Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 110 (Monday, July 10, 1995)

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 110 (Monday, July 10, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9606-S9624]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

COMPREHENSIVE REGULATORY REFORM ACT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of S. 343, which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 343) to reform the regulatory process, and for
other purposes.

The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

Pending:
Dole amendment No. 1487, in the nature of a substitute.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Michigan is recognized to offer an amendment relative to small
business.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I will shortly offer the Abraham
amendment.
In essence, our amendment would ensure that Federal agencies
periodically assess the utility of regulations that disproportionately
impact small business.
I think it is critically important any regulatory reform bill take
into account concerns of America's small businessmen and women.
At this time, I yield to the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary
Committee as much time as he desires for comment.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, and would like to
thank the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee,
Senator Byrd, for his excellent remarks covering the women of the Bible
as well as I have heard him cover on the Senate floor, and his tribute
to Abby Saffold, who, of course, all Members have a great deal of
respect for.
Mr. President, I intend to start each day in this debate--I may not
fully comply--with the top 10 list of silly regulatory requirements.
I would pick a few at random today. Let me start with No. 10:
Delaying a Head Start facility by 4 years because of the dimensions of
the rooms; No. 9, forcing a man to choose between his religion and his
job because rules do not allow workers to wear a mask over a beard--
stupid rules, I might add, silly regulatory requirements; No. 8,
throwing a family out of their own home because of painted over lead
paint, even though the family is healthy; No. 7, fining a gas station
owner $10,000 for not displaying a sign stating that he accepts motor
oil for recycling; No. 6, reprimanding a Government employee who bought
a new lawn mower with his own money but failed to go through the proper
procedures; No. 5, citing a farmer for converting a wetland when he
fills his own manmade earthen stock tank and made a new one, elsewhere
on his property--on his own property, I might add. No. 4, failing to
approve a potentially lifesaving drug, thus forcing a terminal cancer
patient to go across the border to Mexico to have it administered; No.
3, prohibiting an elderly woman from planting a bed of roses on her own
land; No. 2, fining a man $4,000 for not letting a grizzly bear kill
him.
These are my top 10 list of silly regulatory requirements. No. 1:
Requiring Braille instructions on drive-through ATM machines. We can
see a lot of reason for that in our society today.
These are just a few of the reasons why we are here today. I intend
to bring some more to the attention of Members as we continue to go on
here. We all know the regulatory process is out of control. Regulators
have an incentive to regulate.
Some regulations are not only counterproductive, they are just plain
stupid, as some I have just mentioned. The status quo is not acceptable
to the American people, especially if they get to know what is really
going on in our society. And they all suspect the costs of regulation
are mounting. Paperwork costs the private sector and State and local
governments a small fortune. Compliance costs cost even a bigger
fortune.
Regulation restricts freedom. What you can use your own land for,
what medical treatment you can have or provide for your family, what
your company is required to do, et cetera, et cetera.
It is especially onerous on small businesses. Regulatory reform is
absolutely necessary to get the Federal Government off our backs. For
economic flexibility and growth as well as to reform personal freedoms,
we need to change the way in which the Federal Government regulates.
Regulatory reform is an essential part of making Government smaller.
Regulatory reform will mean less Federal spending, lower Federal taxes,
fewer Federal regulations, smarter regulations, and accountability on
the part of those in the bureaucracy.
This bill is about common sense. I think most Americans would agree
that our Federal Government is out of control and that the
overregulatory system is eating us alive, especially in terms of the
burdens it places on all Americans.
This bill simply requires that Government agencies issue rules and
regulations that help, rather than hurt, people. It will require that
the Federal bureaucracy live by the same rules that Americans have to
live by in their own lives--you and I and everybody else. These rules
are that the benefits of what you are telling people to do have to
justify the cost.
The notion of common sense and accountability and rulemaking may be a
radical idea inside the Washington beltway, but I believe that our
fellow Americans are smothered in bureaucratic red tape in all aspects
of their lives and they are pretty darned tired of the status quo.
This bill will not mean an end to safety and health regulations, as
some of its critics would have you believe. All it will mean is that
the people in Washington who devise such rules will have to ensure that
the interpretations of those rules, or the rules themselves make sense.
They will have to quit being the protectors of the status quo.
myths and fears: unfounded attacks on s. 343

In his first inaugural address, Franklin Delano Roosevelt inspired a
nation beleaguered by the Great Depression with these calming words:
``We have nothing to fear but fear itself.'' Now

[[Page S 9607]]
certain Democrats, representing the left of that great party and
claiming to be the political heirs of Roosevelt, have turned 180
degrees. Instead of pacifying hysteria they are engaging in the worst
form of fear mongering.
They content that regulatory reform will either overturn 25 years of
environmental law or roll-back environmental, health, or safety
protection. They also claim that passage of this bill will clog the
courts, allow judges to second-guess scientific findings, delay needed
rulemaking, and require the creation of a new bureaucracy of thousands.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, the root of the
hysteria of the left is not a concern over the protection of health,
safety, or the environment, but a concern over the loss of power. The
liberal agenda has usurped power to the Federal agencies, which have
become the left's biggest constituency. Real regulatory reform, such as
S. 343, you see, will whittle away at the excesses of the modern
centralized administrative state. It will force the bureaucracy to
rationalize and make more cost-effective its rules and regulations. It
will shift power back from Washington to the grass roots of the people.
It will transform bureaucracy into democracy.
This bill is a commonsense measure. It simply requires Federal
bureaucrats to ask how much a rule will cost and what the American
people will get in return. Passage of this bill, in fact, will foster
the protection of health, safety, and the environment by assuring that
the American taxpayer will get more bang for the buck. It does so by
mandating that the costs of regulation must justify the benefits
obtained and that the rule must adopt the least costly alternative
available to the agency. This will assure more efficient regulations,
ultimately saving taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. Actually,
billions of dollars.
Let me address certain myths arising from the fear campaign of the
opponents of S. 343:
Myth No. 1: The bill will overturn or rollback environmental
protection or health and safety laws. That is pure poppycock. Section
625 of the bill, the decisional criteria section, makes clear that the
cost-benefit and risk assessment requirements supplement existing
statutory standards. Thus, there is no supermandate that overturns
statutory standards, such as the recently passed House regulatory
reform bill. Instead, S. 343 works much the way the National
Environmental Policy Act does. Where NEPA requires agencies to consider
environmental impacts, S. 343 requires agencies to consider cost of the
regulation. Neither statutory scheme overturns existing health, safety,
or environmental standards.
So, forget about myth No. 1. It is phony. It is a lie.
Myth No. 2. They say cost-benefit analysis is unworkable because we
cannot quantify benefits. In fact, one of these far-left liberal
outrageous groups compared a cost-benefit analysis with what happened
under Hitler's regime.
It is hard to believe that we would have that in this day and age,
from groups that claim to be representing the public.
Let us just forget that myth, because
opponents of S. 343, although they claim that the cost-benefit
analysis requirement in the bill requires that costs and benefits be
quantified, their argument is that benefits, such as clean air or good
health, are too subjective to be quantified. As a result, benefits will
be understated and rules consequently will not adequately protect
health, safety, or the environment. That is their argument.

There is only one problem with this argument: S. 343 explicitly
states that agencies must consider qualitative--as well as
quantitative--factors in weighing costs and benefits, Section 624 even
goes so far as to allow agencies to select a rulemaking option that is
not the least costly if a nonqualitative consideration is important
enough to justify the agency option.
Myth No. 3: The requirements for cost-benefit analysis and risk
assessments will harm health, safety, and the environment by delaying
implementation of needed regulations. This is simply not true. S. 343
contains emergency exemptions from cost-benefit analysis and risk
assessments in situations where regulations need to be enacted to
prevent immediate harm to health, safety, and the environment.
Furthermore, agency actions that enforce health, safety, and
environmental standards, such as those concerning drinking water and
sewerage plants, simply are not covered by the Act.
In any event, the cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment
requirements are hardly novel. Under orders on regulations that go back
to the administration of President Ford, most agencies must already
perform cost-benefit analyses for numerous rulemakings and many
agencies, such as EPA, already conduct risk assessments as a routine
matter. What this bill will do is to assure that cost-benefit analyses
are done for all rulemakings and that risk assessments are based on
good science.
Myth No. 4: The agency review and petition process will open up all
existing rules for review and this will grind all agency activities to
a halt. The agency review and petition process will have no effect on
reasonable regulations. Only those regulations imposing unreasonable
costs without significant benefits and rules based on bad science are
likely to be modified or repealed. I might ask what is wrong with that?
Moreover, not all rules must be reviewed. Only major rules, which
have an expected effect of $50 million on the economy need be reviewed.
And the agencies have 11 years to review these rules. This is more than
ample time to review rulemakings. As to the petition process, to be
successful in having a petition to review a rule not on a review
schedule granted, the petitioner must demonstrate a reasonable
likelihood that the existing rule does not meet the decisional criteria
section. In other words, that the rule would not be cost-effective if
the rule was promulgated under the standards set forth in the bill.
This is an expensive proposition, for the petitioner must do a cost-
benefit analysis to demonstrate this point.
Ultimately, with regard to the petition process, it simply boils down
to whether one thinks that the status quo is acceptable or not.
Understandably, defenders of the status quo are horrified at the
prospect that perhaps something ought to be done about rules already in
existence whose costs to the American people are greater than the
benefits that result. I disagree, of course, with that attitude.
Myth No. 5: The judicial review provision will create scores of new
cause of actions clogging the courts and would allow judges to second
guess agency scientific conclusions. Section 625 of the bill makes
clear that judicial review of a rule is to based on the rulemaking file
as a whole. Noncompliance with any single procedures is not grounds to
overturn the rule unless the failure to follow a procedure amounts to
prejudicial error--which means the failure would effect the outcomes of
the rule. Thus, section 625 would not allow for courts to nit-pick
rules. Moreover, section 625 requires courts to employ the traditional
arbitrary and capricious standard, a standard which requires courts to
show deference to agency factual and technical determinations. This
prevents courts from second, guessing agency scientific findings and
conclusions.
I would also note that it is ironic that those who oppose the
judicial review provision of S. 343 on the grounds that it will clog
the courts are the same people who oppose meaningful legal reform.
Why? Because they want these lawsuits to continue everywhere else.
They just do not want the American people and individual citizens and
small businesses to be able to sue to protect their rights against an
all-intrusive Federal Government which is over-regulating them to
death.
Myth No. 6: Implementation of the bill would require a new
bureaucracy of thousands. First of all, many agencies, such as EPA,
already perform cost-benefit analyses and risk assessments. This is
because of the existing executive order that requires such analyses for
rules effecting the economy at $100 million. According to an EPA
source, ``[o]ne big misconception about these bills is that risk
assessments and cost-benefit analysis requires a lot more work than has
routinely been done at EPA.'' Second, the requirement for peer review
panels to assure good science and plausible estimates for risk
assessments, will not significantly hinder the promulgation of rules.
Peer review only applies to risk assessments

[[Page S 9608]]
that form the basis for major rules--having the effect on the economy
of $50 million annually--or major environmental management activities--
costing $10 million.
I just wanted to get rid of some of these myths about this bill. I am
sick and tired of articles written, like the one in the New York Times,
that have no basis in fact. As a matter of fact, I think this is one of
the most hysterical displays by the far left that I have seen. And it
is even worse than the ``People For The American Way'' full-page ad
against Judge Robert Bork that had some, as I recall, close to 100
absolute fallacious assertions in it that they never once answered
after I pointed them out.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. JOHNSTON. One of the myths put out about the so-called Dole-
Johnston amendment is that it contains a supermandate. That is, that
the present requirements of law--for example, on the Clean Air Act,
when it sets standards, for example, of maximum achievable control
technology or the other specific requirements of law--that somehow
those are overruled by this bill.
Would the Senator agree with me that the language is very clear in
saying that does not happen under this bill? To quote the language, it
``supplements and does not supersede the requirements of the present
law.'' And, in fact, other language in the bill specifically points out
that there will be instances where, because of the requirements of
present law, you cannot meet the tests of the risk justifying the cost?
The benefits justifying the cost? And, in other words, the requirements
of present law, under the instant Dole-Johnston amendment, would still
be in effect and would not be overruled by this bill? Would the Senator
agree with me?
Mr. HATCH. I agree 100 percent with the distinguished Senator from
Louisiana, who has coauthored the bill along with Senator Dole and
others here. Section 625 of this bill, the decisional criteria section,
makes clear that the cost-benefit assessment requirements supplement
existing statutory standards.
Mr. GLENN. Will the Senator yield----
Mr. HATCH. Thus, there is absolutely no supermandate.
Mr. GLENN. For a parliamentary inquiry? I wanted to straighten out
the time. It was my understanding the time, starting at 2 o'clock, was
to be divided equally among proponents and opponents of the bill. The
Senator from Michigan--it was my understanding the time so far, the
time of the Senator from Utah, had come out of the time of the Senator
from Michigan? Is that correct?
Mr. HATCH. That is correct. I have used too much of this time, so I
yield back my time.
Mr. GLENN. I know they were preparing a unanimous-consent request to
that effect. We do not have that yet. But it was my understanding that
those were the rules we were operating under. I just wanted to make
sure everyone agreed to that.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a factsheet I have
with me be printed in the Record at this point, as well.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 343: Responsible Regulatory Reform That Protects Health, Safety and
the Environment

s. 343 does not override existing health, safety and environmental laws

Sec. 624(a)--Cost-benefit requirements ``supplement and
[do] not supersede'' health, safety and environmental
requirements in existing laws.
Sec. 628(d)--Requirements regarding ``environmental
management activities'' also ``supplement and [do] not
supersede'' requirements of existing laws.

s. 343 protects human health, safety and the environment

Sec. 622(f) and Sec. 632(c)(1)(A)--Cost-benefit analyses
and risk assessments are not required if ``impracticable due
to an emergency or health or safety threat that is likely to
result in significant harm to the public or natural
resources.''
Sec. 624(b)(3)(B)--An agency may select a higher cost
regulation when ``nonquantifiable benefits to health, safety
or the environment'' make that choice ``appropriate and in
the public interest.''
Sec. 624(b)(4)--Where a risk assessment has been done, the
agency must choose regulations that ``significantly reduce
the human health, safety and environmental risks.''
Sec. 628(b)(2)--Requirements for environmental management
activities do not apply where they would ``result in an
actual or immediate risk to human health or welfare.''
Sec. 629(b)(1)--Where a petition for alternative compliance
is sought, the petition may only be granted where an
alternative achieves ``at least an equivalent level of
protection of health, safety, and the environment.''
Sec. 632(c)--Risk assessment requirements do not apply to a
``human health, safety, or environmental inspection.''

s. 343 does not delay health, safety and environmental rules

Sec. 622(f) and Sec. 632(c)--Cost-benefit and risk
assessment requirements are not to delay implementation of a
rule if ``impracticable due to an emergency or health or
safety threat that is likely to result in significant harm to
the public or natural resources.''
Sec. 533(d)--Procedural requirements under the
Administrative Procedures Act may be waived if ``contrary to
the public interest.''
Sec. 628(b)(2)--Requirements for major environmental
management activities are not to delay environmental cleanups
where they ``result in an actual and immediate risk to human
health or welfare.''
Sec. 801(c)--Congressional 60-day review period before rule
becomes final may be waived where ``necessary because of an
imminent threat to health or safety or other emergency.''

s. 343 does not place a ``price tag on human life''

Sec. 621(2)--``Costs'' and ``benefits'' are defined
explicitly to include
``nonquantifiable,'' not
just quantifiable, costs and benefits.
Sec. 622(e)(1)(E)--Cost-benefit analyses are not required
to be performed ``primarily on a mathematical or numerical
basis.''
Sec. 624(b)(3)(B)--An agency may choose a higher cost
regulation when
``nonquantifiable benefits
to health, safety or the environment'' dictate that result.

Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, it was my understanding that when the
Senator from West Virginia concluded and we began discussion on the
regulatory reform bill, that there would be 2 hours of time equally
divided between myself and Senator Glenn; and that the time for Senator
Hatch's statement--I did yield to him--was to come out of my time.
I agree with that. I would like to know how much of my hour remains
at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is 30 minutes remaining.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I do not think that is correct. I believe
Senator Hatch spoke for 30 minutes.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time
yielded to both sides on this matter will have begun at 1:15.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, would this
then mean that the time certain that was established for a vote later
this afternoon at 5:15 would have to be set back in accordance with
that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Not necessarily.
Mr. GLENN. Then, Mr. President, something has to give here because we
were supposed to have a certain time set aside for Senator Nunn, which
I believe was 2 hours--2 hours for Senator Abraham and 2 hours for
Senator Nunn; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Originally, that would have been 2 hours on
the first amendment and 2 hours and 15 minutes on the second.
Mr. GLENN. What would be the timing on the vote this afternoon if we
agreed to the proposal made by the Senator from Utah?
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I object to the proposal of the Senator
from Utah in that the Senator from West Virginia did not conclude his
remarks until 1:25 p.m. We were to start at 1:25. I would have no
objection in calculating based on that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will announce that the bill was laid
down at 1:20 and that the next amendment would be laid down at 3
o'clock pursuant to the previous order.
Mr. HATCH. Parliamentary inquiry: As I understand, there was supposed
to be 2 hours of debate. That should not begin until 1:20. That means
that there should be 2 hours from 1:20.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The previous agreement was that the amendment
by the Senator from Michigan could be laid down at 1 o'clock with no
other time agreement, and that the other aspect of the agreement was
that the amendment could be laid down by

[[Page S 9609]]
the Senator from Georgia at 3 o'clock with votes beginning at 5:15.
Mr. HATCH. Then I suggest, and I ask unanimous consent, that the 2-
hour time limit on this first amendment begin at 1:20 and that the 2-
hour-and-15-minute time limit begin on the second amendment at 3:20.
I withdraw my unanimous-consent request.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I suggest we proceed. We are wasting a lot
of time on this. Let us just proceed. If we need extra time at the end,
which I doubt that we will, then we can take appropriate action at that
time. Otherwise, let us proceed and hope we can hit the 3 o'clock
deadline anyway, if that is all right with the Senator from Michigan.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Very well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Michigan is recognized to offer an amendment.

Amendment No. 1490 to Amendment No. 1487

(Purpose: To ensure that rules impacting small businesses are
periodically reviewed by the agencies that promulgated them)

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Abraham], for himself, Mr.
Dole, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Grams, proposes an amendment numbered
1490.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(a) on page 27 line 13, strike ``subsection'' and insert
``subsections''; and
(b) on page 27 line 13, after ``(c)'', insert ``and (e)'';
and
(c) on page 30, before line 10, insert the following:
``(e) Review of Rules Affecting Small Businesses.--(1)
Notwithstanding subsection (a)(1), any rule designated for
review by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration with the concurrence of the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, or designated for review solely by the Administrator
of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, shall be
included on the next-published subsection (b)(1) schedule for
the agency that promulgated it.
``(2) In selecting rules to designate for review, the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs shall, in consultation with small businesses and
representatives thereof, consider the extent to which a rule
subject to sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, or any other rule meets the criteria set forth in
paragraph (a)(2).
``(3) If the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs chooses not to concur with the decision of
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration to designate a rule for review, the
Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register the
reasons therefor.''
Redesignate subsequent subsections accordingly.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, the amendment I have proposed with the
majority leader and other Senators would ensure that the concerns of
America's small businesses are not overlooked or ignored during the
regulatory review process that S. 343 would establish.
We need some type of meaningful regulatory review process because,
quite simply, the utility of a regulation may change as circumstances
change. The fact that a regulation withstood cost-benefit analysis at
the time of its promulgation provides no assurance that it remains
cost-effective 5 or 10 years later. A review process with teeth,
however, would ensure that regulations remain on the books only so long
as they remain cost-effective.
Section 623 of the regulatory reform bill appears at first glance to
address the need to review periodically the cost-effectiveness of
existing regulations. Agencies would be required to publish a schedule
of regulations to be reviewed. Regulations on the schedule would be
measured against the cost-benefit criteria in section 624 of the bill.
And, although the agency might have more than 14 years to conduct its
review of a regulation, the regulation would terminate if the agency
failed to complete its review of it within the time allowed.
As currently drafted, however, section 623 contains a significant
loophole. Whether a regulation is subject to review under section 623
depends, at least in the first instance, on whether the agency chooses
to place the rule on its review schedule. This amounts to the fox
guarding the henhouse.
Under the bill's current language, the only way to add a regulation
to the list of rules chosen by the agency is to present the agency with
a petition that meets the extremely demanding standard set forth in the
bill. It likely would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to hire the
lawyers and technical experts needed to prepare such a petition. Small
businesses by their very nature do not have such large resources at
their disposal. Thus, under the current language of section 623,
agencies potentially could overlook or even ignore the needs of small
businesses.
Mr. President, small businesses are too important to our economy to
let that happen. Small businesses are the engines of job creation in
our Nation. From 1988 to 1990, small businesses with fewer than 20
employees created 4.1 million net new jobs, while large businesses with
more than 500 employees lost over 500,000 net jobs during the same
period. It comes as no surprise, then, that 57 percent of American
workers are employed by a small business. Thus, when we overlook the
needs of small businesses, we put American jobs in jeopardy.
And when it comes to reducing the burden of regulations, the needs of
small businesses are particularly acute. The hidden tax of regulatory
burdens is highly regressive in nature: According to the U.S. Small
Business Administration, small businesses' share of regulatory burdens
is three times that of larger firms.
There are a number of commonsense reasons for this fact. First,
unlike big businesses, small businesses cannot spread the costs of
regulation over a large quantity of product sold to the public. Since
the regulatory costs borne by small businesses are thus concentrated on
a relatively small quantity of product, those costs have a
disproportionate impact on the cost of goods and services sold by small
businesses. Put simply, the advantages of economies of scale apply to
regulatory costs just as they do to other costs of doing business.
A second reason why regulations hit small businesses especially hard
is that small businesses simply cannot afford to hire the lawyers,
consultants, and accountants needed to comply with the paperwork
requirements that inevitably attend regulatory mandates.
When it comes to small businesses, the agencies' avalanche of
paperwork falls not on an accounting or human resources department but,
rather, on a hard-working entrepreneur who often lacks the time or
expertise necessary to cross all the T's in the manner the agency has
commanded.
The magnitude of this burden truly cannot be overstated. The Small
Business Administration estimates that small business owners spend
almost 1 billion hours per year filling out Government forms. An
example illustrates the point. Recently, a small construction company
inquired about bidding on a modest remodeling project at a post office
in South Dakota. In response to that inquiry, the owner of the company
received no less than 100 pages of bidding instructions. Needless to
say, Mr. President, a 100-page book of bidding instructions might as
well state on its cover that ``small businesses need not apply.''
In short, Mr. President, given the importance of small businesses to
our economy and their disproportionate share of the cost of
regulations, we need to ensure that S. 343 contains a regulatory review
process that is responsive to the concerns of small businesses.
Our amendment would meet that need by empowering the chief counsel
for advocacy of the Small Business Administration, also known as the
``small business advocate,'' to protect the interests of small
businesses during the regulatory process.
Under our amendment, the advocate would be permitted to add
regulations that hurt small businesses to the list of regulations that
the agencies themselves have chosen to review, in accordance with the
office at the White House known as OIRA.

[[Page S 9610]]

The advocate would do so pursuant to a simple process. First, the
advocate would consult with small businesses concerning the burdens
that regulations impose on them. Next, the advocate would consider
criteria such as the extent to which a regulation imposes onerous
burdens on small businesses or directly or indirectly causes them not
to hire additional employees.
On the basis of such input and criteria, the advocate would designate
regulations for review. If the administrator of OIRA then concurred in
the advocate's designation of a rule for such inclusion, at that point
the rule would be added to the list of regulations the agencies have
chosen to review. Additionally, if OIRA itself chose to designate a
rule for review, that rule could be added to the agency's list.
Our amendment thus would be a small business counterpart to the
petition process available to larger firms. Just as through the
petition process high-priced lawyers and consultants would ensure that
regulations impacting big businesses are not overlooked as regulations
are reviewed, so, too, would this process ensure that regulations, the
heavy costs of which are borne by small businesses, are not ignored in
the regulatory review process.
This task falls squarely within the advocate's mission. Created by a
1976 act of Congress, the advocate's mission is to ``counsel, assist
and protect small business,'' thereby ``enhancing small business
competitiveness in the American economy.''
Pursuant to this mission, the advocate ``measure[s] the direct costs
and other effects of Government regulation on small businesses and
make[s] legislative and nonlegislative proposals for eliminating
excessive or unnecessary regulations of small businesses.'' The
advocate also administers the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which has
afforded it additional experience in assessing the impact of
regulations on small businesses.
In fact, by allowing the advocate to designate rules for review, our
amendment merely builds on the foundation laid by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. Under that act, the advocate reviews agency analyses
of the likely impact of proposed and final rules on small businesses.
Thus, under our amendment, the advocate's role in reviewing regulations
will be very similar to its role in promulgating regulations.
In summary, Mr. President, small businesses need an advocate in the
regulatory review process. For too long, small businesses have been
left at the mercy of Federal agencies. Our amendment will ensure that
small businesses' concerns are considered in a manner that reflects
their contribution to our economy.
That is why the National Federation of Independent Businesses has
scored our amendment as a key vote in its rating system.
In the end, Mr. President, our amendment will lead to more efficient
regulations for small businesses and more jobs for American workers.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Michigan
will yield a few minutes to me on his amendment.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from New Mexico
such time as he shall need.
Mr. DOMENICI. Do we have enough time for me to ask him----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair should note that time is not
controlled at this point.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, you say time is not controlled?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is not controlled at this point.
Mr. DOMENICI. On this amendment.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. The discussion we
had a little while ago resulted in no agreement. Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will you advise me when I have used 10
minutes, please.
Mr. President, the Federal regulatory process, from everything we can
determine from our constituents and in various and sundry meetings
across this land and in our States, is simply out of control. Federal
regulations affect in a very real way every man, woman, and child in
America.
The cost of Federal regulations, however, has been estimated to be as
high as a half trillion dollars a year, $500 billion. Even the most
conservative estimates of the cost of Federal regulations show that the
cost of regulations has a profound impact on American citizens.
A recent Washington Post article reported that regulations ultimately
cost the average American household about $2,000 a year. I believe one
of the main reasons these regulations cost Americans so much is that
often they are not generated in an efficient and commonsense manner.
That does not mean we do not need regulations, but we need efficient
and commonsense regulations.
The sheer volume of regulations proposed and finalized by Federal
agencies every year is staggering. For example, the registry, that is,
the Federal Register, in 1994 alone runs a total of 68,107 pages. They
take up an entire storeroom of space in my office as we attempt to
follow them.
Mr. President, how can anyone, no matter how earnest or diligent,
comply with all of these? In my State, small business makes up about 85
to 90 percent of the employers. From my standpoint, I have suspected
that they felt unrepresented and put upon, and about 2 years ago I
established a small business advocacy group. We held field hearings on
an informal and voluntary basis, and almost all the small business
owners that I talked to and spoke with, the people who create almost
all the jobs in our State, told me just how smothering this explosion
has become.
I would like to read a letter from one of my constituents in this
regard, a small businessman in northwestern New Mexico, Mr. Greg Anesi.
He is the president of a small business in our State called Independent
Mobility Systems which makes equipment for the handicapped. His
business employs quite a few handicapped people. And Mr. Anesi wrote to
me to tell me exactly how crushing simply preparing the paperwork
required by regulations has become to his small business. The letter
states:

When we consider hiring additional employees, we are
limited by the fact that the more people we employ, the
greater the regulatory costs and the burdens.

Further, this crushing regulatory inefficiency can and does have a
very damaging impact on the environment and on human safety because it
diverts limited financial resources from the most pressing of
environmental problems. The book called ``Mandate for Change'' reports
that in 1987, ``a major EPA study found that Federal Government
spending on environmental problems was almost inversely correlated to
the ranking of the relative risks by scientists within the agency.''
One way to solve the problem is to use best available science when
making regulatory decisions about the environment and human safety. I
have been a champion of that, and last year in fact I attached the
amendment to the Safe Drinking Water Act. That amendment would ensure
that the best available peer-review science was used when promulgating
safe drinking water standards.
Nor is the use of good science in environmental decisionmaking a
partisan issue. In this same book, which I hold up, ``Mandate for
Change'', which President Clinton endorsed as a book which tries to
move us toward a better future, on page 216 there is a specific call to
``expand scientific research on, and use of, risk assessment as part of
a national effort to set environmental priorities.'' I am happy to see
that S. 343 has incorporated environmentally conscious, good science
concepts in its assessment provisions.
Another way to solve problems of inefficient Federal regulations is
to make sure that agencies consider the costs and the benefits of the
regulations they promote. I understand that will be a matter of very
significant debate on the floor, what standard with reference to costs
and how will costs and benefits relate one to the other.
Again, I do not believe cost analysis is a partisan issue. Every
President since Richard Nixon, including President Clinton, has
required cost-benefit analyses before rules are promulgated.
Unfortunately, Federal agencies are not performing these analyses as
well as they should. The fact that both S.

[[Page S 9611]]
343 and Senator Glenn's regulatory reform bill contain cost-benefit
sections show that both Democrats and Republicans agree on this point.
Perhaps there is some disagreement as to how one would apply the costs
and the concept of benefits in determining whether or not the costs
were justified is still in order, and we will debate that.
Mr. President, the Abraham amendment to S. 343 allows for agencies to
put an existing regulation on a list of meaningful cost-benefit
reviews. The problem with the bill's current language is that there are
only two ways for a regulation to be put on this list. First, it is up
to the agency to choose to put an existing regulation on the list for
review, while allowing the agency to do this sort of thing rather than
forcing them to is exactly the problem we are trying to address with
these bills. Second, an interested party can petition to get an
existing rule on the list but only if that party can show that the rule
is a major rule.
Showing that a rule costs the national economy $50 to $100 million
can cost the interested party thousands of dollars. That is one of the
problems. Small business does not have thousands of dollars to prove
that the national economy will be influenced $50 to $100 million. When
the interested party is a small business, that cost is simply out of
reach no matter how ridiculous the existing regulation might be.
Mr. President, that is why I support the Abraham amendment. This
amendment will empower the chief counsel for advocacy at the U.S. Small
Business Administration, in concurrence with the administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, to add regulations to the
agency's list which have significant impact on small business. This
amendment, therefore, would allow the small businessman, the little
guy, the small business owner, a real opportunity to make sure that
Federal agencies actually perform the cost-benefit analysis that
everyone says should be done but that everyone agrees are too often
ignored in practice.
So, Mr. President, I compliment the Senator who has had to modify his
amendment, as I understand it, to include OIRA, the administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and some might think
under certain circumstances that might not be the best. But I think
over time, when you combine the small business advocacy office and the
administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in
the executive branch, over a period of time I think this amendment has
a chance for small business to get some of their concerns on the list--
that is, on the list to be reviewed--rather than it being as difficult
as the base bill, S. 343, would provide.
I hope the amendment is adopted, and I thank the Senator for offering
the amendment.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I want to make some remarks on the bill
itself and then some remarks specifically on the amendment by the
distinguished Senator from Michigan.
I firmly believe that this is one of the most important bills that we
will take up this year. That probably comes as a surprise to a lot of
people who think regulatory reform is pretty dry, arcane, and is about
like watching mud dry, as far as interest goes. It is what we termed in
the past a MEGO item, ``my eyes glaze over'' when you bring it up. That
is about the interest that it will generate with a lot of people,
because it is not debating B-2 bombers or the M1A2 tanks, or something
like that. It deals with the nitty-gritty of rules and regulations, how
they get published, why they are necessary, and so on.
Lest anyone think we have a lot of bureaucrats just sitting over on
the other side of town dreaming up rules and regulations to put out on
their own volition, that is not the way these things happen.
We pass laws in the Senate and in the House of Representatives and we
send them over to the President. The President signs them. Then they go
to the agencies to have the rules and regulations written that
implement them, that let them be put into effect, that make them
practical so they can go out and affect everyone, literally, in this
country--businesses, organizations, individuals, families, children,
elderly. Everyone is affected by many of these rules and regulations.
If we did a better job in the Congress, I think perhaps we would find
less necessity for rules and regulations over in the agencies and the
Departments. If we want to see the major problem area, we ought to look
in the mirror, because what we do is too often see how fast we can get
legislation out of here. We do slapdash work on it here, send it over
and then we are somehow surprised that the agencies and the people
doing the regulation writing do not do a better job, and then we are
all concerned about why they did not do a better job when we did not do
a good enough job in directing them in what they are supposed to do.
Having said that, some 80 percent of the regulations written are
required to be written by specifics of legislation passed in the
Congress. So we bear heart and soul a lot of the blame on this thing.
But the importance of rules and regulations cannot be denied. It is
what makes them applicable across the country.
Let me say this. I do not think there is a single Senator that I know
of who thinks we should just go along with the status quo. The
administration started a review of this whole area 1\1/2\ years ago,
and they already cut out a lot of rules and regulations. They are in
the process of doing more of that right now. So the Senate is
interested, the House of Representatives is interested, the
administration is interested, and it is that important. We are united
on the need to make some changes. So this is not a partisan thing
across the aisle on the need. The question is how we go about this.
Let me go back a few years to 1977. The Governmental Affairs
Committee, of which I am a member--I was not chairman at that time.
Later on I was chairman of the committee for 8 years. Senator Roth
chairs the committee now. But back in 1977, we had what was really a
landmark study. It was a landmark study on regulatory reform. It
resulted in OMB and OIRA changes, the establishment of processes there.
It was an open process. So we had an interest through the years on
these matters.
In this year, we had four hearings on the bill in committee. It was
bipartisan in support in that committee. We deliberated, we considered
everything everyone wanted to consider, and we had a 15-0 vote when
that came out of committee. There was agreement on it, and it was a
bill of balance.
I think we focused on many of the very central issues, and I will get
to those in just a moment. But the bill that we have as S. 291 that has
not been introduced here--of course, we are dealing with S. 343, the
bill proposed by the majority leader--but that bill we passed out of
committee, the Roth bill--and the bill which we would have as an
alternative, S. 343, now is basically S. 291 that came out of
committee, with just three changes. Those three changes are: A major
rule would be defined as one having a $100 million impact per year. No.
2, if an agency fails to review the rules within 10 years, there would
be no sunset. In other words, an administrator in an agency could not
deliberately let it run beyond the time period and automatically have
laws and rules sunset without congressional action. And No. 3, the
difference between this and S. 291, as originally voted out of
committee, is there is a simplified risk assessment process to comport
with the National Academy of Sciences guidelines on risk assessment.
Those are the only three differences. This is a bill that was voted
out of committee 15-0. We find ourselves in a position where we have
several differences between what was provided in the bill out of
committee and what the majority leader has proposed with S. 343. No. 1,
the decision criteria, the test whether an agency can promulgate a
regulation.
S. 343 proposes a least-cost basis. The bill voted out of committee
proposed a cost-effective basis. There is a big difference between
least cost and cost effective.

[[Page S 9612]]

Another area of difference is that of judicial review. Under judicial
review there are some major differences as to what would be judicially
reviewable; in other words, what you can file suit in court on.
Another difference is the $100 million threshold. S. 343 has a $50
million threshold, which drastically increases the number of bills that
would have to be considered.
Another difference is the petition process.
Another is the sunsetting, as I mentioned a moment ago.
Another is how we do risk assessment.
The effectiveness of regulatory flexibility is another.
If the agencies have done their job or have not done their job.
The lack of sunshine, openness, a requirement for openness in our
legislation.
Of course, there is the area of specific interest fixes, and whether
we, as proposed in S. 343, knock out Delaney or toxic release emissions
requirements, inventory requirements that every community should have
knowledge of.
These are some of the differences in the legislation between what we
voted out of committee and the legislation the majority leader brought
to the floor.
Let me talk about the cost-benefit analysis as a tool and not a
statutory override. Now, there is substantial difference of opinion on
this. Regulatory reform, we feel, should build on our health and safety
accomplishments, while applying better science and economic analysis.
Regulatory reform on its own and without any other consideration should
not override existing environmental safety and health laws.
There seems to be a difference here. But in discussions about S. 343,
there has been a refusal to include language that in the event of a
conflict between a law--the Clean Air Act, for example--and the new
standards in this bill that the law would govern. That is a major
difference. I know we say we are in agreement on that. But the language
that would spell that out very specifically has been difficult to come
by up to now.
There are other statutory overrides in this bill, like the sunset of
current regulations if an agency did not act to rewrite or renew them.
There would be 10 years to review a petition process, and if it was not
reviewed, the bill, according to S. 343, would sunset, would go out of
existence.
There is also what could be considered a rewrite of Superfund and the
Reg Flex Act. What they have in S. 343 is if the cleanup is worth more
than $10 million, or will cost more than $10 million, there needs to be
a new analysis of even work in process. I know there is a lot of work
going on. But it is my understanding that that is still the intent of
the bill.
Under the cost-effective regulations, regulatory reform should result
in regulations which are cost effective. S. 343 requires agencies to
choose the cheapest alternative, not necessarily the one which provides
the most bang for the buck. Here is an example: If a $2 increase in the
cost of a bill would result in the saving of 200 lives, to make a
ridiculous example, the least cost would not permit that extra $2
expenditure.
Another area of interest: No special interest fixes. Congress should
enact reforms of the regulatory process, not fixes for special
interest. S. 343, as brought to the floor, rewrites the toxic release
inventory which gives people the right to know what toxic substances
have been released in their communities. It repeals the Delaney clause
against additives in cosmetics with a substitute. It delays and
increases costs of ongoing Superfund cleanups and prohibits EPA from
conducting risk assessments to issue permits to even such things as
cement kilns and others allowing them to burn hazardous waste.
So those are some of the areas. We have others. Better
decisionmaking, not a regulatory gridlock is what we are after also.
Regulatory reform should streamline rulemaking. It should not just be a
lawyer's dream opening up a multitude of new avenues for special
interests to tie up the process.
The bill, as brought to the floor, allows courts to review risk-
assessment and cost-benefit procedures and to reopen peer review
conclusions. It creates numerous petition processes for interested
parties. These petitions are judicially reviewable and must be granted
or denied by an agency within a time certain and these petitions will
eat up agency resources and allow the petitioners, not the agencies, to
set agency priorities.
Now, a very major difference also is the reasonable threshold. The
new requirements should be applied wisely where the cost of conducting
the analysis are justified by the benefits. But S. 343 sweeps into the
new process an unwarranted number of regulations because it would, I
believe, flunk its own cost-benefit test, because it provides for a
threshold of $50 million, where the bill we brought out of the
Governmental Affairs Committee, that Senator Roth brought out, has a
$100 million threshold, which means even then somewhere 400 to 600
reviews are going to have to be conducted per year. And cutting that
$100 million standard in half, with no evidence that the extra taxpayer
dollars needed to comply would be spent effectively.
In other words, how many can we really do effectively? That is the
question. I think if we went to the $50 million threshold, we would
probably find the agencies being swamped. We are going to spend a lot
of dollars making no progress, as far as the accomplishment of
regulatory reform.
Last, but certainly not least, is sunshine. Regulatory reform should
be open and understandable to the public and regulated industries. It
should be sunshine in the regulatory review process.
S. 343 as brought to the floor has no sunshine provisions to protect
public participation and prevent secrecy in regulatory review. I can
say this, going back a few years, when we had the Council on
Competitiveness and a few things like that, we certainly need the
sunshine provision. I think most people here would probably agree with
that.
Mr. President, the rules and regulations that we are talking about
involve every child in this country, every family, the milk you drink,
the meat you eat, transportation, safety, water, air, all of these are
things that will be affected by this legislation. That is the reason
that I say it will be one of the most important bills that we bring up
this year.
I do not want confrontation on these things. I think the press has
continued to play it mainly as confrontation. I do not like that,
particularly because we are talking about working out cooperative
methods and working out compromise on this so we can get a good bill
for the whole country. We all stand here united on the need for
regulatory reform. So I think it is important that we try and work as
many of these things out as possible.
Now, with specific regard to the proposal made by the Senator from
Michigan, I know his original proposal was one that I was prepared to
oppose. But he has modified that proposal. I think after we have
checked with some of the people involved on our side or wanted to be
involved on our side, we may be able to accept the amendment over here.
The amendment, as originally proposed, while well-intentioned, I think,
would have added to special interest lobbying, would have delayed
Government decision and frustrated effective regulatory reform. The
amendment would have allowed a single official, and not even the
Administrator of SBA but the chief counsel for advocacy, to determine
any rule, any reg, to be put on the list for agencies. Agencies would
have been forced to put these rules on just with one person's say-so.
And that could have been any existing rule he or she might have chosen.
I did not favor that approach to it
because I think we had adequate protection in the bill in S. 343 and
S. 291 both to cover that. We had adequate procedures that would have
covered that without giving one person, in effect, what would be a
czar's authority over all rules and regulations which already have to
be reviewed for small business under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
which is required for agencies to evaluate the impact of proposed rules
on small businesses and to consider less burdensome, more flexible
alternatives for those businesses.

Both the Glenn-Chafee bill and S. 343, the one before the Senate,
also strengthen the Regulatory Flexibility Act by providing judicial
review of agency regflex decisions.

[[Page S 9613]]

I think that is the right thing to do. I think both bills cover that.
Trying to tighten up regflex is one thing, but creating a whole new set
of powers for the Small Business Administration would be quite another
thing.
I know the Senator has modified his proposal to say that now, instead
of the chief counsel for advocacy at SBA being able to determine on his
or her own that these things must be considered by the particular
agency or department involved, he has said now that first they have to
recommend these up to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
in the Office of Management and Budget, which is the office OIRA, that
normally passes on these things.
It is our understanding that would be an adequate stopgap, an
adequate monitor, a governor, if you will, or a sieve, to sort out what
might be frivolous or might not be frivolous.
It is my understanding that the OMB, then, in the amendment as now
proposed, would be able to stop that procedure if they wanted.
I ask my distinguished colleague from Michigan if that is his intent
now, that once the SBA counsel has submitted this to OIRA, we could
turn it down and that would be the end of it.
Mr. ABRAHAM. The Senator from Ohio is correct, I think. Our
understanding is, with some changes which we made prior to introducing
the amendment here today, it was to provide sort of a fail-safe to
ensure that the concerns that the Senator from Ohio has expressed about
the possibility of having the advocate of the Small Business
Administration move into areas that were of negligible importance, that
might be extraordinarily burdensome to the agencies, to provide a type
of a fail-safe by requiring concurrence--in other words, approval--
also, by the Administrator of OIRA.
Mr. GLENN. I was curious as to why the Administrator of the Small
Business Administration was not the authority that would pass on these
things to OIRA, or make the decision, rather than taking a subordinate
officer and, in effect, elevating that officer for a greater authority
than the Administrator has in being able to send things off for review
at a different place.
Mr. ABRAHAM. I will say we felt, of the various responsibilities at
the Small Business Administration, the advocate's office is, in effect,
a somewhat independent figure whose principal responsibility under
current law would seem to be very consistent with the responsibility of
trying to protect small businesses with regard to promulgation of new
regulations.
We thought that was the logical place to impose this responsibility.
Also, the mechanism seemed to exist to do some of the study that is
entailed in putting forth these recommendations.
We thought that this semi-independent status of the advocate,
combined with the authorities already given it, were ones that
justified and supported the notion of allowing that.
Mr. GLENN. I thank my colleague.
As I said earlier, at the appropriate time, after I have had a chance
to check with a number of people on our side interested in the
legislation, we may be able to accept. I, personally, think it is OK
now as far as putting OIRA on as sort of a governor or place in which
these can be judged before they would be sent to a department or
agency. I would personally be prepared to accept it.
We would like to check with a few more people. I yield the floor.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Abraham
amendment. I congratulate the Senator for, first, his concern about
small business, which is a concern of all Members on regulations;
second, for having an appropriate screening mechanism to prevent the
agency overload.
Agency overload, Mr. President, is one of the principal problems with
this bill. We are all in favor, at least everyone that I have heard,
says they are in favor of cost-benefit analysis, says they are in favor
of risk assessment. The question is, do we give the agencies more work
than they can do and overload their capacity to do it?
In its original form, the Abraham amendment might well have been
subject to that criticism in that any rule on a look-back which the
advocate designated would go into the workload of the agency.
However, in the form that the Senator from Michigan has proposed,
there is an appropriate screen because the head of OIRA would have to
concur with that judgment, which would ensure, I believe, that those
rules which have a major effect on small business would be included in
the workload, as they should be, but that we could prevent the agency
overload.
Mr. President, I think this is an excellent amendment which will
presently protect small business on the look-back.
If I may speak for a few moments on the pending bill and on the Glenn
substitute, which the Senator has spoken about, there are a number of
differences, Mr. President, and I believe that the pending bill, the
so-called Dole-Johnston amendment, is a much better bill in terms of
accomplishing the control over a runaway agency.
Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn] states that under
the Dole-Johnston bill, there would be a judicial review of the
procedures in the risk assessment management; and under the Glenn
substitute, there would not be that review of procedures.
Mr. President, exactly the opposite is true under the language
proposed. Under the language of the Glenn substitute, it states
specifically that any regulatory analysis for such actions shall
constitute part of the record and shall, to the extent relevant, be
considered by a court in determining the legality of the agency action.
The risk assessment protocol is included as part of the record and
shall be considered by the court--shall be considered by the court--in
determining the legality of the agency action.
Now, what does legality mean, Mr. President? Legality can only mean,
in my judgment, the legality as measured by section 706 of the
Administrative Procedure Act. If it does not refer to section 706,
there is not, within the Glenn amendment, a separate rule for testing
and determining legality.
Now, what does section 706 say? Section 706(D) refers to the
procedures, and that any rule which the reviewing court shall hold
unlawful and set-aside agency actions which are ``without observance of
procedure required by law.'' `` * * * without observance of procedure
required by law.''
There is nothing, Mr. President, in the Glenn substitute, to say that
section 706(D) does not apply. That is the only thing that legality can
mean.
Now, when we get into a further discussion of what the Dole
substitute shows, we will have a blowup of the language and make this
clear.
Mr. President, exactly the opposite is true. That is, Senator Glenn
says that his amendment would prevent the review. We say it not only
permits it, but requires it.
And that, under the Dole-Johnston pending amendment, it prevents any
such review by saying that, ``failure to comply with the subchapter may
be considered by the court solely for the purpose of determining
whether the final agency action is arbitrary and capricious or an abuse
of discretion.''

Mr. President, another serious deficiency of the substitute is that
there is no enforceable petition process on the Glenn substitute, no
enforceable petition process--no enforceable look-back process.
Oh, there are words in there about you can adopt it--you have the
petition process as provided for under the present law. But what does
that amount to? I mean, if all you get is the petition process under
the present law, you get nothing. That is what this bill is all about.
What happens when you have an oppressive regulation, of which there are
many, which did not follow a risk assessment protocol, which did not
involve scientists or ignored the scientists, which is exorbitantly
expensive, and which you want to take a look at?
Effectively, there is almost nothing you can do about it, because
there are no standards by which you can seek that petition and get it
reviewed. And, under the Glenn substitute, they simply take the present
law and say: Whatever you do under the present law, we are not going to
disturb. There is no look-back process that is enforceable. None at
all. What it says is that you shall look back at these, all these
regulations, within 10 years, or you may request to extend that up to
15 years. But what happens if you do not do it? It says you shall
institute a rulemaking under section 553. What does that mean? It means
you submit a notice of proposed rulemaking, which can

[[Page S 9614]]
go on forever, and which in turn is not enforceable. That is the
problem today. What happens when you can not get an agency to act? You
have no recourse at all.
Some of these agency actions are absolutely ridiculous. Two years ago
I first proposed a risk assessment. And the reason I did was we found
in some of the rules which come before the Energy Committee, which I
chaired at that time, that these costs were out of control. We could
not figure out why it was, for example, that the cost of analyzing the
Yucca Mountain waste site--the costs of characterizing that site--had
gone up a hundredfold--a hundredfold--from $60 million to $6.3 billion.
And we said, Why could this be? How can the cost of just determining,
in this case a site for storage of nuclear waste, whether that site is
suitable--not the building of the site, just determining whether that
site is suitable--how could those costs have gone up from $60 million
to $6.3 billion?
One of the things we found that they had done was adopted a rule
where they had ignored their own scientists, absolutely ignored what
the scientists had told them. They did not know what it was going to
cost. The rule had no basis in health or safety. It was going to cost
$2.1 billion to comply with and there was nothing anyone could do about
it.
The Glenn substitute takes that same attitude, which is to say: Do
not worry about it. You are fully protected under the present rules. We
are not going to give you a right to go to court. We are not going to
give you a right to enforce a petition process. We are not going to
give you a right to have an enforceable look-back process. We are going
to leave it as under present law, and under present law all you have to
do is file your notice of proposed rulemaking and that is all you have
to do. You cannot enforce and require the agency to proceed with that
rulemaking.
So we will have a lot to discuss about this question of the two
bills. There are improvements which need to be made, to be sure, in the
Dole-Johnston substitute. One of those, which I hope to propose and
have agreed to, and I have some confidence that we will be able to do
so, is to take the CERCLA provisions--that is the Superfund, or
environmental management procedures--out of this bill. I think they
ought to be considered separately. Almost everybody agrees that you
need to use risk assessment principles in determining cleanup when you
have Superfund sites, but that it would better be done in a separate
bill, reported out of the Environment and Public Works Committee in the
Senate. And I believe there is a desire on the part of that committee
to proceed with that. I think we ought to take those provisions out.
I also hope at the appropriate time we can increase the threshold
amount from $50 to $100 million. Again, that relates to this question
of overload. Because, just as Senator Abraham has so wisely provided a
screen to have a check on the amount of overload coming from
consideration of small business matters, we need a screen to lift that
bar a little higher, from $50 to $100 million. There is going to be a
lot of work to be done under risk assessment and under cost-benefit
analysis. There is a lot of work to be done. We do not want to overload
the agencies.
So, Mr. President, I quite agree with Senator Glenn when he says that
this is a very, very important bill. I am delighted there is, I believe
on the part of all parties--myself and Senator Dole, Senator Glenn,
Senator Hatch, Senator Roth, those who have been the leaders in this
area--a desire to try to find a way to provide for an appropriate risk
assessment and appropriate cost-benefit analysis.
I believe, with that desire of all parties, that we can work our will
and get a good bill. But make no mistake about it, risk assessment,
putting science as opposed to politics or emotion or prejudice or
superstition--putting science back into the decision process and having
a process that works, and that is required to be followed, a logical
process--that tells the American taxpayer we are going to fully protect
your health and safety but we are not going to foolishly spend money on
things that do not relate to health and safety.
One final point about the Dole-Johnston amendment. My friend from
Ohio, Senator Glenn, says that under our amendment you must take the
least-cost alternative. Mr. President, that is simply not true. The
bill very specifically states that where uncertainties of science or
uncertainties in the data require a higher cost alternative, that you
may do so. Or, where there are--actually, to give the language here,
the language says, ``if scientific, technical or economic uncertainties
or nonquantifiable benefits to health, safety, or the environment
identified by the agency in the rulemaking record make a more costly
alternative that achieves the objectives of the statute appropriate and
in the public interest and the agency head provides an explanation''--
that may be adopted.
So, Mr. President, what we say is you get the least cost alternative
that achieves the objectives of the statute unless the science is
uncertain, or the data are uncertain, in which event you can get a more
costly alternative. Or you may make a more costly alternative if
nonquantifiable benefits to health, safety, or the environment make
that in the public interest. What does that mean? That means, if it
would save more lives to do something else. How can you quantify the
value of life? You cannot. But you can go to a higher cost alternative
if those nonquantifiable benefits to health, safety, or the environment
make another alternative more advisable.
But we say that, if you are going to go to this higher cost
alternative because of these nonquantifiable benefits, or if there are
uncertainties of science, then you must identify what those
uncertainties are, or you must identify what those nonquantifiable
benefits are, and then provide the least cost alternative that takes
into consideration the nonquantifiable benefits.
So what we are saying is you may go higher, but you have to say why
you went higher, and you cannot do it just because you want to or
because it is politically attractive to do so or because some
constituent group wants you to do it. You have to identify what it is
that is uncertain or what it is that is nonquantifiable.
So, Mr. President, in closing, I will just say that the Abraham
amendment, I think, is a good one now that both protects small business
on the lookback procedures but provides the appropriate screen.
Therefore, I support that amendment.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes.
Mr. GLENN. I ask my friend from Louisiana. On this least cost versus
cost effective, he talked about uncertainties. What if there are no
uncertainties, if the science is good, everybody is agreed on that, and
if all matters are quantifiable, lives may not be monetizable in dollar
value but they are quantifiable on lives to be saved? I believe the way
S. 343 is written now, even if only a $2 or a $20 expenditure would
save 100 lives, you still have to go with the least cost unless there
is some uncertainty about the scientific data.
Is that correct?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, that is not correct. I think it is an
excellent question. I think the problem with the interpretation of the
Senator from Ohio is that he is putting a very tortured and incorrect
definition of the term ``nonquantifiable benefits to health, safety and
the environment.'' The value of the human life is by its nature
nonquantifiable. I mean, you may say there are 10 lives. You can
quantify it in that narrow sense. But that is not the sense in which
this is meant. We are talking about values and benefits which are
nonquantifiable. The value of breathing clean air is by its very nature
nonquantifiable. How can you say when you go out on a beautiful, clear
day where the temperature is just right, you feel good, how can you say
that is worth $764 a week? You cannot. It is by its nature
nonquantifiable. The health, safety, or the environment are by their
nature nonquantifiable and, therefore, we have provided that.
But all we are saying is, if you as administrator are saying that you
can save 10 additional lives, that you have to identify that as your
reason for going to the more costly alternative, and if that was the
reason, then you must take the least cost alternative that takes care
of your 10 lives, that saves your 10 lives.

[[Page S 9615]]

I hope I have made that clear to my friend from Ohio because it is a
very key point.
Mr. GLENN. It is a key point. I think it is indicative of the kind of
debate we are going to get into here on some of these specifics, the
meaning of words and so on. It has to be something that will hold up in
court, that is understood by the courts. And that is a real major
problem on this whole bill. We spent days and many hours going through
some of these word differences. This is one example of it that is going
to be debated further as we get into this bill. I know basically we are
on the Abraham amendment now.
Parliamentary inquiry. Does that run out at 3 o'clock?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 3 o'clock the Senator from Georgia will
offer an amendment.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Louisiana yield for 10
seconds?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes.

Privilege of the Floor

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bill Montalto,
of the House Committee on Small Business, be permitted floor privileges
for the purpose of working on my amendment when it comes up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. First, Mr. President, I want to say how strongly I agree
with my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Ohio, when he
speaks about the need for a bipartisan approach to obtain regulatory
reform. I want to say that I hope we can continue to work together as
we did in the Governmental Affairs Committee to move forward
legislation that accomplishes the goals that I think we all seek on
both sides of the political aisle.
Mr. President, I want to congratulate Senator Abraham for his
contribution in offering this amendment. I strongly agree with him that
there is no area of activity more adversely affected by some of the
regulatory reform actions of the past than small business. I think we
all agree that small business in many ways is the most important part
of our economy as it is the primary area that results in growth in our
economy and, most importantly, is the area where the majority of jobs
are being created.
So, again, I want to congratulate the junior Senator from Michigan
for his contribution in proposing this most important amendment.
This amendment would strengthen the lookback provisions of section
623. It would provide a mechanism for adding rules adversely impacting
small businesses to the agency schedules for reviewing rules.
As the amendment was originally drafted, it would have allowed the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy at the Small Business Administration to have
sole discretion to add small business rules to the agency review
schedules. To respond to concerns about political accountability and
the need for standards in selecting rules for review, Senator Abraham
has revised his amendment. I believe this revision is a balanced
solution to a very important problem.
One of my concerns was that, in providing this discretion solely to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy at the Small Business Administration,
the original amendment was a delegation of an extraordinarily broad
power. Since the Chief Counsel for Advocacy at the Small Business
Administration is, as the Senator from Michigan pointed out, semi-
independent in the same sense that inspectors generals are independent,
it gave tremendous authority for this individual to take whatever
action he or she thought was appropriate in requiring rules to be
reviewed.
As revised, the Abraham amendment would ensure more political
accountability regarding which small business rules are added to agency
review schedules. Small business rules could be selected jointly by the
Chief Counsel of Advocacy for the Small Business Administration and the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Alternatively, the Administrator of OIRA alone could choose small
business rules for review. This would ensure that the Administrator of
OIRA, a politically accountable official who also understands the
burdens on the agencies, will be involved in the process.
In addition, the revised amendment makes clear that the standards
applicable to other rules selected for review apply to the small
business rules. For example, the Administrator of OIRA and the chief
counsel must consider, in selecting a small business rule for review,
whether review of the rule will substantially decrease costs, increase
benefits, or provide flexibility.
Mr. President, I believe that Government must be more sensitive to
the cumulative regulatory burden on small business. As I said earlier,
small business is, indeed, the backbone of America, a crucial provider
of jobs, a wellspring of entrepreneurial innovation and a central part
of the American dream.
And again I congratulate Senator Abraham for his hard work to help
America's millions of small businessowners, their employees, and their
families. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. President, I yield back the floor.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I would like to
first thank the Senator from Delaware for his help, and providing this
amendment has made it, I think, a stronger amendment, and I appreciate
his judgment and guidance on these matters.
Mr. President, I would also say that the Abraham-Dole amendment has
been strongly supported by all the Nation's major small business
organizations, including the NFIB, the National Association for the
Self-Employed, the Small Business Legislative Exchange Council, and the
chamber of commerce, among others. I ask unanimous consent that those
letters of support be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Support the Abraham-Dole Small Business Protection Amendment to S. 343

Government regulations constitute an enormous burden for
small businesses. Therefore, periodic review and sunsetting
of regulations which can become out-of-date, obsolete or
excessively time-consuming and costly is a major priority for
small business in the regulatory reform debate. Seventy-seven
percent of NFIB members support reviewing and sunsetting
regulations.
The intent of Section 623 of the Regulatory Reform bill is
to make certain that regulations are sunsetted as they become
obsolete. Regulations listed on review schedules published by
the agencies would be measured against the cost-benefit
criteria in section 624 of the bill.
Unfortunately, regulations would not be subject to review
and eventually sunsetted unless the agency responsible for
the regulation chooses to place it on the review schedule?
That's almost like putting the wolf in charge of guarding the
sheep.
If an agency doesn't put a regulation, which is
particularly burdensome to small business, on the list for
review the only recourse is to petition to have the
regulation added to the review schedule. Petitioning will
cost small business owners money--lawyers, consultants,
researchers and others will have to be hired to prepare the
petition in order to meet the high demands set forth in
section 623.
The solution is the Abraham-Dole amendment. This amendment
would empower the Chief Counsel for Advocacy at the U.S.
Small Business Administration to add regulations to the
agencies' review schedules which have significant impact on
small businesses. The Advocate would seek input from small
business men and women on regulations that need to be
reviewed, would evaluate the suggestions from entrepreneurs
and direct agencies to take proper action for reviewing those
regulations. This amendment gives the only person in the
Administration who is exclusively responsible with
representing the special needs of small business the ability
to ensure that regulations affecting them are not overlooked
or ignored by agencies during the regulatory review process.
A vote is expected on the Abraham-Dole amendment after 5
p.m., Monday, July 10. This amendment has the strongest
possible support from the National Federation of Independent
Business. For more information contact NFIB at (202) 484-
6342.
____

National Association for

the Self-Employed,

Washington, DC, July 7, 1995.
Hon. Spencer Abraham,
U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Abraham: On behalf of the 320,000 members of
the National Association for the Self-Employed, I am writing
to support your amendment to S. 343, the Comprehensive
Regulatory Reform Act of 1995.
Currently, S. 343 calls for sunsetting regulatins as they
become obsolete. The various regulatory agencies would judge
the regulations against the cost-benefit criteria outlined in
S. 343, seciton 624. The agencies would then place the
outdated regulations on a review schedule.

[[Page S 9616]]

The Abraham/Dole amendment would grant authority to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration to add regulations to the review list, thus
ensuring that all regulations affecting small business can be
reviewed in a timely manner.
We commend your efforts to give the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy this important authority. The Abraham/Dole amendment
would greatly benefit the small-business community.
Sincerely,
Bennie L. Thayer,
President.
____

Small Business Legislative Council,

Washington, DC, July 6, 1995.
Hon. Spencer Abraham,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Abraham: On behalf of the Small Business
Legislative Council (SBLC), I would like to offer our support
for your amendment to the pending regulatory reform bill to
ensure regulations that have an impact on small business are
given a thorough review for ``cost-effectiveness'' after they
have been ``on the books'' for awhile. We commend you for the
initiative as it addresses just the kind of disadvantage at
which small business always finds itself in the regulatory
process.
As we understand it, the pending bill requires agencies to
review regulations for cost-effectiveness if the agency puts
them on a review schedule, or a private party petitions to
have them on the schedule. As you have correctly recognized,
the odds are that small businesses will not have the
wherewithal to either identify such regulations or petition
for their reconsideration. Giving the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy for Small Business the right to select the rules for
review seems to us to be a sensible, cost-effective
alternative to assure small business access to the process.
The Small Business Legislative Council (SBLC) is a
permanent, independent coalition of nearly one hundred trade
and professional associations that share a common commitment
to the future of small business. Our members represent the
interests of small businesses in such diverse economic
sectors as manufacturing, retailing, distribution,
professional and technical services, construction,
transportation, and agriculture. Our policies are developed
through a consensus among our membership. Individual
associations may express their own views. For your
information, a list of our members is enclosed.
Sincerely,
John S. Satagaj,
President.

Members of the Small Business Legislative Council

Air Conditioning Contractors of America;
Alliance for Affordable Health Care;
Alliance of Independent Store Owners and Professionals;
American Animal Hospital Association;
American Association of Equine Practitioners;
American Association of Nurserymen;
American Bus Association;
American Consulting Engineers Council;
American Council of Independent Laboratories;
American Gear Manufacturers Association;
American Machine Tool Distributors Association;
American Road & Transportation Builders Association;
American Society of Interior Designers;
American Society of Travel Agents, Inc.;
American Subcontractors Association;
American Textile Machinery Association;
American Trucking Associations, Inc.;
American Warehouse Association;
AMT--The Association for Manufacturing Technology;
Architectural Precast Association;
Associated Builders & Contractors;
Associated Equipment Distributors;
Associated Landscape Contractors of America;
Association of Small Business Development Centers;
Automotive Service Association;
Automotive Recyclers Association;
Automotive Warehouse Distributors Association;
Bowling Proprietors Association of America;
Building Service Contractors Association International;
Christian Booksellers Association;
Cincinnati Sign Supplies/Lamb and Co.;
Council of Fleet Specialists;
Council of Growing Companies;
Direct Selling Association;
Electronics Representatives Association;
Florists' Transworld Delivery Association;
Health Industry Representatives Association;
Helicopter Association International;
Independent Bankers Association of America;
Independent Medical Distributors Association;
International Association of Refrigerated Warehouses;
International Communications Industries Association;
International Formalwear Association;
International Television Association;
Machinery Dealers National Association;
Manufacturers Agents National Association;
Manufacturers Representatives of America, Inc.;
Mechanical Contractors Association of America, Inc.;
National Association for the Self-Employed;
National Association of Catalog Showroom Merchandisers;
National Association of Home Builders;
National Association of Investment Companies;
National Association of Plumbing-Heating-Cooling
Contractors;
National Association of Private Enterprise;
National Association of Realtors;
National Association Retail Druggists;
National Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds;
National Association of Small Business Investment
Companies;
National Association of the Remodeling Industry;
National Chimney Sweep Guild;
National Electrical Contractors Association;
National Electrical Manufacturers Representatives
Association;
National Food Brokers Association;
National Independent Flag Dealers Association;
National Knitwear & Sportswear Association;
National Lumber & Building Material Dealers Association;
National Moving and Storage Association;
National Ornamental & Miscellaneous Metals Association;
National Paperbox Association;
National Shoe Retailers Association;
National Society of Public Accountants;
National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association;
National Tooling and Machining Association;
National Tour Association;
National Wood Flooring Association;
NATSO, Inc.;
Opticians Association of America;
Organization for the Protection and Advancement of Small
Telephone Companies;
Petroleum Marketers Association of America;
Power Transmission Representatives Association;
Printing Industries of America, Inc.;
Professional Lawn Care Association of America;
Promotional Products Association International;
Retail Bakers of America;
Small Business Council of America, Inc.;
Small Business Exporters Association;
SMC/Pennsylvania Small business;
Society of American Florists;
Turfgrass Producers International.
____

Chamber of Commerce of the

United States of America,

Washington, DC, July 10, 1995.
Hon. Spencer Abraham,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Abraham: On behalf of the 215,000 business
members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 96 percent of whom
have fewer than 100 employees, I urge your strong and active
support for two amendments to be offered to S. 343, the
``Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act of 1995.'' The Nunn/
Coverdell amendment ensures that small businesses benefit
from the broader protections of S. 343, and the Abraham/Dole
amendment guarantees a voice for small businesses in the
regulatory look-back process. To achieve meaningful reform
for that segment of our society hit hardest by regulatory
burdens--small businesses--these amendments are critical.
The Nunn/Coverdell amendment recognizes that there may be
many instances where a regulatory burden on small businesses
could be severe even though the $50 million threshold for a
complete regulatory review has not been triggered. By deeming
any rule that trips an analysis under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 a ``major rule,'' small entities will
receive the protection they need and deserve from the extreme
rigors they often experience from even the best-intentioned
regulations.
To address the problems associated with the mountain of
existing regulations and their impact on small entities, the
Abraham/Dole amendment will boost the power of small
businesses to benefit more effectively from the sunset
provisions of Section 623 of S. 343. Small companies often
need all of their people-power and resources simply to keep
afloat. They do not always have the ability to petition
federal agencies for review of particularly onerous existing
regulations. By vesting within the Small Business
Administration responsibility for ensuring that regulations
that are particularly problematic for small businesses are
not excluded from the regulatory sunset review process, small
businesses can be assured that their proportional needs are
always considered.
The Chamber hears regularly from its small business members
that federal regulations are doing them in. Support for these
two amendments will validate that their cries have been heard
and acted upon. I strongly urge your support for both the
Nunn/Coverdell amendment and the Abraham/Dole amendment.
Sincerely,
R. Bruce Josten.

[[Page S 9617]]

National Roofing

Contractors Association,

Washington, DC, July 7, 1995.
Hon. Spencer Abraham,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Abraham: The National Roofing Contractors
Association (NRCA) strongly supports the ``periodic review
and sunsetting of regulations'' amendment that you and
Majority Leader Dole will offer to Section 623 of the
Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act of 1995, S. 343.
As we understand it, the intent of Section 623 is to ensure
that regulations are sunsetted as they become obsolete.
However, a regulation would not be subject to review and
sunsetting unless the agency that administers the regulation
schedules it for review. This would allow agencies a
disproportionate amount of discretionary power to pick and
choose regulations for sunsetting.
The Abraham-Dole amendment would curb the potential for
agency bias by enabling the SBA's Chief Counsel for Advocacy
to add regulations which have a significant impact on small
business to an agency's review schedule. This would be done
with input from the small business community.
Earlier this year, NRCA testified in support of the
Regulatory Sunset and Review Act of 1995, H.R. 994. A copy of
our written statement, which discusses specific regulations,
is enclosed. Please note that attached to the statement is
the Wall Street Journal article, ``So You Want To Get Your
Roof Fixed . . .''
NRCA is an association of roofing, roof deck and
waterproofing contractors. Founded in 1886, it is one of the
oldest associations in the construction industry and has over
3,500 members represented in all 50 states. NRCA contractors
are small, privately held companies, and our average member
employs 35 people with annual sales of $3 million.
Sincerely,
Craig S. Brightup,
Director of Government Relations.

Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. I rise in strong support of the Dole-Abraham amendment and
compliment my colleague from Michigan for his work in preparing this
amendment. Obviously, it is going to be very popular. It is going to
make a necessary improvement in the bill, which in its current form is
a very good bill. But because small business is such an important part
of our Nation's economy and because regulations can have a particularly
pernicious effect on small businesses, because small businesses are not
as well equipped as large companies are to hire the lawyers and the
consultants and the other people necessary to deal with the red tape of
Federal regulations, I think it is especially important that small
businesses not be unduly negatively impacted by regulation, and
therefore this amendment will certainly assist in this regard.
Small businesses are really the engine that drives our economy. In
fact, from 1988 to 1990, small businesses with fewer than 20 employees
created over 4 million new jobs in this country, and that was at the
same time, Mr. President, that companies with more than 500 employees
lost over 500,000 net jobs during that same period.
As I said, small businesses bear a disproportionate share of the
burden of regulation. According to the Small Business Administration,
small businesses' share of the burden of regulations is three times
that of larger businesses.
Under the current language of section 623, a regulation would not be
subject to review unless the agency chooses to place it on the review
schedule or an interested party successfully petitions to have it added
to the review schedule.
Since small businesses, as I noted, frequently do not have the same
kind of resources to hire the lawyers and the consultants necessary to
prepare a petition that would meet the demanding standards set forth in
section 623, the bill's current language would allow agencies to refuse
to review regulations that have a significant impact on small business.
And that is where this amendment comes in. It is very important that
agencies include in their review schedules any regulation designated
for review by the chief counsel for advocacy of the Small Business
Administration and OIRA. And that is the important point of this
amendment.
In selecting regulations to designate for review, the advocate could
seek input from small businesses and would consider criteria such as
the extent to which the regulation imposes onerous burdens on small
businesses or directly or indirectly causes them not to hire additional
employees.
The amendment thus would create a small business counterpart to the
petition process which is available to larger firms, with the advocate
representing the interests of small businesses, just as the high-priced
lawyers and consultants will represent, presumably, the interests of
those larger businesses in that petition process.
And, of course, it has been noted why the advocate of the Small
Business Administration is ideally suited to this task, because,
according to the statute, and I am quoting now, its mission is to
``enhance small business competitiveness in the American economy.'' And
the advocate ``measure[s] the direct costs and other effects of
Government regulation on small businesses and make[s] legislative and
nonlegislative proposals for eliminating excessive or unnecessary
regulations of small business.''
As a matter of fact, the advocate also administers the Regulatory
Flexibility Act which has afforded it additional experience in
assessing the impact of regulations on small business.
So this amendment, Mr. President, would actually merely build on a
foundation laid by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Under that act, the
advocate reviews agency analyses of the likely impact of the proposed
and final rules on small businesses. So under the Abraham-Dole
amendment the advocate's role in reviewing regulations would be very
similar to its role in promulgating regulations.
Let me conclude with a couple points about concerns with this general
approach, although, as I said, I think particularly with the amendment
to the amendment that Senator Roth spoke about a moment ago this should
be a very popular amendment.
There was some question that it might be appropriate for there to be
a limit on the number of regulations that the advocate could designate
for review, but we think that under this process clearly agencies that
choose to review regulations that hurt small business likely will not
have many regulations added to their review schedule by the advocate.
Those, of course, that ignore the concerns of small business could
expect to have their review schedule expanded by the advocate, but that
is part of the incentive which we are building into this amendment.
And second, there was a concern that really we ought to only be
considering major rules; otherwise, we could clog the courts and clog
the agency with an unnecessary workload.
It is true, of course, that the cost-benefit and risk-assessment
requirements generally apply only to the promulgation of major rules,
but many of the rules that hurt small business the most would not meet
the cost threshold for major rules, and this is particularly true if
the major rule threshold were to be raised from its current $50 million
limit.
For example, the NFIB estimates that OSHA's widely criticized fall-
safety rule would impose costs of $40 million annually, $10 million
short of the $50 million major rule threshold. This rule would require
employees, by the way, to wear an expensive harness with a lifeline
attached to the roof any time that a worker works 6 feet or higher
above the ground.
The negative impact of this rule on small businesses was the subject
of an op-ed in the June 13, 1995, issue of USA Today. It is a good
illustration of how even with a rule like this, which achieved a great
deal of attention and would impose a significant cost on small
contractors, it nonetheless would fail to meet that threshold
requirement, and that is one of reasons why the kind of review called
for in the Abraham-Dole amendment is not only appropriate but is really
quite necessary.
So, Mr. President, I am sure that most of our colleagues will be in
strong support of the Abraham-Dole amendment, and I certainly urge its
adoption and would also indicate my strong support for the underlying
bill.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I also would like to rise today as a
cosponsor of the small business protection amendment to the Regulatory
Reform Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator should be advised that under a

[[Page S 9618]]
previous order, we are to turn to the amendment of the Senator from
Georgia at 3 o'clock.
Mr. GRAMS. I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for about 7
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, again, I want to say I rise as a strong
cosponsor of the small business protection amendment to the Regulatory
Reform Act, and as a strong proponent of holding Government accountable
to the taxpayers, I believe this amendment would make a good bill even
better.
I also compliment the Senator from Michigan for all the work he has
done in this area.
The negotiations that many of us have undertaken on the Regulatory
Reform Act have been long and often painful, especially as we witnessed
the watering down of rational provisions. The sunset provision has been
one of those casualties.
But the small business protection amendment would strengthen the
provision in the bill which cancels or sunsets regulations as they
become obsolete.
Excessive Federal regulations and redtape impose an enormous burden
on this Nation. Regulations act as hidden taxes which push up prices on
goods and services for American households, dampen business investment
and, ultimately, kill jobs.
What concerns me most, however, is that a large portion of Federal
regulations do not have strong scientific merit to back up their
enforcement. I am also concerned that we are currently prohibited from
even conducting cost-benefit analyses on some of the extensive
regulatory measures in this country. How can this Congress make well-
informed decisions if we cannot even consider these types of options?
More than 2 years ago, as a new Member of Congress, the first sunset
amendment I offered was to H.R. 820, and that was the National
Competitiveness Act. I mention this because my goal was not to hinder
our ability to compete in the international marketplace. On the
contrary, with overregulation strangling our competitiveness abroad, my
goal was simply to provide a framework for ensuring oversight and
accountability and to get agencies to start setting standards to
justify the funding that they now receive.
After this first sunset amendment, I offered several more to various
House appropriations bills, and almost a dozen were passed into law
with wide bipartisan support.
Let me remind you, Mr. President, that the concept of sunsetting
regulations is not new. In fact, President Clinton's Chief of Staff,
Leon Panetta, offered sunset legislation when he served in the U.S.
House of Representatives.
So now we have the opportunity with a single piece of legislation to
sunset regulations that have outlived their usefulness.
As the 1995 Regulatory Reform Act is currently written, regulations
would be listed on review schedules published by the agencies. However,
a regulation would not be subject to review unless the agency chooses
to place it on the review schedule. If the agency does not place a
particular regulation on the review schedule, an individual or a small
business may petition that agency to do so. But this is not as easy as
it sounds. The individual or small business must meet unreasonably high
standards--standards so stringent that the average person would have to
hire expensive lawyers and consultants just to figure out how to meet
that criteria.
What the small business protection amendment would do is to require
agencies to include on their review schedules any regulation designated
for review by the chief counsel for advocacy of the Small Business
Administration in concurrence with the OMB's Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs. This represents an important step toward
alleviating the burden of outdated regulations and also ensuring the
future health of our economy.
Big businesses already have a loud voice in the regulatory process
because they have access to resources often out of the reach of small
businesses. But small businesses create millions of new jobs every
year, and this amendment would allow their voices to be heard as well.
Mr. President, I am sure that there is not a single Member of this
body who has not been contacted by a constituent from their home State
because of some absurd and outmoded regulation. And yet some of my
colleagues will argue that strengthening the sunset measure in the
Regulatory Reform Act would place an undue burden on the regulatory
agencies, who would have to spend a lot more time reviewing and a lot
less time regulating. I argue that is what regulators ought to do--that
is, review and then retire regulations that are no longer needed and
then to fix those that are not working.
The fact is that strengthening the sunset provision of the Regulatory
Reform Act will have absolutely no impact on regulations which serve a
useful and realistic purpose. It will not make our air dirty or our
water unclean. It will not pollute our environment or jeopardize our
health or our safety.
What this amendment will do is to enhance the accountability and
oversight that regulators have to the taxpayers of this country--the
people who must foot the bill for every rule and requirement imposed by
the myriad of regulatory agencies.
Establishing a fair procedure by which regulations can be reviewed
periodically to ensure and to maintain their effectiveness is just
plain common sense. That is why I am proud to be a cosponsor of the
Abraham-Dole small business protection amendment, and that is also why
I urge my colleagues to give it their support today as well.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak briefly
with respect to the Abraham-Dole amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to conclude my remarks.
There does not appear to be anyone else at this point who wants to
speak to the amendment.
I want to thank my colleague, the Senator from Minnesota, for his
support on these matters pertaining to sunsetting regulations, as he
already indicated, before this Congress took office, and I am sure he
will continue his support in the process of putting together this
amendment. His broad support for sunsetting regulations has been an
important ingredient in our efforts to bring this particular amendment
to the floor. I want to thank him for his remarks today.
As I said earlier, Mr. President, when I offered the amendment, I
think that the bill we have before us has a system in place which will
provide big businesses with a vehicle, a mechanism by which they can
bring regulations up for review, because they will be in a position
financially to afford the kind of technical cost-benefit studies and
other types of inquiry necessary to present a petition that can be
successful as it is considered.
Unfortunately, small businesses do not always enjoy that opportunity.
It is also the case that regulations which cost $30 or $40 million that
do not quite make it to the level which we consider major rules in this
legislation, at the $30 or $40 million pricetag are very costly rules,
very major rules from the standpoint of a small mom-and-pop business
that is out there in America trying to survive.
So I think this amendment, as I said at the outset, strikes the
proper balance between the need to place some constraints on how many
regulations come up for review, on the one hand, and the legitimate
needs of small businesses on the other to have their day in court.
My parents owned a small business for quite a long time. I know what
they encountered as small business people, truly a mom-and-pop
operation, in attempting to just sort out the demands that we in
Washington placed on their business. Others come to my office all the
time with similar expressions of concern. I believe this amendment
gives the small business community a mechanism by which regulations
that are costly to small businesses can be brought up for review, even
if they are not initially placed on the list of rules to be reviewed by
agencies, and be brought up for review without necessitating on the
part of small businesses

[[Page S 9619]]
who often will not be able to afford the expensive process that the
petition system provides.
I think it will be an effective addition to this bill and I hope an
effective way by which small businesses across this country continue to
have their voice heard as they deal with Federal regulation in the
future.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I know we have run over our time for this
particular amendment, but I believe there is a small meeting still
going on. I ask my distinguished colleague from Michigan if he had
considered having the reporting authority for small business concerns
be the Administrator of the Small Business Administration?
It is a little unusual to go down somewhere in the organizational
chart of any agency or department and give a particular person the
authority, no matter what their title or what their normal
responsibilities are, to bypass all other rules, regulations, and
administrative procedures for that particular department, to bypass the
administrator of their department, even though the administrator might
not agree with what he is going to propose, and bypass within the
depths of an agency the administrator and go directly to OIRA.
Would it not make more sense if we really did this through the
administrator as the first step on this process? Otherwise, you could
come up with a situation where you have an administrator who really
does not agree, and maybe for some very good reasons, as to the actions
that will be taken by the counsel for advocacy. I ask, was that
considered? If that was turned down, what were the reasons for not
going that route of having the administrator represent his agency?
Mr. ABRAHAM. The concern the Senator from Ohio expressed was one that
we took into account in the process of putting together the amendment
originally. What we tried to balance was the responsibilities of the
different officials in the Small Business Administration.
The reason that we felt this particular office was the appropriate
place to vest this authority was because of two things. No. 1, the
responsibilities of this office are expressly those of advocating the
concerns of small businesses. With all due respect to the head of any
agency, as far as their set of responsibilities goes, whether it is the
head of the SBA or any of the other agencies of our Government, they
have other considerations they must take into account, whether it is
political considerations or considerations that have to do with budget
needs or managerial duties. But this office was set up, as we
interpreted it, in an exclusive sense to try to really be the advocate
of the small business community of America. It is the one place in
Government where that power has been authorized by Congress.
We felt, as a consequence, that there would be fewer countervailing
types of considerations brought before the advocate than at the other
offices of SBA. We thought, as a consequence, the advocate could
perform their jobs freed of, and somewhat liberated of, some of the
other countervailing responsibilities that an administrator or other
agents of the SBA might have. That is how we reached this judgment.
I think it certainly would be my expectation that the advocate would
consult with and discuss with the agency and with the SBA Administrator
decisions regarding regulations put on the rule. We thought this office
was the place where the least argument could be made, where political
pressures, special interest group pressures, and so on, were not
justifying actions, and that in fact this had a certain amount of
independence and a specific amount of authority, as well as what I said
earlier, some of the tools it will take to make these decisions,
because it is part of the current responsibility of the office to
examine regulations for reasons of promulgation. So it makes sense that
this might be the place.
Mr. GLENN. I say to my colleague that I would certainly hope that in
every case--as he said, the normal procedure would be that there would
be consultation with the administrator.
Would it be acceptable to the Senator from Michigan to make it
consultation and approval of the administrator before this matter was
brought to OIRA?
Mr. ABRAHAM. At this point, I would not be in a position to make that
change, I say to the Senator from Ohio. Because my mind is not fully
closed on this, there are a number of people who participated in
putting together this amendment initially, and I need to consult as to
their feelings on this departure. I know a number of them earlier
expressed the view that once we added the OIRA Administrator to the
process in determining which regulations would be placed on the various
agencies' lists, that we had satisfied any residual concerns which
might exist as to having a person with a direct appointment and
responsibility in the loop. I would need to go back and determine, I
think, from some of the other people who are part of this, their
receptive feeling to any change of that type.
Mr. GLENN. I would think we would get much more broad support if it
had that arrangement in it. If this is such an unusual procedure, to
say we go down within an agency and say we give that person
responsibility for taking the basic function of that agency and making
a review necessary by OIRA, or whatever else it might be--in this case
OIRA--without the approval of the agency head--now, there are only two
other places in Government that I am aware of where we do that. One is
with the inspectors general, and we provide them considerable leeway.
In fact, we require the inspectors general not only to report to their
agency heads, we require them to give us those same individual reports
because we feel if the IG's are so important in the work they do, that
we give them specific authority to report outside the chain of command
to the appropriate committees of Congress, in addition to reporting to
their agency head--not to bypass completely, but in addition to
reporting to the agency head.
The other place we do that is in the Chief Financial Officers Act,
where the chief financial officers are required, by law, to report not
only to their agency head but also to the appropriate committees of
Congress.
Now, those are the only cases I know of where we authorize people, or
require people, that if they want to take action, they are authorized
to go outside the purview and outside the views of, and maybe the
wishes of, their agency head, and do something that the agency head
might not agree with.
So I think there is that problem. I would feel more comfortable, I
guess, if we had the agency head required to be consulted. And if the
report was still to go on to OIRA and the agency head objected, that
reasons why the decision was made to go to OIRA over the objection of
the agency head were made part of that report to OIRA, I do not know
whether that was considered or not. But it seems that that would be a
more normal procedure for what we want to do.
Mr. ABRAHAM. I do not want to express the suggestion that we have
spent a huge amount of time considering the specific role of the head
of SBA. But let me go back to the point as to why the chief counsel for
advocacy was initially identified. That is, because in the reg flex
language that is currently on the statutes, it states specifically in
602(b) that ``each regulatory flexibility agenda shall be transmitted
to the chief counsel for advocacy of the Small Business Administration
for comment, if any.''
In other words, because that was the way the statutes currently kind
of vested authority for reg flex, we thought it was a sensible way to
deal with it and was built more or less on that language. I think that
was more the guiding notion that we used than any other particular
consideration.
Mr. GLENN. Well, I say to my friend from Michigan that this is an
enormously important position in that--I believe I state this
correctly--all the rules and regulations being promulgated throughout
Government are required to be submitted to SBA and be reviewed by SBA
under reg flex, the Regulatory Flexibility Act. So everything that is
going to occur in Government in the regulatory field is submitted to
SBA specifically now, whether it is intended to cover big corporations,
small or private businesses, individuals, or whatever. They, in effect,
get a crack at them to make their comment.

[[Page S 9620]]

This office of advocacy is the organization within SBA that looks at
those. And so the recommendations that would be made to OIRA are
potentially enormous in scope. All the rules and regulations
promulgated by Government would have to go through that chain and could
be kicked up to OIRA for whatever consideration they wanted to make. To
take that out from under them--at least the oversight or the
coordinated action of the administrator of SBA--is a mighty big step to
make, and a mighty big important responsibility to give to that one
person, whoever he or she might be in that office of advocacy.
So I think it would be better if it went in the other direction. We
are still checking with some of the people interested in this on our
side. We are way over on our time.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ABRAHAM. 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. ABRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Nickles be added as
an original cosponsor of the Abraham amendment No. 1490.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Hatch, the Senator from Utah, be added as an original cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATCH. 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. HATCH. Mr. President,
I strongly support the Abraham-Dole amendment, which would require
agencies to include in their schedule to review existing rules,
pursuant to section 623 of S. 343, any existing regulation that
substantially affects small business as selected by the chief counsel
for advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

Under section 623 as currently drafted, a regulation would not be
subject to review unless an agency chooses to place an existing rule on
the review schedule or an interested party is successful in having a
petition to place a rule on the schedule for review.
Unfortunately, the petition process is costly and thus particularly
burdensome to small businesses. Most small businesses do not have the
resources to hire the attorneys, consultants, economists, or
environmental experts, that may be necessary to prepare a petition that
meets the exacting standards in section 624 necessary for granting a
petition to review rules that are burdensome to small business.
This amendment will allow the chief counsel for advocacy of the SBA
with the concurrence of head of OIRA to select rules to be put on the
agency review schedule as a substitute for the petition process
available to larger businesses with greater capital assets. It assures
that the one official in the Administration exclusively responsible
with representing the needs of small business will have authority to
ensure that regulations burdensome to small business will be reviewed.
In essence, the advocate will act as an ombudsman for small business.
The advocate, however, does not have unrestrained discretion to place
existing rules on section 623's mandated review schedule. The advocate
must seek the input from small business as to what burdensome rules to
review and the amendment establishes criteria, such as whether the
existing rule causes small business not to hire additional employees,
to guide the advocate in selecting rules for review. I do not believe
that the review schedule system will be overwhelmed by the addition of
rules that burden small business. Under the Abraham-Dole amendment the
advocate will cooperate with the responsible agency and OMB to assure
the efficacy of the agency review process.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

amendment no. 1491 to amendment no. 1487

(Purpose: To provide small businesses improved regulatory relief by
requiring that a proposed regulation determined to be subject to
chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the
Regulatory Flexibility Act) will be deemed to be a major rule for the
purposes of being subject to agency cost-benefit analysis and periodic
review; requiring factual support of an agency determination that a
proposed regulation is not subject to such chapter; providing for
prompt judicial review of an agency certification regarding the
nonapplicability of such chapter; and clarifying other provisions of
the bill relating to such chapter)
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I apologize to my colleagues for my voice.
Obviously, I am losing it, but I will do the best I can this afternoon.
Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for himself and Mr.
Coverdell, proposes an amendment numbered 1491 to amendment
No. 1487.

Mr. NUNN Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent further reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

On page 14, line 10, strike out ``or''.
On page 14, line 16, add ``or'' after the semicolon.
On page 14, insert between lines 16 and 17 the following
new subparagraph:
``(C) any rule or set of closely related rules, not
determined to be a major rule pursuant to subparagraph (A) or
(B), that the agency proposing the rule determines will have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small businesses, pursuant to subchapter I;
On page 39, line 22, strike out ``and''.
On page 39, line 24, strike out the period and insert in
lieu thereof a semicolon and ``and''.
On page 39, add after line 24 the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) an agency certification that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities pursuant to section 605(b).
On page 40, line 5, insert ``and section 611'' after
``subsection''.
On page 68, strike out all beginning with line 9 through
line 11 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
``(A) include in the final regulatory flexibility analysis
a determination, with the accompanying factual findings
supporting such determination, of why the criteria in
paragraph (2) were not satisfied; and
On page 72, insert between lines 14 and 15 the following
new subsection:
(e) Amendments to the Regulatory Flexibility Act.--
(1) Improving agency certifications regarding
nonapplicability of the regulatory flexibility act.--Section
605(b), of title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:
``(b) Sections 603 and 604 of this title shall not apply to
any rule if the head of the agency certifies that the rule
will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. If the head of the
agency makes a certification under the preceding sentence,
the agency shall publish such certification, along with a
succinct statement providing the factual reasons for such
certification, in the Federal Register along with the general
notice of proposed rulemaking for the rule. The agency shall
provide such certification and statement to the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.''.
(2) Technical and clarifying amendments.--Section 612 of
title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (a) by striking ``the Committees on the
Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the
Select Committee on Small Business of the Senate, and the
Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives''
and inserting ``the Committees on the Judiciary and Small
Business of the Senate and House of Representatives''; and
(B) in subsection (b) by striking ``his views with respect
to the effect of the rule on small entities'' and inserting
``views on the rule and its effects on small entities''.
On page 72, line 15, strike out ``(e)'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``(f)''.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this amendment assures that the Nation's

[[Page S 9621]]
small business community will derive full benefit from the fundamental
changes to the regulatory process proposed in S. 343.
The amendment accomplishes this goal by establishing a direct
statutory link between the existing requirement to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 [RFA] and the requirements of S. 343.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, whenever a Federal agency
proposes a rule that is expected to have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the agency is required to conduct
a regulatory flexibility analysis, with opportunities for public
participation, to minimize the expected burden.
The Nunn-Coverdell amendment would, No. 1, require that a proposed
rule, determined to be subject to the RFA, be considered to be a major
rule for the purpose of cost-benefit analysis and periodic review. But
we exclude the comprehensive risk assessment required under S. 343.
No. 2, the amendment would require agencies to provide factual
support for any determination that a proposed regulation would not have
a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses and is
exempt from the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
No. 3, the amendment provides for prompt judicial review of an agency
certification that the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to a
proposed rule.
This is a bipartisan amendment.
This amendment enjoys strong support within the small business
community.
I ask unanimous consent that copies of letters from some of those who
are supporting this amendment in the small business community be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

National Federation of

Independent Business,

Washington, DC.

Support the Bipartisan Nunn-Coverdell Amendment to S. 343

S. 343, the Dole/Johnston substitute, currently defines
``major rules'' as regulations that have more than a $50
million dollar impact. Those major rules are then subject to
cost benefit analysis, risk assessment and periodic review.
Unfortunately, some regulations that have a significant
impact on small businesses and other small entities may not
meet the $50 million threshold. A regulatory cost that may be
almost insignificant to a Fortune 500 company could have a
devastating effect on a particular segment of the small
business community. Or, the agency's estimate that the impact
is less than $50 million may be significantly undervalued.
A good example of an expensive regulation that falls under
the threshold is OSHA's so-called ``fall protection'' rule
requiring roofers to wear harnesses with lifelines that are
tied to the roof any time they are at least six feet above
the ground. Not only will the total cost to small roofing
companies be much more than $50 million, many believe the
rule may create a greater danger for workers who will have to
worry about tripping over each other's safety riggings.
The Nunn-Coverdell amendment, which is scheduled to be
voted on after 5 p.m. on Monday, July 10, solves this problem
by requiring all regulations that are currently subject to
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Reg-Flex) of 1980 to be
subject to cost-benefit analysis and periodic review--but not
risk assessment.
Which regulations currently fall under Reg-Flex? Reg-Flex
requires the regulatory burden be minimized on those
regulations which have a ``significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.'' Last year, 127
regulations contained a Reg-Flex analysis. Small entities,
which often bear a disproportionate share of the regulatory
burden, include small businesses, small local governments
(like towns and townships) and small non-profit
organizations.
The Nunn-Coverdell amendment also allows prompt judicial
review of an agency's non-compliance with the Reg-Flex Act.
If an agency incorrectly states that a regulation does not
have a significant impact on small business--and it does--a
judge will have the authority to put the regulation on hold
until the Federal agency re-evaluates the regulation and
reduces the burden on small business as much as possible.
Agencies would also be required to provide factual support
to back up their decisions to ignore Reg-Flex.
The bipartisan Nunn-Coverdell amendment is a major priority
for small business and has NFIB's strong support. Regulatory
flexibility was recently voted the third most important issue
at the White House Conference on Small Business. Please call
NFIB at (202) 484-6342 for additional information.
____

United States of America

Chamber of Commerce,

Washington, DC, July 10, 1995.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the 215,000 business members of
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 96 percent of whom have fewer
than 100 employees, I urge your strong and active support for
two amendments to be offered to S. 343, the ``Comprehensive
Regulatory Reform Act of 1995.'' The Nunn/Coverdell amendment
ensures that small businesses benefit from the broader
protections of S. 343, and the Abraham/Dole amendment
guarantees a voice for small businesses in the regulatory
look-back process. To achieve meaningful reform for that
segment of our society hit hardest by regulatory burdens--
small businesses--these amendments are critical.
The Nunn/Coverdell amendment recognizes that there may be
many instances where a regulatory burden on small businesses
could be severe even though the $50 million threshold for a
complete regulatory review has not been triggered. By deeming
any rule that trips an analysis under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 a ``major rule,'' small entities will
receive the protection they need and deserve from the extreme
rigors they often experience from even the best-intentioned
regulations.
To address the problems associated with the mountain of
existing regulations and their impact on small entities, the
Abraham/Dole amendment will boost the power of small
businesses to benefit more effectively from the sunset
provisions of Section 623 of S. 343. Small companies often
need all of their people-power and resources simply to keep
afloat. They do not always have the ability to petition
federal agencies for review of particularly onerous existing
regulations. By vesting within the Small Business
Administration responsibility for ensuring that regulations
that are particularly problematic for small businesses are
not excluded from the regulatory sunset review process, small
businesses can be assured that their proportional needs are
always considered.
The Chamber hears regularly from its small business members
that federal regulations are doing them in. Support for these
two amendments will validate that their cries have been heard
and acted upon. I strongly urge your support for both the
Nunn/Coverdell amendment and the Abraham/Dole amendment.
Sincerely,
R. Bruce Josten.
____

Small Business Legislative Council,

Washington, DC, July 10, 1995.
Hon. Sam Nunn,
Hon. Paul Coverdell,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators: On behalf of the Small Business Legislative
Council (SBLC), I wish to offer our support for your
amendment to ensure that proposed regulations, with the
potential to have a significant impact on small businesses,
are subject to a comprehensive cost benefit analysis. It
makes sense to us to have as much data available as possible
to assess the full impact proposed regulations will have on
small business.
As you know, the delegates to the recent White House
Conference on Small Business included several references to
the regulatory process among their top recommendations.
Clearly, the cumulative burdens of the current regulatory
regime weighed heavily on their minds. We need to make
certain that we do not add to that regulatory burden
unnecessarily.
Along with the language in the Dole/Johnston version of S.
343 which allows for judicial review of agencies' compliance
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, your amendment will
ensure we have a meaningful way to truly assess the impact of
regulations upon small business and to ensure we do something
to mitigate the impact.
The Small Business Legislative Council (SBLC) is a
permanent, independent coalition of nearly one hundred trade
and professional associations that share a common commitment
to the future of small business. Our members represent the
interests of small businesses in such diverse economic
sectors as manufacturing, retailing, distribution,
professional and technical services, construction,
transportation, and agriculture. Our policies are developed
through a consensus among our membership. Individual
associations may express their own views. For your
information, a list of our members is enclosed.
Sincerely,
John S. Satagaj.
____

members of the small business legislative council

Air Conditioning Contractors of America.
Alliance for Affordable Health Care.
Alliance of Independent Store Owners and Professionals.
American Animal Hospital Association.
American Association of Equine Practitioners.
American Association of Nurserymen.
American Bus Association.
American Consulting Engineers Council.
American Council of Independent Laboratories.
American Gear Manufacturers Association.
American Machine Tool Distributors Association.
American Road & Transportation Builders Association.
American Society of Interior Designers.
American Society of Travel Agents, Inc.
American Subcontractors Association.

[[Page S 9622]]

American Textile Machinery Association.
American Trucking Associations, Inc.
American Warehouse Association.
AMT-The Association of Manufacturing Technology.
Architectural Precast Association.
Associated Builders & Contractors.
Associated Equipment Distributors.
Associated Landscape Contractors of America.
Association of Small Business Development Centers.
Automotive Service Association.
Automotive Recyclers Association.
Automotive Warehouse Distributors Association.
Bowling Proprietors Association of America.
Building Service Contractors Association International.
Christian Booksellers Association.
Cincinnati Sign Supplies/Lamb and Co.
Council of Fleet Specialists.
Council of Growing Companies.
Direct Selling Association.
Electronics Representatives Association.
Florists' Transworld Delivery Association.
Health Industry Representatives Association.
Helicopter Association International.
Independent Bankers Association of America.
Independent Medical Distributors Association.
International Association of Refrigerated Warehouses.
International Communications Industries Association.
International Formalwear Association.
International Television Association.
Machinery Dealers National Association.
Manufacturers Agents National Association.
Manufacturers Representatives of America, Inc.
Mechanical Contractors Association of America, Inc.
National Association for the Self-Employed.
National Association of Catalog Showroom Merchandisers.
National Association of Home Builders.
National Association of Investment Companies.
National Association of Plumbing-Heating-Cooling
Contractors.
National Association of Private Enterprise.
National Association of Realtors.
National Association of Retail Druggists.
National Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds.
National Association of Small Business Investment
Companies.
National Association of the Remodeling Industry.
National Chimney Sweep Guide.
National Electrical Contractors Association.
National Electrical Manufacturers Representatives
Association.
National Food Brokers Association.
National Independent Flag Dealers Association.
National Knitwear & Sportswear Association.
National Lumber & Building Material Dealers Association.
National Moving and Storage Association.
National Ornamental & Miscellaneous Metals Association.
National Paperbox Association.
National Shoe Retailers Association.
National Society of Public Accountants.
National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association.
National Tooling and Machining Association.
National Tour Association.
National Wood Flooring Association.
NATSO, Inc.
Opticians Association of America.
Organization for the Protection and Advancement of Small
Telephone Companies.
Petroleum Marketers Association of America.
Power Transmission Representatives Association.
Printing Industries of America, Inc.
Professional Lawn Care Association of America.
Promotional Products Association International.
Retail Bakers of America.
Small Business Council of America, Inc.
Small Business Exporters Association.
SMC/Pennsylvania Small Business.
Society of American Florists.
Turfgrass Producers International.
____

National Roofing

Contractors Association,

Washington, DC, July 7, 1995.
Hon. Sam Nunn,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Nunn: The National Roofing Contractors
Association (NRCA) supports the amendment that you will offer
with Senator Coverdell to remove the $50 million ``major
rules'' floor for small business in the Comprehensive
Regulatory Reform Act of 1995 (S. 343), in order to apply
cost-benefit and periodic review to all regulations impacting
small business.
Federal agencies are poor at accurately estimating the cost
of their regulations. OSHA estimated $40 million annually for
its new Fall Protection Standard (Subpart M) and said that it
would not have a significant impact on small business. NRCA
estimates its impact to be at least $250 million annually,
and it has already wreaked havoc on the industry.
Another example is OSHA's 1994 standard for asbestos
containing roofing material (ACRM). OSHA estimated the annual
costs to the roofing industry to be approximately $1 million
annually, while NRCA estimated approximately $1.3 billion!
OSHA's cost figures only took into consideration Built-up
Roofing (BUR) removal, and it had failed to cover the vast
majority of roof removal and repair jobs. NRCA estimated that
removals of asbestos-containing BUR constituted less than 12
percent of all roof removal jobs.
Your amendment would end the tendency for agencies to
underestimate costs by making all regulations now subject to
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Reg Flex), subject to
S. 343's cost-benefit analysis and periodic review
requirements. And we appreciate your language giving judges
the authority to immediately stay regulations if necessary.
NRCA is an association of roofing, roof deck, and
waterproofing contractors. Founded in 1886, it is one of the
oldest associations in the construction industry and has over
3,500 members represented in all 50 states. NRCA contractors
are small, privately held companies, and our average member
employs 35 people with annual sales of $3 million.
Sincerely,
Craig S. Brightup,
Director of Government Relations.
____

National Association of

Towns and Townships,

Washington, DC, July 7, 1995.
Hon. Sam Nunn,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Nunn: The National Association of Towns and
Townships (NATaT) strongly supports the Nunn-Coverdell
amendment to S. 343 that would require all regulations
currently subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(RFA) to be subject to cost-benefit analysis and periodic
review.
NATaT represents approximately 13,000 of the nation's
39,000 general purpose units of local governments. Most of
our member local governments are small and rural and have
fewer than 10,000 residents. Many of these small communities
have very limited resources available to provide those
services required of them such as fire and police protection,
road maintenance, relief for the poor and economic
development. Consequently, many regulations that have less
than a $50 million threshold have a very significant impact
on small towns and townships.
A good example is the commercial drivers license (CDL)
requirement for public sector employees required by the Motor
Vehicle Safety Act of 1986. While that law may not have
seemed to have a significant impact, it had a significant
impact on small townships that had to pay for the training
and testing of drivers to obtain a CDL, especially those
townships which use part-time drivers for snow removal or for
emergency response to floods or tornados. Recently, drug and
alcohol testing requirements were mandated for those who hold
CDL's, adding to the cumulative impact.
Your amendment will also allow prompt judicial review of an
agency's non-compliance with the RFA if an agency states
incorrectly that a regulation will not have a significant
impact on small entities. This has been a continual problem
Agencies have often claimed no significant economic impact on
small entities in their regulatory flexibility analysis while
giving no justification for their reasoning, though we have
believed quite the opposite.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, such a display of strong support for the
Regulatory Flexibility Act has a very long history within the small
business community, going back to the late 1970's. The Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 has been looked upon as the small business
community's first line of defense with regard to the burdens of Federal
regulations. Recognizing that the effective functioning of government
certainly requires regulations, the Regulatory Flexibility Act was
designed to compel agencies to analyze their proposed regulations, with
opportunities for public participation, so that the final regulation
imposes the least burden on small businesses.
Mr. President, given my focus today on the needs of the small
business community, my remarks may suggest to my colleagues that the
Regulatory Flexibility Act offers protections only to small business.
In fact, the act's protections are available to a fairly broad range of
small entities in addition to small businesses, including small units
of local government, educational institutions, and other not-for-profit
organizations. My friend from Ohio, Mr. Glenn, was especially vigilant
regarding the application of the Regulatory Flexibility Act to small
units of local government during his tenure as chairman of the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Enactment of the legislation that became the Regulatory Flexibility
Act was a key recommendation of the 1980

[[Page S 9623]]
White House Conference on Small Business. Last month, small business
persons from across the Nation came together for the 1995 White House
Conference on Small Business.
It comes as no surprise that issues relating to regulatory relief
were key topics of discussion among the delegates at the 1995
conference. They made clear their strong concerns regarding the current
Federal regulatory process, from the way agencies design new
regulations to how the agencies implement the regulations under their
charge.
Many of the key features of S.343, and other legislative proposals to
provide greater discipline to the regulatory process, were endorsed in
the recommendations voted upon by the White House Conference delegates.
In particular, the White House Conference's recommendations on
regulatory reform called for assessing more proposed regulations
against rigorous cost-benefit standards. Similarly, the broader use of
risk assessment, based on sound scientific principles and compared to
real world risks, were included within a number of recommendations
voted the top 60 recommendations from the 1995 conference. Other
conference recommendations called for the periodic review of existing
regulations to establish their continuing need and to determine if they
could be modified, based upon experience, to make them less burdensome.
Finally, Mr. President, the delegates to the 1995 White House
Conference on Small Business adopted recommendations to strengthen the
Regulatory Flexibility Act in many of the ways being done by the
provisions of S. 343, and by the Nunn-Coverdell amendment. Action today
to strengthen the Regulatory Flexibility Act may well be the most
prompt congressional response to a recommendation from any White House
Conference on Small Business.
Mr. President, in addition to establishing a statutory link between
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the requirements for cost-benefit
analysis under S. 343, my amendment takes other steps to enhance the
effectiveness of the regulatory flexibility process. First, an agency
certification that a proposed regulation would not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small businesses would have to be
backed up by facts. This is not the case today. Small business
advocates complain about their being deprived of the act's protections
by such
unwarranted certifications of nonapplicability.

Along the same lines, the Nunn-Coverdell amendment makes possible a
judicial challenge of such unwarranted certifications early in the
regulatory process. Abuse is prevented by requiring that the judicial
challenge be brought within 60 days of the certification and in the
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Supporters of
our amendment within the small business community believe that this
provision and the enhanced judicial enforcement of the act already
contained in the bill will make the agencies take more seriously their
responsibilities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
I know that during the debate on this provision concern will be
expressed that the amendment will substantially overburden the
regulatory staff within the various departments and agencies. They may
cite figures drawn from the semiannual regulatory agenda which suggest
that 500 or even 1,000 additional rules may be subject to cost-benefit
analysis under the Nunn-Coverdell amendment. I believe these figures
are inflated and inaccurate for the reasons that will, no doubt, be
subsequently discussed.
In contrast, I am confident that the actual number is substantially
smaller, certainly less than 200. By the time you count those proposed
regulations within a $50 million or $100 million threshold, a number
will be double counted: The number of proposed regulations covered is
probably somewhere around 150. Even that number may be inflated by
proposed rules that are exempt under S. 343's definition of rule.
My estimate, Mr. President--and I recognize that it is an estimate
that is based upon 14 years of experience under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act by the career staff of the Office of the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy at the Small Business Administration, the office charged
with monitoring agency compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
It takes into consideration regulations for which regulatory
flexibility analyses were done. It also takes into consideration those
situations in which the Office of Advocacy believed the Act applied and
the agency certified to the contrary.
While I agree that we cannot give the agencies an impossible set of
tasks in reviewing proposed and existing regulations, we must not loose
sight of the regulated public. I believe that they have a right to
demand that proposed regulations be thoroughly analyzed, and that they
meet rigorous standards of cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment when
appropriate, and regulatory flexibility for small entities, Similarly,
the regulated public has a right to expect that existing regulations be
reviewed for their continuing utility, and when possible, modified to
reduce their burden.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. NUNN. Yes.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I will not subject the Senator to a long
series of questions because I sympathize with the condition of his
voice.
Mr. President, we have had conversations, both Senators from Georgia
and myself and my staff, Senator Roth, and others, concerning the
problem of agency overload. It seems to me that all sides in this
endeavor want to arrive at the same place, and that is the maximum
protection for small business but a workable system for the agencies so
that the agencies will not be overloaded.
We had proposed to the Senator from Georgia an alternative, which is,
in effect, to have the same kind of fix that Senator Abraham had in his
amendment, which is to give OIRA, in effect, a veto over these
procedures.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment that the
Senators from Georgia and I have discussed be printed in the Record at
this point.
There being no objection, the amendment was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

On page 14, line 10, strike out ``or''.
On page 14, line 16, add ``or'' after the semicolon.
On page 14, insert between lines 16 and 17 the following
new subparagraph:
``(C) any rule or set of closely related rules, not
determined or designated to be a major rule pursuant to
subparagraph (A) or (B), that is designated as a major rule
pursuant to section 622(b)(2) (and a designation or failure
to designate under this subparagraph shall not be subject to
judicial review).''
On page 20, insert between lines 12 and 13 the following
new paragraph:
``(2) If the agency has determined that the rule is not a
major rule within the meaning of section 621(5)(A) and has
not designated the rule as a major rule within the meaning of
section 621(5)(B), the Chief Counsel for Advocacy at the
Small Business Administration may publish in the Federal
Register a determination, and accompanying factual findings
supporting such determination, drawn from the initial
regulatory flexibility analysis, that the proposed rule
should be designated as a major rule because of its
substantial economic impact on a significant number of small
entities. Such determination shall be published not later
than 15 days after the publication of the notice of proposed
rulemaking. The Director or designee of the President shall
designate such rule as a major rule under paragraph (1)
unless the Director or designee of the President publishes in
the Federal Register, prior to the deadline in paragraph (1),
a finding regarding the recommendation of the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy that contains a succinct statement of the basis
for not making such a designation.''
On page 20, line 13, strike out ``(2)'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``(3)''.
On page 39, line 22, strike out ``and''.
On page 39, line 24, strike out the period and insert in
lieu thereof a semicolon and ``and''.
On page 39, add after line 24 the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) an agency certification that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities pursuant to section 605(b)''.
On page 69, line 5, insert after ``entity'', ``, upon
publication of the final rule,''.
On page 69, line 7, strike ``A court'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``Notwithstanding section 625(e)(3), a court''.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I will not propose that amendment today,
but I simply ask the Senator, in fact both Senators from Georgia, if
they will continue to work with us with a view to dealing with this
problem of agency overload, hoping to find some alternative--if not the
one that I have sent to the desk for printing, then some other
alternative, so that we may deal with that question of overload.

[[Page S 9624]]

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Louisiana that the
answer is yes. I will certainly continue to discuss any modification of
this amendment that makes sense from the small business perspective,
and also from the point of view of regulatory overload. This is a
difficult area. None of us knows precisely what the numbers of
regulations that are going to be affected here. So we are dealing with
an unknown. But I do think that when we are in doubt, we ought to tilt
toward not having a regulatory burden overwhelming the small business
community. That would be my perspective. But I will be glad to continue
to try to work with him in this regard because I know he has the same
goal. We will continue to discuss it even as we debate it here on the
floor.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for his
answer.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I withhold.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, first I want to thank my colleague from
Georgia, Senator Nunn, for his dedication to this effort on behalf of
small business. And we are all particularly sympathetic to the malady
with which he returned from the recess. We wish him well soon.
I also want to answer the question of the Senator from Louisiana. As
we continue through the process with Senator Dole and his bill, we
would obviously keep on the table discussions to try to facilitate his
concern. We did not have enough time to talk a little earlier. But
while we remain concerned about agency overload, I think the Senator
from Louisiana would join with myself and the Senator from Georgia and
others in sympathy for the overload that small business America has
been suffering for too long, way too long.
Just to cite some of the figures, sometimes I think we forget what we
are talking about when we talk about small business. There are over 5
million employers in the United States. Sixty percent of them are small
businesses that have four--four--employees or less.
If you run a family business, or any endeavor, you understand what a
limited resource that is standing against the aura of the Federal
Government. I remember years ago walking into our family business. My
mother had come down to help us. We had four--myself, my father, my
mother and one other at that time. I looked across the table. She was
just staring across the room. This is many regulations ago. I asked her
what the problem was. She had some government form in front of her, and
she was literally scared to death. She was afraid that she was going to
make a mistake that would somehow do harm to our family and our
company. Even at that time it was threatening. And since that time--
probably some 15 years ago--it has been regulation after regulation
after regulation by the hundreds, by the thousands. People that had
four employees or less had an enormous problem trying to respond to
what all these regulations ask of small business.
Here is an even more startling figure. Of the 5 million companies, 94
percent have 50 employees or less. That means only 6 percent of the
companies in the United States fall into this category where they have
the kinds of resources--even as expensive as they are--to defend
themselves.
Half the small businesses are started with less than $20,000. More
than half the 800,000 to 900,000 businesses that are formed each year
will go out of business within 5 years. One of the reasons is they
cannot keep up with what their Federal Government is demanding of them.
From 1988 to 1990 small businesses with fewer than 20 employees
accounted for 4.1 million net jobs. Large firms--that is the 6
percent--lost half a million jobs.
The point I am making here is that these small businesses need a lot
of nurturing and help and assistance from a friendly partner and not a
lot of burden and bludgeoning from a bully partner. As we have
restructured corporate America, it is the small business that has given
us the most to be optimistic about. They are creative, they take risk,
and they are hiring people. They are virtually the only sector right
now that is hiring people.
The point I am making is that we need to underscore how much
attention we as a Congress need to give to facilitating small business.
We have a lot of financial problems in our country that we have to
resolve in the very near term. That is what all the balanced budget
fights are about. But one of the four key components to fixing our
financial discipline today is to expand the economy. We have such a
large economy that a modest expansion gives us enormous relief, and the
one place that we have the best chance of expanding our economy is
small business. It literally makes no sense for us to not only be not
attentive to relieving them from regulatory burden and threat and cost,
but we should be very focused on the reverse; that is, creating every
incentive that we can think possible to aid and abet small business.
Mr. President, the Congress has recognized this for a long time. And
in 1980, as Senator Nunn has acknowledged, the Regulatory Flexibility
Act was enacted. The idea was we were already worried about what was
happening to small business. We were already treating small business
like it was General Motors. So the Congress passed legislation that
made the Government begin to become more flexible to analyze the
proportionate impact of regulations on small business. The problem was
that it did not require a cost analysis and there was no judicial
review. So it had been ignored far too much.
So while the Congress came forward and said we are going to do this,
we are going to really try to improve the situation for small business,
it was a hollow promise. It has not achieved what it set out to do.
So the Nunn-Coverdell amendment takes the Regulatory Flexibility
Act--which we have already passed; we have already acknowledged the
purpose--and it said it will have to have meaning. It already requires
extensive review and analysis. So we are simply saying that it will
have to add a cost analysis and that there is a regulatory review so
that it is enforceable, so that what the Congress meant to do in 1980
will in fact happen in 1995, 15 years later. That says something else
about our Government.
The Senator from Louisiana has raised a legitimate problem. We are
concerned about the administrative functions of Government. But if I
have to choose between where the balance of the burden should rest,
should it rest on the U.S. Government, the EPA, OSHA, the Labor
Department, and their millions and their thousands of employees, or
should it rest on the little company in Georgia that has three
employees? And if I have to pick between those two, I am going with the
little company in Georgia. Given the scope of the resources both have,
the problem is a lot more fixable from a burden standpoint on the part
of the Government than it is on that little firm and thousands of,
millions of, others like it across the country.
This is a good amendment. This will help small business. If we help
small business, Mr. President, they are going to help America because
they are going to hire people looking for a job by the millions. And
they are going to expand our economy.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. DOLE. I wonder if I might have a few minutes on another topic. Is
the time divided?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is not divided.
Mr. DOLE. If I may be permitted to speak out of order on two other
matters.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________