Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that I call the Farm Red Tape Reduction Act.

  This act will give farmers a voice in Federal rulemakings whenever a new Federal regulation threatens to impose severe economic pain on farmers.

   As we saw with small businesses, many times the Government overlooks the plight of the little guy, who does not have the resources or know-how to weigh-in with big Government agencies in Washington. In 1976, Congress created the Office of Advocacy to ensure that small businesses have an advocate in Government and a seat at the table when new regulations affecting them are drafted. I want to share that same success now with farmers.

   The idea is simple. This act would help provide a more transparent Government that listens to the people most affected by the regulations. It will hold the Government more accountable for its actions. It is a message that the Federal Government is meant to serve to its citizens, not bully them. We want to make this an easy process. Citizens should be heard while the Government is deciding on a regulation that affects them--not after the decision is made. The difference is subtle, but important. Listen to farmers and agriculture first--be inclusive.

   Cutting unnecessary red tape will provide greater flexibility for agriculture businesses by removing barriers to enterprise. Encouraging enterprise is essential if the United States is to compete in a global environment.

   Farms and other agricultural businesses will benefit from simplified rules.

   This measure will help in cutting red tape with a view to improving the environment for agricultural business. My experience on the Small Business Committee tells me that there are currently dozens of regulatory proposals before Federal agencies--but most without a true assessment of impact on the very people they will most affect.

   The question we must ask ourselves is this: Are all these initiatives necessary and what are the consequences? I want agencies to look into this question. The best way to do that is to hear from the folks most affected.

   The Office of Advocacy celebrated its 30th anniversary this year. The Regulatory Flexibility Act, RFA, is 27 years old and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, SBREFA, is 11 years old.

   The common theme: They have all gone a long way in making agencies aware of the unique concerns of small business. With the passage of these laws small business concerns were given a voice at the table, they have been putting that voice to use ever since--with great success.

   These laws have been successful. Early intervention and improved compliance have led to less burdensome regulations. For example, in fiscal year 2001, involvement in agency rulemakings helped save small businesses an estimated $4.4 billion in new regulatory compliance costs.

   Similarly, in fiscal year 2002, efforts to improve agency compliance with the RFA on behalf of small entities secured more than $21 billion in first-year cost savings, with an additional $10 billion in annually recurring cost savings. Most recently, in fiscal year 2003, they achieved more than $6.3 billion in regulatory cost savings and more than $5.7 billion in recurring annual savings on behalf of small entities.

   If we can add farmers to the table and save them any portion of that kind of money--just that fact will make this bill a success.

   Just as important is that these laws have not hindered the development of regulations. In fact, these laws are credited with helping regulators come up with better plans. Plans that work--because the people who will be regulated are involved in the development of the rules. This gives them some ownership and that makes successful compliance and implementation.

   Our economy and the lives of farmers is constantly changing--this is due in no small part to what we are doing today--making changes to farm legislation, new technologies, new trade deals, new regulations of every kind being implemented year round. This creates new and constant challenges for analyzing regulatory impacts on farmers. If there was ever a time farmers needed a voice at the table when new regulations are made--it is now.

   It is not my intention to throw out regulations simply as a matter of principle if, for example, they involve costs for businesses. I am more concerned with obtaining solid impact analyses that can serve as a basis for informed decision-making.

   It is also quite clear that better regulations will be possible only if those affected also play their part, since it is they who will be responsible for implementation.

   What I have heard from some who oppose this, is that they are concerned about the burden of red tape. However, they are not concerned about the burden of red tape on farmers. They are concerned about the burden of red tape on Washington regulators working to impose red tape on farmers.

   Surely the Senate should be more concerned with red tape on our farmers than red tape on our Washington regulators. We should have a rulemaking advocate for farmers just as we have one at Small Business Administration for small businesses. Advocates do not have the power to change standards or stop regulations, only inform them. We should all support a more informed process so burdens are reduced and regulations are more effective and widely supported. We all know what having a USDA rulemaking advocate means in Washington; there will still be 20 officials from other agencies in the room working to regulate farmers. But now, there may be one from USDA also in the room.

   This bill has received support from the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the National Cotton Council, the American Soybean Association, National Milk Producers Federation, South East Dairy Farmers Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, USA Rice Federation, Western United Dairymen, and the National Pork Producers Council.