[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 52 (Wednesday, May 4, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: May 4, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON THE NOMINATION OF JERE WALTON GLOVER
Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I rise in support of the nomination of
Jere W. Glover of Maryland to be chief counsel for the Office of
Advocacy in the Small Business Administration. This nomination was
favorably reported by the Committee on Small Business on May 3, 1994,
by a vote of 17 to 5.
The President submitted this nomination on March 2, 1994, and I
regret that it has taken somewhat longer than usual for our committee
to get this nominee before the Senate. A hearing was held on April 12,
and suffice it to say that a series of questions was submitted to the
nominee, both at the hearing and for several days following, by Members
on the other side of the aisle which delayed somewhat the Senate's
consideration of this nomination. The nominee responded to all of these
questions in a timely fashion, and I ask unanimous consent that the
questions and Mr. Glover's answers be printed in the Record at the
conclusion of my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1)
Mr. BUMPERS. In any event, it is appropriate that the Senate should
consider this nomination today because this week is U.S. Small Business
Week, as proclaimed by President Clinton. Hundreds of small business
owners are in Washington even as we speak. They are being honored by
festivities around the city which celebrate their individual
accomplishments and contributions to the Nation's economy.
Without a doubt, small business owners have long felt that the chief
counsel for advocacy's office was the best bargain in Government, the
one office which they most favored, and the one office in Government
they believe is most helpful to them.
Created during the Carter administration, the Office of Advocacy is
intended to serve as small business owners' pit bull against the
Federal Bureaucracy and in the Halls of Congress. No person better fit
that description than the legendary Milt Stewart who served under
President Carter as the first chief counsel for advocacy. It speaks
well of Jere Glover that he was selected by Milt Stewart to serve as
his deputy in that administration, and he carried out those duties with
distinction.
Since that time, Jere has had a fine career in the legal profession
which I will discuss presently. First, since this nomination was filed
without a written report in order to get it to the floor quickly, I
want to say a few words for the record about this nominee's background.
His qualifications, I believe, could not be more appropriate for this
job.
Jere Glover is a native of Ridgely in northwest Tennessee, not far
from the northeast corner of my home state of Arkansas. His father
owned a small photographic studio where Jere's mother also worked and
where he worked while in high school. I was pleased to meet Mr. and
Mrs. Glover at their son's confirmation hearing. Jere and his wife
Doris have lived for some years in Annapolis, MD. He also has a brother
in the area who is a medical doctor and a urologist. Mr. and Mrs.
Glover, Sr., have much to be proud of in these two sons who have been
successful in their chosen professions and, jointly, in several
businesses in which they have invested and worked.
A few words about Jere Glover's professional background which has
brought him before the Senate for confirmation: Jere received his B.A.
degree from Memphis State University in 1966 and his J.D. in 1969.
After coming to Washington, Jere did graduate work in law at George
Washington University where he received the LL.M. degree in 1974. He
did this while serving on the staff of the Federal Trade Commission--an
important agency for small business. Later he served on the staff of
the House Small Business Committee where he was counsel to the
Subcommittee on Antitrust, Consumers and Employment for a short period
before being asked to join Milt Stewart's staff in the newly created
SBA Office of Advocacy.
Jere Glover held the No. 2 post in Advocacy during what are now seen
by many as the halcyon days of the Office. Milt Stewart was aggressive
and fearless in seeking to protect the interests of small business
owners, and he ruffled a lot of feathers in this town. More
importantly, he and his staff prepared the way for the 1980 White House
Conference on Small Business--the first such conference in living
memory--which proved hugely successful. That conference recommended,
among other things, the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, the Equal Access to
Justice Act and the Small Business Innovation Research Act. All except
the SBIR bill were enacted during the Carter administration.
As Senators know, work is now underway for the 1995 White House
Conference on Small Business, beginning with State conferences which
will start this summer. We can only hope that it will be as successful
as the 1980 conference.
I can think of no person better qualified than Jere Glover for the
post of Chief Counsel for Advocacy. Following his Government service in
the 1970's, he established a successful law practice in Washington in
which he has represented almost exclusively the interests of small
businesses. His clients have included a number of well known trade
associations for small businesses, and several individual small
companies with a variety of legal problems and public policy issues.
Jere Glover is knowledgeable about small business policy generally, and
especially so in the areas of antitrust enforcement, fair trade
practices, taxation, finance, and innovation. In addition, Jere has
invested in and worked in several successful small companies,
particularly in the area of medical devices and services.
In short, Jere Glover has gained a wealth of experience which will
put him in good stead as SBA's new chief counsel for advocacy. His
nomination has been praised by all small business organizations
including National Small Business United, National Association for the
Self Employed, Small Business Council of America, National Association
of Small Business Investment Companies, Small Business Legislative
Council, National Association of Women Business Owners, and the
National Federation of Independent Business.
President Clinton is to be commended for selecting such a fine and
universally respected person for this important post. I urge all
Senators to support the President's nomination.
Exhibit 1
Senator Pressler's questions
Mr. Glover, I would appreciate receiving your written
response to the following questions prior to the committee
vote on your nomination:
Activities in private sector
Q. Have you ever lobbied an employee of the Office of
Advocacy? If so, whom did you lobby and on what issue?
A. To the best of my knowledge, in the past 13 years I have
not lobbied any employee of the Office of Advocacy and
certainly have not in the past 3 or 4 years.
Q. Have you ever represented a client before any other
division of the SBA?
A. Yes. Size determination for Baron Transportation, Inc.
Preparation of initial 8(a) application of T&S Bus Service,
Inc. Small Disadvantaged Business protest involving Lightcom
International, Inc. (Prior to the announcement of the
intention to nominate me, I withdrew and turned the matter
over to another attorney, who is not associated with me, who
handled the matter thereafter.)
Q. How would you avoid any appearances of a conflict of
interest with any of your former employers or clients?
A. I will fully comply with SBA regulations concerning
conflicts of interest including the circumstances which might
give rise to any conflict. I will discuss the situation with
the agency's Ethics Officer and will comply with his or her
suggestions. If necessary, I will dispose of the asset in
question and/or recuse myself from matters involving former
clients.
Q. Since you left the SBA in 1981, you have had business
relationships with numerous small business trade
associations. However, it appears some of these associations
may not be contained in the documents you provided to the
committee. Therefore, in order to clear up any confusion,
could you briefly discuss the associations that you have had
business relationships with since leaving SBA in 1981?
A. To the best of my knowledge, both orally or in writing,
I have disclosed all of my business relationships. To clarify
any confusion, the following is a list of the associations
with which I have had a business relationship since 1981:
In 1982 or 1983, I was retained for a brief period by the
National Federation of Independent Business as a consultant
and appeared as a witness on behalf of NFIB. I believe it was
at the National Governors' Conference.
I served as counsel to and a director of National Small
Business United for a period of time in the early 1980s. Most
of my service to NSBU was on a pro-bono basis.
I served as counsel and legislative representative to the
National Association for the Self-Employed during the mid to
late 1980s.
In the early 1980s, I was on the board of the Small
Business Legislative Council and received an award for my
activities.
I served as a director of and represented the Coalition of
Membership Associations (a coalition of several small
business associations) during the last few years.
I served as President of the Alliance for Affordable Health
Care (an association of primarily small business
associations) during the last few years.
I served as Executive Director of the National Council for
Industrial Innovation, a group of small business men and
women interested in innovation, from 1981 to present. This
organization has been inactive for several years.
I served as Executive Director of the Fair Franchising
Coalition, from 1989 to present. This organization has been
inactive for several years.
Activities as nominee
Q. During your recent courtesy call at my office, you
mentioned you have had only brief contact with the Office of
Advocacy since the President expressed his intent to nominate
you several months ago. However, I still have concerns over
the extent of your contact with the SBA prior to this hearing
and confirmation by the full Senate. Therefore, I have a
series of fairly specific questions about your recent
activities. How many meetings, visits, conversations,
briefings, telephone calls, or meals have you had with
Advocacy staff?
A. In order to prepare for this hearing, and at the
suggestion of the Office of Congressional Relations, I have
had several briefing sessions with the Advocacy personnel.
The first of these was with Doris Freedman, the Acting
Chief Counsel. Ms. Freedman has also called me on two or
three occasions supplementing that meeting.
Subsequent meetings were held with Office Directors Susan
Walthall and Bruce Phillips. Each of these meetings were
about two hours in length and were conducted at my office and
in an inexpensive Greek restaurant near my office.
After receiving a copy of the issue papers for the White
House Conference on Small Business, I had a conversation with
Susan Walthall when Doris Freedman was out of the country. I
suggested that she try to make the issue papers more user
friendly. They were too long. I suggested an introductory
paragraph or a summary was needed. I did not suggest any
substantive changes but did suggest some editorial changes. I
was one of several members of the public who were asked to
review the issue papers.
We had a rehearsal for the hearing at which Doris Freedman
appeared, together with Marty Teckler of the Office of
General Counsel, Bob Gardner of the Inspector General's
Office and Kris Swedin of the Congressional Relations Office.
At the suggestion of staff of the Senate Small Business
Committee that Marty Teckler's letter to the Office of
Government Ethics be clarified, I went to Kris Swedin to her
office to get the changes made. Doris Freedman stopped by
Kris' office to say ``hi.''
I also attended a hearing of the House Judiciary
Subcommittee on the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Doris
Freedman testified and at least one other Advocacy employee,
Barry Pinellas, was present. Other than pleasantries, no
substantive conversation occurred at this meeting.
Q. Did you attend any public or private third-party events
with Advocacy officials? If so, please tell this committee
with whom you attended and describe the event.
A. I attended the recent public Regulatory Forum presented
by the Office of Management and Budget and the SBA at which
the Acting Chief Counsel and other Advocacy personnel were
present. I did not have any discussions other than exchanging
pleasantries.
I did not participate in the meeting except to listen, as a
member of the public audience, which included about 75
people.
I attended the National Association for the Self-Employed's
Open House and met Steve Dixon, an Advocacy employee, who was
at the meeting. Other than exchanging pleasantries, no other
discussion was held.
Since leaving the Office of Advocacy in 1981, I have made
no policy or personnel decisions or recommendations
concerning the Office of Advocacy. I will make no policy or
personnel decisions or recommendations until and if I am
confirmed.
I did receive a letter from a small business owner about a
problem with a proposed FDA regulation. I forwarded it to the
Office of Advocacy without comment or recommendation.
Q. In preparation for today's hearing, have you had any
contact with SBA's Inspector General's Office? If so, please
tell this committee with whom you met and describe the
encounters.
A. Bob Gardner of the Inspector General's Office
participated in a dress rehearsal for the hearing with Doris
Freedman, Kris Swedin and Marty Teckler.
Q. Did any of your activities involve the upcoming White
House Conference on Small Business? If so, what was the
extent of your activities?
A. I met with Mark Schultz, the Executive Director of the
White House Conference, for approximately one hour to receive
a briefing on the organization and planning of the Conference
as a part of my briefing process. I later met with Kathy St.
Denis, Nick Friendly and Mark Schultz for a further 2-hour
briefing. As mentioned above I did review the issues papers.
Advocacy management
Q. How independent do you envision the position of Chief
Counsel for Advocacy? In other words, how do you see your
role vis-a-vis the Administrator and the White House?
A. I believe it is important for the Chief Counsel to
represent the views of the small business community even when
they conflict with the views of the Administrator and the
White House. It is my intention to work within the
Administration as much as possible but on issues that will
impact the small business community. It may be necessary and
appropriate to express my views and my opinions, even if they
are inconsistent with those of the Administrator and the
White House.
The Administrator and I have discussed the role of Chief
Counsel and he and the President both understand that from
time to time I will express views which conflict with his
views or those of the President.
A. Will you publicly oppose the President and Administrator
Bowles when they take positions that would have a negative
effect on the small business community?
A. Yes, see question 1 above.
Q. Currently, half the Regional Advocate positions remain
vacant. If confirmed, would you fill these very important
positions?
A. If confirmed, I will be reviewing the functions of the
Regional Advocates as well as the entire office. Once that
review is completed, I will fill vacancies as soon as
possible.
Q. The Acting Director of Advocacy's Office of Information
currently is engaged in a major fundraising campaign for
Small Business Week 1994. Do you think it is proper to raise
large sums of money from associations and corporations that
do business with the SBA, and with the Office of Advocacy in
particular?
Congress recognized a need to develop partnerships with the
private sector to further the Small Business Administration's
mission. I have been advised that the Office of the General
Counsel at the SBA has issued an opinion that the small
business fundraising activities are legal and appropriate and
that this has been the practice for some years. I have been
told that none of the sponsoring organizations have contracts
with SBA.
Senator Coverdell's questions
Q. What role do you think small businesses should play in
the reform of our health care system?
A. Although I have not had an opportunity to fully review
the issues in Senator Coverdell's questions. I am providing
my comments based on the information I have at this time.
Small business should play a constructive role in
restructuring the health care system. The current system
discriminates against small business. Many small businesses
are completely excluded from providing health insurance
because one of their key employees or family members has a
pre-existing condition. Likewise, many small businesses
cannot afford to provide health care under the circumstances.
Because of the significant effect on small business by any
health care legislation, small business has a significant
role to play in any health care legislation.
Q. As a proponent of employer mandates and one who has
advocated this position, how can you now represent the
interest of small businesses who strongly oppose this
concept?
A. I have never publicly been a proponent of employer
mandates, nor have I advocated this position. I believe that
it is important that the Chief Counsel totally represent the
view of small business, including the issue of health care.
Even in situations when I disagree with small businesses'
views, I believe it is important for me to reflect the views
of small businesses and their organizations.
On the issue of employer mandates, it is clear that most
small business organizations and the majority of small
businesses are opposed to it. I will advise the White House
about small businesses' deep concerns and reservations about
employer mandates. I believe that I, as well as the rest of
Administration, am looking for an alternate solution that
involves universal coverage without employer mandates. To
date, I do not know of any other solution.
Q. What is your position on labor issues such as Striker
Replacement and Davis-Bacon?
A. While most small businesses don't have labor unions,
those that do are severely impacted by labor problems.
In the case of striker replacement, I believe that the
proposed legislation interferes with the normal employee-
employer relationship and that legislation in that regard is
not needed. Most small business organizations oppose striker
replacement.
Concerning the Davis-Bacon Act, it is necessary to
reevaluate the prevailing wage to include not only union but
non-union wages in particular locations. I believe it is not
necessary to require a government contractor to pay the
higher wages. Most small business organizations support
reform or repeal of Davis-Bacon.
Q. What is your position on Product Liability Reform?
A. Product liability laws clearly need to be reformed. This
is a especially true for small businesses, which cannot
afford product liability insurance. Often small businesses
cannot sell their products because they cannot get product
liability insurance.
Q. From your resume I note you have started a number of
small businesses. Did you receive SBA assistance with any of
these venture? If so, what assistance and what is your
current relationship with the assisted businesses?
A. None of the businesses in which I have been involved
have requested or received any assistance from the Small
Business Administration. None was asked for and none was
received.
I am an officer of two firms which have received SBIR
awards. Stacogen received an SBIR from NIH 6 to 8 years ago.
Advanced Resources International, Inc. received an SBIR award
from the Department of Energy last year. Since the
announcement of the intention to nominate me in December, I
have sold my interest in both firms.
Senator burns' Questions
Q. Probably the most important issue facing the small
business community is health care reform. Will you publicly
oppose the President and Administrator Bowles when they take
positions that would have a negative effect on the small
business community?
A. As I said in response to Senator Coverdell's question
number 1:
``Although I have not had an opportunity to fully review
the issues in Senator Coverdell's questions, I am providing
my comments based on the information I have at this time.
Small business should play a constructive role in
restructuring the health care system. The current system
discriminates against small business. Many small businesses
are completely excluded from providing health insurance
because one of their key employees or family members has a
pre-existing condition. Likewise, many small businesses
cannot afford to provide health care under the circumstances.
Because of the significant effect on small business by any
health care legislation, small business has a significant
role to play in any health care legislation.''
As I stated in my testimony, ``As the small business
community and Congress expect, and the law requires, if
confirmed, I intend to be a strong independent voice for
small business.''
As I stated in my response to Senator Pressler's question:
``I believe it is important for the Chief Counsel to
represent the views of the small business community even when
they conflict with the views of the Administrator and the
White House. It is my intention to work within the
Administration as much as possible but on issues that will
impact the small business community, it may be necessary and
appropriate to express my views and my opinions, even if they
are inconsistent with those of the Administrator and the
White House.
The Administrator and I have discussed the role of Chief
Counsel and he and the President both understand that from
time to time I will express views which conflict with his
views or those of the President.''
Q. What is your position regarding employer mandates?
A. As I said in my response to Senator Coverdell's question
number 2:
``I have never publicly been a proponent of employer
mandates, nor have I advocated this position. I believe that
it is important that the Chief Counsel totally represent the
view of small business, including the issue of health care.
Even in situations when I disagree with small businesses'
views, I believe it is important for me to reflect the views
of small businesses and their organizations.
On the issue of employer mandates, it is clear that most
small business organizations and the majority of small
businesses are opposed to it. I will advise the White House
about small businesses' deep concerns and reservations about
employer mandates. I believe that I, as well as the rest of
Administration, am looking for an alternate solution that
involves universal coverage without employer mandates. To
date, I do not know of any other solution.''
If conformed, I will continue to look for alternatives to
employer mandates.
Q. What is your position regarding alliances?
A. A number of small business organizations, including the
council of Smaller Enterprises in Cleveland and the Smaller
Manufacturers Council in Pittsburgh, have, in effect, created
health care alliances in the past. These have been successful
in reducing health care costs. One of the problems facing
small businesses now, as in the past, is having to pay 30 to
50 percent more in premiums for health care insurance than
large firms are paying. I believe alliances can afford small
businesses a more equal playing field and can enable small
businesses to purchase health care at lower rates similar to
those of large firms.
Q. Do you think that Congress should go slow and start with
insurance reform, like portability, medical malpractice,
coverage of pre-existing conditions, and paperwork reduction?
A. See response to question 1 above.
Because of the severity of the problem, the hardship the
current situation has imposed on small business for many
years, and the millions of small business people and their
employees who do not have health insurance, I think Congress
should move quickly to resolve the health care crisis that
exists in America today.
Issues like insurance reform, portability, medical
malpractice and coverage of pre-existing conditions, are all
serious problems. The states have historically had
jurisdiction to regulate these practices. It is unfortunate
that the states, by and large, have not addressed these
problems in the past.
Q. Regarding tort reform: Can we expect your support and
cooperation when the Product Liability Fairness Act, S. 687,
comes to the Senate floor this spring, even if the
Administration does not support the bill?
A. As I said in response to Senator Coverdell's question
number 4:
``Product liability laws clearly need to be reformed. This
is especially true for small businesses, which cannot afford
product liability insurance. Often small businesses cannot
sell their products because they cannot get product liability
insurance.''
I have not reviewed S. 687 specifically. I do generally
support product liability reform and, if I am confirmed, will
review S. 687 as well as other product liability reform
legislation.
Q. I also strongly support the Paperwork Reduction Act,
Senate Bill 560. As a cosponsor of this bill, I am interested
in your opinion on paperwork reduction. Can we count on your
support of S. 560?
A. I have not reviewed S. 560 specifically, but I strongly
support paperwork reduction. If confirmed, I will review all
paperwork reduction legislation and support strong paperwork
reduction legislation.
Q. Do you support a capital gains tax cut?
A. Yes, so long as the capital gains tax is targeted
specifically to small businesses engaged in trade or
commerce. This has been my position since 1978. I believe
that targeted capital gains reduction for small businesses
which was included in the Budget Reconciliation Act last year
was a step in the right direction, but I believe more can and
should be done to encourage investment in small businesses
engaged in trade or commerce.
senator pressler's questions
Q. What is your position regarding employer mandates?
A. As I stated in my response to Senator Coverdell's
question number one and to Senator Burns' second question:
``I have never publicly been a proponent of employer
mandates, nor have I advocated this position. I believe that
it is important that the Chief Counsel totally represent the
view of small business, including the issue of health care.
Even in situations when I disagree with small businesses'
views, I believe it is important for me to reflect the views
of small businesses and their organizations.
On the issue of employer mandates, it is clear that most
small business organizations and the majority of small
businesses are opposed to it. I will advise the White House
about small businesses' deep concerns and reservations about
employer mandates. I believe that I, as well as the rest of
Administration, am looking for an alternate solution that
involves universal coverage without employer mandates. To
date, I do not know of any other solution.''
If confirmed, I will continue to look for alternatives to
employer mandates.
Q. What is your position regarding alliances?
A. As I stated in my response to Senator Burns' third
question:
``A number of small business organizations, including the
Council of Small Enterprises in Cleveland and the Smaller
Manufacturers Council in Pittsburgh, have, in effect, created
health care alliances in the past. These have been successful
in reducing health care costs. One of the problems facing
small businesses now, as in the past, is having to pay 30 to
50 percent more in premiums for health care insurance than
large firms are paying. I believe alliances can afford small
businesses a more equal playing field and can enable small
businesses to purchase health care at lower rates similar to
those of large firms.''
Q. Do you support universal coverage or universal access?
A. I support both. I think universal access should occur
immediately, and universal coverage should occur as soon as
practicable.
Q. Do you think Congress should go slow and start with
insurance reform, like portability, medical malpractice
coverage of preexisting conditions, and paperwork reduction?
A. As I said in response to Senator Coverdell's question
number 1:
``Small business should play a constructive role in
restructuring the health care system. The current system
discriminates against small business. Many small businesses
are completely excluded from providing health insurance
because one of their key employees or family members has a
pre-existing condition. Likewise, many small businesses
cannot afford to provide health care under the circumstances.
Because of the significant effect on small business by any
health care legislation, small business has a significant
role to play in any health care legislation.''
As I stated in my response to Senator Burns' question
number four:
``Because of the severity of the problem, the hardship the
current situation has imposed on small business for many
years, and the millions of small business people and their
employees who do not have health insurance, I think Congress
should move quickly to resolve the health care crisis that
exists in America today.
Issues like insurance reform, portability, medical
malpractice and coverage of pre-existing conditions, are all
serious problems. The states have historically had
jurisdiction to regulate these practices. It is unfortunate
that the states, by and large, have not addressed these
problems in the past.''
Q. Do you support the Administration's plan or any of the
competing health care reform proposals? If so, does this mean
you will take a public position in opposition to the SBA
Administrator and the Administration?
A. While I generally support the Administration's plan, as
I mentioned in the answer to question number one above,
regardless of my personal views, I will honestly report that
most small business organizations do not support the
President's plan. I will also work to see that whatever plan
is ultimately enacted is the most beneficial for small
business and has the least possible burdens for small
business.
I have already taken positions in opposition to the
Administration. See my responses to Senator Coverdell's
questions 3 and 4 on striker replacement, Davis-Bacon and
product liability.
questions from senator wallop
Health Care Legislation--Employer Mandates
In the area of health care, I recognize that most small
business organizations do not support employer mandates. If
confirmed, I will acquaint myself with other proposals and
those that will be made in the future.
I will work to see that whatever plan is ultimately enacted
is as beneficial as possible for small business and has the
least possible burdens on small business.
I would like to discuss these and other issues of the
Office of Advocacy with you at your convenience at some time
in the future. I would also like to thank you personally for
your work to obtain judicial review for the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Q. Would you support deleting section 611 of the Act to
allow judicial review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act as
recommended in the Vice-President's National Performance
Review?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you support applying coverage of the Act to the IRS?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you support analyzing the indirect as well as the
direct impacts to be required under the Act?
A. Yes.
Q. Can we expect you to remain consistent in your support
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act in the interests of
representing small business no matter what the
Administration's agenda may be?
A. Yes. From 1978 to 1980, I worked very hard on developing
the concept of regulatory flexibility and assuring the
ultimate passage of the bill. The implementation of the noble
goals of the Regulatory Flexibility Act have been impeded by
government officials who recognized that the Act is not
judicially enforceable and therefore had no teeth.
Unfortunately, after 25 years' experience of administrative
law, I have come to the conclusion that we cannot trust the
bureaucracy to eliminate excessive and unnecessary regulatory
burdens on small business without judicial review.
Your work in getting judicial review is a giant step
forward. I hope that the legislation is promptly passed. You
will have my enthusiastic and consistent support for judicial
review in the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Mr. SASSER. Madam President, I am pleased that the Senate has today
confirmed the nomination of Mr. Jere Glover to be the chief counsel for
advocacy at the Small Business Administration.
Jere Glover hails originally from Ridgely, TN. He received his
undergraduate and law degrees from Memphis State University, where he
won numerous academic awards.
Mr. Glover has extensive experience in government, law, and business
which suits him well for the important post of chief counsel for
advocacy. During the Carter administration, he culminated 12 years of
service in the Federal Government by spending 3 years as deputy chief
counsel for advocacy for the SBA. Mr. Glover served ably in that post
and gained experience that will be invaluable to him as chief counsel
for advocacy.
After leaving the deputy chief counsel job in 1981, Mr. Glover
entered private law practice. He has specialized in representing small
business clients and trade associations before various State and
Federal agencies and regulatory bodies. He has also started a number of
businesses, and he remains chairman and CEO of a medical equipment
company and a biotechnology company.
During his prior service in the chief counsel's office, Mr. Glover
worked closely with Congress on the passage of the Equal Access to
Justice Act, the University Patent Act, the Small Business Innovation
and Research Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. His work on and
dedication to the principles of this last bill actually earned him the
nickname of ``Mr. Reg Flex'' in many small business circles.
Small business is the backbone of our Nation's economy. The Federal
Government must pursue policies that foster its growth. The men and
women who help develop those policies at the Small Business
Administration must understand how small business work, and they must
understand how important small business is to our Nation's future.
Jere Glover is a small businessman. Jere Glover has worked for years
on behalf of other small business people. Jere Glover has the
experience and expertise to represent the special needs of our small
business community in the position of chief counsel for advocacy. I
commend my colleagues for confirming his nomination today, and I look
forward to working with him on behalf of our Nation's small business
men and women.
____________________