[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 30 (Thursday, March 7, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1647-S1648]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT FAIRNESS ACT

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, an extraordinary thing happened today 
in the forum in the sense of the effort to try to bring the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act before this body as Senate 
bill 942.
  The fact is that here we are 6 o'clock, Thursday, and the information 
of the Senator from Alaska is that the Democratic minority has refused 
to allow this vital piece of legislation to come before this body for a 
vote. The realization, as evidenced by my good friend, Senator Bumpers 
from Arkansas, is that, if it came up, it would pass 100 to nothing.
  We are talking about trying to assist the small business community 
relative to employment, encourage those that are willing to take a risk 
in the highest area of fallout of any activity, and that is the small 
business community. We are talking about trying to get some regulatory 
reform that will assist them.
  This has been a top priority of this Congress. It has been a top 
priority of the Senate. We cannot even get it up for a vote.
  What are we trying to do with this? Some people would say we are 
trying to unwind the environmental laws, or the labor oversight 
responsibilities that we have. What we are trying to do is bring some 
logic into the equation, some cost-benefit, and risk analysis. What 
does it mean?
  Mr. President, I live in Alaska. It snows in Alaska. When the snow 
comes down, either leave it or move it. In the case of the city of 
Fairbanks, where I live, the snow falls on the area where they park the 
buses. So what do they do? They move the snow back to the back lot. But 
that is classified as a wetlands. You cannot put snow in a wetland.
  Is that a rational reality? You cannot dump the excess snow in the 
river. Why cannot you dump it in the river? Because it may have picked 
up something along the way that somehow would be inappropriate to dump 
in the river. But when it snows in Washington, DC, where do you dump 
the snow? You dump it wherever. Nobody gets too excited because snow 
here is a calamity. The city is tied up. It cannot move. You dump it in 
the Potomac River.
  Anchorage, AK, the State's largest city, probably has the cleanest 
water in the world. When it rains it drops down in the street, and goes 
down the gutter. The gutters go out into Cook Inlet. There is a 30-foot 
tide twice a day. The water goes out. This is not sewage. This is water 
that goes into your drain from the rain. It goes out.
  They did not have any problem until the Environmental Protection 
Agency came down with a mandate that said you have to remove 30 percent 
of the organic matter from the water before you can dump it without 
treatment. And the EPA said to the city of Anchorage, you are in 
violation of the law.
  Well, the assembly met. Somebody came up with the idea. ``Let us put 
a few fish guts in the drains so we would have something to recover and 
remove the organic matter and, therefore, comply.''
  When they appealed to the highest level of the Environmental 
Protection Agency, they said we are not going to make exceptions. This 
is uniform throughout the United States.
  What we are trying to do here, Mr. President, is get some balance, 
some logic into a situation that has run amok with bureaucracy and the 
inability of our administrators to address clear decisions that should 
be made relative to the areas of responsibility the administrators 
have. You cannot mandate uniformity on things like this. You have to 
bring in common sense. You bring in the analysis of cost-benefit. You 
bring in what the risk to the public is. You give the administrators 
the authority, and you hold them accountable.
  Many Senators on both sides of the aisle today have worked hard to 
try to pass regulatory reform legislation. My good friend from 
Louisiana, Senator Johnston, has labored in the vineyards for an 
extraordinary amount of time. But for reasons unknown, today the other 
side of the aisle said, we are not going to bring it up; we are going 
to object. I do not know whether this is connected with an election 
year. We have a lot of political issues around here.
  Everybody is committed to assisting small business by reducing 
redundant regulatory oversight, and here is a chance to do it. Politics 
is not an overarching excuse, in my opinion, and getting the American 
public energized so that we can address the relief needed from some of 
the ill-founded, erroneous, duplicative regulations is a bipartisan 
responsibility. We seem to agree on it, but we cannot move. We are 
stuck. No explanation.
  Today a constituent of mine came in. He brought me a chart. He is in 
the business of transporting oil. He has to have five permits. He has 
to have a Coast Guard operating regulation permit. He has to have a 
Coast Guard OPA 90 regulatory permit. He has to have an Environmental 
Protection Agency OPA 90 regulatory permit. He has to have an 
Environmental Protection Agency spill prevention regulatory permit, and 
he has to have a State permit, plus the local permits.

[[Page S1648]]

  You have created a whole new industry out there of consultants that 
are hired to do these permits, do this evaluation, at a great cost to 
the public. And the justification for this really is questionable, 
given the lack of cost-benefit and risk analysis that should be 
associated with the process and unfortunately is not.
  If you want to go into the logging business in my State, at the last 
count you have to get some 41 permits. You have to have a radio 
operator's license to run your camp. You have to have a Corps of 
Engineers permit to run your camp, and on and on and on and on.
  There can be no argument that reforming the way we do regulatory 
business in this country is of paramount importance. We cannot seem to 
get that reform.
  We are not ready to give up by any means. We are going to keep going 
at it. But in the meantime, there is no reason why we should not move 
with this particular bill, the small business relief that Senator Bond 
and Senator Bumpers have developed in the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act. I commend them for their efforts. There is a 
consensus on the need for the bill. There is a consensus on the content 
of the bill. There is a consensus on the relief that this bill would 
provide to the small business community--stimulate employment, 
stimulate investment, stimulate inventory buildup--and yet we cannot 
get the consensus we need to bring it up in the Chamber.
  The question the Senator from Alaska has to ask the Chair is, why? 
There are so many positive benefits to this legislation--teeth for the 
16-year-old Regulatory Flexibility Act to allow judicial review of 
adverse impacts regulations have on small businesses. It includes 
penalty waivers and reductions for small business violations that are 
of little if any significance, recovery of attorney's fees when small 
business is forced into defensive litigation due to enforcement 
excesses, and, finally, small business participation in rulemaking.
  We cannot keep missing the opportunity to pass positive, helpful 
legislation for important segments of America's small business 
industry. We should not miss the opportunity to pass this bill. 
Obviously, the weekend is going to go by. We are going to take this up 
again next week. But I would encourage my colleagues to allow this 
bipartisan bill to come before the floor to get it passed. We owe that 
much to the American people.
  I think we ought to be asking our friends on the other side of the 
aisle why they see fit to hold up this important legislation. I 
encourage America's small business community to demand an answer, 
because we are ready to go with it on our side, and I think those 
people out there who are frustrated are waiting and certainly deserve 
an answer.
  Mr. President, that concludes my statement. I suggest the absence of 
a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________