Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 527, the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011. I was the original cosponsor. I want to thank Chairman Smith for the opportunity to work with him on this very important piece of legislation.

Opponents will argue that the bill stops agencies from issuing regulations. However, in reality, H.R. 527 will force agencies to consider how their actions affect small businesses and other small entities. More importantly, if the effects are significant, agencies, not small entities, will have to develop less burdensome and costly alternatives.

Shouldn't a government understand the consequences of its regulations? Of course, it should. And by doing so, the government may arrive at a more efficient and less costly way to regulate. In a nutshell, that is what H.R. 527 does.

Some may argue that agencies already do this when they draft regulations. However, nearly 30 years of experience with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or the RFA, shows that agencies are not considering the consequences of their actions, and it is about time that they start doing that.

Government regulations do have consequences. Small businesses must expend scarce and vital capital complying with these rules. If there's a better way to achieve what an agency wants while imposing lower costs on small businesses, the sensible approach would be to adopt the lower cost methodology. This will enable small businesses to meet the requirements imposed by regulators while freeing up scarce resources to expand their businesses and hire more workers.

H.R. 527 ensures the consideration of consequences of rulemaking through the removal of loopholes that the agencies have used to avoid compliance with the RFA. In addition, the bill will require a closer consideration of the impact of rules on small businesses and other small entities. Yet nothing in H.R. 527 will prevent an agency from issuing a rule. It just stops the government from issuing a rule without understanding its effect on America's job creators--small businesses.

With that, I urge my colleagues support this very carefully crafted measure to improve the Federal regulatory process.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, the gentlelady, my colleague from the Small Business Committee, pointed out that the Bush administration added $60 billion in regulatory burdens out there, which is not a good thing at all. In fact, that scares me in and of itself. In 8 years of the Bush administration you had $60 billion in extra regulations.

The Obama administration has added $40 billion in only 3 years. So at the rate that that administration's on, it's going to far outweigh any administration.

But my point is, I don't care what administration it is. I don't care if it's a Republican administration or a Democrat administration. I want to make darn sure that those agencies comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and I want to make darn sure that those agencies take into account how much this is going to cost small business when they're implementing some of these ridiculous regulations that they're asking small business staff to comply with.

Some of this stuff is outrageous, and it needs to be studied, or it needs to be taken care of, or it needs to be stopped. But these agencies--and again, I don't care what administration it is--they need to have to comply with this and they need to understand what the consequences are.

With that, I would urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source