Dale Bumpers

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. The Department of Agriculture is strenuously opposed to the Senator's amendment. Do you know what their opposition is?

Mr. BUMPERS. That habit will never get the Senator from Alaska in trouble. I thank the Senator from Alaska. Mr. JOHNSTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS. I support it and will support it here. I am curious. I had a bill. I wanted to put a land exchange in Arkansas on your Greens Creek exchange. I was told that the Senator from Alaska, as chairman of the committee, did not want to do that because it had not been reported out of committee. My question was, has the Greens Creek exchange been reported out of committee?

Mr. BUMPERS. Is it on the calendar?

Mr. BUMPERS. I supported it. Has it been reported out of our committee?

Mr. BUMPERS. Second, that is all I wanted to know. We took a long time to do that. With the second amendment the Senator is offering, is that the Greens Creek land exchange?

Mr. BUMPERS. Senator, what is the purpose of the amendment? Why do you want to eliminate the Department of Agriculture's right to determine the quality of the fish?

Mr. BUMPERS. Can the Senator assure the Senate that his amendment would eliminate the necessity for two inspections? Specifically, an inspection by the Department of Agriculture that would apply to all commodities bought by the Department of Agriculture, for example, for the School Lunch Program, it would apply to all canned seafoods?

Mr. BUMPERS. It would not apply to anything except salmon?

Mr. BUMPERS. Does it apply to anything else except salmon?

Mr. BUMPERS. If the amendment of the Senator only eliminates the necessity for what he has described as a double inspection of salmon-- --

Mr. BUMPERS. Let me ask the Senator from Alaska who, in his opinion, would inspect this salmon for quality--not for safety, but for quality? Some of it is graded, I guess No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, No. 4. Who does that inspection?

Mr. BUMPERS. The Food and Drug Administration's inspection, for example, of canned salmon is for the purposes of determining its safety, that is, that it is clean and edible; is that correct?

Mr. BUMPERS. Let me ask a couple questions, if I may.

Mr. BUMPERS. All the amendment says is, if any salmon is purchased, it would eliminate the dual inspection?

Mr. BUMPERS. It does not require the Federal Government to spend anything for Alaskan salmon?

Mr. BUMPERS. I was curious about two things. No. 1, has the Senator offered his amendment that would require the Federal Government to buy back from the Alaskan salmon industry $23 million worth of Alaskan salmon?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, if I could have the attention of the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BUMPERS. Absolutely.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I am saddened by the position taken by the Senator from Texas. Mr. President, was I recognized?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, is there any order for offering amendments?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I had understood that we were going back and forth. I do not think there are any takers on the Democratic side for an amendment right now. I may be mistaken. If there is an amendment over here, somebody should offer it right now. Otherwise, Senator Cohen and I have an amendment that we were supposed to offer at the earliest possible time, but I do not see him on the floor.

Mr. BUMPERS. I am really talking, trying to take up time, hoping he will come to the floor and offer an amendment.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, first, I want to express my sincere appreciation to the chairman of the Small Business Committee, my distinguished colleague, Senator Bond, who has spoken very eloquently about this whole issue. Second, I want to say that all the concerns I had about this bill-- and we had some--he has very graciously accommodated. I think the bill is to the point now that if it were permitted to be brought up it would sail through this Chamber by a vote of 100-zip. In 1980, Congress passed what we know as the Regulatory Flexibility Act. It was designed to lighten the regulatory burden on small businesses. What is wrong? It has not worked. The small business community feels that they have been taken because the bill simply did not provide the relief that was represented to them. Every White House conference for small business that has been held has put regulatory flexibility as one of the very top issues that concern them. In 1992 it was one of their top issues. Now here is an opportunity for Congress, for the first time, to keep faith with the small business community on something they say is just about the highest item on the agenda. There is absolutely no sense in anybody delaying the taking up or the passing of this bill. To those who are working on a much broader regulatory reform bill, I say, ``amen.'' You have my blessing. Stay with it. I hope some regulatory reform bill on a comprehensive basis is offered that I can support. Until that happy day, this bill ought to pass now. It is not related to the broader regulatory reform bill. This bill says very simple things, but they are dramatic and they are helpful. First, the Small Business Administration will have a small business ombudsman. Some guy comes into your office and says, ``Your fire extinguisher is 56 inches off the floor and it ought to only be 54 inches off the floor, therefore I am fining you $100,'' they can write a letter or call the ombudsman and say, ``This is ridiculous. Not only is he trying to fine me $100, he is arrogant. He is abusive.'' We are trying to comply with the law out here and make a living and the ombudsman can record it, sort of keep a report card on some of these people who come in with an abusive attitude. What is wrong with that? Second, we say and this is the most important part of the bill, henceforth and forevermore when you draft a regulation you will have to accompany it with an explanation in the mother tongue--which is English--and say in clear, plain, written English what this regulation does and what it takes to comply with it. It would not be a bad idea to let the IRS in on that, too. Why is the IRS perhaps the most detested of all Federal agencies? Because everything they do is subject to 18 interpretations. Third, there is a broader equal access to justice provision in this bill which says small business is entitled to attorney fees in certain instances where they are sued and have to resist a regulation that is found to be outside the intent of Congress. What is wrong with that? We already have a rule that says a regulation that is found to be arbitrary and capricious can be stricken; but we do not have a bill that says if the courts find that OSHA or EPA or anybody else who tries to impose a regulation on you to be arbitrary and capricious, you win, but you lose because you do not get your attorney fees. Under this bill in such a case you would almost always get your attorney fees. That is the way it ought to be. Finally, we have a provision that is mildly controversial called judicial review. That is, if you do not like a regulation and you believe that it goes beyond the intent of Congress and that Congress did not intend this nonsense to be imposed on you, you challenge it. Haul them into court--why not? Congress passes a one-sentence law and the regulators will draft 1,000 regulations to enforce it, and then say those regulations are sacred even though the small business community had no input. Congress goes home, beats itself on the chest, gives itself the good government award and says, ``Well, we passed a law, we thought it would be OK.'' But nobody rode herd on the regulators. So here there are 1,000 regulations out there and they are saying, ``We will impose these on you and you do not have the right to appeal.'' That is downright un-American. I do not care what anybody says. I do not think I have ever voted to disallow judicial review. So here is a chance to say to the small business community, we have heard your complaints, we are doing everything we can, not only to lighten the regulatory burden but make the regulators pay if they unfairly and arbitrarily abuse you with their regulations. Let me just repeat one thing. It is a real tragedy. This bill has nothing to do with this giant so-called Dole-Johnston or Johnston-Dole regulatory reform bill. I will tell you something else. I do not want it part of that bill. I do not want somebody trying to attach this bill to that bill as an amendment. I want to pass this bill and say to the small business community: Here is something for you, whether this other mess ever passes or not. So, the minute the request of the distinguished Senator from Missouri to bring that bill up under the terms he requested, which are eminently reasonable--the minute that bill hits this floor and we spend an hour and a half debating it, it will be out of here 100-zip. We cast 23 votes this year. Last year at this time we cast over 90 votes. In short, we are not doing anything, and, in addition to that, here we are with an opportunity to do something that really amounts to something and we cannot get that done. So the Senator from Missouri and I are going to persevere with this. We are going to get this bill passed one way or the other, because it makes too much sense not to. I yield the floor.