By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bond):

S. 917. A bill to facilitate small business involvement in the regulatory development processes of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Small Business.

THE SMALL BUSINESS ADVOCACY ACT OF 1995
Mr. DOMENICI. Essentially, Mr. President, this bill will establish the process whereby small business in each of our respective States will be involved in the process of writing the rules and regulations for both OSHA and EPA. I think it is an exciting idea that came right from small business.

I note that the chairman of the Small Business Committee, Senator Bond, is a cosponsor. I thank him for his assistance. Mr. President, on behalf of the small business women and men in America, I am pleased to offer a bill to create a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel. This bill has been developed because of the suggestions of a committed group of New Mexican small business people. I am also pleased that the distinguished chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business is joining me as an original cosponsor of this measure. I am also pleased to say that the National Federation of Independent Business supports this bill.

This week, the White House Conference on Small Business is convening here in Washington. This is an event I am particularly interested in since I introduced the legislation that authorizes these national conferences with small business men and women. I would like to welcome all the delegates from New Mexico and ask unanimous consent to place a list of their names in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

In early 1994, I formed a Small Business Advocacy Council in New Mexico. I asked this group to advise me about the problems of small businesses and how Congress might address some of their concerns. This council held 7 meetings in 6 locations throughout the State of New Mexico with more than 400 businesses participating. The consistent theme at all of these meetings was the appearance of an adversarial relationship between the Federal Government and business, and the lack of accountability of regulatory agencies in their dealings with business.

A few months ago the Senate Small Business Committee kicked off a series of field hearings entitled `Entrepreneurship in America,' with the first hearing in Albuquerque. These hearings focused on 7 issues affecting American small businesses: the Federal tax burden, cost of employment, environmental compliance, OSHA compliance, government intrusion on the family farm, banking system restrictions, and unreasonable legal exposure costs. Many members of the Small Business Advocacy Council testified at the Albuquerque field hearing of the Senate Small Business Committee chaired by my good friend and distinguished colleague, Kit Bond.

The concerns vetted in this field hearing were not unique to New Mexico. In fact, the Washington Post insert of June 6, ran a very illustrative story on the Small Business White House Conference. This story focused on Sal Risalvato, a White House Conference delegate from New Jersey. Mr. Risalvato runs a gasoline service station in Morristown, NJ, and he relates a familiar tale of struggling to cope with a continuous stream of new EPA regulations. He cites that these regulations are difficult to understand and require the constant expenditure of capital--capital that could have been otherwise used to expand the business and create more jobs. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this article be inserted in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

In June 1994, the General Accounting Office delivered a report to the House Committee on Education and Labor entitled `Workplace Regulation--Information on Selected Employer and Union Experiences.'

I recently discussed this report with the GAO because I found its results so strikingly similar to the findings of the New Mexico Small Business Advocacy Council and the gentleman from New Jersey cited in the Post article. The objective of the GAO report was to: First, identify and analyze the characteristics of the major statutes comprising the framework of workplace regulation and, second, describe the actual experiences of a wide range of employer and employee representatives with workplace regulation.

The GAO identified 26 statutes and one Executive order on workplace regulation and sought comments, on a confidential basis, from a broad range of 36 employers and union representatives. Those interviewed generally accepted the importance of workplace regulations. There were frequently voiced concerns, however, with the operation of the overall regulatory process of many agencies and about whether the agencies' regulatory goals were being achieved. Last year there were over 8,000 rules and regulations that were promulgated. Obviously, not every rule can, or needs to be, reviewed.

However, there are currently approximately 46 rulemakings pending at EPA that are termed significant, with an economic impact exceeding $100 million.

The small business men and women of America aren't asking to abolish regulations, they are asking for an opportunity to work with agencies to establish an effective mechanism for drafting regulations. The New Mexico Small Business Council members, as well as Sal Risalvato from New Jersey, have said they agree regulation is necessary and everyone benefits from reasonable regulations on health and safety. The small business men and women are pleading for a vehicle of cooperation to act in an advisory capacity to the government on regulatory impacts and costs.

So, at their suggestion, I am pleased to introduce the Small Business Advocacy Act of 1995. This act will establish a small business review panel to facilitate small business involvement in the regulatory development process within the EPA and OSHA. These panels will be responsible for providing technical guidance for issues impacting small businesses, such as applicability, compliance, consistency, redundancy, readability, and any other related concerns that may affect them. This panel will then provide recommendations to the appropriate agency personnel responsible for developing and drafting the relevant regulations. Why EPA and OSHA? They were repeatedly cited as the most onerous and costly agencies to small business.

The panel will be chaired by a senior official of the agency and will include staff responsible for development and drafting of the regulation, a representative from OIRA, a member of the SBA advocate office, and up to three representatives from small businesses especially affected. This will allow the actual small business owners, or their representative associations, to have a voice in the massive regulatory process that affects them so much. The panel has a total of 45 days to meet and develop its recommendations before a rule is promulgated or a final rule is issue. This panel's recommendations, both the majority and minority views, will be reported to the appropriate agency personnel before the rulemaking and the agency will ensure that the panel's recommendations, and the agency's response to them, are included in any notice of final rulemaking.

Finally, this act will also provide for a peer review survey to be conducted on regulations. This idea is analogous to what the private sector routinely practices. A customer survey, contracted and conducted with a private sector firm, will sample a cross-section of the affected small business community responsible for complying with the sampled regulation. This valuable input on regulatory issues impacting small businesses will be made available to the Small Business Advocacy Review Board to assist in their review processes and will also be made available to interested parties and organizations upon request.

I believe that this panel, working together so all viewpoints are represented, will be the crux of reasonable, consistent and understandable rulemaking. I am very concerned about the adversarial manner in which our small businesses perceive their government. Much of this adversarial relationship has grown from years of misunderstanding of impacts and effects and a lack of communication. I want to improve our rulemaking and regulatory process through cooperation and collaboration and I urge my colleagues to support this act.

Mr. President, I ask that unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

[Page: S8256]
From the Washington Post, June 6, 1995

[FROM THE WASHINGTON POST, JUNE 6, 1995]

A Tale of Pumping Gas With One Hand, Holding Off Government With the Other
(BY SAL RISALVATO)

I wonder if my small business can survive another onslaught of excessive federal regulations. And if it can't, what will happen to my livelihood and that of my employees who depend on me for jobs?

I have learned through firsthand experience how the burden created by federal regulations can hurt a small business.

Since 1987, when I bought Riverdale Texaco, a gasoline service station in Morris County, N.J., costly regulations have touched every aspect of my small business, from the sale of petroleum products to the repair service my employees provide.

My first experience with federal regulations occurred even before I bought the station. Because of the government's response to rising environmental concerns, I had to assemble additional financing in order to make sure that the station I bought had underground storage tanks that were in good shape. The tanks in my new station, for which I did pay a premium, had been installed just a year earlier.

However, within five years, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) altered the regulations for underground storage tanks, requiring me to spend another $95,000.

Although it wasn't the government's fault, this $95,000 was especially difficult for me to come by. I had been left virtually broke after losing my first service station in 1986 when my landlord wouldn't renew my lease because he believed he could put his rapidly-appreciating property to more profitable use than as a service station.

In fact, while operating my new station, I was still paying debts from the station I had lost to its landlord. So, coming up with an additional $95,000 to meet new and unexpected governmental regulations meant borrowing from family members. My father borrowed the money he lent me, using his home as collateral.

Fortunately, Texaco also provided me with funds in exchange for a supply contract.

To me, this was government extortion because I would have been forced out of business if I hadn't met the EPA's new requirements. Many service station owners without the money to meet the new requirements have gone out of business or have stopped selling gasoline and are trying to get by on the income from other products and services.

I had thought the EPA had inflicted enough pain and torture on my business, but the federal government now is attempting to blackmail me, my governor, the motorists of my state, and my fellow service station owners in New Jersey.

New Jersey probably has one of the best motor vehicle inspection systems in the country. Under current law, motorists must have their car emissions systems and safety items such as brakes inspected annually, either at a state inspection site or a licensed private repair facility such as mine.

In order to meet EPA requirements, the State of New Jersey will have to invest millions of dollars for new equipment at the state inspection sites. And I, along with other private businesses that want to continue performing inspections, will each have to spend $40,000 to $100,000 for new equipment.

Since many service stations, including mine, can't afford to buy the new, mandated equipment, we small business owners will be forced to give up an important profit center.

I am running out of family members who have money to lend, and those family members who do have money are running out because they always have been lending it to me.

N.J. Gov. Christine Todd Whitman has been negotiating with the EPA to lessen the burden on our state. But ultimately, if the state refuses to adopt an inspection system suitable to the EPA, the Department of Transportation will withhold $217 million in federal highway funds.

This would hurt the whole state.

There's no doubt that if these regulations were less stringent or if they were eliminated altogether, I would have more money to expand my business and to create jobs.

When I bought my business, my dream was to add on three or four service bays, a sales room, an employee room, and storage and office space to meet what I hoped would be my growing business' needs.

Now, to make the best use of space inside the main building, our offices are housed in a trailer on the side of my building. Twice in the past seven years, the local board of adjustment has granted us temporary permission to keep our office. Each time, I explained to the board that costly government regulations are slowing down my expansion plans. And that once I'm able to expand, I'll hire at least seven more people.

Anyone can see how federal regulations are stifling my small business. Some people say small-business owners don't care about health and safety or that we are anti-environment. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The small-business community agrees that some regulation is necessary. We, too, benefit from reasonable regulations, and I care about employee safety and environmental protection. I drink the same water and breathe the same air as everyone else. I have no desire to see the quality of either jeopardized.

But federal bureaucrats need to step back and re-evaluate the damage their actions inflict on the free enterprise system.

Congress must make sure that no new requirements are put on the books unless the benefits outweigh the costs, and there should be a clear understanding of what the nation is getting in return.

The regulatory situation for small business is approaching crisis proportions.

Each year, I spend many hours and dollars completing government paperwork and trying to comply with all the regulations. Besides the time I spend actually filling out the forms, there's the time spent trying to understand the paperwork and identify the information needed.

These requirements take valuable time away from running a small business and deplete limited resources that could better be used to expand the business.

Among other changes, my fellow small-business owners want paperwork reduction, a review process for regulations and the right to challenge excessive or unnecessary regulations in court.

If the burdens of excessive regulations are lifted from our backs, we can do even better what we already are the best at--creating jobs.