Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I rise to note the passing of my good friend and mentor, former Michigan Gov. George Romney. George Romney will be remembered as one of Michigan's greatest citizens, a leader in government, a leader in business, and a leading advocate of his favorite cause, which was voluntarism. He was born in 1907 in a Mormon colony in Chihuahua, Mexico, but grew up moving with his family throughout the American Southwest. He worked hard to help his family, working in the sugar fields, and then went off to England as a missionary of his faith. Returning to America, he attended George Washington University, worked in this city for a time dealing primarily with tariff and manufacturing issues, and then went back to Michigan as a local manager of the Automobile Manufacturers Association. In Michigan, George Romney joined Nash-Kelvinator Corp., the forerunner of American Motors, in 1946. In 1954, he became AMC's president. From this position, he changed the way America drives, selling us on the ease and efficiency of compact cars. But George Romney was not content with his success in business. He was a public spirited man and wanted to do more to improve life in our State of Michigan. That is why he founded a nonpartisan group, Citizens for Michigan, which successfully pushed for a State constitutional convention. That convention rewrote Michigan's code of laws and watched George Romney's first successful bid for Governor. Twice more, he ran for Governor and twice more the people of Michigan showed their support for a man who put their interests first. But George's public service did not stop there. He went to Washington to serve in the President's Cabinet for over 4 years. Then leaving politics, he turned his attention to the great cause of his life, voluntarism. All of Michigan has benefited from George Romney's work, bringing communities and civic organizations together to encourage people to volunteer their time. George knew that it is public spirit that holds a community together, and he promoted that public spirit and the hard work that must support it wherever he went. Michigan's first lady, Michael Engler, joined him in this important work, as did other prominent people in Michigan. Interestingly, just last week, I met with George Romney in my office in the U.S. Senate. He was still working on that cause of voluntarism, and together we began working on legislation to promote voluntarism at our local communities and throughout the Nation. To the last, he was vital, energetic, and committed to improving people's lives. I convey my condolences today to the Romney family and everyone who cherished him as a friend. I am consoled, as I hope they are, by the many fond memories with which this good friend of Michigan and our Nation left us. As I said, Mr. President, just last week, I met with George Romney to discuss a legislative issue of great importance to him and one which I intend to continue in his memory, because I believe that the commitment he made to voluntarism is one that all of us in the U.S. Senate should do their part to advance. For all that we may do as paid public servants, it pales, in my judgment, in comparison to the things that voluntarists do to make life in our country better. The memory of George Romney for me will be of a man who did things for his community and for his State as a volunteer and made our lives better. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will begin consideration of the energy and water appropriations bill at 1:30 p.m. until 2 p.m. for opening statements. At 2 p.m., the Senate will resume S. 908, the State Department reorganization bill. A cloture motion was filed today. Therefore, Senators must file first-degree amendments to the State Department bill by 1 p.m. on Monday in order to qualify postcloture. Also, the majority leader has announced that no votes will occur on Monday prior to 6 p.m. However, amendments are expected to be offered to the State Department reorganization bill. Therefore, votes can be expected to occur into the evening. Also, the leader has announced the strong possibility that the Senate could be asked to be in session on Saturday, August 5, in order to complete the necessary business prior to the August recess. Also, the cloture vote on the State Department reorganization bill will occur on Tuesday, August 1, at a time to be determined by the two leaders.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate with respect to H.R. 1817, the military construction appropriations bill.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1:30 p.m., the Senate begin consideration of the energy and water appropriations bill.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until the hour of 12:30 p.m. on Monday, July 31, 1995; that following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; and that there then be a period for the transaction of morning business until 1:30 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes, with the following exceptions: Senator Simon, 30 minutes and Senator Dorgan, 15 minutes.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, initially I will ask several unanimous consent requests, all of which, I understand, have been cleared with the minority.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Executive Calendar nominations Nos. 259 through 267, and all nominations placed on the Secretary's desk in the Air Force, Army, and Navy. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; that any statements relating to the nominations appear at the appropriate place in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I yield.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Madam President. I also thank the Senator from Kansas for yielding. I promise for my part to be quite concise here tonight. I rise today in support of S. 21, the Bosnia and Herzegovina Self- Defense Act of 1995. I do so because I believe it is past time for us to allow the Bosnian Government to defend itself against naked and cruel aggression. The United Nations has failed to protect this state, NATO has been prevented from effectively protecting this state, and the valiant peacekeepers on the ground have been placed in the impossible position of keeping the peace where there is no peace to keep. Under these circumstances, the United States cannot continue to abide by an embargo that punishes the very people it was meant to protect. I did not always believe that lifting the arms embargo was necessary. Previously, I considered the introduction of yet more weapons to this war to be destabilizing and capable of pushing the conflict outside of the former Yugoslavia. However, this is no longer the case. The arms embargo has not been observed by all sides. Because of these violations, the Bosnian Serbs possess a disproportionate number of heavy weapons and as a result possess a clear military advantage that cannot be overcome by the courage, numbers, or moral authority of the Bosnian Government; it can only be met by similar arms. When we recently me with the Prime Minister of Bosnia, he stated ``We do not want American, French, British or any other country's boys to fight for Bosnia. Our own boys are willing to fight for our country. The problem is we do not have the means to defend ourselves.'' It is the arms embargo that is denying the Bosnians those means, and it is the arms embargo that must end. Mr. President, I believe a full discussion of this issue must also include Croatia. The Bosnian-Croatian Federation represents one of the strongest mechanisms to bolster Bosnian sovereignty, and must not be forgotten. Strong democratic institutions are taking root in Croatia, and the Croatians in Bosnia are capable of helping secure similar liberties in Bosnia. I am concerned that lifting the embargo on Bosnia alone will kill this federation in [[Page S 10635]] its infancy and with it, one of the strongest allies the Bosnians may have. For the Croatians to feel capable of assisting in the defense of Bosnia, they must also feel capable of defending themselves. Therefore, if we are to claim the Bosnian Government is entitled to have access to the arms necessary to defend themselves, then so too are the Croatians. I commend Senators Hatch and Gorton for also raising this important consideration, and would welcome efforts to address this issue. But the whole of the Balkans is not the issue before us today, it is Bosnia alone. With Bosnia, we must act now. To continue to sit idly while the Bosnian Moslems are systematically evicted from their homes, rounded up like cattle for forced relocation, and uniformly persecuted simply because they are Moslem is wrong. The United States has the capacity to provide the means necessary for Bosnian self-defense, but has for too long remained on the sidelines, using as an excuse one thing after another, primarily the inaction of multilateral institutions which were never designed to meet such threats, and which are not and may never be capable of doing so. I did not come here today to say this administration is totally to blame for the tragedy in Bosnia. Mistakes were made before, and contribute to the problems we face now. However, the current administration has broadened these problems because of its failure to enunciate a clear set of national security interests in Bosnia, a set of goals to protect those interests, and a decisive plan to achieve those goals. This is the very essence of foreign policy, and yet the Administration has been unwilling and incapable of formulating even this basic building block so vital to the protection of our national interests. Where this has led the United States is a policy of mindless reaction. We repeatedly find ourselves responding to the latest crisis in the Balkans, wondering which course to take next instead of taking deliberate action intended to achieve a precise set of goals. So I think now is the time to develop a strategy that will give us the capacity to make wise decisions that will stand the test of time. We must not allow such short sightedness to happen again. Some day soon, we could very well find ourselves facing an even more serious set of decisions concerning Bosnia or some other part of the world--the issue of sending American troops into harms way. Making such decisions without a strategy in place is a prescription for disaster. Hence, the value of staking out a clear path to follow. So let today or tomorrow, whenever these votes shall come, be the watershed. Let us first decide today to restore the right of self- defense to the people of Bosnia. Hopefully this will provide that government the means necessary to bring about a just and lasting peace. But we must be prepared for the next crisis, and that requires our immediate examination of the complete issue, and our role in its resolution. I applaud the bipartisan leadership of the majority leader and the Senator from Connecticut in addressing the problems we face today. I look forward to their continued leadership in defining our long-term interests and plans in the Balkans to avoid these crises in the future. But for today, I call on my colleagues to support this effort and bring to the Bosnian people an opportunity to fight for their country, their people, and their land. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, Senator Levin and I would like to engage the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction in a brief discussion regarding the impact of H.R. 1817 on this year and future year's military construction projects. The committee report accompanying H.R. 1817 recommends $6.4 million for airfield pavement additions at the Phelps-Collins Air National Guard Base in Alpena, MI. The requirement justification report for this project states this program will increase sortie generation and allow the military to conduct much more realistic training operations. I also understand an air combat maneuvering instrumentation range for operations at the Alpena Combat Readiness Training Center was authorized by the 1995 Defense Authorization Act and is contained in the Air National Guard future year defense plan for initial installation starting 1997. If the Air National Guard were to support this future year plan and request an appropriation for the equipment housing construction, would you view this project as a reasonable step towards providing the needed improvements in operational effectiveness at the Phelps-Collins Air National Guard Base and the Alpena Combat Readiness Training Center?

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their time today and this opportunity to discuss these vital military construction projects. I join my fellow Senator from Michigan in calling upon the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve to submit these two vital projects for congressional approval. These two projects represent initiatives vital to the operating efficiency of the few remaining Michigan Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve units. Furthermore, it which will significantly improve the operating capabilities of not only these units, but any other aviation unit that wishes to utilize this unique facility. I therefore join with my colleague from Michigan in calling upon the Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve to submit these two projects, in accordance with their future year defense plans, as part of their 1997 budget submission. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two pieces of legislation. One is a bill and the other is a resolution. The effect of each is to require that every law that passes through this Chamber explicitly state the constitutional authority pursuant to which it is being enacted. I believe this requirement will help this body by giving us occasion to pause and reflect on whether the legislation we are considering is in fact within the province of the national government. It will also help the American people evaluate our work, keeping in mind the question of constitutionality as well as the immediate policy questions presented by the bill. And it may discourage us, at least at the margin, from adopting legislation outside our proper sphere of authority and responsibility. All these factors would enhance our citizenry's freedom and make it easier for them to exercise their self-governing authority at the State and local level--the level closest to the people. Mr. President, it has become commonplace to observe that the elections of 1994 showed the voters' frustration with big government. It seems clear to me that the American people feel that the Federal Government is interfering too much in their lives. Whether through costly and ineffective Federal programs fraught with micro-managing mandates, business regulations that increase prices and cost jobs, environmental controls that forbid farmers to use their own land in a reasonable fashion, or workplace rules that forbid workers from saving fellow workers from danger, the people have had enough of Washington-knows-best programs. And I believe the people are right to be concerned about a government that considers everything in life to be a proper subject for Federal legislation. We are in danger in this country of instituting a kind of soft despotism that will crush our democratic liberty under the weight of well-intentioned but overzealous regulations and programs. Intended to serve the people, these laws may enslave them by taking away too much of their natural freedom of action. That is not the National Government that our Framers envisioned. Clearly there are areas where the Federal Government should intervene to protect people's health, safety and rights. But there must likewise be areas in which the Federal Government cannot intervene in regulating the peoples' lives. The Framers of our Constitution believed they had devised a system that would separate these areas from each other. They thought that one of the powerful limitations on the National Government would be the principle that the Congress could exercise only the limited, enumerated powers granted it by the people and set out in the Constitution. That principle was made clear in the original Constitution, which gave Congress not general legislative authority but only ``all legislative powers herein granted.'' And it was emphasized by the adoption of the 10th amendment in the Bill of Rights, which states that ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' Until this last term the Supreme Court for decades had not struck down a law as outside Congress's powers. As a result many people claimed that the principle that Congress has only limited enumerated powers is a dead letter. But our everyday experience shows otherwise. Everybody knows that we do not turn to the National Government for help with most problems in our everyday lives. We turn to family members, friends, doctors, community or volunteer organizations, and churches; or to local government officials, such as school teachers, police men and women, and others. The 1994 congressional elections were in large measure about the size of government. And in my view, Mr. President, those elections made one thing very clear: The belief that our National Government should have only limited powers remains alive in the hearts of the people. The most important efforts of this Congress have been undertaken to respond to the people's demand for prompt and serious action to return the National Government to its proper functions. The budget that we have been debating for the past few days is the first in many years to take that responsibility very seriously. The regulatory reform legislation currently on the floor is similarly an effort to impose reasonable and meaningful restrictions on the interventions of regulatory bureaucracies in our lives. The proposals to abolish Cabinet Departments will likewise get the National Government out of areas where it does not belong. It is in this context that we should consider the Supreme Court's decision a few months ago in United States versus Lopez and the rather modest legislative proposals I am introducing today. In Lopez, the Supreme Court for the first time in 60 years struck down an act of Congress as exceeding the powers granted it in the Constitution. The Court ruled that a Federal law about guns in schools was beyond Congress' powers because its connection to commerce was too remote. Now I think there are few higher priorities than reversing the accelerating decline of our schools into armed camps. But, not surprisingly, so do the States, which is why almost all of them already have laws addressing this problem. [[Page S 10148]] Thus this important case is not about whether we should have guns in schools, but about whether policing the schools is principally the responsibility of parents, local governments and States, or the responsibility of Congress. The Court correctly found that the Framers did not assign us that responsibility--which is just as well, since I have no idea how we could possibly be in a position to figure out what is needed in every locality in the country. The Court's opinion does signal something of a change in approach by the Court to issues of this type. But it is always dangerous to read too much into an individual Supreme Court decision. Moreover, the Court did not give much indication, other than something of a change in attitude, about how it would be approaching future cases. I do not think we should be disappointed about this. After all, we in Congress's new majority should not leave it to the Supreme Court to do all of the thinking on this subject. The courts, Congress, and the President working together expanded government to its present dimensions. A similar cooperative effort by all three branches will likely be needed to re-establish our central government's status as a government of limited powers. This will be no easy task. But it is our duty to make limited government as much of a reality in the lives of Americans and American culture 30 years from now as the notion of inexorable expansion was until Ronald Reagan's election as President and the election of the current Congress. We have begun the difficult task of restoring ordered liberty in a number of ways in this Congress. Our efforts toward a balanced budget promise to return our Government to fiscal responsibility; to make us recognize our duty to pay our bills and refrain from burdening our children with massive debts. Our regulatory reform measures promise to rein in government agencies by forcing them to conduct real cost-benefit analyses, based on sound science. In this way regulation will be reduced and limited to those that actually will promote the public good. Our steps toward elimination of unnecessary Cabinet Departments promise to reduce government's interference with our daily lives. By eliminating unneeded Departments we will eliminate bureaucrats' drive to justify their jobs by finding new areas to regulate. I do not for a minute equate the proposals I am introducing today with these other efforts. I do believe however, that a requirement that we include a statement of what power, granted it by the Constitution, Congress is using in enacting every piece of legislation, will play a modest role in assisting our ongoing reexamination of the role and limits of the National Government. This requirement will perform three important functions. First, it will encourage us to pause and reflect about where the law we are considering enacting fits within the constitutional allocation of powers between the Federal Government and the States. As Justices Kennedy and O'Connor noted in their concurrence in Lopez, that is one of our important responsibilities: It would be mistaken and mischievous for the political branches to forget that the sworn obligation to preserve and protect the Constitution in maintaining the federal balance is their own in the first and primary instance. A statement of constitutional authority also will put Congress' view of its constitutional authority on the record for the people to judge. This will spur further useful reflection on our part and open up the possibility of conversation with the people on the subject of Federal powers. Finally, such a statement also will help the courts evaluate the legislation's constitutionality. Legislation that falls within our enumerated powers will more likely be upheld if it contains an explicit statement of its constitutional authority. As important, we will be less likely to allow laws or regulations that overstep proper constitutional bounds to pass out of this Chamber. In this way we will protect the liberties of our people, the prerogatives of our States and local communities, and the structure of limited government bequeathed to us by our Founders. We will, then, defend that constitutional structure designed to foster virtue in the people, discipline in the government and peace and prosperity in the nation. I urge your support of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I introduce my bill to privatize the National Foundation for the Arts and the Humanities. I have sent a detailed memo to all my colleagues regarding this bill, which I would like to enter into the Record. The memo sets forth my reasons for designing a privatization plan, how it will work, and why I believe it will work. Here's a quick summary: Controversy and anger have swirled around the Endowments virtually since their creation. On one side we have constituents who are upset that their tax dollars are subsidizing work that they find aggressively offensive. This includes the work of Mapplethorpe, funded by the NEA, as well as the National History Standards, funded by the NEH. On the other side we have artists and writers who believe the Government is engaging in censorship when their grant proposals are denied or their projects are edited. The Endowments' troubles are not recent phenomena and they show no sign of dissipating anytime soon. If we cannot re-create the NEA and NEH in a way that gets the Government out of the vortex of this maelstrom, at some point, the NEA or the NEH are going to fund one more project so objectionable that the American people are going to take the matter out of our hands. And then the endowments are going to be re-created right out of existence. My bill provides for the gradual privatization of the endowments over a 5-year period. It will reduce the budgets of the Endowments by 20 percent each year during that period, and also specifically allows the Endowments to use a portion of their budgets for the express purpose of promoting private fundraising activities during the phase-out period. At the end of the 5 years, the Endowment's charter with the Federal Government will end. Finally, as a further inducement to private- fundraising, my bill includes a sense-of-the-Senate resolution endorsing changes in the Tax Code to spur charitable giving to the arts and humanities. The ``Endowments''--or, as I envision, the ``American Endowment for the Arts and Humanities''--will then be free of Government control either as censors or as tax collectors for controversial artists. I am confident that private national foundations in support of the arts and humanities can succeed. The people we have heard from in support of the NEA and NEH--art enthusiasts, philanthropists, actors, and singers--will want to contribute to private arts and humanities foundations. Assuming their belief in a national organization supporting the arts and humanities is as ardent as they claim when they lobby Congress, there will be a wellspring of support for private endowments. I ask unanimous consent that my ``Dear Colleague'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with great pleasure and honor to extend my heartfelt congratulations to the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, and the Most Reverend Metropolitan Philip Saliba, primate, in celebration of their 42d Antiochian Archdiocese Convention. As one of the three Orthodox Christian members of the U.S. Senate, it is a privilege for me to highlight this wonderful convention on the floor of the U.S. Senate. The convention, held from July 24 through July 30, 1995 in Atlanta, GA, marks a biennial effort to bring together the almost six million Antiochian Orthodox Christians from all over this Nation. This year's convention deserves special praise since it marks the 100-year anniversary of the Antiochian Christian Orthodox Archdiocese in North America. The convention is an opportunity for Orthodox Christians to come together as a community and to provide one another with spiritual guidance and support. Over the years the Orthodox faith has been a source of enormous strength for those of us who worship in this church. The spirit of community evident in the faith provides strength to its followers and serves as the foundation upon which a family can base its values. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting this extraordinary congregation and in extending to it our warmest congratulations.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to take a few months to explain several of my votes concerning S. 440, the highway bill. I voted in favor of final passage of the bill because it would meet Federal transportation responsibilities while returning to the States much of their rightful authority to manage their own roadways. Many of the amendments offered to the bill concerned the question of whether the States should be required to enact various highway safety laws. Although the debate on these amendments focused to a large extent on the wisdom of the safety laws at issue, my votes on the amendments turned more on the threshold question of whether the States should retain the power to decide for themselves whether to enact those laws. As a general matter, I think the Federal Government should decide only those issues that, by their very nature, demand a uniform resolution throughout the Nation. On issues like these, a resolution of the issue at the State level would itself be harmful, no matter how wisely the State legislatures exercise their power. National defense is one such example; the need for central direction and economies of scale preclude a satisfactory resolution of the issue at the State level. But our laws in other areas should in the main be left to the discretion of the States, so that they can be tailored to the respective circumstances and values prevalent in each State. These principles led me to oppose the Reid amendment to set a national speed limit for trucks, the Lautenberg amendment to set a national speed limit for all motor vehicles, and the Dorgan amendment to prohibit open containers of alcohol in motor vehicles. They likewise explain my support for the Smith amendment to repeal Federal seatbelt and motorcycle helmet law mandates, and the Snowe amendment to repeal the Federal motorcycle-helmet law mandate. None of these issues demands a single resolution across the Nation. I further note that my home State of Michigan already has a seatbelt law, which only underscores the fact that my votes on these amendments turned not on my views as to whether States should have seatbelt and helmet laws, but rather on my belief that States ought to be able to decide these issues for themselves. Similarly, I opposed the Hutchinson amendment to retain the Federal motorcycle-helmet law mandate with respect to States that do not assume the cost of treating injuries attributable to a person's failure to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle. This amendment was presented as an attempt to marry States' responsibility with States' rights. And it is true that the Federal Government assumes certain medical costs through its Medicaid and Medicare programs. But that does not mean the Federal Government should be able to mandate motorcycle-helmet laws. For if it did, the Federal Government could likewise mandate laws prohibiting other activities--say, smoking or mountain climbing--that involve an appreciable risk of physical harm. The Hutchison amendment in fact would have been a Trojan Horse for increasing the power of the Federal Government at the expense of not only the prerogatives of the States, but also of the liberties of the people. My support of the Byrd amendment to encourage a national blood- alcohol standard for minor drivers was bottomed on these same principles. No one argues that kids should be able to drink and drive. To the contrary, everyone agrees that teenage drinking and driving is a danger that must be addressed. When there is this kind of overwhelming national consensus with respect to an issue, the question of whether the issue should be decided at the State level in fact becomes merely theoretical. Under these circumstances, the existence of a Federal rule is not likely to frustrate the desire of a State to enact a contrary rule. Such is the case with teenage drinking and driving. In cases like these, the practical, administrative benefits of a uniform Federal rule outweigh theoretical concerns related to federalism.

Mr. ABRAHAM

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.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Very well.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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. 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. 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.

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. 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.