Bereaved Borrowers' Bill of Rights Act of 2015

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on H.R. 527.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Good morning, Mr. Conyers. It is good to see you.

Six long years into the Obama administration, and notwithstanding some fleeting, recent signs, jobs have yet to recover from the recession. Wages also have not recovered, and the rate of new business startups has not recovered as well.

Instead, permanent exits from the labor force are at historical levels. Real wages have fallen. Dependency on government assistance has increased. Our economy is failing to give enough hardworking Americans the confidence they need to start new small businesses and create new jobs.

At the root of our problem are, more than anything else, the endless drain to Washington of hard-earned income that working people and small businesses need to turn things around in their homes and communities and Washington's endless placement of regulatory roadblocks in the path of opportunity and growth.

That regulatory burden hits small businesses especially hard. Small businesses generate 63 percent of net new private sector jobs and employ nearly half of America's private sector workers; yet they have to pay significantly more to comply with Federal regulations than do larger employers.

Poll after poll has demonstrated that the level of Federal regulations coming from Washington is at the top of the list of obstacles faced by America's small businesses, our top job creators.

This is not fair, and it is exactly the wrong burden to place on small businesses as this Nation struggles to produce a true jobs and wages recovery. Congress can and should act to free small businesses of the burdens and waste associated with excessive Federal regulations so that more jobs will be available to Americans trying to make a better life for themselves and their families.

That is why prompt passage of the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act is so important. This legislation will, for the first time in nearly 20 years, overhaul the laws that govern how Federal regulators should consider--and minimize--the adverse impacts of new regulations on small businesses.

Primarily, the bill reinforces the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. It only requires agencies to do what current law tries to achieve and what common sense dictates should be done.

However, current law is beset by loopholes, and those loopholes must be closed. That is what the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, at long last, does.

For example, the bill mandates that all agencies, not just the current few, work with small business review panels early in the rulemaking process for major rules, before agencies become entrenched in their proposed paths, to help small businesses better and more effectively point out to agencies what is the best path. The bill also requires agencies to assess not just the direct effects of new regulation on small businesses but also indirect effects, which often can be substantial.

The bill also, for the first time, authorizes the Small Business Administration's Chief Counsel for Advocacy to be the one consistent authority on regulatory flexibility requirements the law imposes on all agencies. This will, at long last, curb the agencies' tendencies to interpret the law to suit their own individual whims and will force agencies to focus on the common needs of small business.

The minute this bill becomes law, what will start to happen?

Small businesses will have a real chance to be heard before agencies, effectively, make up their minds. Agencies will have better information upon which to tailor their regulations to reduce unnecessary burdens on small businesses. Agencies will have fewer opportunities to escape requirements to hear those businesses and gather that better information, and small businesses will be freer than they have been in decades to devote their resources to what they do best--create the new jobs, products, and services that can drive the economy forward to true and lasting recovery.

The Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act recognizes that economic growth ultimately depends on job creators, not regulators. It represents a critical means to convert the recognition into reality.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, February 3, 2015.

Hon. Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has

prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 527, the Small

Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2015.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be

pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew

Pickford.

Sincerely,

Douglas W. Elmendorf,

Director.

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

H.R. 527, Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of

2015

Summary: H.R. 527 would amend the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (RFA) to expand the number of rules covered by the RFA

and to require agencies to perform additional analysis of

regulations that affect small businesses. The legislation

also would provide new authorities to the Small Business

Administration's (SBA's) Office of Advocacy to intervene and

provide support for agency rulemaking. Finally, H.R. 527

would require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to

report on the implementation of the legislation.

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 527 would cost $55

million over the 2015-2020 period, assuming appropriation of

the necessary funds. Enacting the bill could affect direct

spending by agencies not funded through annual

appropriations; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply.

CBO estimates, however, that any net increase in spending by

those agencies would not be significant. Enacting H.R. 527

would not affect revenues.

H.R. 527 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would not

affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.

If any federal agencies increase their mandatory fees to

offset the costs of implementing the additional analysis

required by the bill, H.R. 527 would increase the cost of an

existing mandate on private entities to pay those fees. CBO

expects that if such mandatory fees are increased as a result

of the bill, the additional cost of the mandate in any one

year would fall well below the annual threshold established

in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($154 million in 2015,

adjusted annually for inflation).

Estimated Cost to the Federal Government: The estimated

budgetary effect of H.R. 527 is shown in the following table.

The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions

370 (commerce and housing credit), 800 (general government),

and all budget functions that include funding for agencies

that issue regulations affecting small businesses.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I hear constantly when we are on the floor with bills, which sometimes are bipartisan and sometimes are not, that the President says he is going to veto them. I hope that is not the case, because when it comes to saying that the President is going to veto and his actually doing it, they are two different things. I hope the President works with us on this.

Again, we extend our hand across the aisle here and to the other side of the Capitol to simply say to the regulators that this bill does not want to regulate the regulators. It wants the regulators to use common sense and to get input from the American people--the middle class--and from the people who create jobs, the small businesses, to see what they have to say.

I worked in a factory before I went to college and law school, and I worked my way up to mid-level management. When we did things, I brought in everyone--the people who even worked the machinery. We talked about things, and we resolved many, many things, but we got input from everyone.

As far as letters from people who support the bill, I have a list of 159 names and businesses. This is dated February 3, 2015, from A to Z-- from the Adhesive and Sealant Council to woodworking machinery associations. All of these 159 small businesses support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I have been doing some research over these couple of days. This administration alone has implemented over 75,000 pages of new regulations. I just read some figures earlier on this morning that, if we get rid of this ridiculous regulation--and I am not saying all regulation; we do need oversight regulation--almost $1 trillion a year will be added to the economy and almost 1 million people will be added to work on a yearly basis. This is just excellent stuff.

I want to give you an example from my district, Pennsylvania's 10th District. I live in a little village called Cogan Station outside of Williamsport, which is the home of Little League World Series Baseball. I live in the middle of five farms, and I have been there for 15 years.

Pursuant to the Navigable Waters Act, the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA have said that, if it rains and if a puddle forms on the farm-- in an attempt for this administration to get more control over our lives--because of the Navigable Waters Act, the EPA and the Army Corps have control now over that farm and can shut it down.

Now, I have been there for 15 years in the middle of these five farms, and I have yet to see as much as a rowboat go through. So this is just an example of how ridiculous this legislation can get.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have the distinct honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), my good friend, to speak on behalf of us.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I understand the responsibility of having oversight over any business, but let me give you a couple of examples, again, from my district where a small community bank, who is the primary lender of small businesses, instead of hiring more tellers to expand the business and provide better service for their small business clients, had to hire three people just to review and keep up with regulatory reform that applies to large national and international banks who are lending hundreds of millions of dollars.

That is not the case with smalltown banks. They are lending money to the young man and woman who got a job, saved some money, want to buy a car, and have to go to the bank and say: Can you lend me $10,000? The paperwork that the bank has to go through to do that is costing jobs and costing our economy.

I just got a call yesterday from one of my constituents. The Amish in my district were putting a roof on a small barn they had. OSHA stopped by and

shut it down and fined the Amish because they didn't have helmets on. They only had their straw hats. So he put them out of work for a couple of weeks. They had to pay a fine, and then they have to go buy helmets to put a small roof on a small barn.

I have a constituent from my district who has a little grocery store, and he just had a shipment of bread delivered. It just so happened that an inspector was there, and the bread was brought in through the dock door and set next to, inside the dock door. He was fined because the bread, which is wrapped and on racks, was sitting too close to the dock door.

These are the types of regulation to which we are referring that crush jobs and are killing this economy. One of the inspectors was asked: Why are you doing this?

The inspector simply said, and according to my constituent, arrogantly said: Because I can.

That is no way for an employee of the United States Government to be talking to someone who helps pay his wages.

So with that, Mr. Chair, this is a good piece of legislation. This is common sense, and this is very simple. Let's make the regulators do more with less. There are no agencies or departments in the Federal Government that can tell me that they are running as efficiently as they possibly can.

My good friend, the ranking member, said it is going to cost a great deal to have this rule, this legislation, implemented and the departments and agencies follow the rule. No. You know what the departments and agencies have to do? They have to do just exactly what small business operators throughout this country do: do more with less, and put in a good, hard day's work.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I just simply want to say that I support this legislation. I tell my children on a weekly basis--they can recite it verbatim--that if it were not for our veterans, if it were not for our military personnel and our servicemembers that are working now, my children wouldn't have what they have today. So I want to reinforce that.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, one of the key failings of existing law is that it allows different agencies to interpret differently the terms of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This allows agencies to find loopholes at their pleasure and evade the requirements of the law.

The bill remedies this defect by granting the Small Business Administration's Office of Chief Counsel for Advocacy authority to write regulations to govern all agencies' compliance with the RFA and

Mr. Chair, I share and welcome the gentleman's concerns about the impacts of regulations on jobs, but the right way to address that concern is to join me in supporting this bill.

At the heart of the bill are reforms to make sure agencies better identify the potential jobs impact of new rules; that includes not only identifying and minimizing the adverse jobs impact, but maximizing positive job benefits. It is right there in subsection 2(c) on page 3 of the bill.

If the gentleman wants to maximize job creation, the way to do it is to make sure the provisions designed to maximize job benefits apply to all rules, including those that OMB believes will result in net job creation.

Why stop at just helping to create a net increase in jobs, which could mean as little as just one net job? Why not make sure agencies always work with small businesses under the bill's provisions to help create the most new jobs possible and prevent the destruction of the most jobs possible? Isn't that what makes sense as the Nation tries to recover from the jobs depression?

Further, why create a carve-out from the bill that gives the executive branch an incentive to manipulate its jobs impact analyses to avoid the requirements of the bill rather than comply with them?

I would also like to bring to the Chair's attention, this administration highly overinflates--or underinflates, whatever side you are looking at--the unemployment rate.

In the unemployment rate, they are not taking into account the almost 1 million people that are not looking for work, and that is normally taken into consideration. They are also taking into account as a person being employed as this example: a person who mows his neighbor's lawn for 20 bucks because he doesn't have a job. That is considered, according to this administration, a job.

Multiple reports clearly prove that the cost of Federal regulation to the U.S. economy, manufacturing, and small business, and Ten Thousand Commandments, these are reports from just last year, and they give the accurate account of the unemployment rate.

My good colleague on the other side of the aisle refers to a report from 2010. We should be referring to the latest reports as I hold them in my hand.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment proposes to carve out an exception to the bill for Food and Drug Administration rules related to consumer safety. I am all for consumer safety. All of us support the protection of consumer safety, but it is my fervent hope that all of us also support small business jobs and want to protect them.

That, of course, was the point of the Regulatory Flexibility Act in the first place, to continue to allow agencies like the FDA to protect consumers but, at the same time, to start accounting for and avoiding-- where possible--adverse impacts on small businesses.

If agencies had faithfully done what they were supposed to do under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, then we wouldn't be here today, but they haven't; instead, they have routinely tried to evade that law. That has to stop.

Small businesses create jobs, and jobs are the key to economic recovery. To help small businesses to create jobs, we need to reduce-- not increase--the regulatory burden on small businesses.

The FDA is a major regulatory agency, and it is not exempt from the RFA as it currently stands. Now is not the time to start walking back the RFA's requirements. This amendment simply is not consistent with the spirit of small business--the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act--or the needs of today's small business job creators.

If the gentlelady's concern is to make sure that the law allows the FDA to issue new emergency rules to protect consumer safety, then let me assure her, there is no need to worry. Subsection 553(b)(3)(B) of the APA already allows agencies to dispense with notice and comment for good cause.

Since the RFA only applies in notice and comment rulemakings, a fact the bill does not change, nothing will hinder the FDA from issuing emergency rules if the bill is enacted.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), our leader.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This motion to recommit presents the perfect opportunity for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to turn the page. Six long years into the Obama administration, our constituents feel trapped in a job depression. This bill offers one of the best chances we have to really start to turn things around for our constituents.

The bill contains clear, commonsense reforms that will take Washington's regulatory boot off the neck of small businesses in all of our districts so they can create the new jobs our constituents need. The bill contains numerous Democrat-sponsored amendments, making it a truly bipartisan product.

The bill, with bipartisan support, has already passed the House three times in the past two Congresses only to die an obstructionist death at the hands of the former Senate majority leader, who, by the way, the voters threw out of the majority last November. We now have a chance to pass the bill again at the very start of this Congress and to send it over to a Senate that will actually consider it. We should all seize this opportunity.

But what would this motion to recommit do?

It would, once again, inflict on the American people the ways of obstruction. It would block the bill from passage. It would prevent the bill from promptly reaching the Senate and helping to create new jobs for our constituents.

Let's all make this a vote to end the obstruction. With this vote, help this Congress turn the page the voters sent us here to turn. Vote against this motion to recommit. Vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank the chairman; thank the mover of this legislation; my ranking member, Mr. Johnson; and my ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Conyers, for their leadership and for bringing us together around a universal concept.

We all are promoting jobs, Mr. Chairman. Not one of us on this floor wants to in any way undermine jobs. We want people to work, and we want small businesses to have the opportunity to thrive.

What I am talking about is the reality of protecting the American people when it comes to unique issues of health care. I am not going to cite the name of this individual, but what I am going to do is to read just a paragraph from Al Kamen, K-a-m-e-n, ``In the Loop'':

``As a matter of fact, I think this is one where I think I

can illustrate the point,'' he recalled telling her. ``I

don't have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt

out of this policy as long as they post a sign that says, `We

don't require our employees to wash their hands after leaving

the restroom.' The market will take care of this. It is one

example.''

Now, I have a different perspective, and so my amendment under this legislation asks to make an exception for rules that are dealing with consumer safety, saving lives.

My amendment makes an exception for rules from the Food and Drug Administration, commonly known as the FDA. This bill, H.R. 527, seeks to reform the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and 1996 which attempted to require agencies to account better for the impact of proposed regulations on small businesses, other small entities, and to tailor final regulations to minimize adverse impacts on these entities like the Food and Drug Administration.

Yes, small business can be a single franchise of a McDonald's or Burger King or Starbucks, many of them doing quite well. It could be a number of them under one businessowner. But, in fact, they do deal with the public.

This bill continues to expand the reach and scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and would only add to already unnecessary and lengthy regulatory delays, increased meddling by regulated industries, and encourage gratuitous court challenges.

The Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Act adds a host of new analytical requirements for agency policy actions, including rulemakings and guidance documents, that might affect a large number of small businesses, even if that is indirect.

Because the bill defines indirect effects broadly, it would mandate costly and wasteful new analyses that could be applied to virtually any action and agency attempt to make a better life

for Americans, no matter how tenuous the connection to business interests.

Again, can we imagine not being able to regulate or interfere with some small business that says you do not have to wash your hands in a restaurant? It is shocking to me.

Mr. Chairman, when I wrote this amendment, I had in mind one of the new issues that we have been facing, and that is the story of CRE, which is a disease that is being found on endoscopes, that has been found in a particular hospital in the far West.

This disease, this rare bacteria, was likely spread through specialized endoscopes that have been cleaned according to manufacturer's directions but still had some form of deadly germs. Are we suggesting that it is not an emergency to regulate or to keep or to be able to suggest that there needs to be a better cleaning process?

This is just the latest example of a life-threatening disease which is calling out for action from the government, and the CDC and the FDA should not have their hands tied.

In fact, the Houston Chronicle reported last week that these problems of dirty endoscopes have been tied to superbug infections in cities like Chicago and Pittsburgh in recent years. Although the bacteria weren't exactly the same, the situation raises new questions about the design, this infection, and regulation of the devices.

Mr. Chairman, let me tell you that our economy is doing fine, not for every single American, but it has a marked improvement. Jobs are increasing, and unemployment is under 5 percent.

I would only say that this legislation needs an addition from this amendment, and I hope my colleagues will accept the Jackson Lee amendment. It is a commonsense amendment that speaks to the health and care of the American public.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of the Jackson Lee amendment.

Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to briefly explain my amendment. My amendment makes an exception for rules from the Food and Drug Administration, commonly known as the FDA.

This bill, H.R. 527, seek to reform the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, which attempted to require agencies to account better for the impacts of proposed regulations on small businesses and other small entities and to tailor final regulations to minimize adverse impacts on these entities like the Food and Drug Administration.

In reality, the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Act expands the reach and scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and would only add to already unnecessary and lengthy regulatory delays, increase meddling by regulated industries, and encourage gratuitous court challenges.

The Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Act adds a host of new analytical requirements for agency policy actions--including rulemakings and guidance documents--that might affect a large number of small businesses, even if that effect is ``indirect.''

And because the bill defines ``indirect effects'' broadly, it would mandate costly and wasteful new analyses that could be applied to virtually any action an agency attempts to undertake, no matter how tenuous the connection to small business interests.

And according to the American Sustainable Business Council, this bill would open the door for regulated industries to manipulate the regulatory process in their favor.

This undue influence would paralyze the regulatory process, creating uncertainty in the marketplace and stifling competition and innovation from small- and medium-sized entities.

When I wrote this amendment I had in mind the rare bacteria like that known as carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, commonly known as CRE. This rare bacteria is being transmitted to patients even though the tools had been cleaned according to manufacturers' directions but still harbored the potentially deadly germs.

This is just the latest example of a life-threatening disease which is calling out for action from the government--and the CDC and the FDA should not have their hands tied.

The Houston Chronicle reported in a story last week:

The Seattle outbreak appears to be among the worst so far

in the U.S., where problems with dirty endoscopes have been

tied to superbug infections in Chicago and Pittsburgh in

recent years. Although the bacteria weren't exactly the same,

the situation raises new questions about the design,

disinfection and REGULATION of the devices, critics charge.

The bill reforms the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, which attempted to require agencies to account better for the impacts of proposed regulations on small businesses and other small entities and to tailor final regulations to minimize adverse impacts on these entities like the Food and Drug Administration.

Mr. Chair, the economy is doing fine now, not for every single American but it has seen a marked improvement from 2008. A bill like H.R. 527 only serves to gum-up the wheels of government and business collaboration by creating new and confusing rules.

When added to the existing gauntlet of procedural and analytical requirements that agencies must already navigate in order implement laws, SBRFIA's new requirements would serve only to further ``ossify'' rulemaking and make it nearly impossible for agencies to fulfill their congressionally mandated mission of protecting the public and responding to emerging health and environmental dangers.

The Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act also ties the hands of agencies like the FDA by forcing them to delay actions until new analyses are completed. Under current law, an agency can continue to promulgate a regulation before it has finished the regulatory flexibility analysis, if the agency head believes its mission or the law calls for more immediate action.

The SBRFIA would eliminate these commonsense procedures. Imagine if emergency regulations to protect miners had to be delayed until the agency could finish this onerous and highly speculative analysis-lives could be lost and people could be needlessly injured. Or the FDA needed to issue a rule impacting the safety of dairy products. Lives are at stake.

Let me be quick to add that I specifically I oppose H.R. 527 because: (1) it is based on a faulty study; (2) taken as a whole, it will severely undermine Federal agency rulemaking, thereby threatening public health and safety; (3) it fails to address shortcomings in current law; (4) it offers no real assistance to small businesses in complying with regulations; and (5) it imposes additional duties on agencies while failing to provide any additional resources to agencies.

I urge an aye vote for the Jackson Lee amendment exempting FDA rules and add common sense to this legislation.

[From the Houston Chronicle, Jan. 22, 2015]

Seattle (AP).--A multidrug-resistant superbug has sickened

dozens of people at a Seattle hospital, spread from patient-

to-patient through contaminated equipment.

The Seattle Times reports (http://is.gd/m4JVhK )

investigators found the rare bacteria known as CRE--

carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae--was likely spread

through specialized endoscopes that had been cleaned

according to manufacturers' directions but still had some of

the deadly germs.

Virginia Mason Medical Center officials say they've changed

their cleaning protocol for the devices, even though federal

officials found no problem with their infection-control

practices.

Doctors say 11 of the at least 35 patients infected at the

hospital died, but it's not clear what role, if any, the

infection played in their deaths.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in support of this bill, H.R. 527, the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2015.

I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte as well as Chairman Marino for the opportunity to work with them on this important piece of legislation.

Small businesses are critical to this country's success. They provide a means for millions of workers and their families to attain the American Dream. They employ one out of every two private sector workers and create two of every three new private sector jobs.

There are over 926,000 small businesses in my home State of Ohio. Small firms rarely have in-house legal departments or regulatory compliance experts on staff. Often, it is the small business owner, the individual running the business and meeting payroll, who also must keep up with regulations and the payment of taxes.

Small manufacturers, retailers, and construction firms want to comply with the law. However, when they divert resources to costly regulatory compliance, they cannot hire workers or start new projects or make other job creation investments.

If there is a way to find less expensive means to achieving regulatory objectives of our agencies, small businesses could protect the environment and workers and still create the good middle class jobs that this country needs.

There is such a law, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or RFA, which requires agencies to understand the costs to small businesses and find less costly alternatives while meeting the regulatory missions required by statute. However, despite admonitions by multiple Presidents, including the current one, agencies continue to ignore the RFA.

The bill before us today, H.R. 527, the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2015, addresses a goal shared by virtually all Republicans and some Democrats and will ensure that agencies no longer ignore the law and craft more cost-effective regulations. The bill will force agencies to analyze both direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect effects of their rules, just as they are required to do when promulgating major regulations that affect the environment under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA.

The bill provides for early input in the regulatory process so that agencies do not craft regulations that are so cost prohibitive that small businesses cannot comply, and seeks to ensure consistent application of the RFA by all agencies through regulations written by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, a process first used to ensure that all agencies performed adequate environmental impact statements under NEPA.

Even with the additional procedures, nothing in H.R. 527 will prevent an agency from issuing a regulation. H.R. 527, to paraphrase President Ronald Reagan, simply requires that agencies know before they regulate. Common sense.

H.R. 527 will ensure that agencies adopt commonsense regulations that achieve their objectives while reducing unnecessary burdens on our best job creators, which are small businesses. About 70 percent of the jobs that are created in our economy nowadays are created by small businesses, after all. That is why the legislation has bipartisan support, and over 150 associations representing the full range of small businesses support passage of this legislation.

Mr. Chair, to fully understand how the bill will work, it is important the committee report filed by the gentleman from Virginia be read together with the committee report on the predecessor bill, H.R. 2542 filed in the 113th Congress by my predecessor as chairman of the Committee on Small Business, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Graves.

With that, I urge my colleagues to support this very good legislation, I believe, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Knight), who is a new member of the Committee on Small Business.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Hardy), who is also a new member of the Committee on Small Business.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Curbelo), who is also a new member of the Small Business Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close.

Mr. Chairman, too often, agencies craft one-size-fits-all regulations that do not account for the impact on small businesses. It is our job to remember that what affects small businesses also affects families that depend on those small businesses.

Agencies can still achieve their regulatory objectives while creating smarter, more narrowly-tailored regulations that are sensitive to small businesses.

Some claim that agencies are already doing what the RFA requires-- outreach to small business and assessment of economic impacts. If that is the case, agencies should have no problem meeting the new requirements of this legislation. It simply ensures that agencies comply with the letter and spirit of the RFA, as President Obama stated in a memorandum to agencies on January 18, 2011.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I will

speak in favor of the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank the gentleman for offering this amendment, and I think this is a good example of the way bipartisanship should work. The gentleman offered, I think, a very constructive amendment. We committed that our staffs and the Members would work together on the gentleman's amendment, and most of us have agreed with the amendment and do support it now, so we thank him for his leadership on this amendment.

We strongly support our servicemembers and veterans. Our Nation owes them an enormous debt and the utmost respect.

In the last Congress an amendment was added to this legislation to allow rules that protect the rights and benefits of veterans to bypass the RFA process. That amendment is carried forward in today's legislation.

The legislation, however, does not yet place on the same plane rules written to protect Active Duty servicemembers from predatory lending. This amendment reconciles that difference, and so we again commend the gentleman for offering it.

In addition, the amendment makes a very small number of technical corrections to the text of the bill. In each of these ways, the amendment improves the bill. I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield whatever time he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, this amendment proposes to strike section 10 from the bill, which gives the Small Business Administration's Chief Counsel for Advocacy authority to approve small business size standards for the purposes of any act other than the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958. That includes, of course, authority to approve size standards for the purposes of the RFA.

This makes sense, since the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, not the Small Business administrator, is charged with overseeing agency compliance with the RFA; and the Chief Counsel exercises that authority independently from the SBA administrator.

The theory of the amendment is that, under section 10, a new size standards office, duplicative of the SBA administrator's own size standards office, will be created. But that is just not the case.

The SBA administrator will retain the authority to set size standards under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958. But alternative size standards for the purposes of RFA compliance are a different matter, and under existing law, agencies must consult with the Chief Counsel for Advocacy with regard to those alternative size standards.

To authorize the Chief Counsel for Advocacy to actually approve size standards about which it already must be consulted is simply to formalize an existing reality, not to create a duplicative function or a duplicative office. Stated differently, it is erroneous to think that the Office of Advocacy will have to establish a new office of size standards to do what the Office of Advocacy already essentially does. Therefore, I would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

And just in summary, I would reiterate that 70 percent of the jobs that are created in this economy today are created by small businesses. They are overregulated. The RFA was basically set up to avoid the impact on small businesses by all these regulations that are being imposed upon them.

For small businesses, it is much more expensive for them to comply than it is for larger corporations who have lots of staff. They have attorneys. They have accountants and everything else. If you are a small business owner, it can be the death of that business. And it is not just that business that goes down the drain, but those jobs do, too. That affects families all over this country all the time.

The purpose of this legislation is to improve the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and that is why virtually all Republicans and many Democrats also have endorsed and supported this legislation in the past and do this time.

There is something like 160 different companies and agencies around the country that are supportive, and I just wanted to name a few of those:

The American Dental Association; the Farm Bureau; the Trucking Association; Associated Builders and Contractors; the credit unions; the National Association of Manufacturers; the Realtors; the National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB, which is the principal organization that advocates on behalf of small businesses in this country; the National Restaurant Association; the Retail Federation; the independent drivers; the Chamber; and on and on. Obviously, I don't have time to read them all.

This is good legislation. I would urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 527, the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, threatens to substantially undermine agencies' abilities to effectively regulate areas such as consumer health and product safety, environmental protections, workplace safety, and financial industry misconduct.

Under the guise of protecting small businesses from allegedly burdensome regulatory requirements, this bill is just another attempt to prevent regulatory agencies from promulgating regulations that promote and protect the health and safety of Americans, overwhelm regulatory agencies with unnecessary and costly analysis, and give well-financed businesses and antiregulatory organizations even more opportunities to thwart the rulemaking process.

This explains why the administration has threatened to veto this legislation, stating that the bill would seriously undermine the ability of agencies to execute their statutory mandates and would impede the ability of agencies to provide the public with basic protections.

It also explains why many of the Nation's leading consumer, labor, and environmental organizations have expressed similar concerns about this ``dangerous'' measure, including the AFL-CIO, the American Lung Association, the Consumer Federation of America, the Consumers Union, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Public Citizen, the United Auto Workers, and the National Women's Law Center.

One of my principal concerns about this bill is that it could jeopardize America's health and safety. Our Federal agencies are charged with promulgating regulations that impact virtually every aspect of our lives, including the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, the cars we drive, and even the toys we give our children.

Small businesses, like all businesses, provide services and goods that also affect our lives. It makes no difference to a victim who breathes contaminated air or who drinks poisoned water whether the hazards were caused by a small or a large business. The far-reaching legislation before us today would undermine the ability of Federal agencies to quickly respond to emergent health and safety concerns.

Section 5 of the bill, for example, repeals the authority under the current law that allows an agency to waive or delay the initial analysis required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act in response to an emergency that makes timely compliance impracticable. So, if there is a widespread E. coli outbreak or an imminent environmental disaster that could be quickly addressed through regulation, this bill says: Don't worry. Don't rush. Let's have the Chief Counsel for Advocacy decide.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to continue our discussion on this side.

Another problem with this bill, my colleagues, is that it will waste millions of taxpayer dollars by forcing agencies to redirect their scarce resources to meet the bill's burdensome compliance requirements. Section 6 of the bill, for example, would require agencies to review not only all rules currently in effect, but, in addition, all guidance documents in effect as of the bill's date of enactment. Now, we are talking about thousands of pages of regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations and several hundred thousand guidance documents.

So, what is to be gained by that?

Thus, it is no wonder that the Congressional Budget Office estimated that it would cost $45 million over a 5-year period to implement the new requirements imposed under a substantively similar bill considered in the last Congress. Rather than burdening agencies responsible for protecting our health and safety, we should be exploring constructive ways to help small business comply with these regulations.

Finally, this bill will do little to help small businesses, while simultaneously giving corporate interests increased control over the rulemaking process. The bill's expansion in section 8 of judicial review to include challenges to the adequacy of regulatory flexibility analysis would open the door to endless litigation by well-funded antiregulatory business interests who could challenge agency compliance with the legislation's numerous vague, speculative, and cumbersome analytical and other requirements.

I think we get the drift here, where they are going and where they are coming from. I share my colleagues' belief that small business plays an important role in our economy, but this bill does nothing to alleviate the burden, the purported burden on small entities of complying with Federal regulations. In fact, it includes no provision that offers assistance to small entities, whether through subsidies, government-guaranteed loans, preferential tax treatment for small firms, or fully funded compliance assistance offices. Instead, the bill merely aggrandizes the power of the professional lobbying class in Washington, creating opportunities for a well-funded business interest to intervene in the process.

This is a very harmful bill that puts the health and safety of all Americans at risk, while adding nothing to the efficiency or cost- effectiveness of agency rulemaking. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, my amendment would preserve the ability of agencies to quickly respond to emergencies that threaten America's health and safety by striking one of the most pernicious elements of this legislation.

Section 5 of H.R. 527 contains one of the bill's most problematic provisions. As drafted, it could undermine the ability of agencies to quickly respond to emergent health and safety risks.

So this section repeals the authority under current law that allows an agency to waive or delay the initial analysis required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act ``in response to an emergency that makes compliance or timely compliance impracticable.''

Rather than leave this critical exception under current law in place, section 5 replaces it with a provision empowering the Chief Counsel for Advocacy to issue regulations about how agencies, in general, should comply with the act, without any provision allowing agencies to respond to emergencies through expedited rulemakings.

Thus, if there is a looming national pandemic or environmental disaster that could be avoided or mitigated through regulation, the bill prevents agencies from responding to such emergencies without first having to go through the arduous and time-consuming task of review and analysis.

For example, last year, OSHA issued guidance to assist hospitals in preparing to provide inpatient care for Ebola patients.

H.R. 527, however, would have significantly delayed this process. This is because the legislation broadly applies to both rules and interim guidance, requiring agencies to undertake a burdensome analysis and review process prior to issuing even interim guidance.

And because H.R. 527 eliminates the emergency exception, there would have been no way for OSHA to quickly act in the face of a possible Ebola outbreak.

This amendment would simply preserve the critical emergency exception under current law so that agencies can quickly respond to emergencies without being hampered or second-guessed by others.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

So if there is a looming environmental disaster or a national pandemic like Ebola that could be mitigated through regulation, this bill says: ``Don't worry, don't rush. Let's have the Office of Advocacy decide.''

And what is this Office of Advocacy?

Well, it is an office that is woefully ill-equipped to fulfill its current responsibilities. So I urge support for the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 527, the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act.

I oppose this legislation, which would paralyze agency rulemaking through unworkable, complex requirements while aggrandizing the powers of the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy with broad authority to act as the gatekeeper of our Nation's regulatory system.

H.R. 527 would allow for large, regulated industries to manipulate the regulatory system in their favor while delaying or blocking critical safeguards to safeguard our Nation's food supply, environment, and workforce.

That is why the American Sustainable Business Council, a coalition of partner organizations representing over 200,000 businesses and more than 325,000 business professionals, opposes this legislation. This coalition notes that H.R. 527 would erode ``the operational capacity of regulatory agencies to do their jobs,'' allowing for ``the largest firms to further dominate the marketplace.'' In other words, H.R. 527 is a thinly-veiled handout to large corporations.

Mr. Chairman, Americans support smart regulation across party lines but not deregulation. Over 70 percent of Americans support strong rules to ensure an open Internet. By a 2-1 margin, Americans across the political spectrum support rules to address climate change by limiting emissions from coal-fired plants. Sixty percent of Americans support the strict regulation of financial institutions, tougher enforcement, and remain deeply concerned about dangerous financial practices.

These are the same rules in the crosshairs of the radical deregulatory agenda of my Republican colleagues.

Dangerous policies like H.R. 527 echo the same laissez-faire rhetoric of deregulation that led to the Great Depression and the Great Recession. H.R.

527 is more of the same. Another handout for the largest corporate interests, that is what this is. It is another bill designed to deregulate industries instead of to promote actual governance in order to deceive Americans through fuzzy math and untried and unfounded rhetoric.

Mr. Chairman, we need real solutions to help real people. We need legislation that creates middle class security and opportunity, and we need sensible regulations that protect American families from financial ruin, that encourage competition, and that bring predatory financial practices to an end.

We need legislation that brings the United States in conformity with the rest of the world's employment policies by guaranteeing paid sick leave and parental leave--I should say the world's industrialized economies' employment practices. According to the Rutgers Center for Women and Work, paid family leave increases wages for women with children while saving the Federal Government funds that would otherwise be allocated to assistance programs.

We need legislation that increases our global competitiveness by creating an affordable higher education. Strong evidence from a Department of Education report roundly demonstrates that investing in our education system expands job opportunities, boosts America's competitiveness, and supports the kind of income mobility that is fundamental to a growing economy.

In other words, what we need is actual governance that helps middle class families, that grows the economy, and that promotes international competitiveness.

What we don't need is yet another deregulatory bill that would increase complexity in our regulatory system while placing a finger on the scales in favor of corporations and against the public interest. I ask that my colleagues oppose H.R. 527.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment, which would exempt from H.R. 527 all rules that the Office of Management and Budget determines would result in net job creation.

Under President Obama, our country has rebounded from the Great Recession, creating 11 million new jobs over 5 years, and unemployment is falling at the fastest rate in three decades. Consumer and business spending have catalyzed the fastest gross domestic product growth since 2003. My amendment would ensure that this meteoric growth and progress continues.

Contrary to my Republican colleagues' assertion that regulations kill jobs, a wealth of unimpeachable, bipartisan evidence has repeatedly and effectively debunked this claim. Studies by both the San Francisco and New York Federal Reserve found that there is zero correlation between job growth and regulations and that there is no evidence showing that increased regulations and taxes have any effect on the unemployment rate.

And the evidence that regulations harm the economy? The only evidence relied on for the absurd figures repeated by the proponents of this bill derive from a study roundly disproven by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which found that the study's cost figures were cherry-picked, inaccurate, based on evidence from decades ago, and without contemporary value.

I have also heard my Republican colleagues repeatedly claim that regulations have a $15,000 regulatory burden on every American family. Consequently, The Washington Post awarded this claim, ``Two Pinocchios,'' on January 14, arguing that this absurd figure has ``serious methodological problems--even the report admits it is `not scientific' and `back of the envelope'--and we fear these caveats are being forgotten as it is repeated in Capitol Hill news conferences and then in

news reports,'' and sometimes even on this floor.

Mr. Chair, the economy and job growth are growing at its fastest pace in years on the back of sound economic policy and sensible regulations. Despite this growth, it is clear that many continue to struggle to live comfortably on their income, pay their bills on time, or set aside for retirement. Americans work harder than ever, thanks to corporations maximizing profits through a ``streamlined workforce.'' Meanwhile, the world's top 1 percent will soon control half of the world's wealth as the compensation of corporate executives balloons ever-higher.

The same corporations that are continuing to show record profit margins are also pushing deregulation and fewer taxes because they have a ``myopic obsession with short-term profits at the expense of long- term value creation,'' according to Henry Blodget, the CEO of Business Insider.

It is also clear that, despite its incredible workplace productivity, wages have stagnated. We do need to fix that, but unfortunately, deregulation does not do so.

Last Congress, Republicans blocked Democratic legislation that would increase the Federal minimum wage by less than $3, lifting countless full-time workers out of poverty, while saving the Federal Government trillions in annual safety net costs.

Fortunately, for Americans, minimum wage increases have gone into effect in 20 States this month alone, bringing the minimum wage in 29 States above the Federal minimum wage, but yet this Congress refuses to take up legislation to increase the Federal minimum wage. Perhaps my Republican colleagues will heed the calls of workers across the country for a living wage. This bill does not do that.

I ask that my colleagues support my amendment, which does protect jobs.

I yield back the balance of my time.