``i'', you can still make things a little tough for some small business people. The National Performance Review Group headed up by Vice President Gore had recommended that there be a provision in here that some people could be excused from burdensome penalties if it was rather unintentional and had been corrected. That ought to be a source of some strength. I, frankly, thought that labor might oppose that, but they did not. It is not designed to ratify or condone bad conduct on the part of some small businessman but just to keep it from being too harsh. Now, Mr. President, the final thing that I want to mention, there is a provision in here--and it may not be perfect; some people have voiced considerable reservation about it--but the provision is that the Small Business Administration will be home to an omsbudsman, and that ombudsman is there to take complaints from the small business community. You have heard that classic joke for 100 years, ``I'm here from the IRS and I am here to help you,'' and people are terrified when the IRS walks in. Usually if that agent happens to be abusive--and I use the IRS because they are everybody's favorite whipping boy--if that agent happens to be abusive on top of the fact you know that he is there to get in your pocketbook, it makes it doubly troublesome. This is also true of a lot of people who come into your plant to enforce the OSHA laws or all the other regulations that they write. If a small business man or woman feels that he or she has been put upon in an unfair, burdensome, and abusive way, they will have somebody to report that to. It just occurred to me, Mr. President, one of the biggest cases I ever had involved a defense contract. My client was a manufacturer of tent pins. Tent pins came in different sizes, anywhere from 18 inches to 24 inches, and they were designed, of course, to drive in the ground to hold a tent up for the army, for the troops. Now, you have to understand the tent pins had to be absolutely perfect--sanded. You would not believe the regulations that my client had to comply with to build a tent pin which, when used, was going to be hit by a sledgehammer. He had one of those crazy, as luck would have it, a crazy inspector. The guy used to go through his trash at night after he would leave to see if he could find something. The reason I am telling you that--it is humorous now because that happened 35 years ago; it was not funny then--it bankrupted my client. It took 7 years--I had never had a case in the U.S. Court of Claims before. They sent a referee down to Fort Smith, AR, and we tried that thing. It took a week. Happily, the referee of the Court of Claims was a very attentive judge. He was an elderly man. He understood the problem. He listened very carefully. He awarded my client, I believe, $100,000, one of the biggest judgments I ever got. You would think I could remember to the penny what it was. It turned out, as a personal note, that Betty and I were getting ready to take our daughter to Boston to Children's Hospital for what we knew was going to be a tremendous expense and we did not know how to pay for it, and I collected on that judgment 3 days before we left. It saved my life. I have had firsthand experience with the Government inspector who bankrupted my client. We did get that amount of money. But that was after 7 years. We did not get a dime of interest. We did not get a dime of penalty. We did not get a dime in attorney fees. All we got were actual damages. Now, as a country lawyer in a town of 2,000 people, I could not believe the Government treated people like that. They admitted they were wrong, but no attorney fees, no interest, no penalty, after 7 years. Well, at least these people are going to be entitled to attorney fees. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Carol Moseley- Braun as a cosponsor.

Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, at this point I ask unanimous consent that Senators Baucus and Feingold be added as cosponsors.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from Oklahoma for offering the amendment. I think it is an excellent amendment. We certainly are prepared to accept it.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I have nothing further to add. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, if I may have the attention of the Senator from Texas for a moment, there is no point belaboring this issue. I want to make three or four salient points. First, the 19 restrictions that were put on the corporation's grantees are not touched in this amendment. They are still intact. Many of them deal with lobbying. Second, no Federal funds can be used to carry out the actions permitted by this amendment. Only non-Federal funds received by a grantee may be used. Third, the request has to come from a legislator, a Member of Congress, or an agency to a grantee. Let me give the Senator from Texas this illustration. Let us assume that in the State of Texas the legislature thinks that the Legal Services Corporation's grantees in that State are doing a super job, but the Federal funds have been cut off, we have reduced Legal Services Corporation funding. Let us assume the Texas State Legislature wants to give a few million dollars to some of the Legal Services Corporation grantees, but before doing so, they would like for some of those people to come in and testify as to what their activities have been and maybe limit the use to which they can put the money the legislators propose to give them. First, they have to make a request, we will say, of the Dallas grantees, Legal Services of Dallas. If the State Legislature of Texas or a legislator or a committee wants to ask that grantee to come in, they would have to direct it in writing and the grantee would have to respond to that specific request, and only money that the grantee had generated on its own--not Federal money, money of its own--could be used to answer a written inquiry. It seems to me almost ludicrous to say we are not going to allow a committee of Congress or a State legislative committee or a Senator or a State legislator to get information that they need to make these decisions, particularly when the grantees are using their own money. What kind of a fix would we be in here? The Legal Services Corporation can come in and testify before the Senator's committee and tell him why they think they need more money, but a grantee could not. The Senator from Texas, as chairman of this committee, can write to the head of the local Legal Services provider in Dallas and say, ``Please come forthwith before my committee and testify.'' As the bill is drafted, even if he submitted it in writing, they could not honor that request. I sit on the Appropriations Subcommittee that able Senator from Texas chaired. I was there when the debate took place about how much we were going to give the Legal Services Corporation, and I, indeed, did support Senator Domenici's amendment. I never heard of such unintended consequences. All Senator Cohen and I are doing is trying to redress a problem that believe the Senate did not intend to cause. Our amendment does not in any way allow grantees or the corporation to do anything to avoid complying with those 19 specific restrictions. I hope the Senator from Texas will reconsider.

Mr. BUMPERS. What was the request?

Mr. BUMPERS. It is fine with me. We can probably do it in less time than that.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me begin by saying I hope the Senator from New Hampshire and the senior Senator from Texas will look very carefully at this amendment and accept it. It is not only a harmless amendment, it is a very beneficial amendment. It is an amendment that corrects a problem that apparently was not foreseen. It would be difficult for me to believe that the Congress intended that Legal Services Corporation grant recipients not even to be permitted to testify if a congressional committee asked them to, or to respond to the committee's questions. Let us assume that the Senator from New Hampshire wanted the answer to a question about a lawsuit brought in New Hampshire in which a Legal Services grantee was involved. They would not even be able to answer it. The Senator from Maine has crafted this amendment in a way that could offend nobody in Congress because it allows Legal Services grantees use only non-Federal funds to respond to inquiries. They can only use money that the grantee has received from non-Federal sources to answer specific questions in writing. To me, what we have done to the Legal Services Corporation is a real travesty, but I am not here to reopen that debate. But, Mr. President, just to give you some idea of what we did, we put 19--count them--19 specific restrictions on the Legal Services Corporation of things that they have always done and can no longer do. We had never before restricted the Legal Services Corporation on any of those things as long as they were using their own self-generated money. But now the way the bill is crafted, the Presiding Officer or any Member of the Senate or any of the committees of the Senate could call a Legal Services grantee and ask them for information, and the way the bill is crafted now they could not answer it. What kind of nonsense is that? This amendment simply says that the Legal Services professionals can respond to specific requests for comment on proposed rules, or legislative proposals, if they are asked and if they have comments to offer. We are a lot better hearing from them during the rulemaking process than we are hearing their arguments later in the courtroom. This amendment precludes lobbying. There are two things, it seems to me, that have really caught the attention and the exasperation of the Senate more than anything else--one is lobbying by the Legal Services Corporation and its grantees and the other are class actions. I sit on the appropriations subcommittee that funds them, so I can tell you, it has been draconian what we have done to them. But consider the fact that unless this amendment is adopted, those Legal Services providers will be prohibited from responding even to congressional inquiries about their activities. Think about that. You cannot even ask them about their activities because they would be prohibited from answering. The way the law is drafted now, they will not be able to appear at hearings to answer questions. So, Mr. President, the amendment permits only specific responses to specific written requests for information by State legislators, by Members of Congress and committees of Congress, or agency officials. And the response can be made only to the official who made the inquiry. I do not think I have ever argued for an amendment that was needed as badly as is this one. I cannot imagine it not being accepted. I hope it will be, and we can get on to another amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. The answer to that question is yes or no?

Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator is familiar with his amendment.

Mr. BUMPERS. Does the Senator assure me and the other Senators here that there is nothing in this amendment that would require USDA, or any other Government agency, to buy any salmon in any amount?

Mr. BUMPERS. Senator, let me tell you what my concern is. I do not want to belabor this. I know that Alaska had a very bountiful salmon harvest, and we are all grateful that you did have such a bountiful harvest. But a bountiful harvest in salmon, as it does with rice, soybeans, and everything else, sometimes has a down side, where the market is glutted, the price is low, and the number of customers decline, because they have more than they want. Now, the Department of Agriculture tells me that they have a lot of salmon on hand from 1991 and 1993. I think the way the Senator's amendment has been represented to me was that the Senator steadfastly denies that, and I certainly accept his explanation. It is his amendment. I have immense respect for him, and I applaud him for trying to do something for his constituents. We all try to take care of the economic interests of our States. But I am concerned about two things. No. 1, I do not understand why the Senator wants to eliminate an inspection procedure which has been as traditional as the Sun coming up in the morning, and No. 2, why the Senator would want to eliminate that inspection which, it is my understanding, goes to the heart of the quality of the product. We all know you have sockeye, you have silver, chum, you have a lot of different kinds of salmon. I assume that when that salmon is being canned, it is also graded for safety to make sure it is safe to eat, and second, for quality. My guess is that if Giant Food were going to buy a shipload of silver or sockeye salmon, they would want to have some idea about the quality of it. Unless the Department of Agriculture is permitted to make that determination, nobody knows what the quality is.