Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Tennessee be granted 4 minutes from the minority side on the bill.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, pursuant to a previous agreement between the leaders, the vote will be set aside until Tuesday. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Murkowski be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask that this measure be set aside pursuant to the previous agreement.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield the Senator such time as she may require.

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute. As I have already said, I believe that this is an excellent amendment. We have reviewed it on both sides. I commend Senator Nickles, Senator Reid, and the others for it. We are prepared to accept it.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, my ranking member, Senator Bumpers, and I are very pleased to be able to bring to the floor this vitally important small business regulatory reform bill. I want to express at the beginning my heartfelt thanks to Senator Bumpers, to his staff, and to the many Members on both sides of the aisle and their staffs who helped us work on this measure. We will be presenting a managers' amendment very shortly, when they complete drafting all of the good ideas that came in. We had a very good hearing on this in the Small Business Committee. Lots of people have had good ideas. We have been able to incorporate most of them. We are not able to handle all of them. But this measure is targeted clearly to small business. As we come up on the first anniversary of the White House Conference on Small Business, I think it is very important that we move forward. I appreciate the Members who have allowed us to go forward today with this bill. As most of my colleagues know, last June almost 2,000 delegates to the White House Conference on Small Business came to Washington to vote on an agenda of top concerns for small business. The top 60 recommendations were published by the conference last September as a report to the President and Congress entitled, ``Foundation for a New Century.'' Three of the top recommendations in the White House conference call for reforms in the way that Government regulations are developed, the way they are enforced, and reforms in Government paperwork requirements. The common theme of all recommendations is the need to change the culture of Government agencies, the need to provide a responsive ear and a responsive attitude toward small business and small entities. Let me emphasize, while we are talking about small business, many people just think maybe it is the business downtown on the square or the mom-and-pop operation or the small contractor, but this bill also includes small entities. We have many entities of local government, charitable entities, educational entities, that would be affected and would be protected by the provisions in this bill. We held a hearing in Atlanta, GA, on small business. We were very graciously provided the facilities of Georgia Tech to hold that hearing. The president of Georgia Tech was kind enough to come and be with us. As he and I listened to the concerns of small business, he told me afterward, ``It is amazing how many of these concerns actually affect small colleges and universities as well.'' So, while traditionally we think of the small for-profit entities, there are benefits as well for nonprofits, for governmental entities, and charitable organizations as well as educational entities. One of the top recommendations of the conference of the White House and small business was to put teeth into the Regulatory Flexibility Act, to provide regulatory relief for small entities, small businesses, small towns, small school districts, small nonprofit organizations. Back in 1980, Congress passed what was called the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I suppose regulatory flexibility came from the idea that Federal agencies are supposed to look at the issuance of regulations and make them flexible, so the impact on the small entities could be made flexible enough to carry out the purpose of the underlying statute under which the regulations were issued, without imposing unnecessary burdens on those small entities, hence the name regulatory flexibility. ``Be flexible,'' is what Congress told Federal agencies, ``in dealing with regulations impacting small entities, small businesses, and not-for-profits.'' There is a problem with that. Congress said we are not going to have any judicial enforcement of regulatory flexibility. With that, too many Federal agencies took that as a sign to say we are not going to pay any attention to it. When small businesses said, ``Have you paid attention to regulatory flexibility,'' they said, ``No, it did not apply.'' Even the advocacy council, the Small Business Administration, has been totally stiffed by many Federal agencies when it has gone before them and said, ``Look, we serve small business and believe there is a problem. It is not a reg-flex-compliant, small-entity regulation that you have issued.'' We had hearings before the Small Business Committee in the past year, where the SBA's chief counsel for advocacy indicated that not only was regulatory flexibility being ignored, but that there is a tremendous burden on small business in many of these regulatory directives. In general, they say that the burden on small business is some 50 to 80 percent more per employee than it is for larger businesses. Let me cite just one particular statistic that I found striking. In a manufacturing business, a large business can calculate that all the Federal regulations that I think we would all agree are designed to achieve worthwhile purposes of worker safety, a healthy environment, and a whole range of issues that we work on, cost about $2.50 per hour per employee. For every hour that is worked, the manufacturing business pays the employee his or her salary, plus they have to calculate another $2.50. For a small manufacturing business with 50 or fewer employees, that costs $5 an hour. That means the small business starts off with a $2.50 an hour penalty over what the larger business has to pay. That makes our small businesses less competitive with larger businesses. It also makes our small businesses much less competitive with overseas competitors who may not have those burdens. As a result, there has been strong bipartisan support to provide for judicial enforcement of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The President has called for it. The Administrator of the Small Business Administration has called for it. Leading Members on both sides of the aisle in this body have called for it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters of support for S. 942 that come from the National Federation of Independent Business, the Small Business Legislative Council, the National Retail Federation, the National Association of Home Builders, Associated Builders and Contractors, the National Association of Towns and Townships, and the National Association of Manufacturers.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, there are a number of other important amendments and provisions in this bill, in addition to providing judicial enforcement of regulatory flex. We take a very simple step of saying, with respect to compliance guides, when you write a regulation, you have to tell the small entities how, in plain English, they are supposed to abide by the regulation, what it is supposed to do, and how they can comply with it. If a regulatory agency brings an enforcement action against a small entity, the small entity has a right to take a look at those so-called plain English guidelines and present it to the court or the administrative hearing officer and say, ``Hey, look, we are doing what they told us to do,'' or if it is so confusing that they cannot figure it out, they have a case to make in the court or in the administrative hearing: ``We had no idea what we were supposed to do to comply with this.'' Another area that we think is very, very important is to change the atmosphere of inspectors and examiners who go out into the field representing the Federal Government to administer regulations. Mr. President, you and I can cite many examples, I am sure. There are an overwhelming number of examples where dedicated public servants go out and work with the people they regulate to help them come into compliance. But I know we also can cite examples where a regulator goes out, an examiner goes out, and they think they have been sent from the king to impose fines, to impose sanctions and that their objective is to make life miserable. That is certainly the impression that too many of the witnesses before our hearings have held. They feel that there are some agencies in some areas or even some individuals who just have the wrong idea: They do not work for the people; they are there to collect fines and to impose penalties. We set up fairness rules, and we set up an ombudsman. The ombudsman provision creates a small business enforcement ombudsman to provide a place where small businesses can complain and voice their concerns on excessive regulatory enforcement actions. Right now, I have asked some of those small businesses why they do not complain to the guy's boss. They said, ``Well, as soon as we do that, he is going to tell the inspector who is giving us so much trouble, who fined us $4,000 for not having a warning label on a bottle of kitchen dishwashing soap, and we are liable to get twice that fine the next time.'' We set up an ombudsman system, regional fairness boards where you can go to complain, and if a number of small entities pinpoint a particular agency or even a particular inspector, then through the Small Business Administration, which knows the identity of the complaining witnesses, the attention of the supervisory personnel in the enforcing agency can be advised that this particular inspector or maybe this particular office is overreaching, is not performing its function of seeing that the purpose of the statute is carried out, that they are more interested in the enforcement sanctions and the fines. We believe this will help change the culture so that regulators, examiners and inspectors know that their job, when they go out, is to see that the workplace is environmentally sound, healthful, safe and not to impose fines, and regulations. This does not take away any of the penalties. This says how you go about it should be designed to achieve compliance, not to impose penalties. There is another measure which is included in this bill, one which was introduced by Senator Domenici as a result of hearings we had in New Mexico, to provide, on a pilot basis, in OSHA and EPA for the involvement of small businesses and small entities in the early stages of regulatory development, so you can have somebody sitting at the table as you look at the statute and you try to determine how best to carry it out. Somebody can say, ``Well, to do this in the small entities, it will be easier to go this way to get the job done than to go that way.'' We think that offers great promise. It will be tested, and we will see if we can, in fact, make sure that we get the job done of complying with the law. Finally, there is a change in the Equal Access to Justice Act. That act is supposed to provide compensation for small businesses and small entities who are subject to regulatory proceedings, the imposition of fines. If it turns out that the Federal Government has asked for much larger fines or penalties than are warranted in the case, they are supposed to get compensation. Under existing law, however, the standards are so strict that it is a promise without performance. We amend the Equal Access to Justice Act to level the playing field to bring some accountability to the actions between an agency and a small business entity so that when the agency makes a demand, it is going to have to be in proportion to what the violation is worth and what can actually be proven in a hearing, either administrative or judicial, to allow them to recover costs for representing themselves against an overreaching agency. These things, I think, make this a good starting point for ensuring that Federal agencies give a hearing to small businesses and to small entities and take account of how their activities may impact those businesses. With that, Mr. President, I hope that when we vote on this measure next Tuesday, we will have overwhelming support from this body. The House has considered but has not moved forward on legislation. I hope that by listening to Members on both sides and doing a tremendous amount of staff work--and I want to compliment not only the staff on this side, but on the minority side for their diligent work--we have a reasonably good piece of legislation. We have made accommodations. There are a number of amendments we believe we can accept by voice vote. Senator Nickles and Senator Reid have one for congressional review that we think is vitally important. It has overwhelmingly passed the Congress. I think it was 100 to 0. That is about as good as you can get. It has already passed the Senate. I do not think we need another vote on that one, but we expect to accept that. And there will be a managers' amendment. Privilege of the Floor With that, as I turn to my ranking member, I ask unanimous consent to allow Tom McCully, a legislative fellow in the Small Business Committee, privilege of the floor for the duration of the consideration of this bill.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes. I would like to add--to make sure we have a list of cosponsors, I will read for the record the cosponsors: In addition to Senator Moseley-Braun, Senator Bumpers and myself, we have Senator Burns, Senator Coats, Senator Coverdell, Senator DeWine, Senator Dole, Senator Domenici, Senator Faircloth, Senator Frist, Senator Grams of Minnesota, Senator Grassley, Senator Hutchison, Senator Kempthorne, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, Senator Lieberman, Senator Lott, Senator Lugar, Senator Pressler, Senator Robb, Senator Stevens, and Senator Warner. I also note that a number of these people, including Senator Robb, are working very actively with us, with Senator Nickles, with Senator Johnston, Senator Dole and others on a broader regulatory reform package. I think they want it understood, as I certainly do, that this does not supplant the need for other regulatory reform efforts, and it in no way is a substitute for them. We think this is a very important rifle shot to deal with the problems of small business, and we believe it does not deal with the broader regulatory issues. Now, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement of the legislative history of this measure which is prepared by staff for Senator Bumpers and me on behalf of the committee.

Mr. BOND. How much time does the Senator from Montana require?

Mr. BOND. I ask the Chair that question.

Mr. BOND. I yield to the Senator from Montana 5 minutes.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Montana. I note that he has been a very active participant in hearings, and he also held a very useful and productive hearing in Montana. He has contributed greatly to his committee. Now I will yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma, who has been very active in our issues and has come before our committee to testify on a number of small business issues. We are very happy to be able to accept an amendment that he and Senator Reid of Nevada have offered.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, in order to make the procedural activities work appropriately, if the Senator from Oklahoma will withhold, I send to the desk the managers' amendment on behalf of Senator Bumpers and myself and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?

Mr. BOND. Six minutes.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, and Senators Harkin, Simon, Grassley, and Moseley-Braun. The purpose of the amendment is to allow surplus funds previously earmarked to be reprogrammed to the Upper Mississippi/Illinois Waterway Navigation Feasibility Study. The navigation study in fiscal year 1996 is underfunded and, consequently, will be unable to meet the 6-year study deadline unless more funding is provided. This shortfall has been recognized by Secretary Lancaster who has persisted in reprogramming discretionary money to help make up the shortfall. This amendment provides the Secretary the authority to reprogram an additional sum of money currently earmarked for the St. Louis harbor study that the corps will not be able to spend this year. Even with this potential transfer, we understand they remain $1.8 million underfunded which we will have to make up in fiscal year 1997. The amendment does not increase the overall cost of the 6-year $43 million study to update the 50-year-old locks and dams on the Illinois Waterway and Upper Mississippi River. Mr. President, this study is a priority item. Conference report language in the energy and water appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996 was included directing the corps to: Expedite work on the study and ensure that the Division Engineer's public notice on the feasibility report is issued no later than December of 1999 . . . because of the need for a timely review of future navigation needs on the upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway. According to the corps in 1992, tows at Upper Mississippi locals 22- 25 were delayed a total of 87,000 hours. As river traffic grows over 4 percent per year, the corps estimates that delays at locals 22-25 would be in excess of a day early in the 21st century. The president of Farmland Industries told us recently that they have 18 trains running round the clock to try to meet foreign demand. Even today, there is 12 million tons of grain on the ground in Iowa that cannot find a ride to markets abroad--what will it be like when freedom-to-farm takes effect and export demand continues to grow? The longer it takes to upgrade the 50-year-old system, the harder it will be for U.S. grain to continue to find a home in the world market at competitive prices. The bottom line is that this is a trade, competitiveness, and jobs issue. Our farmers need this. This is one of our principal competitive advantages and the action taken now will be the basis of our competitive position 5, 10, and 20 years from now. If we have grain piling up now, what will it be like in 10 years? Who believes that we can remain a reliable exporter of grain if we let our system deteriorate at the same time the Department of Agriculture is projecting record $60 billion in agricultural exports and a record $30 billion trade surplus? Mr. President, Senators who are concerned about competitiveness, promoting trade opportunities, protecting jobs, and growing the economy should be on board this effort. We know the corps is on board and we need to get the Office of Management and Budget on board. This is not a priority at OMB and it should be. Trying to capture the growing Asian market is not pork--it's the economy, stupid. It is critical that the administration follow the Secretary for Civil Work's lead in pursuing this study. It is a project of national significance that deserves priority attention. It is necessary that the administration make a request for fiscal year 1997 appropriations which accurately reflects the funding necessary to keep this study on schedule. If this study can wait, we are telling farmers that exports can wait. They can't. Other nations are aggressively emulating our inland waterway system-- Brazil, China, and Germany, to name a few. The question is whether we will forsake that advantage to the detriment of our young farmers and nation balance of trade. This is our chief artery to the world market. Some foreign competitors can beat us on price until our grain hits our inland waterway system--which is the cheapest way to ship a ton of grain in the world. I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee and full committee for accommodating us on this issue. In the coming months and years, the urgency for action will increase to address the lack of capacity on this critical corridor. This will be a priority issue, not just for carriers but for shippers who are farmers. Senators will hear from farmers and farm groups on this issue. This amendment is to promote and permit exports and job growth and I appreciate the support of the Senate. amendment no. 3538 (Purpose: This Amendment adds $1,000,000 to the Adolescent Family Life program for total funding of $7,698,000) On page 546, line 21 of the pending amendment, increase the rescission amount by $1,000,000. On page 572, line 16 of the pending amendment, strike ``$129,499,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$130,499,000''.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise at this time to recognize a fellow citizen for the achievements and contributions he has made to this Nation and industry in which he has worked for three decades. John P. Capellupo, president of McDonnell Douglas Aerospace, will step down from his position and retire from this leading U.S. producer of military aircraft on March 31. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Defense, I am intimately aware of the contributions that John Capellupo has made to aerospace and the national security of the United States. Mr. Capellupo, or Cap as he is widely known, began his aerospace career in 1957 working as a technical analyst on the F-101B aircraft and super Talos missile programs at what was then the McDonnell Aircraft Co. in St. Louis. He rose steadily through the engineering ranks, into program management, and ultimately, to the company's highest leadership positions. In February 1989, he was named president of McDonnell Douglas Missile Systems Co. In January 1990, he left St. Louis for Long Beach, CA, to become deputy president of Douglas Aircraft, the company's commercial and military transport division. In May 1991, he returned to St. Louis as president of what is now McDonnell Douglas Aerospace. Throughout his distinguished career, Mr. Capellupo served as a driving force behind a diverse list of successful and essential military programs: the AV-8B, F/A-18, T-45, C-17, Apache helicopter, and Harpoon, SLAM, and Tomahawk missiles. Most recently, he provided the management focus on affordability which dramatically reduced costs on the new Joint Direct Attack Munitions Program. Yet of all his achievements and contributions to our national defense, none eclipses his work to bolster our maritime strength via the F/A-18 Hornet program. He was there on day one when the idea of a combination fighter and attack aircraft--a strike fighter--was no more than a study project with a fancy acronym. He shepherded the program through its infancy, planned its growth and improvement, and watched it mature into the safest, most reliable and maintainable aircraft ever flown into combat by the Navy. Never one to fear following a tough act, Mr. Capellupo later directed the studies that defined the Navy's strike fighter for the 21st century--the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Under his leadership, and with the future of Naval aviation hanging in the balance, this program has become a monument to efficient and effective defense program management. In my tenure in the Senate and as the Governor of Missouri, I have worked with thousands of business leaders and defense officials from across the country and around the world. There are very few of the same high caliber as John Capellupo. His energy, integrity, enthusiasm, and dedication are unequaled. So, too, are his achievements on behalf of our military strength and national security. For this, our great Nation and its people thank him and wish him and his family the very best.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill due for second reading at the desk.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I object to further proceedings on this matter at this time.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, what is the pending business?