[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 30 (Thursday, March 7, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1639-S1642]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SMALL BUSINESS REGULATORY FAIRNESS ACT
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise on the floor this evening because
I want to compliment Senator Bond from Missouri, the chairman of the
Small Business Committee, and also Senator Bumpers from Arkansas for
the legislation they reported out which is now pending, or we wish to
have pending before the Senate.
Also, I wish to express my displeasure at those on the Democrat
side--Senator Daschle, or whoever he is--for objecting to consider this
bill. This is a bill that was reported out unanimously by the Small
Business Committee. It has overwhelming support, as Senator Bumpers
mentioned and as Senator Bond alluded to as well. This is a bill that
is going to pass overwhelmingly in the Senate. To object to even
considering it --and I looked at the unanimous-consent request. It even
said let us consider it next week. To object to consider this bill
today, or next week, I think flies in the face of common sense. It is
well-known. Yes, part of the unanimous-consent request is that the bill
would have an amendment offered by myself and Senator Reid from Nevada,
a bill almost identical to the one we passed through the Senate last
year unanimously. It had a 100-to-nothing vote, a bill that would say
Congress should review regulations. We would have an expedited
procedure to do so. If Congress did not like it, we could kill it. If
we passed a joint list of disapproval, the President would have an
option to veto that resolution.
So we would restore checks and balances and restore congressional
accountability--because many times Congress will pass laws and tell the
agencies or the regulatory agency to implement it, and then we turn the
agencies loose. And then we find out the regulations are far too
expensive, maybe do not make sense, and have unintended consequences.
Congress should be in play. Congress should still have exercising
oversight. This is going to make Congress responsible. It is going to
make Congress look at the rules that come out of legislation as a
result of executive action.
So, again, this is legislation that is supported by the President. So
why in the world will our colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle
not let us bring up legislation such as this that is supported very
strongly by the small business community all across the United States?
I used to be in small business prior to coming to the Senate. Small
businesses are strangling with the mountains and mountains of
paperwork. So we are trying to give small business at least some
regulatory relief. We have a chance to do it.
My colleague from Missouri passed a good bill out of committee, and
it was a bipartisan bill. We do not have many bipartisan bills. We need
more. We need more bipartisan work. Senator Bond and Senator Bumpers
have done it in this bill. Senator Reid and I did it in the
congressional review. We need more examples of that.
So then when we try to take it up and pass it either this week or
next week, by a time certain, unfortunately it is objected to. Those
objections will not stand. Those objections will not last. They will
not prevail.
I have heard other colleagues say that maybe we want to do a more
comprehensive bill. I want to do a comprehensive bill. I want a
significant comprehensive regulatory bill. It does not have to be on
this. We can pass two bills this year.
It is part of the frustration of being in the Senate and Congress
with people thinking, ``Well, there is only one bill. Therefore, we had
to put everything in
[[Page S1640]]
the world that remotely is related to it on that one piece of
legislation.'' It does not have to happen. It should not happen. If we
can put together a bipartisan coalition and pass comprehensive
regulatory reform, let us do it. I will be happy to help in any way I
can.
I worked with Senator Dole to put together a good piece of
legislation. Senator Johnston worked with us. But we only had four
Democrat votes. We had four cloture votes on that major comprehensive
piece of legislation. That goes all the way back to last summer. We
spent hours and hours trying to negotiate a comprehensive package.
I hope we can. I hear Members say maybe we can do it. I hope we can.
I am willing to spend more hours to make that happen. But while we are
here, while we are looking for legislative action, let us pass some
good legislation. Let us pass legislation that makes Congress more
responsible. Let us give small business regulatory relief now. If we
can pass more comprehensive legislation that says the benefits must
justify the cost of the regulation or the regulation does not happen,
that makes sense. Let us do that, too. But it does not have to be on
this piece of legislation.
So I urge my colleagues that are now obstructing this piece of
legislation--not even allowing us to consider the legislation--to
reconsider. I think they are making a mistake. I think small business
people across the country, if they found out the Democrats are
obstructing and blocking this piece of legislation, would be upset.
So I hope that they will reconsider. I hope they will allow us to
pass this legislation in a bipartisan fashion as soon as possible. It
will be, in my opinion, a real, positive, good piece of legislation for
business all across the country.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise to express a certain amount of
indignation over the charade being played out in the U.S. Senate this
afternoon.
Yesterday, I was, as a member of the Small Business Committee of the
Senate, in attendance when the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 was unanimously passed to the floor. I listened to
the ranking member, the Senator from Arkansas, the Senator from
Minnesota, the Senator from Connecticut, and the Senator from
Massachusetts all heap praise on the committee chairman, Senator Bond,
from Missouri for his bipartisan efforts to produce a bill that could
receive unanimous consent and come to the floor and be rapidly attended
to.
It is stunning, in light of those comments, that the leadership, the
minority leadership, the President's leadership, would come to this
floor and throw obstacle after obstacle in front of the consideration
of this bipartisan piece of legislation. What it says to me is that
they are bringing the President's campaign onto the floor of the
Senate, and the 1996 campaign for President of the United States is at
work here today on the Senate floor. The administration, the President,
responding to the hue and cry across the land--which is that we have to
be more attentive to small business in America. Small business produces
over half the jobs, and all the new jobs--virtually 90 percent of the
new jobs--are coming to small business.
Everybody admits all across the land to the regulatory burden on
small business, and I wish to point out that small business means like
4 employees; 60 percent of the American businesses today have 4
employees or less; 90 percent have 25 or less. They cannot keep up with
the burdens that this Government has heaped on small business, many of
them family businesses. They cannot keep up with the pages and pages of
regulation. They have been intimidated by regulatory bullies.
Everybody--governments across the land, State governments, the Federal
Government, both parties--has said we have to do something about it,
including the President of the United States, who says he supports this
legislation, whose members on the small business committee voted for
this legislation, who said this is a true bipartisan effort, who
acknowledged the chairman's work. And here we come to the floor and we
run into this political wall.
This objection can only be a part of a partisan strategy. That is all
it can be. And it leaves the President in a very unattractive light.
This is the light. It leaves him in the position of saying, ``I support
the bill; I am for this,'' and then backhandedly going to his
leadership and saying, ``Do what you can to stop it.''
That is a pattern, I would suggest, Mr. President, that we are seeing
all too often. Remember the ``I am going to lower your taxes,'' but
then they got raised, or remember ``I'm for welfare reform,'' but he
vetoed it at midnight. And now we have ``I'm for relief for the small
businessman.''
I am for this piece of legislation that gets at some of the
fundamental changes that need to occur to help small business prosper,
to help them grow, to help them hire somebody, to help create a shorter
unemployment line, and here they all are, here they all are doing
everything they know to do to block the consideration of that which
they say they are for.
If the strategy is to say, well, the Congress is not doing anything,
I can only assure them that this is going to backfire. The American
people are alert. They will know who is standing in front of this. They
will know who the obstacle was and is.
Mr. President, I have a letter from the National Association of Towns
and Townships dated March 7, 1996 to Senator Bond thanking him for his
``leadership in developing legislation to strengthen the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980,'' which this piece of legislation does. And
they endorse it and strongly recommend its passage. I ask unanimous
consent that the letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
National Association of
Towns and Townships,
Washington, DC, March 7, 1996.
Hon. Kit Bond,
Chairman, Small Business Committee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bond: The National Association of Towns and
Townships (NATaT) would like to thank you for your leadership
in developing legislation to strengthen the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA). NATaT strongly supports S.
942, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
of 1996. NATaT has long supported judicial review of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), which is a major component
of S. 942.
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. These small communities simply
do not have the resources to comply with many mandates and
regulations in the same fashion that larger localities are
able. The impact of federal regulations on small localities
was understood by the authors of the RFA and small localities
were therefore included under the definition of small
entities in that act.
NATaT has long recognized the failings of the RFA and has
fought to strengthen it over the years. We have concluded
that the only way to get federal agencies to take notice of
their responsibilities under the RFA is to allow small
entities to take an agency to court for failure to follow the
provisions of the RFA. Strong judicial review language would
do just that. NATaT strongly supports the judicial review
language and would oppose any efforts to weaken it.
Sincerely,
Tom Halicki,
Executive Director.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I am going to yield the floor. I just
want to reiterate that the President's own men looked right at this
Senator in front of me and said, ``Thank you. You have done an
outstanding job. You have demonstrated true bipartisanship.'' And
everyone voted to bring this to the floor for judicious handling and
management. The President has said publicly he supports it, and their
leadership on that side of the aisle is blocking it. The truth will be
known as to who is for it and who is against it. This is one for which
the 1996 Presidential campaign ought to have waited in the name of the
Americans who are waiting for this relief.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. The White House Conference on Small Business which was
concluded about a month ago took a look at a number of issues that are
faced every day in small business, or maybe just the business world
faces every day in doing business--the number and scope of Federal
regulations and the cost of compliance. They took a look at penalties,
the lack of cooperation, and as far as the Government entities are
concerned that are
[[Page S1641]]
charged with compliance or enforcement.
We got that report from the President's conference on small business.
I know my friend from Missouri spent hour after hour combing through
the report after that conference was over. It was pretty comprehensive
on what areas we could deal with and what areas maybe that we could not
deal with. But it was pretty obvious that we had a lot of work to do in
this piece of legislation. It is truly bipartisan. We marked it up the
other day, after Senator Bond's work, and then the years that the
ranking member, Senator Bumpers of Arkansas, spent in trying to find
middle ground or to craft a piece of legislation that could pass this
Congress. He has a vital interest in this and he has been a vital part
of this, to bring this piece of legislation to the floor.
I believe the measure does strike the right balance. It strikes a
balance between business and the burdensome regulatory and enforcement
nature of the Federal Government. Business owners who deal with these
regulations every day are telling us ``give us some flexibility, give
us some relief,'' not maybe to change a law but get the regulatory
agencies in a position that they can be an advocate for business, put
them in a support role, not just to go out and levy fines or find
something wrong.
There is probably not a business in the world where you cannot go out
and find something wrong or some violation of some rule or regulation.
The regulatory agencies should be an advocate of that business and help
them to put their house in order. Just give us a little help. Tell us
what we are doing wrong and then turn around and help us fix it.
I think we can find that relationship between the regulators and, of
course, people who are trying to make a living in this country.
This measure incorporates several provisions that will greatly help
entities which are defined as small business, small nonprofits and, of
course, that is what we find in our small towns. When you are a 98
percent small business State, as Montana is, this happens to be a very
important issue. After all, all the new jobs are being created by the
young entrepreneurs who are starting out in business and they are
hiring one, two, three, four, five people to get started in hopes of
growing to something larger. It even encompasses our people who work on
our farms and ranches.
I am very concerned about the changing attitude that has been
occurring in probably one of the most helpful, the most knowledgeable
agencies in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and that is the Soil
Conservation Service. They have taken a support group of actually great
people and know what they are talking about when it comes to soil
science, soil conservation, water management, water conservation, what
to do about erosion--the farmers and ranchers across this land really
placed a lot of confidence in the know-how of the Soil Conservation
Service--and turned them into a regulatory unit which maybe a farmer or
rancher does not want to come back on their farm or their ranch
anymore. That is a relationship that has been destroyed because of the
nature of the bureaucracy in this day and age.
I think this law creates a cooperative relationship between
regulators and small business entities, one that is less punitive and
much more solution oriented.
It adds a trigger to the Regulatory Flexibility Act when a rule is
likely to have a significant economic impact on the substantial number
of small entities, and the agency would then have to show they have
taken steps to minimize the impact of the rule on small businesses
available within the agency's discretion.
The RFA would also be applicable to the IRS rules and substantive
interpretive rulemaking, for the first time. I just went down through
some of the things that it does. It struck me in the compliance guides,
it means, write the rules and regulations in plain English so all of us
can understand it, and gets away from these legalees or gets away from
the language that, no matter which way you go, you are going to be out
of compliance as far as a businessman is concerned. Just keep it
simple. That is not asking too much.
It asks for more input from the small businesses during the
rulemaking process. We had a hearing in my State of Montana on the new
rules and regulations on safety in the workplace in the woods, logging,
requiring that an employer enforce a rule to make loggers wear a
specific kind of logging boot. It is a caulk boot. You know what? The
boot is not even out on the market yet. They cannot even buy it at any
price. They cannot get it. The logging operation is shut down because
the rule called for the boot, and it is not available.
There, again, you are asking for some flexibility. Not a bad idea.
Weigh first-time penalties for small infractions. Quit going out there
and beating up on people.
It makes Government more cooperative, and it even makes the
businesses more cooperative, also. Those are just some things that
happened in this act. I find that if you come forward with a piece of
legislation which has strong bipartisan support--and I mean everybody
on that Small Business Committee had an opportunity for input in
crafting this legislation--and then we bring it to the floor in hopes
of giving small business some relief, and it is filibustered by the
other side of the aisle--make no doubt about it, they will not let this
piece of legislation come up for a vote. They always told me, the price
of a filibuster is a few political chips. Somebody better be paying it,
and somebody better be kicking some into the pot, because along with
everything else, we do not want to get into a situation, especially in
a year like 1996, where the only thing we do is get into the business
of name-calling and not really looking at this piece of legislation and
what it does for us.
Small business is where it is at. We do not even pick up the business
section in the paper that we do not see large corporations downsizing,
spinning off small parts of their own industry. You know what? That is
not all bad because some of those little spinoffs, they go out, they
hire smaller, they become lean and mean, and you know what? Pretty soon
they become very profitable.
So when you look at S. 942, it is something that I think the Small
Business Committee can be very, very proud of. It has new compliance
guidelines, informal small-entity guidance services to small business
development centers, even enforcement on ombudsman and regional boards
that creates some kind of a relationship between those people who do
business with the Small Business Administration in trying to get their
businesses off the ground. It levels the playing field. It allows small
business to do business on the same level as big business.
So I congratulate Senator Bond and Senator Bumpers for working on
this, working it out the way it should be done. I mean, we have been
part of the criticism, too, that we are too partisan. But this one
really was not. This was a bill that was worked on and was worked on,
and it was fine-tuned before it was ever allowed to come to a vote in
the committee. Everybody had an opportunity to be a part of this Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
We cannot talk one way and act another, because I think the
information and the availability of how we act and what we say is too
open to the world to then go home and tell the folks that we have done
something else. I do not think we are in that kind of a position.
So I hope and I suggest that the other side of the aisle--let us get
this on the floor. If you have some complaints about it, let us bring
them out and let us try to work them out. That is the way legislation
moves. I do not think there is anybody on this committee that is not
amenable to suggestions as far as this piece of legislation is
concerned, because as far as small business is concerned, this could be
the biggest piece of legislation that we move this year. So I thank my
chairman and the ranking member, and I hope that we can pass this
posthaste. I yield the floor.
Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I want to express my sincere thanks both to
Senator Burns and to Senator Coverdell, two members of the Small
Business Committee who have been very active participants. They have
held hearings
[[Page S1642]]
in their own States. They have brought us good ideas from their States
that we have incorporated in S. 942.
I share the sentiments expressed by Senator Burns. We have had great
cooperation, as mentioned before, from Senator Bumpers, all of the
Democratic members of the Small Business Committee, and their staffs. I
think we have a good piece of legislation. Senator Coverdell, at my
request, introduced a letter of endorsement from the National
Association of Towns and Townships. They, too, are going to be affected
and benefited. This is not for small profitmaking corporations only or
individuals; this affects small entities like not for profits and small
local units of government.
So we have made an offer for a very tight unanimous consent request
to move forward on this bill. We asked to do it today. That was
objected to. We asked to do it Tuesday. That was objected to.
My plea is, small business, small entities want some relief. They
have given us good ideas. We worked on it in the committee. Let us go
forward. I ask the Members on the other side who are objecting, let us
go forward and get on with this, because small business deserves to
have an answer. So do the other small entities affected. I hope that we
will be able to move forward early next week. But right now it still
depends upon whether the objections will be raised on the other side.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I thank the Chair.
Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
____________________