[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.
  

                          ____________________