[House Report 112-146]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
112th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 112-146
_______________________________________________________________________
Union Calendar No. 93
SEMIANNUAL REPORT ON THE ACTIVITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
FIRST SESSION OF THE 112th CONGRESS
June 24, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Small Business,
Washington, DC, June 24, 2011.
Hon. Karen L. Haas,
Clerk, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Haas: Pursuant to clause 1(d) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives for the 112th Congress, I
present herewith a semiannual report on the activity of the
Committee on Small Business for the period January 5, 2011
through June 14, 2011, including the Committee's review of
legislation within its jurisdiction and the oversight
activities undertaken by the Committee. The Committee on Small
Business adopted the semiannual report on June 24, 2011, by
voice vote.
Sincerely,
Sam Graves,
Chairman.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Committee Jurisdiction........................................... 1
Rules of the Committee........................................... 2
Membership and Organization...................................... 15
Legislative Activities........................................... 19
Oversight Summary................................................ 23
Part A--Full Committee Hearings.............................. 25
Part B--Subcommittee Hearings................................ 33
Part C--Waste, Fraud, Abuse, and Mismanagement............... 39
Oversight Plan................................................... 41
Part A--Committee Oversight Plan............................. 43
Part B--Implementation of Oversight Plan..................... 49
Regulatory Review................................................ 55
Union Calendar No. 93
112th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 112-146
======================================================================
SEMIANNUAL REPORT ON THE ACTIVITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
FOR THE 112TH CONGRESS
_______
June 24, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Graves of Missouri, from the Committee on Small Business,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
Clause 1(d) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives for the 112th Congress requires that each
standing committee, not later than the 30th day after June 1,
submit to the House a semiannual report on the activities of
that committee, including separate sections summarizing the
legislative and oversight activities of that committee.
JURISDICTION AND SPECIAL OVERSIGHT FUNCTION
Clause 1(q) of rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives of the 112th Congress sets forth the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Small Business as follows--
(1) Assistance to and protection of small business,
including financial aid, regulatory flexibility, and paperwork
reduction.
(2) Participation of small-business enterprises in Federal
procurement and Government contracts.
Clause 3(l) of rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives for the 112th Congress sets forth the Special
Oversight Function of the Committee on Small Business as
follows--
The Committee on Small Business shall study and investigate
on a continuing basis the problems of all types of small
business.
RULES OF THE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS FOR THE 112TH CONGRESS
1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
The Rules of the House of Representatives, in total (but
especially with the operations of committees rule X, cl. 1(q),
cl. 2, cl. 3(l), and rule XI) are the rules of the Committee on
Small Business to the extent applicable and are incorporated by
reference. Each Subcommittee of the Committee on Small Business
(``the Committee'') is a part of the Committee and is subject
to the authority and direction of the Committee, and to the
Rules of the House and the rules adopted herein to the extent
applicable.
2. REFERRAL OF BILLS BY THE CHAIR
The Chair will retain consideration of all legislation
referred to the Committee by the Speaker. No action will be
required of a Subcommittee before legislation is considered for
report by the Committee. Subcommittee chairs, pursuant to the
rules set out herein, may hold hearings on any bill referred to
the Committee.
3. DATE OF MEETING
The regular meeting date of the Committee shall be the
second Wednesday of every month when the House is in session.
The Chair may dispense with the meeting of the Committee, if in
the sole discretion of the Chair, there is no need for such
meeting. Additional meetings may be called as deemed necessary
by the Chair or at the request of the majority Members of the
Committee pursuant to rule XI, cl. 2(c) of the Rules of the
House.
At least 3 days notice of such an additional meeting shall
be given unless the Chair, with the concurrence of the Ranking
Minority Member, determines that there is good cause to call
the meeting on less notice or upon a vote by a majority of the
Committee (a quorum being present). To the extent possible, the
three days shall be counted from the 72 hours before the time
of the meeting. Announcements of the meeting shall be published
promptly in the Daily Digest and made publicly available in
electronic form.
The determination of the business to be considered at each
meeting shall be made by the Chair subject to limitations set
forth in House Rule XI, cl. 2(c).
The Chair shall provide to each Member of the Committee, to
the extent practicable, at least 48 hours in advance of a
meeting, a copy of the bill, resolution, report or other item
to be considered at the meeting, but no later than 24 hours
before the meeting. Such material also shall be made available
to the public at least 24 hours in advance in electronic form.
The rules for notice and meetings as set forth in Rule 3 of
these Rules shall not apply to special and emergency meetings.
Clause 2(c)(2) of rule XI and clause 2(g)(3)(A) of rule XI of
the Rules of the House, as applicable, shall apply to such
meetings.
A record vote of the Committee shall be provided on any
question before the Committee upon the request of any Member of
the Committee. A record of the vote of each Member of the
Committee on a matter before the Committee shall be available
in electronic form within 48 hours of such record vote, and,
with respect to any roll call vote on any motion to amend or
report, shall be included in the report of the Committee
showing the total number of votes cast for and against and the
names of those Members voting for and against.
The Chair of the Committee shall, not later than 24 hours
after consideration of a bill, resolution, report or other item
cause the text of the reported item and any amendment adopted
thereto to be made publicly available in electronic form.
4. ANNOUNCEMENT OF HEARINGS
Public announcement of the date, place, and subject matter
of any hearing to be conducted by the Committee shall be made
no later than 7 calendar days before the commencement of the
hearing. To the extent possible, the seven days shall be
counted from 168 hours before the time of the Committee's
hearing.
The Chair, with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority
Member, or upon a vote by the majority of the Committee (a
quorum being present), may authorize a hearing to commence on
less than 7 calendar days notice.
A. Witness Lists
Unless the Chair determines it is impracticable to do so,
the Committee shall make a tentative witness list available at
the time it makes the public announcement of the hearing. If a
tentative witness list is not made available at the time of the
announcement of the hearing, such witness list shall be made
available as soon as practicable after such announcement is
made. A final witness list shall be issued by the Committee no
later than 48 hours prior to the commencement of the hearing.
B. Material for the Hearing
The Chair shall provide to all Members of the Committee, as
soon as practicable after the announcement of the hearing, a
memorandum explaining the subject matter of the hearing and any
official reports from departments and agencies on the subject
matter of the hearing. Such material shall be made available to
all Members of the Committee no later than 48 hours before the
commencement of the hearing unless the Chair, after
consultation with the Ranking Minority Member, determines that
certain reports from departments or agencies should not be made
available prior to the commencement of the hearing. Material
provided by the Chair to all Members, whether provided prior to
or at the hearing, shall be placed on the Committee website no
later than 48 hours after the commencement of the hearing
unless such material contains sensitive or classified
information in which case such material shall be handled
pursuant to Rule 15 of the Committee's Rules.
5. MEETINGS AND HEARINGS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
A. Meetings
Each meeting of the Committee or its Subcommittees for the
transaction of business, including the markup of legislation,
shall be open to the public, including to radio, television,
and still photography coverage, except as provided by House
Rule XI, cl. 4. If the majority of Members of the Committee or
Subcommittee present at the meeting, determine by a recorded
vote in open session that all or part of the remainder of the
meeting on that day shall be closed to the public because the
disclosure of matters to be considered would endanger national
security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement
information, or would tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate
any person or otherwise would violate any law or rule of the
House; provided however, that no person other than Members of
the Committee, and such congressional staff and such executive
branch representatives they may authorize, shall be present in
any meeting which has been closed to the public.
The Chair and Ranking Minority Member are ex officio
Members of all Subcommittees for the purpose of any meeting or
hearing conducted by a Subcommittee.
B. Hearings
Each hearing conducted by the Committee or its
Subcommittees shall be open to the public, including radio,
television and still photography coverage. If the majority of
Members of the Committee or Subcommittee present at the
hearing, determine by a recorded vote in open session that all
or part of the remainder of the hearing on that day shall be
closed to the public because the disclosure of matters to be
considered would endanger national security, would compromise
sensitive law enforcement information, or would tend to defame,
degrade, or incriminate any person or otherwise would violate
any law or rule of the House; provided however, that the
Committee or Subcommittee may by the same procedure also vote
to close one subsequent day of hearings. Notwithstanding the
requirements of the preceding sentence, a majority of those
present (if the requisite number of Members are present under
Committee rules for the purpose of taking testimony) may vote:
(i) to close the hearing for the sole purpose of discussing
whether the testimony or evidence to be received would endanger
the national security, would compromise sensitive law
enforcement information, or violate rule XI, cl. 2(k)(5) of the
House or (ii) to close the hearing, as provided by clause
2(k)(5) of rule XI of the House.
The Chair and Ranking Minority Member are ex officio
Members of all Subcommittees in any hearing conducted by a
Subcommittee. Members of the Committee who wish to participate
in a hearing of the Subcommittee to which they are not Members
shall make such request to the Chair and the Ranking Minority
Member of the Subcommittee at the commencement of the hearing.
The Chair, after consultation with the Ranking Minority Member
of the Subcommittee, shall grant such request.
No Member of the House may be excluded from non-
participatory attendance at any hearing of the Committee or any
Subcommittee, unless the House of Representatives shall by
majority vote authorize the Committee or Subcommittees, for
purposes of a particular subject of investigation, to close its
hearing to Members by the same procedures designated to close
hearings to the public.
Members of Congress who are not Members of the Committee
but would like to participate in a hearing shall notify the
Chair and the Ranking Minority Member and submit a formal
request no later than 24 hours before the commencement of the
meeting or hearing.
To the maximum extent practicable, the Committee shall
provide audio and video coverage of each hearing or meeting for
the transaction of business in a manner that allows the public
to easily listen and view the proceedings and shall maintain
the recordings of such coverage in a manner easily accessible
to the public.
6. WITNESSES
A. Statement of witnesses
Each witness who is to appear before the Committee or
Subcommittee shall file an electronic copy of the testimony
with the Committee and the Ranking Minority Member no later
than 48 hours before the commencement of the hearing. In
addition, the witness shall provide 75 copies of the testimony
by the commencement of the hearing. The Chair may waive the
requirement of the witness providing 75 copies in which case
the Committee or Subcommittee shall provide the 75 copies.
Each non-governmental witness shall provide to the
Committee and the Ranking Minority Member, no later than 48
hours before the commencement of the hearing, a curriculum
vitae or other statement describing their education,
employment, professional affiliation or other background
information pertinent to their testimony.
As required by rule XI, cl. 2(g) of the Rules of the House,
each non-governmental witness before the commencement of the
hearing shall file with the Chair a disclosure form detailing
any contracts or grants that the witness has with the federal
government.
The failure to provide the materials set forth by the
deadlines set forth in these rules may be grounds for excluding
both the oral and written testimony of the witness unless
waived by the Chair of the Committee or Subcommittee.
The Committee will provide public access to printed
materials, including the testimony of witnesses in electronic
form on the Committee's website no later than 24 hours after
the hearing is adjourned. Supplemental material provided after
the hearing adjourns, shall be placed on the Committee website
no later than 24 hours after receipt of such material.
B. Number of witnesses and witnesses selected by the minority
For any hearing conducted by the Committee or Subcommittee
there shall be no more than four non-governmental witnesses of
which the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee or
Subcommittee (as appropriate) is entitled to select one witness
for the hearing. Witnesses selected by the Ranking Minority
Member of the Committee or Subcommittee shall be invited to
testify by the Chair of the Committee or Subcommittee (as
appropriate). Rule 6(A) shall apply with equal force to
witnesses selected by the Ranking Minority Member of the
Committee or Subcommittee.
The limitations set forth in the preceding paragraph shall
not apply if the Committee holds a hearing to honor the work of
the small business community in conjunction with the annual
celebration of Small Business Week. Witness limitations for
such a hearing shall be determined by the Chair in consultation
with the Ranking Minority Member.
C. Interrogation of witnesses
Except when the Committee adopts a motion pursuant to
subdivisions (B) and (C) of clause 2(i)(2) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House, Committee Members may question witnesses
only when they have been recognized by the Chair for that
purpose.
The Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee or
Subcommittee shall face no limitation on the length of the time
that they may question a witness. After recognition by the
Chair, other Members shall have the opportunity, as set forth
in rule XI, cl. 2(j) of the Rules of the House, to question
each witness on the panel for a period not to exceed five
minutes.
For any hearing, the Chair of the Committee or Subcommittee
may offer a motion to extend the questioning of a witness or
witnesses by Members other than the Chair or Ranking Minority
Member identified in the motion for more than five minutes as
set forth in rule XI, cl. 2(j)(B).
The Chair of the Committee or Subcommittee shall commence
questioning followed by the Ranking Minority Member.
Thereafter, questioning shall alternate between the majority
and minority Members by the time in which the Member arrived at
the hearing after the gavel has been struck to commence the
hearing, with the first arriving having priority over Members
of his or her party. If Members arrive simultaneously or are
there prior to the gavel being struck to commence the hearing,
order of questioning shall be based on seniority.
In recognizing Members to question witnesses, the Chair may
take into consideration the ratio of majority and minority
Members present in such a manner as to not disadvantage the
Members of either party.
7. SUBPOENAS
A subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Committee in
the conduct of any investigation or series of investigations or
activities to require the attendance and testimony of such
witness and the production of such books, records,
correspondence, memoranda, papers and documents, as deemed
necessary. Such subpoena shall be authorized by a majority of
the full Committee. The requirement that the authorization of a
subpoena require a majority vote may be waived by the Ranking
Member of the Committee. The Chair may issue a subpoena, in
consultation with the Ranking Minority Member, when the House
is out for session for more than three legislative days.
8. QUORUM
A quorum, for purposes of reporting a measure or
recommendation, shall be a majority of the Committee Members.
For purposes of taking testimony or receiving evidence, a
quorum shall be one Member from the Majority and one Member
from the Minority. The Chair of the Committee or Subcommittee
shall exercise reasonable comity by waiting for the Ranking
Minority Member even if a quorum is present before striking the
gavel to commence the hearing. For hearings held by the
Committee or a Subcommittee in a location other than the
Committee's hearing room in Washington, DC, a quorum shall be
deemed to present if the Chair of the Committee or Subcommittee
is present.
9. AMENDMENTS DURING MARK-UP
Any amendment offered to any pending legislation before the
Committee must be made available in written form by any Member
of the Committee. If such amendment is not available in written
form when requested, the Chair shall allow an appropriate
period for the provision thereof. Such period shall not
prejudice the offering of such amendment.
For amendments to be accepted during mark-up, there is no
requirement that the amendments be filed prior to commencement
of the mark-up or prepared with the assistance of the Office of
Legislative Counsel. Even though it is not necessary, Members
seeking to amend legislation during mark-up should draft
amendments with the assistance of the Office of Legislative
Counsel and consult with the Chair or Ranking Member's staff
(as appropriate) in the preparation of such amendments.
10. POSTPONEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS
The Chair in consultation with the Ranking Minority Member
may postpone further proceedings when a record vote is ordered
on the question of approving any measure or matter or adopting
an amendment. The Chair may resume postponed proceedings, but
no later than 24 hours after such postponement, unless the
House is not in session or there are conflicts with Member
schedules that make it unlikely a quorum will be present to
conduct business on the postponed proceeding. In such cases,
the Chair will consult with Members to set a time as early as
possible to resume proceedings but in no event later than the
next meeting date as set forth in Rule 3 of these Rules. When
proceedings resume on a postponed question, notwithstanding any
intervening order for the previous question, an underlying
proposition shall remain subject to further debate or amendment
to the same extent as when the question was postponed.
11. NUMBER AND JURISDICTION OF SUBCOMMITTEES
There will be five Subcommittees as follows:
The Subcommittee on Agriculture, Energy and Trade
This Subcommittee (which will consist of seven (7)
Republican Members and five (5) Democratic Members) will
address policies that enhance rural economic growth, increasing
America's energy independence and ensuring that America's small
businesses can compete effectively in a global marketplace.
Oversight of agricultural policies.
Oversight of environmental issues and regulations
(including agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency
and the Army Corps of Engineers).
Oversight of energy issues, including expansion of
domestic resources whether they are renewable or non-renewable.
Oversight of international trade policy with
particular emphasis on agencies that provide direct assistance
to small businesses, such as: the Small Business
Administration's (SBA) Office of International Trade, the
Department of Commerce's United States Export Assistance
Centers, the Department of Agriculture's Foreign Agricultural
Service, and the Export-Import Bank.
Oversight of infringement of intellectual property
rights by foreign competition.
The Subcommittee on Healthcare and Technology
This Subcommittee (which will consist of eight (8)
Republican Members and five (5) Democratic Members) will
address how healthcare policies may inhibit or promote economic
growth and job creation by small businesses. In addition, the
Subcommittee will examine small business job growth through the
creation and adoption of advanced technologies.
Oversight of the implementation of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Oversight of availability and affordability of
healthcare coverage for small businesses.
Oversight of general technology issues, including
intellectual property policy in the United States.
Oversight of United States telecommunications
policies including, but not limited to, the National Broadband
Plan and allocation of electromagnetic spectrum.
The Small Business Innovation Research Program.
Small Business Technology Transfer Program.
The Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Tax and Capital Access
This Subcommittee (which will consist of seven (7)
Republican Members and five (5) Democratic Members) will
evaluate the operation of the financial markets in the United
States and their ability to provide needed capital to small
businesses. In addition, the Subcommittee will review federal
programs, especially those overseen by the SBA, aimed at
assisting entrepreneurs in obtaining needed capital. Since the
tax policy plays an integral role in access to capital, this
Subcommittee also will examine the impact of federal tax
policies on small businesses.
Oversight of capital access and financial markets.
Implementation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
SBA financial assistance programs, including
guaranteed loans, microloans, certified development company
loans, and small business investment companies.
Oversight of the Department of Agriculture
Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan program.
Oversight of general tax policy affecting small
businesses.
The management of the SBA disaster loan program.
The Subcommittee on Investigations, Oversight and Regulations
This Subcommittee (which will consist of seven (7)
Republican Members and five (5) Democratic Members) will probe
the efficient operation of government programs that affect
small businesses, including the SBA, and develop proposals to
make them operate in a more cost-effective manner. This
Subcommittee also will review the regulatory burdens imposed on
small businesses and how those burdens may be alleviated.
Oversight of general issues affecting small
businesses and federal agencies.
Oversight of the management of the SBA.
Oversight of the SBA Inspector General.
Implementation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Oversight of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget.
Use of the Congressional Review Act.
Transparency of the federal rulemaking process as
required by the Administrative Procedure and Data Quality Acts.
Implementation of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
The Subcommittee on Contracting and Workforce
This Subcommittee (which will consist of seven (7)
Republican Members and five (5) Democratic Members) will assess
the federal procurement system, including those programs
designed specifically to enhance participation by small
businesses in providing goods and services to the federal
government. The Subcommittee will examine various programs
designed to provide technical assistance to small businesses,
whether specifically aimed at federal contractors or small
businesses in general. Finally, the Subcommittee will review
the broad scope of workforce issues that affect the ability of
small businesses to obtain and maintain qualified employees.
Oversight of government-wide procurement practices
and programs affecting small businesses.
Oversight of federal procurement policies that
inhibit or expand participation by small businesses in the
federal contracting marketplace.
All contracting programs established by the Small
Business Act, including HUBZone, 8(a), Women-, and Service
Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Programs.
Technical assistance provided to federal
contractors and perspective contractors through SBA personnel,
Offices of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, and
Procurement Technical Assistance Centers.
The SBA Surety Bond guarantee program.
Oversight of all federal policies that affect the
workforce including, but not limited to, the roles of the
Department of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board.
SBA entrepreneurial development and technical
assistance programs unrelated to participation in the federal
government contracting.
12. POWERS AND DUTIES OF SUBCOMMITTEES
Each Subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings,
receive evidence, and report to the Committee on any matters
referred to it. Prior to the scheduling of any meeting or
hearing of a Subcommittee, the Chair of the Subcommittee shall
obtain the approval of the Chair of the Committee.
No hearing or meeting of a Subcommittee shall take place at
the same time as the meeting or hearing of the full Committee
or another Subcommittee, provided however, that the
Subcommittee Chairs may hold field hearings that conflict with
those held by other Subcommittees of the Committee.
13. COMMITTEE STAFF
A. Majority staff
The employees of the Committee, except those assigned to
the Minority as provided below, shall be appointed and
assigned, and may be removed by, the Chair of the Committee.
The Chair shall fix their remuneration and they shall be under
the general supervision and direction of the Chair.
B. Minority staff
The employees of the Committee assigned to the Minority
shall be appointed and assigned, and their remuneration
determined, as the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee
shall determine.
C. Subcommittee staff
There shall be no separate staff assigned to Subcommittees.
The Chair and Ranking Member shall endeavor to ensure that
sufficient committee staff is made available in order that each
Subcommittee may carry out the responsibilities set forth in
Rule 11, supra.
14. RECORDS
The Committee shall keep a complete record of all actions,
which shall include a record of the votes on any question on
which a recorded vote is demanded. The result of any vote by
the Committee, or if applicable by a Subcommittee, including a
voice vote shall be posted on the Committee's website within 24
hours after the vote has been taken. Such record shall include
a description of the amendment, motion, order, or other
proposition, the name of the Member voting for and against such
amendment, motion, order, or other proposition, and the names
of Members present but not voting. For any amendment, motion,
order, or other proposition decided by voice vote, the record
shall include a description and whether the voice vote was in
favor or against.
The Committee shall keep a complete record of all Committee
and Subcommittee activity which, in the case of a meeting or
hearing transcript shall include a substantially verbatim
account of the remarks actually made during the proceedings
subject only to technical, grammatical, and typographical
corrections authorized by the person making the remarks.
The records of the Committee at the National Archives and
Records Administration shall be made available in accordance
with rule VII of the Rules of the House. The Chair of the
Committee shall notify the Ranking Member of the Committee of
any decision, pursuant to rule VII, cl. 3(b)(3) or cl. 4(b), to
withhold a record otherwise available, and the matter shall be
presented to the Committee for a determination of the written
request of any Member of the Committee.
The Committee Rules shall be made publicly available in
electronic form and published in the Congressional Record not
later than 30 days after the Chair of the Committee is elected
in each odd-numbered year.
15. ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED OR SENSITIVE INFORMATION
Access to classified or sensitive information supplied to
the Committee or Subcommittees and attendance at closed
sessions of the Committee or a Subcommittee shall be limited to
Members and necessary Committee staff and stenographic
reporters who have appropriate security clearance when the
Chair determines that such access or attendance is essential to
the functioning of the Committee or one of its Subcommittees.
The procedures to be followed in granting access to those
hearings, records, data, charts, and files of the Committee
which involve classified information or information deemed to
be sensitive shall be as follows:
(A) Only Members of the House of Representatives and
specifically designated Committee staff of the Committee on
Small Business may have access to such information.
(B) Members who desire to read materials that are in
possession of the Committee shall notify the Clerk of the
Committee in writing.
(C) The Clerk of the Committee will maintain an accurate
access log, which identifies the circumstances surrounding
access to the information, without revealing the material
examined.
(D) If the material desired to be reviewed is material
which the Committee or Subcommittee deems to be sensitive
enough to require special handling, before receiving access to
such information, individuals will be required to sign an
access information sheet acknowledging such access and that the
individual has read and understands the procedures under which
access is being granted.
(E) Material provided for review under this rule shall not
be removed from a specified room within the Committee offices.
(F) Individuals reviewing materials under this rule shall
make certain that the materials are returned to the proper
custodian.
(G) No reproductions or recordings may be made of any
portion of such materials.
(H) The contents of such information shall not be divulged
to any person in any way, form, shape, or manner and shall not
be discussed with any person who has not received the
information in the manner authorized by the rules of the
Committee.
(I) When not being examined in the manner described herein,
such information will be kept in secure safes or locked file
cabinets within the Committee offices.
(J) These procedures only address access to information the
Committee or Subcommittee deems to be sensitive enough to
require special treatment.
(K) If a Member of the House of Representatives believes
that certain sensitive information should not be restricted as
to dissemination or use, the Member may petition the Committee
or Subcommittee to so rule. With respect to information and
materials provided to the Committee by the Executive Branch or
an independent agency as that term is defined in 44 U.S.C.
3502, the classification of information and materials as
determined by the Executive Branch or independent agency shall
prevail unless affirmatively changed by the Committee or
Subcommittee involved, after consultation with the Executive
Branch or independent agency.
(L) Other materials in the possession of the Committee are
to be handled in the accordance with normal practices and
traditions of the Committee.
16. OTHER PROCEDURES
The Chair of the Committee may establish such other
procedures and take such actions as may be necessary to carry
out the foregoing rules or to facilitate the effective
operation of the Committee.
17. AMENDMENTS TO COMMITTEE RULES
The rules of the Committee may be modified, amended or
repealed by a majority vote of the Members, at a meeting
specifically called for such purpose, but only if written
notice of the proposed change or changes has been provided to
each Member of the Committee at least 72 hours prior to the
time of the meeting of the Committee to consider such change or
changes.
18. BUDGET AND TRAVEL
From the amount provided to the Committee in the primary
expense resolution adopted by the House of Representatives in
the 112th Congress, the Chair, after consultation with the
Ranking Minority Member, shall designate one-third of the
budget under the direction of the Ranking Minority Member for
the purposes of minority staff, travel expenses of minority
staff and Members, and minority office expenses.
The Chair may authorize travel in connection with
activities or subject matters under the legislative or
oversight jurisdiction of the Committee as set forth in rule X
of the Rules of the House.
The Ranking Minority Member may authorize travel for any
Minority Member or staff of the minority in connection with
activities or subject matters under the Committee's
jurisdiction as set forth in rule X of the Rules of the House.
Before such travel, there shall be submitted to the Chair of
the Committee in writing the following at least seven (7)
calendar days prior specifying: a) the purpose of the travel;
b) the dates during which the travel is to occur; c) the names
of the states or countries to be visited and the length of time
spent in each; and d) the names of Members and staff of the
Committee participating in such travel. Prior approval shall
not be required of Minority Staff traveling to participate in a
deposition, authorized by the Chair in rule 16 of these Rules
of an individual located outside of Washington, DC metropolitan
area.
19. COMMITTEE WEBSITE
The Chair shall maintain an official Committee website for
the purpose of furthering the Committee's legislative and
oversight responsibilities, including communicating information
about Committee's activities to Committee Members and other
Members of the House. The Ranking Minority Member may maintain
a similar website for the same purpose, including communicating
information about the activities of the Minority to Committee
Members and other Members of the House.
20. VICE CHAIR
Pursuant to the Rules of the House, the Chair shall
designate a Member of the Majority to serve as Vice Chair of
the Committee. The Vice Chair shall preside at any meeting or
hearing during the temporary absence of the Chair. The Chair
also reserves the right to designate a Member of the Committee
Majority to serve as the Chair at a hearing or meeting.
MEMBERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
ONE HUNDRED AND TWELFTH CONGRESS
FULL COMMITTEE
Rep. NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ (NY-12), Ranking MemberRAVES (MO-6), Chairman
Rep. KURT SCHRADER (OR-5) Rep. ROSCOE G. BARTLETT (MD-6)
Rep. MARK S. CRITZ (PA-12) Rep. STEVE CHABOT (OH-1)
Rep. JASON ALTMIRE, (PA-4) Rep. STEVE KING (IA-5)
Rep. YVETTE D. CLARKE (NY-11) Rep. MIKE COFFMAN (CO-6)
Rep. JUDY CHU (CA-32) Rep. MICK MULVANEY (SC-5)
Rep. DAVID N. CICILLINE (RI-1) Rep. SCOTT R. TIPTON (CO-3)
Rep. CEDRIC RICHMOND (LA-2) Rep. CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN (TN-3)
Rep. GARY C. PETERS (MI-9) Rep. JEFFREY M. LANDRY (LA-3)
Rep. WILLIAM L. OWENS (NY-23) Rep. JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER (WA-3)
Rep. WILLIAM R. KEATING (MA-10) Rep. ALLEN B. WEST (FL-22)
Rep. RENEE L. ELLMERS (NC-2)
Rep. JOE WALSH (IL-8)
Rep. LOU BARLETTA (PA-11)
Rep. RICHARD HANNA (NY-24)
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Energy and Trade
Rep. MARK S. CRITZ (PA-12), Ranking MemberSCOTT R. TIPTON (CO-3),
Rep. DAVID CICILLINE (RI-1) Chairman
Rep. WILLIAM R. KEATING (MA-10) Rep. ROSCOE G. BARTLETT (MD-6)
Rep. JUDY CHU (CA-32) Rep. STEVE KING (IA-5)
VACANT Rep. CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN (TN-3)
Rep. JEFFREY M. LANDRY (LA-3)
Rep. RENEE L. ELLMERS (NC-2)
Rep. LOU BARLETTA (PA-11)
Subcommittee on Healthcare and Technology
Rep. CEDRIC RICHMOND (LA-2), Ranking MemberENEE L. ELLMERS (NC-2),
Rep. JASON ALTMIRE (PA-4) Chairman
Rep. GARY C. PETERS (MI-9) Rep. STEVE KING (IA-5)
VACANT Rep. MICK MULVANEY (SC-5)
VACANT Rep. SCOTT R. TIPTON (CO-3)
Rep. CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN (TN-3)
Rep. JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER (WA-3)
Rep. JOE WALSH (IL-8)
Rep. RICHARD HANNA (NY-24)
Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Tax and Capital Access
Rep. KURT SCHRADER (OR-5), Ranking Member JOE WALSH (IL-8), Chairman
Rep. YVETTE D. CLARKE (NY-11) Rep. STEVE CHABOT (OH-1)
Rep. DAVID CICILLINE (RI-1) Rep. STEVE KING (IA-5)
Rep. JUDY CHU (CA-32) Rep. MIKE COFFMAN (CO-6)
Rep. GARY C. PETERS (MI-9) Rep. MICK MULVANEY (SC-5)
Rep. CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN (TN-3)
Rep. RICHARD HANNA (NY-24)
Subcommittee on Investigations, Oversight and Regulations
Rep. JASON ALTMIRE (PA-4), Ranking Member MIKE COFFMAN (CO-6), Chairman
Rep. KURT SCHRADER (OR-5) Rep. SCOTT R. TIPTON (CO-3)
VACANT Rep. JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER (WA-3)
VACANT Rep. ALLEN B. WEST (FL-22)
VACANT Rep. JOE WALSH (IL-8)
Rep. JEFFREY M. LANDRY (LA-3)
Rep. RICHARD HANNA (NY-24)
Subcommittee on Contracting and Workforce
Rep. JUDY CHU (CA-32), Ranking MemberRep. MICK MULVANEY (SC-5),
Rep. KURT SCHRADER (OR-5) Chairman
Rep. MARK S. CRITZ (PA-12) Rep. STEVE KING (IA-5)
Rep. YVETTE D. CLARKE (NY-11) Rep. MIKE COFFMAN (CO-6)
Rep. CEDRIC RICHMOND (LA-2) Rep. ALAN B. WEST (FL-22)
Rep. JEFFREY M. LANDRY (LA-3)
Rep. RENEE L. ELLMERS (NC-2)
Rep. LOU BARLETTA (PA-11)
LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES
Clause 1(d) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires that not later than the 30th day after
June 1, a committee shall submit to the House a semiannual
report on the activities of that committee, including a
separate section summarizing the legislative activities of that
committee.
AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR AN ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS
UNDER THE SMALL BUSINESS ACT AND THE SMALL BUSINESS INVESTMENT ACT OF
1958 THROUGH MAY 31, 2011, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
(H.R. 366)
Summary
H.R. 366 extended the programs authorized under the Small
Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958
through May 31, 2011.
Legislative history
Chairman Sam Graves introduced H.R. 366 on January 20,
2011. The bill was referred to the Committee on Small Business.
On January 25, 2011, the House considered H.R. 336 under
suspension of the rules. At the conclusion of debate, the
measure passed by voice vote. On the same day, H.R. 366 was
received in the Senate. On January 26, 2011, the Senate passed
H.R. 366 by unanimous consent. On January 31, 2011, the
President signed the bill, and it became Public Law 112-1.
AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR AN ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS
UNDER THE SMALL BUSINESS ACT AND THE SMALL BUSINESS INVESTMENT ACT OF
1958 THROUGH MAY 31, 2012, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
(S. 990)
Summary
S. 990 extended the programs authorized under the Small
Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958
through May 31, 2012.
Legislative history
Senator Mary Landrieu introduced S. 990 on May 12, 2011,
and the bill was placed on Senate Legislative Calendar and read
the first time. On May 16, 2011, the legislation was read the
second time and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under
General Orders, Calendar No. 51. On May 19, 2011, Senator
Durbin offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute for
Senator Landrieu. This amendment extended the Small Business
Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology
Transfer (STTR) Programs through May 31, 2012. Additionally, it
extended all other programs under the Small Business Act and
the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 that necessitated an
extension until June 30, 2011. The Senate passed S. 990 via
unanimous consent on May 19, 2011.
On May 24, 2011, Chairman Graves moved to suspend the rules
and pass S. 990, as amended. Chairman Graves amended the
legislation to provide for an additional temporary extension of
the programs under the Small Business Act and the Small
Business Investment Act of 1958 through September 30, 2011. The
House passed S. 990, as amended, on May 24, 2011, via voice
vote.
On the same day, Senator Reid offered a perfecting
amendment to S. 990 in the Senate. The perfecting amendment
stripped all of the text of S. 990 and inserted certain
extensions relating to the Patriot Act. The Senate passed S.990
by a recorded vote of 72-23, on May 26, 2011. The House also
passed S. 990 on May 26, 2011, by a recorded vote of 250-153.
On May 26, 2011, the President signed the legislation and it
became Public Law 112-14.
AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR AN ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS
UNDER THE SMALL BUSINESS ACT AND THE SMALL BUSINESS INVESTMENT ACT OF
1958 THROUGH MAY 31, 2012, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
(S. 1082)
Summary
S. 1082 extends the Small Business Innovation Research
(SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Programs
through September 30, 2011. Additionally, it extends all other
programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business
Investment Act of 1958 that necessitated an extension until
July 31, 2011.
Legislative history
Senator Landrieu introduced and the Senate passed S. 1082
via unanimous consent on May 26, 2011. The House passed the
legislation, under suspension of the rules, by a recorded vote
of 387-33, on May 31, 2011. On June 1, 2011, the President
signed the legislation, and it became Public Law 112-17.
THE CREATING JOBS THROUGH SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION ACT
OF 2011
(H.R. 1425)
Summary
H.R. 1425, the ``Creating Jobs Through Small Business
Innovation Act of 2011'', modernizes and reauthorizes the Small
Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and the Small Business
Technology Transfer (STTR) programs through September 30, 2014.
The legislative goal of the bill is to strengthen these
programs, ensure efficient use of taxpayer dollars, utilize the
best science offered by small firms, use existing federal funds
to help small firms commercialize technology, and create jobs.
The bill, among other things, would encourage greater
commercialization success, a primary objective of the programs,
by instituting commercialization initiatives at federal
agencies that administer SBIR programs. The legislation also
increases Phase I and Phase II award sizes for both programs,
shortens the time frame between application and notice of
award, and reduces the time between award and dispersal of
funds. H.R. 1425 also allows for greater participation of small
companies regardless of their financial structure. It codifies
in statute the programmatic flexibility that federal agencies
need in order to administer SBIR awards in a manner that is
most consistent with the agency's specific mission. The bill
reduces the programs' risk of waste, fraud, and abuse by
requiring the Small Business Administration to develop
preventive measures and requiring the Inspector General of each
participating agency to establish fraud detection measures and
share best practices. The bill permits agencies to use three
percent of their SBIR and STTR budget for administrative,
oversight, and contract processing costs. Finally, the bill
continues the current 2.5 percent set aside of existing federal
extramural research dollars for the SBIR and STTR programs.
Legislative history
Representative Renee Ellmers introduced H.R. 1425 on April
7, 2011. Original cosponsors include Representative Sam Graves,
Chairman of the Committee on Small Business; Representative
Ralph Hall, Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space
and Technology; Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology;
Representative Ben Quayle, Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Technology and Innovation of the Committee on Science, Space
and Technology; Representative David Wu, Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation of the Committee on
Space, Science and Technology; Representative Cedric Richmond,
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Healthcare and Technology
of the Committee on Small Business; and Representative Jason
Altmire.
The Subcommittee on Healthcare and Technology held a
hearing on H.R. 1425 on April 7, 2011, and heard various small
businesses' views on the legislation.
The Committee on Small Business met in open session on May
11, 2011, and ordered H.R. 1425, as amended, reported favorably
to the House by a voice vote.
THE REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2011
(H.R. 527)
Summary
H.R. 527 amends the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of
1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act, a law that requires federal agencies to consider
the economic impact of the rules they propose on small
entities. This legislation would strengthen the RFA by:
expanding its requirements to agencies not currently covered;
requiring more detailed analyses of regulatory impact;
providing new authorities to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy;
enhancing the participation of small businesses in the
rulemaking process; strengthening the requirement for periodic
review of regulations; and improving the ability of small
businesses to challenge compliance with the RFA.
Legislative history
Representative Lamar Smith, Chairman of the Committee on
the Judiciary, introduced H.R. 527, on February 8, 2011.
Original cosponsors included Representative Sam Graves,
Chairman of the Committee on Small Business, and Representative
Howard Coble, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts,
Commercial and Administrative Law of the Committee on the
Judiciary. The bill was referred to the Committee on Judiciary
and the Committee on Small Business, for a period to be
determined by the Speaker.
On March 30, 2011, the Committee on Small Business held a
hearing entitled ``Reducing Federal Agency Overreach:
Modernizing the Regulatory Flexibility Act'' to provide an
overview of the RFA to Committee members. Subsequently, the
Committee held a hearing on H.R. 527 and H.R. 585, to discuss
the merits of those bills on June 15, 2011.
THE SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARD FLEXIBILITY ACT OF 2011
(H.R. 585)
Summary
H.R. 585 amends the Small Business Act to authorize the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
to determine size standards for purposes of statutes other than
the Small Business Act and Small Business Investment Act of
1958. This ensures that decisions made by the Chief Counsel
under the RFA are consistent with an agency's determination of
any exemptions or other special treatment of small business.
Legislative history
Representative Sam Graves, Chairman of the Committee on
Small Business, introduced H.R. 585, on February 9, 2011.
Representative Lamar Smith, Chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary, is an original cosponsor. The bill was referred to
the Committee on Small Business.
On June 15, 2011, the Committee held a hearing on H.R. 585.
OVERSIGHT SUMMARY
Clause 1(d) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires that not later than the 30th day after
June 1, a committee shall submit to the House a semiannual
report on the activities of that committee, including a
separate section summarizing the oversight activities of that
committee. The report shall also include a delineation of any
hearings held pursuant to clauses 2(n), (o), or (p) of rule XI,
related to waste, fraud, and abuse in government programs.
Part A of this section describes the hearings held in full
committee. Part B of this section describes the hearings held
in the subcommittees. Part C of this section describes the
hearings that relate to the requirements of clauses 2(n), (o),
or (p) of rule XI.
PART A
Full Committee Hearings
TAX PROVISIONS UNDER HEALTH CARE REFORM
On February 9, 2011, the Committee on Small Business met in
Room 2360 of the Rayburn House Office Building for the purpose
of receiving testimony on ``Buried in Paperwork--A 1099
Update.'' The hearing focused on the health care law's expanded
1099 reporting mandate, which will require businesses to file a
1099 form for virtually every business-to-business transaction
of $600 or more in property and services.
The witness for the first panel was The Hon. Daniel E.
Lungren (R-CA). The witnesses for the second panel were: R.
Jerol Kivett, President, Kivett's Inc., Clinton, NC, testifying
on behalf of the National Federation of Independent Business;
John ``Mark'' Eagleton, Managing Member, Eagleton Ventures,
LLC, Golden, CO, testifying on behalf of the National
Restaurant Association; Seth Shipley, Owner, Shipley's Fine
Jewelry, Hampstead, MD, testifying on behalf of the National
Retail Federation; and Mike Kegley, President, B.O.L.D. Homes,
Inc., Union KY, testifying on behalf of the National
Association of Home Builders.
At the hearing, House Administration Committee Chairman Dan
Lungren testified about H.R. 4, his bipartisan legislation to
repeal Section 9006 of the health care law. Chairman Lungren
said the expanded reporting requirement ``conveys the worst
possible message to the small business community [and] reflects
a disconnect with the day to day reality faced by men and women
involved with companies in each and every one of our
districts.'' All of the small business owners testified that
the 1099 mandate will impose a substantial and costly paperwork
burden.
At the hearing's close, Chairman Graves said he would send
a letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House
Committee on Ways and Means urging the Committee to consider
the burdens on small businesses as they move H.R. 4 and other
legislation to relieve job destroying tax and regulatory
burdens through the Committee.
THE STATE OF THE U.S. ECONOMY FOR SMALL BUSINESS
On February 16, 2011, the Committee on Small Business met
in Room 2360 of the Rayburn House Office Building for the
purpose of receiving testimony on the state of the small
business economy. The hearing, entitled ``Putting Americans
Back to Work: The State of the Small Business Economy,''
focused on examining obstacles to small business job creation
and economic growth and identifying specific tax, regulatory
and health care policies that inhibit job creation and economic
growth.
The witnesses for the hearing were: William Phelan,
President and Co-Founder, PayNet, Inc., Skokie, IL; Terry
Frank, Owner, Nature's Marketplace, Oak Ridge, TN; Dixie
Kolditz, Owner, Open-Box Creations, Cathlament, WA; and Bill
Feinberg, President of Allied Kitchen and Bath, Ft. Lauderdale,
FL, testifying on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Phelan began the testimony stating that while there has
been a thaw in the extension of credit to small businesses,
there are several negative factors that are continuing to
inhibit access to credit. Ms. Frank stated that the federal tax
burden has become too difficult to navigate by herself and
suggested the best way to raise tax revenue is to make the
process easier to comply with and lower the burden so that
small business owners could reinvest that money back onto their
businesses. Ms. Kolditz focused her testimony on importing and
exporting regulations citing specific examples of new
regulations that are costing her significant amounts of money
and preventing her from expanding her business. Finally, while
Mr. Feinberg stated that offering health care was imperative to
recruiting and retaining the best employees, he expressed
concern that the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
could impose significant regulatory and penalty burdens on his
business. These additional burdens make him doubt he will be
able to expand his business to as large as he feels it could
be.
THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION FY 2012 BUDGET
On March 2, 2011, the Committee on Small Business met in
Room 2360 of the Rayburn House Office Building for the purpose
of receiving testimony from the Hon. Karen Mills,
Administrator, United States Small Business Administration,
Washington, DC on the President's proposed budget for the Small
Business Administration (SBA) and the programs authorized by
the Small Business Act and Small Business Investment Act. The
hearing, logically enough, was entitled ``The Small Business
Administration FY 2012 Budget.''
The Administrator commenced her testimony by noting that
the agency focuses its mission on providing small businesses
with capital, contracts, and counseling. The Administrator
noted the number of small businesses assisted by the agency.
However, she recognized the current fiscal situation will
require a reduction in the budget. The Administrator
recommended a number of minor programs for elimination.
The Committee used her testimony in preparing its views and
estimates on the President's Budget for the SBA. Those views
and estimates were adopted by the Committee on March 15, 2011.
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT GRANTS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES--THE SBIR
PROGRAM
On March 16, 2011, the Committee on Small Business met in
Room 2360 of the Rayburn House Office Building for the purpose
of receiving testimony on the Small Business Innovation
Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR)
Programs. The hearing, entitled ``Spurring Innovation and Job
Creation: The SBIR Program,'' focused on the benefits of the
SBIR and STTR programs.
The witnesses for the hearing were: Tom Tullie, Chief
Executive Officer, President and Chairman of EcoATM San Diego,
CA; Dr. David Audretsch, Indiana University Bloomington, IN;
Dr. Mike Squillante, Vice President of Radiation Monitoring
Devices, Inc. Watertown, MA, testifying on behalf of the Small
Business Technology Council; and Amy Comstock Rick, Chief
Executive Officer, Parkinson's Action Network, Washington DC.
Mr. Tullie began the testimony stating that in EcoATM's
critical second year, they received an SBIR Phase I award that
directly funded the development of the beginning technology
they would later deploy in their handheld electronic automated
recycling devices. Dr. Audretsch commented on his role in the
National Research Council's An Assessment of the Small Business
Innovation Research Program study that is widely recognized as
one of the most comprehensive examinations of the SBIR program
since its inception. Dr. Squillante provided an extensive
overview of the SBIR program and offered suggestions as to how
to improve it. Finally, Ms. Comstock Rick noted the large role
the SBIR program plays in research for diseases such as
Parkinson's Disease--especially because of the relatively few
sufferers leads to less private funding due to a smaller
potential market.
FEDERAL REGULATORY OVERREACH AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE REGULATORY
FLEXIBILITY ACT
On March 30, 2011, the Committee on Small Business met in
Room 2360 of the Rayburn House Office Building for the purpose
of receiving testimony on the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).
The hearing, titled ``Reducing Federal Agency Overreach:
Modernizing the Regulatory Flexibility'' focused on introducing
the concepts of the RFA to members of the Committee, showing
them how the Act helps reduce regulatory burdens on small
business, and explaining its weaknesses.
The witnesses for the hearing were: Bill Squires, Esq.,
Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Blackfoot
Telecommunications Group, Missoula, MT, testifying on behalf of
the National Telephone Cooperative Association; David Frulla,
Esq., Partner, KelleyDrye, Washington, DC; Craig Fabian, Vice
President of Regulatory Affairs and Assistant General Counsel,
Aeronautical Repair Station Association, Alexandria, VA; and
Rich Draper, Chief Executive Officer, The Ice Cream Club, Inc.,
Boynton Beach, FL, testifying on behalf of the International
Dairy Foods Association.
Mr. Squires testified that the Federal Communications
Commission frequently fails to comply with the RFA by treating
small firms, such as Blackfoot, no differently than the largest
telecommunications providers in the United States. Mr. Frulla
noted that the RFA and the Office of Advocacy have proven
valuable in reducing regulatory burdens on small businesses but
needs to be overhauled. Mr. Fabian discussed litigation by the
Aeronautical Repair Station Association challenging agency
compliance with the RFA and the length of time it took the
agency to comply with the court order mandating such
compliance. Mr. Draper testified that small businesses, like
his own, had significant difficulty dealing with regulatory
creep and the cumulative effect of disparate agency
regulations.
Mr. Graves noted that the hearing would be part of the
Committee's record as it considers modifications that
strengthen the RFA.
FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS AND SMALL BUSINESS EXPORTS
On April 6, 2011, the Committee on Small Business met in
Room 2360 of the Rayburn House Office Building for the purpose
of receiving testimony on ``Help Wanted: How Passing Free Trade
Agreements Will Help Small Businesses Create New Jobs.'' The
hearing focused on the benefits and importance of passing the
pending free trade agreements to small businesses. Lowering
trade barriers will spur small business exports, which will
then lead to job creation and long-term economic growth.
The witnesses included: Bill Patterson, Founder and Chief
Engineer, TEI Rock Drills, Montrose, CO; Phillip Wise, Owner
and Operator, Wise Family Farm, Harris, MO, testifying on
behalf of the National Pork Producers Council; Trevor Myers,
CEO, Cloyes Gear & Products, Inc., Fort Smith, AR, testifying
on behalf of the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association;
and Jason Speer, Vice President, Quality Float Works, Inc.,
Schaumburg, IL, testifying on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce.
At the hearing, four small businesses testified on the
importance of passing the pending free trade agreements with
Panama, Colombia, and Korea and their ability to compete
globally, export more products and create more U.S. jobs. Jason
Speer from Quality Float Works stated, ``With the passage of
the three pending trade agreements, our company and more than
250,000 small and medium-sized companies like ours will have
the opportunity to gain market share and provide more jobs.''
All small business owners testified that failing to pass the
three pending free trade agreements would put their small
business at a competitive disadvantage with nations who have
trade agreements in place.
At the hearing's close, Chairman Graves said he would
continue to spotlight the importance of passing the free trade
agreements to small businesses, and he encouraged the
Administration and Congress to pass all three agreements by
July 1, 2011.
REFORMING AND SIMPLIFYING THE U.S. TAX CODE
On April 13, 2011, the Committee on Small Business met in
Room 2360 of the Rayburn House Office Building for the purpose
of receiving testimony on ``How Tax Complexity Hinders Small
Business Job Creation and Economic Growth.'' The hearing
focused on the complexity of the current tax code, the
difficulty entrepreneurs have complying with it, and the
resulting effect on hiring and expansion.
The witnesses were Nina E. Olson, the National Taxpayer
Advocate, Washington, DC; Steven J. Strobel, Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer, BlueStar Energy
Solutions, Chicago, IL, testifying on behalf of the National
Small Business Association; Robert Kulp, Founder, Kulp's of
Stratford, Stratford, WI, testifying on behalf of the National
Roofing Contractors Association; and Monty W. Walker, CPA,
Principal, Walker Business Advisory Services, Wichita Falls,
TX.
The witnesses agreed that tax complexity has a direct
impact on small business viability and job growth. In her
testimony, Nina Olson testified that ``it is essential that the
tax system does not present an unnecessary hurdle to the
success of these already fragile operations. In addition,
because a substantial portion of businesses are pass-through
entities, a real reduction in complexity will not occur unless
individual and corporate tax reform occurs at the same time.''
Mr. Walker testified that understanding tax matters is
confusing and tax compliance comes at a cost. This results in
lost resources that could have been used for business
operations and business development. Mr. Walker also said that
because of tax complexity, some business owners decide to stay
small and not expand. Mr. Strobel encouraged Congress to
simplify the tax code, broaden the base and lower all
individual and corporate tax rates. He said these reforms will
create a surge in economic growth.
At the hearing's close, Chairman Graves said he plans to
send a letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House
Committee on Ways and Means urging them to enact common sense
tax reform that will enable our nation's small businesses to
create jobs and spur growth in our economy.
POLITICAL DISCLOSURE IN FEDERAL CONTRACTING
On May 12, 2011, the Committee on Small Business and
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform met in Room 2154
of the Rayburn House Office Building to receive testimony on
the April 13, 2011 draft Executive Order (EO) entitled,
``Disclosure of Political Spending by Government Contractors.''
The EO directs agencies to require contractors to disclose
political expenditures and contributions, including those to
third parties, made within two years of all proposal
submissions in an official contracting certification, and to
certify their acknowledgement that full disclosure of this
information is a precondition to contract award.
The first panel witness was the Hon. Daniel Gordon,
Administrator, Office of Federal Procurement Policy. The second
panel consisted of Alan Chvotkin, Executive Vice President and
Counsel, Professional Services Council, Arlington, VA; D. Mark
Renaud, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP, Washington, DC; ML Mackey,
CEO, Beacon Interactive Systems of Cambridge, MA, testifying on
behalf of the National Defense Industrial Association; the Hon.
Marion Blakey, CEO, Aerospace Industries Association,
Arlington, VA; and the Hon. Bradley A. Smith, Josiah H.
Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law,
Capital University Law School, Columbus, Ohio, testifying on
behalf of the Center for Competitive Politics; and Lawrie
Hollingsworth, President, Asset Recovery Technologies, Inc.,
Annapolis, MD, testifying on behalf of the U.S. Women's Chamber
of Commerce.
Administrator Gordon declined to answer questions about the
proposed EO, but testified that the Administration remains
fully committed to a merit-based contracting process rooted in
the highest levels of integrity and transparency, and
simultaneously asserted that, ``[t]here is no place for
politics in federal acquisition.''
Mr. Chvotkin opposed the EO, stating that political
contributions do not currently impact federal contract awards,
that contributions would not help contracting officers make
awards, and that much of the information required by the EO is
currently publicly available. As an expert on pay to play laws,
Mr. Renaud explained that the ``President's proposal actually
create several new problems where none existed before'' by
injecting disclosure into the procurement process and creating
an expensive recordkeeping requirement for small firms. Ms.
Mackey stated that, as a small business owner, she had no
problem with disclosure per se, but that it should be separate
from contract consideration and should not be injected into the
workplace. Ms. Blakey agreed that ``Political contributions
should never be considered by any procurement officer when
making a decision to either award or deny a contract to any
entity.'' Mr. Smith, as a former Commissioner of the Federal
Elections Commission, summarized that the proposed EO,
``imposes junk disclosure requirements that serve no good
purpose; [c]hills protected political activity; [and] seems
motivated by simple partisan politics.'' Ms. Hollingsworth,
while concerned by the administrative burdens the EO would
place on small businesses, disagreed with the rest of the panel
and testified that disclosure would level the playing field for
small business.
GOVERNMENT WASTE AND DUPLICATION IN SBA PROGRAMS
On May 25, 2011, the Committee on Small Business met in
Room 2360 of the Rayburn House Office Building for the purpose
of providing oversight on duplication in the U.S. Small
Business Administration's (SBA's) entrepreneurial development
programs. The hearing, entitled ``Promoting Entrepreneurship
and Job Creation by Decreasing Duplication at SBA,'' focused on
four programs at SBA dealing with entrepreneurial development.
Those programs are the Small Business Development Companies
(SBDC), the Service Corps for Retired Employees (SCORE),
Women's Business Centers (WBCs) and Veterans' Business Outreach
Centers (VBOCs).
The witnesses were William Shear, Director, Financial
Markets and Community Investment, U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO), Washington DC; Arnold Baker,
President and Founder, Baker Ready Mix and Building Materials,
New Orleans, LA, testifying on behalf of the National Black
Chamber of Commerce; Jody Keenan, Director, Virginia Small
Business Development Center Network, Fairfax, VA, testifying on
behalf of the Association of Small Business Development
Centers; and Denise Pickett, Executive Vice President, American
Express OPEN, New York, NY.
Mr. Shear discussed the GAO's efforts to uncover waste and
duplication in the federal government, including a recent GAO
report pointing to 80 economic development programs that exist
in four federal agencies costing taxpayers $6.2 billion in
fiscal year 2010. Mr. Shear testified that the four agencies
identified in their report appear to have taken some actions to
implement collaborative practices, but they have offered little
evidence that they have developed compatible policies or
procedures. Mr. Shear testified that when you have separate
infrastructures to deliver similar services it could lead to
inefficiencies and confusion for small businesses. Mr. Baker
testified that SBA has sustained too many cuts to its programs
over the last several years and that the agency cannot afford
further cuts. He argued that a better funded and better staffed
field infrastructure at SBA is critical for continued
improvement of this nation's economy. Ms. Keenan testified that
the SBDC network is on the front line of providing services to
entrepreneurs. She indicated that SBDCs serve all types of
businesses and would very easily be able to deliver services to
the small business community currently being served by other
entrepreneurial development programs funded by SBA. Ms. Pickett
testified about the programs that American Express offers to
small business owners and stated that the public sector needs
to work together with both the private sector and non-profits
to meet to meet the needs of business owners.
ACCESS TO CAPITAL FOR SMALL BUSINESS
On June 1, 2011, the Committee on Small Business met in
Room 2360 of the Rayburn House Office Building for the purpose
of receiving testimony on small business access to capital. The
hearing entitled ``Access to Capital: Can Small Businesses
Access The Credit Necessary To Grow and Create Jobs?'' provided
a forum for lenders and business owners to discuss the current
economic environment and how they are working together to
support private sector job growth.
The witnesses included William Hall, a Dairy Queen
Franchisee, Ft. Worth, Texas, testifying on behalf of the
National Franchise Association; Lynn Ozer, Executive Vice
President, Susquehanna Bank, Pottstown, PA, testifying on
behalf of the National Association of Government Guaranteed
Lenders (NAGGL); Robert Kottler, Executive Vice President,
Director of Retail and Small Business Banking, Iberia Bank,
Lafayette, LA, testifying on behalf of the Consumer Bankers of
American; and Dennis Jacobe, Chief Economist, Gallup,
Washington, DC.
Mr. Hall testified about his struggle to obtain capital in
recent years and the needs of small businesses to obtain
capital to maintain operations as well as grow. He cited a $2
billion shortfall in available loans, which if filled could
create more than 332,000 new jobs in the franchise industry.
Ms. Ozer testified that the economic circumstances of the last
several years, combined with increased federal banking
regulations, have created the ``perfect storm of circumstances
that together serve to stifle banks' abilities to make credit
available to small businesses.'' Loan underwriting standards
are significantly tighter today than they were just a few years
ago. Many banks are taking advantage of the SBA 7(a) program
since it takes less capital to support an SBA loan then it does
a conventional loan. Mr. Kottler testified that over the last
few years, his bank has seen weaker demand for small business
loans, but they are starting to see an increase. Factors
affecting credit demand are lower sales and collateral value,
mainly in the housing sector. To increase demand, lenders are
working closer with borrowers, and many banks have instituted
``second look'' programs for those borrowers who are initially
denied credit. Mr. Jacobe testified that the downfall in the
housing industry and the recent financial crisis have caused
huge disruptions in the financial services sector that have
resulted in the continued economic ``soft patch.'' Citing
research performed by the Gallup Organization, Mr. Jacobe
reported that business owner optimism is down from early 2011,
getting credit is slightly less difficult and small business
owners are hiring fewer employees than they need.
PART B
Subcommittee Hearings
SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS CREATING INNOVATION AND JOBS
On April 7, 2011, the Subcommittee on Healthcare and
Technology of the Committee on Small Business met in Room 2360
of the Rayburn House Office Building for the purpose of
receiving testimony on draft legislation reauthorizing the
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business
Technology Transfer (STTR) Programs. The hearing, entitled
``The Creating Jobs Through Small Business Innovation Act of
2011'' focused on improving the SBIR and STTR programs via the
legislation.
The witnesses for the hearing were: Glenn Norem, Executive
Chairman Totus Lighting Solutions, Inc., Lakeway, TX; Terry
Brewer, Ph.D., President, Brewer Science, Inc., Rolla, MO;
Albert Link, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Economics,
University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC; and
Scott Koenig, Ph.D., Chairman of the Board, Applied Genetics
Technology Corporation (AGTC) and CEO of MacroGenics, Inc.,
Rockville, MD, testifying on behalf of the Biotechnology
Industry Organization.
Dr. Norem began the testimony by stating that the current
Small Business Administration (SBA) rules regarding the
participation of majority owned venture-backed small businesses
has handicapped his business's access to capital. He stated
that because of the rule, his company has had to make the
choice between participation in the SBIR program or accepting
venture capital investment. Dr. Brewer stressed the importance
of the SBIR program on emerging as well as established
companies and suggested that the SBIR program be a catalyst for
American manufacturing. Dr. Link detailed the findings of the
National Research Council's An Assessment of the Small Business
Innovation Research Program of which he was a part. Dr. Koenig
focused his testimony on the SBA's venture capital rule,
contrasting two unique therapies two different companies have
developed; one that succeeded (the company MedImmune and the
treatment called Synagis) prior to the SBA's 2003 decision to
limit the participation of venture-backed companies in the SBIR
program and one that has been shelved (the company AGTC and the
treatment for Pompe's disease) because the company had too much
venture capital support under the current rules.
THE EFFECT OF HIGH GAS PRICES ON SMALL BUSINESS
On April 14, 2011, the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Energy
and Trade of the Committee on Small Business met in Room 2360
of the Rayburn House Office Building for the purpose of
receiving testimony on ``Drilling for a Solution: Finding Ways
to Curtail the Crushing Effect of High Gas Prices on Small
Business.'' The hearing focused on the negative impacts of
rising fuel costs on small business and policies that should be
implemented to decrease the United States' dependence on
foreign oil and ease the cost burden on small businesses.
The witnesses were Jim Ehrlich, Executive Director,
Colorado Potato Administrative Committee, Monte Vista, CO; Rick
Richter, owner of Richter Aviation, Maxwell, CA, testifying on
behalf of the Agricultural Aviation Association; Dick Pingel,
owner of Finally Trucking, Inc., Plover, WI, testifying on
behalf of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association,
Inc.; and Robert Weiner, Professor of International Business,
Public Policy, Public Administration and International Affairs,
George Washington University, Washington, DC.
The witnesses spoke about the impacts of increasing fuel
costs within their industries and other small businesses, and
agreed that the United States government should encourage
increases in domestic energy development to reduce dependency
on foreign sources and decrease fuel costs. Mr. Weiner stated,
``[t]o foster investment and future production [of oil] it is
important to establish and implement clear, stable policy in
the areas that affect petroleum the most--taxes and
regulation.'' Mr. Ehrlich noted that ``for every $0.10 increase
in gas prices there is a net loss of $5 billion dollars to the
United States economy,'' and pointed to the fact that the
``total energy cost of an irrigated potato crop in the San Luis
valley can be as great as fifty percent of total production.''
Mr. Pingel testified that despite the fact that most owner-
operators earn less than $40,000 a year in income, ``each time
the price of a gallon of diesel fuel increases by a nickel, a
trucker's annual costs increase by $1,000.'' He also advocated
fuel-efficiency driver training in lieu of costly government
regulations. Finally, Mr. Richter encouraged Congress to
prevent the EPA from promulgating new regulations on avgas. If
these standards are put into place, it would effectively ground
over 50 percent of agricultural aircraft, as there are no
acceptable substitutes for piston-powered engines.
SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARDS REGULATION
On May 5, 2011, the Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Tax
and Capital Access of the Committee on Small Business met in
Room 2360 of the Rayburn House Office Building to receive
testimony on the U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA)
proposed rule, ``Small Business Size Standards: Professional,
Scientific and Technical Services,'' 74 Fed. Reg. 14323 (March
16, 2011). The proposed rule addresses industries within North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Sector 54,
Professional, Scientific and Technical Services, and one
industry in NAICS Sector 81, Other Services. It would increase
the small business size standards for 35 industries and one
sub-industry, reduce the number of available size standards
from 41 receipt and employee based standards to 16 standards,
and bundle NAICS codes together to form common industry group
size standards.
The witnesses were Walter J. Hainsfurther, FAIA, President,
Kurtz Associates Architects of Des Plaines, IL, testifying on
behalf of the American Institute of Architects (AIA); John
Woods, Partner, Wood Peacock Engineering Consultants of
Alexandria, VA, testifying on behalf of the American Council of
Engineering Companies (ACEC); Roger Jordan, Vice President,
Professional Services Council (PSC) of Arlington, VA; and
Odysseus Lanier, Partner, McConnell Jones Lanier & Murphy LLP
of Houston, TX, testifying on behalf of the American Institute
of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA).
The witnesses agreed growth in the size standards is
necessary to reflect economic conditions, but each disagreed
with changes proposed by SBA. Mr. Hainsfurther testified that
raising the standard for architectural firms from $4.5 million
from $19 million, due to the use of common group size
standards, would result in over 97% of architectural firms
qualifying as small businesses, and stated that an employee
based standard would better represent his industry. Mr. Woods
testified that ACEC needed more time to respond to the SBA
proposal, since the proposed rule would result in ``more than
90% of the nation's engineering industry . . . [being]
classified as small business[es].'' Mr. Jordan protested the
use of common size standards when those standards
``eliminate[d] legitimate small businesses from being able to
qualify.'' Mr. Lanier testified that SBA was not using the best
industry data, and that the methodology did not address whether
a firm was dominant in its field.
At the hearing's close, Chairman Walsh said he plans to
submit the hearing record to SBA for inclusion in the
administrative record, and to request that SBA extend the
comment period on the rulemaking.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGULATIONS
On May 12, 2011, the Subcommittee on Oversight,
Investigations and Regulations of the Committee on Small
Business met in Room 2360 of the Rayburn House Office Building
for the purpose of receiving testimony on ``Green Isn't Always
Gold: Are EPA Regulations Stifling Small Business?'' The
hearing focused on the negative impacts of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations on small
businesses.
The witnesses were Glenn Johnston, Vice President of
Regulatory Affairs, Gevo, Inc., Englewood, CO; John Ward,
Chairman, Citizens for Recycling First, Broomfield, CO; and
Bradford Muller, Vice President of Marketing & Corporate
Communications, Charlotte Pipe and Foundry Company, Charlotte,
NC, testifying on behalf of the American Foundry Society.
The witnesses spoke about the impacts of various EPA
proposed and final rules and how they negatively impact their
industries, most specifically as they relate to the Clean Air
Act and the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act. Witnesses
also spoke about how EPA has neglected to take into account the
Regulatory Flexibility Act when promulgating regulations,
despite significant direct and indirect burdens experienced by
small businesses. In his remarks, Mr. Muller stated, ``on the
question of whether the EPA Regulations are harming small
businesses . . . [t]he answer is unequivocally yes.''
Mr. Ward, a former member of the National Coal Council and
American Coal Council, testified that between 1999 and 2009,
138 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions were decreased
through the use of coal fly ash in concrete products, and that
designating these byproducts as hazardous waste would only
serve to increase waste and pollutant emissions.
Mr. Johnston indicated that biofuels with broad market
applications as a solvent and a gasoline blendstock cannot
compete with ethanol due to EPA policies. ``Gevo and the
Advanced Biofuels industry in general believe that the EPA
should review its regulatory regime and to the extent possible
should assure that biofuels other than ethanol have equal and
unfettered access to the market,'' he said.
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS' TAX COMPLIANCE
On May 26, 2011, the Subcommittee on Contracting and
Workforce of the Committee on Small Business met in Room 2360
of the Rayburn House Office Building to receive testimony on
the effects of implementing Section 511 of the Tax Increase
Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-222.
As revised and implemented, the provision requires that
payments by federal, state and local governmental entities for
goods and services made after December 31, 2013 be subject to
3% income tax withholding in order to address the tax gap.
The first panel witness was the Hon. Wally Herger (R-CA).
The second panel consisted of Brian George, Deputy Director,
Office of Cost, Pricing & Finance, U.S. Department of Defense
(DoD), accompanied by Dave McDermott, Director, Standards and
Compliance, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, DoD, and
the Hon. Curtis M. Loftis Jr., Treasurer of the State of South
Carolina. The third panel witnesses were Mike Murphy,
President, Turner Murphy Construction of Rock Hill, SC,
testifying on behalf of the Associated General Contractors; Ian
Frost, Principal, EEE Consulting, Inc. of Mechanicsville, VA,
testifying on behalf of the American Council of Engineering
Companies; and James M. Gaffney, Vice President, Goshen
Mechanical Inc. of Malvern, PA, testifying on behalf of the
Quality Construction Alliance; and Kara M. Sacilotto, Partner,
Wiley Rein LLP, Washington, DC. Over thirty additional groups
submitted testimony for the record.
Congressman Herger expressed his support for repeal of
Section 511, and encouraged passage of H.R. 674, which would
eliminate the 3% withholding provision.
Messrs. George and McDermott provided information regarding
the 2008 DoD study which found that implementation of Section
511 would cost DoD $17 billion and deny the Department full
small business participation, competition, and innovation. Mr.
Loftis denounced the provision as an unfunded mandate that
would create unnecessary budget stress on state and local
governments while simultaneously harming small businesses.
Each of the small business witnesses testified that the 3%
withholding provisions exceed their profit margins and thereby
prevent them from expanding or creating jobs. Ms. Sacilotto, as
a government contracts attorney, explained that the unintended
consequences costs of the Section 511 on the procurement system
outweighed any recaptured revenue.
Chairman Mulvaney concluded the hearing by promising to
work with the Committee on Ways and Means to repeal Section
511. A copy of the hearing transcript will be sent to the
Committee on Ways and Means once it is available.
HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION AND REGULATION
On June 2, 2011, the Subcommittee on Healthcare and
Technology of the Committee on Small Business met in Room 2360
of the Rayburn House Office Building for the purpose of a
hearing entitled, ``Not What the Doctor Ordered: Health IT
Barriers for Small Medical Practices.'' The hearing focused on
the implementation of health IT by small physician practices,
barriers that small practices have encountered and possible
solutions to those barriers.
The witnesses were: Farzad Mostashari, M.D., M.Sc.,
National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC),
Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC; Karen
Trudel, Acting Director, Office of E-Health Standards and
Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS),
Baltimore, MD; Sasha Kramer, M.D., Olympia, WA, testifying on
behalf of the American Dermatological Society; Denise Elliott,
D.P.M., Marrero, LA, testifying on behalf of the American
Podiatric Medical Association; Andrew Slavitt, Chief Executive
Officer, OptimumInsight, Eden Prairie, MN; and David L. Baumer,
Ph.D., Professor of Law and Technology, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC.
Dr. Mostashari testified that the Regional Extension
Centers offer training and technical assistance to small
practices that are working toward meaningful use of Electronic
Health Records (EHR). Ms. Trudel said CMS and the states have
made incentive payments to 1139 eligible professionals who have
successfully adopted EHRs.
The second panel's witnesses agreed that health information
technology can help to boost a medical practice's quality of
care, but that barriers can prevent smaller practices from
adopting it. Dr. Elliott noted that more than 65% of
podiatrists practice in one or two person groups, and requiring
them to implement electronic health records for Medicare is an
undue financial burden. Dr. Kramer purchased a system by a
company that was acquired by another company whose software is
not compatible. Now she is facing the purchase of a new system.
Mr. Slavitt said the purchase and design of technology have
taken a back burner to all of the compliance reporting
requirements'' needed to qualify for federal incentive
payments. Dr. Baumer testified that the efficiency gains are
offset by the possible increased risks to the privacy of
medical records and recommended legal safe harbors for small
firms to protect them from lawsuits.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGULATION OF TRUCKING
On June 14, 2011, the House Committee on Small Business'
Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations and Regulations met
in Room 2360 of the Rayburn House Office Building for the
purpose of receiving testimony on ``Do Not Enter: How Proposed
Hours of Service Trucking Rules Are a Dead End for Small
Businesses.'' The hearing focused on the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration's proposed rule on Hours of Service for
property-carrying truckers.
The witnesses were Paul James, President, Rex Oil Company,
Denver, CO; James Burg, Owner, James Burg Trucking, Warren, MI;
J.D. Morrissette, President, Interstate Van Line Operations,
Inc., Springfield, VA; and Rusty Rader, Co-Owner, J.J. Kennedy,
Inc., Fombell, PA.
The witnesses discussed how this proposed regulation would
harm their industries by reducing allowed duty times for
property-carrying trucks, hindering the ability for owner-
operators and other small businesses to transport goods
nationwide. In his remarks, Mr. Burg stated, ``[t]hese changes,
if finalized, would have a profoundly negative impact on small
businesses, would restrict productivity, and would result in
greater congestion and increased emissions. These impacts are
significant since there are some 500,000 trucking companies in
the United States and 99 percent of these companies are small
businesses.'' Mr. Morrissette spoke to the complexities of the
proposed rule: ``[t]he proposed hours of service changes are
complicated, difficult to understand and difficult for the
customer to appreciate . . . the current rules should
continue to apply.'' Mr. Rader testified to the challenges that
would be created as a result of changed restart provisions:
``[b]y mandating a driver's off duty time to include at least
two consecutive periods of midnight to 6 a.m., reduces the
number of hours available to meet construction and delivery
schedules to an unacceptable level. Not every work day takes
place during daylight hours, making this proposed change overly
restrictive.'' Mr. James said, ``[w]ith fewer hours to drive
each day, many companies would be forced to hire additional
drivers or delay deliveries to the following day . . . [t]he
daily reduction in driving hours would thus decrease overall
safety by putting less experienced drivers on the road.''
PART C
Waste, Fraud, Abuse and Mismanagement
Of the hearings delineated above, the following were
devoted specifically to an examination of programs within the
Committee's jurisdiction with a focus on potential
mismanagement, waste, fraud and/or abuse.
HEARING ON THE FY 2012 BUDGET FOR THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
During the March 2, 2011 full Committee hearing on the
President's FY 2012 budget request for the Small Business
Administration (SBA), at which Administrator Karen Mills
testified, the programs under her authority were discussed in
detail. The members of the Committee expressed their concerns
about several pilot programs that are not authorized, as well
as the management of the agency related to the distribution of
personnel and its reflection of agency priorities. Further, the
Committee pointed to issues cited by the agency's Inspector
General, namely the SBA's expedited loan processing initiatives
and reliance on outside financial institutions, as well as
contracts awarded to firms that do not meet program eligibility
criteria. These concerns are laid out in greater detail in the
Committee's FY 2012 budget views and estimates letter that was
adopted by the Committee on March 15, 2011.
HEARING ON ENTREPRENUERIAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
The Committee hearing on May 25, 2011 examined duplication
in the SBA's entrepreneurial development programs. The hearing
focused on a report by the Government Accountability Office
citing 80 economic development programs throughout the
Department of Commerce, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, the Department of Agriculture and SBA. The
Committee specifically focused on four programs at the SBA
dealing with entrepreneurial development. Those programs are
the Small Business Development Companies (SBDC), the Service
Corps for Retired Employees (SCORE), Women's Business Centers
(WBCs) and Veterans' Business Outreach Centers (VBOCs). In a
March 15, 2011 letter to the Senate Committee on Small Business
and Entrepreneurship, the SBA's Inspector General pointed to
overlap in these SBA programs, reporting that 104 of the 109
WBCs listed on SBA's website are located within 25 miles of
either an SBDC or SCORE chapter. Additionally, of the 16
Veterans Business Opportunity Centers, seven are located at the
same college or university as an SBDC. Of the remaining
veterans' centers, six have an SBDC within 10 miles, two are
less than 20 miles from an SBDC and the remaining center is 33
miles away. The Inspector General also noted that the
Department of Commerce Minority Business Development agency has
41 outreach centers providing similar services as SBDCs. All of
these 41 centers have a SBDC or SCORE chapter within 25 miles.
The Committee is examining these programs for consolidation or
elimination, in line with the recommendations made in its FY
2012 budget views and estimates letter.
HEARINGS ON THE SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH PROGRAM
The Committee held two hearings on the Small Business
Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology
Transfer (STTR) Programs. The full Committee held a general
hearing to provide an overview of the programs on March 16,
2011. The Subcommittee on Healthcare and Technology held a
hearing on April 7, 2011 to examine a draft legislative
proposal to reauthorize and modernize the programs. Included in
the draft proposal were provisions designed to eliminate waste
and fraud in the programs. For example, the legislation
establishes an interagency committee to recommend greater
efficiencies in the programs; requires the Comptroller General
of the United States to conduct an audit of the SBIR and STTR
programs; seeks to amend the SBIR and STTR Policy Directives to
include measures to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse, including
GAO studies on various measures of effectiveness; and requires
the Offices of Inspector General for participating agencies to
submit annual reports on fraud elimination in the programs.
Ultimately, these provisions were included in legislation (H.R.
1425) that the Committee marked up and reported favorably on
May 11, 2011.
OVERSIGHT PLAN FOR THE 112TH CONGRESS
Clause 2(d) of rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives for the 112th Congress requires that each
standing committee, in the first session of a Congress, adopt
an oversight plan for the two-year period of the Congress and
submit the plan to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform and the Committee on House Administration.
Clause 1(d) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires each committee to submit to the House,
not later than the 30th day after June 1, a semiannual report
on the activities of that committee. Moreover, that report
shall include a summary of the oversight plan submitted under
clause 2(d) of rule X and summary of the actions taken with
respect to such plan; and a summary of any additional oversight
activities undertaken by the committee.
Part A of this section contains the Oversight Plan of the
Committee on Small Business for the One Hundred Twelfth
Congress, which the Committee considered and adopted on January
26, 2011.
Part B of this section contains a summary of the actions
taken to implement that plan.
PART A
Oversight Plan of the Committee on Small Business
for the One Hundred Twelfth Congress
----------
January 26, 2011. Approved by the Committee on Small Business
----------
Mr. Graves, from the Committee on Small Business, submitted
to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the
Committee on House Administration the following:
REPORT
Rule X, cl. 2(d)(1) of the Rules of the House requires each
standing Committee to adopt an oversight plan for the two-year
period of the Congress and to submit the plan to the Committees
on Government Reform and House Administration not later than
February 15 of the first session of the Congress. Under rule X,
the Committee has oversight authority to investigate and
examine any matter affecting small business. This Report
reflects that broad oversight jurisdiction.
Pursuant to rule X, cl. 2(d)(1)(F), this oversight plan
also includes from proposals to cut or eliminate programs that
are inefficient, duplicative, outdated, or more appropriately
administered by State or local governments.
Oversight of Federal capital access programs
The Committee will conduct the hearings and investigations
into Small Business Administration (SBA) and other federal
agencies that provide capital to America's entrepreneurs that
may include any or all of the following as well as matters
brought to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the
filing of this Report:
Effectiveness of the capital access programs to
generate jobs in the fastest growing small businesses.
Whether lenders are meeting their goals to lend to
small businesses and create jobs.
Risk to the taxpayers of the capital access
programs and if those risks are not reasonable, then
elimination of those programs.
Adequacy of SBA oversight of its lending partners
to ensure that federal taxpayers are properly protected.
Capabilities of the SBA information technology to
manage the loan portfolio.
Appropriateness of ad hoc guidance documents in
regulating lenders and borrowers.
The exercise of discretion by SBA to create pilot
programs and the risk they pose to the taxpayer and whether
such authority should be curtailed or eliminated.
Whether SBA disaster loan program and its
oversight ensures that small businesses are able to revive to
rebuild communities without unduly placing the federal taxpayer
at risk.
Efficacy and duplication of federal capital access
programs offered by the Department of Agriculture to small
businesses in rural areas.
Utilization by small businesses of export capital
programs at the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation.
Effectiveness of the Small Business Lending Fund
and State Small Business Credit Initiative created by Pub. L.
No. 111-240, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010.
Impact of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203 on small business
access to capital.
In performing oversight, the Committee will focus on
particularly risky aspects of financial assistance programs
including, but not limited to, commercial real estate
refinancing, premier certified lenders, participating security
small business investment companies, small business lending
companies, express lenders, loan programs utilizing simplified
lending applications, and disaster loans offered by private
lenders through interest rate subsidies.
Oversight of SBA and other Federal entrepreneurial development programs
The Committee will conduct the hearings and investigations
into the SBA programs that provide training and advice to small
businesses that may include any or all of the following as well
as matters brought to the attention of the Committee subsequent
to the filing of this Report:
Examining effectiveness of SBA entrepreneurial
development programs in creating jobs.
Determining whether certain programs should be
eliminated as a result of their ineffectiveness or duplication
of programs provided by other agencies.
Suggesting methods for enhancing coordination
among federal agencies in providing assistance to
entrepreneurs.
Enhancing the efficacy and utilization of the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership at the Department of
Commerce.
Recommending improvements in assistance to small
businesses that participate in the production of value-added
agricultural products.
Increasing effectiveness of technical assistance
provided to small businesses involved in the production of
renewable and non-renewable energy sources.
Oversight of Federal Government contracting matters
The Committee will conduct hearings and investigations into
the federal procurement system that may include any or all of
the following as well as matters brought to the attention of
the Committee subsequent to the filing of this Report:
Whether fraud or other problems exist in the
federal government contracting programs overseen by the SBA
including the 8(a), HUBZone, service-disabled veteran, women-
owned contracting program, and Small Business Innovation
Research program.
Effectiveness of SBA contracting programs to
increase participation by small businesses in federal
procurement.
Effectiveness of federal agency protections
against contract bundling and consolidation.
The accuracy and utility of SBA size standards and
federal procurement databases.
Operation and effectiveness of federal agency
assistance provided to small businesses interested in federal
procurement, including that provided by the SBA, Offices of
Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization and Procurement
Technical Assistance Centers.
Development of federal acquisition policies and
whether small businesses have sufficiently effective voice in
development of such policies.
Cost-effectiveness of outsourcing government work
to private enterprise rather than expanding the government to
provide the good or service internally (i.e., government
insourcing).
In performing oversight, the Committee will focus its
efforts on uncovering abuse and misuse of the small business
designation to obtain federal government contracts.
Oversight of SBA management
The Committee will conduct the hearings and investigations
into the management of the SBA that may include any or all of
the following, as well as matters brought to the attention of
the Committee subsequent to the filing of this Report:
The appropriate mission of the SBA.
Whether agency employees in the field are
empowered to assist small businesses.
Duplication of offices and missions at SBA
headquarters.
Effectiveness of personnel management to ensure
that employees are rewarded for assisting small businesses.
Capabilities of SBA employees to provide proper
assistance to small business owners.
In carrying out this oversight, the Committee will focus
particularly on streamlining and reorganizing the agency's
operations to provide maximum assistance to small business
owners. Offices that primarily provide assistance or advice to
headquarters staff that do not promote the interests of small
businesses or protect the federal government as a guarantor of
loans will be recommended for cuts or elimination. For some
potential offices in which the Committee will examine, refer to
the section title ``Reductions in Programs and Spending.''
Oversight of Federal regulatory and paperwork burdens
The Committee will conduct hearings and investigations into
unnecessary, burdensome, and duplicative federal rules,
reporting and recordkeeping requirements affecting small
businesses that may include any or all of the following, as
well as matters brought to the attention of the Committee
subsequent to the filing of this Report:
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Consumer Safety Products Commission.
Department of Agriculture.
Department of Energy, particularly the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Department of the Interior, particularly the
Bureau of Land Management and Minerals Management Service.
Department of Labor, particularly the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration.
Department of Homeland Security, particularly the
Transportation Security Administration.
Department of Transportation, particularly the
Federal Aviation Administration and Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Federal Communications Commission.
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council
and its constituent agencies.
Food and Drug Administration.
Office of Federal Procurement Policy.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Committee will identify specific rules and regulations
already issued or at the proposed rule stage to assess the
impact on small businesses. The Committee will pay close
attention to the effect that regulations have on the
implementation of advanced technologies including, but not
limited to, the deployment of broadband communications (either
by wireline or wireless services) throughout the United States.
Oversight of the regulatory process also will, to the extent
relevant, examine the work of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget.
Special attention will be paid to the work performed by the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy at the United States Small Business
Administration to ensure that the Office is fulfilling its
mission to advocate vigorously on behalf of America's small
business owners in regulatory matters at federal agencies.
Finally, this oversight will entail an examination of
compliance by federal agencies with amendments to Executive
Order 12,866 and memoranda on regulatory flexibility and
regulatory compliance issued by the President on January 18,
2011.
Oversight of Federal tax policy
The Committee will conduct hearings and investigations into
the federal tax code, its impact on small business, and
Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) collection of taxes that may
include any or all of the following, as well as matters brought
to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the filing of
this Report:
Identification of tax code provisions that hinder
the ability of small businesses to create jobs and
recommendations for modifying those provisions to boost small
business job growth.
Examination of the structure of the tax code in
order to simplify compliance for small businesses.
Assessment of the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements associated with tax compliance and suggestions for
reducing such burdens on small businesses.
Evaluation of the estate tax provisions to
determine whether they inhibit the ability of successive
generations to maintain successful job creating enterprises.
Efficiencies at the IRS that improve the
interaction between the government and small business owners.
Inefficiencies at the IRS that force small
businesses to divert capital from job growth to tax compliance.
Oversight of health care policy
The Committee will conduct hearings and investigations into
federal health care policy (such as Medicare and Medicaid) and
the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act that may include any or all of the following, as well
as matters brought to the attention of the Committee subsequent
to the filing of this Report:
The cost of the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act to small businesses, including the self-employed.
The impact of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act, Medicare and Medicaid on the ability of
physicians, pharmacists, and allied health care providers to
offer the best care possible to patients.
Alternatives to the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act that reduce health insurance costs to small
businesses without inhibiting their ability to create jobs.
The impact of state tort and insurance laws on the
cost of medical care.
Examination of increases in efficiencies that will
improve the provision of health care while reducing costs to
small businesses that offer their workers health insurance.
Oversight of energy policy
The Committee will conduct hearings and investigations into
energy policy to reduce the cost of energy and increase energy
independence that may include any or all of the following, as
well as matters brought to the attention of the Committee
subsequent to the filing of this Report:
Innovations developed by small businesses that
increase energy independence.
Federal regulatory policies that increase
dependence on foreign sources of energy.
Policies needed to incentivize production of
energy in the United States.
Examination of commercialization of research in
renewable energy.
Federal regulations or policies that increase
energy costs for small businesses.
The primary thrust of the Committee's efforts will focus on
efforts to use the innovation of America's entrepreneurs to
fuel the drive for greater energy independence.
Oversight of trade and intellectual property policy
The Committee will conduct hearings and investigations into
international trade and intellectual property policies of
America and its trading partners that may include any or all of
the following, as well as matters brought to the attention of
the Committee subsequent to the filing of this Report:
Impact of free trade agreements to increase
exports by American small businesses.
Whether the federal government is doing enough to
protect the intellectual property rights of small businesses
from foreign competitors.
The impact of federal intellectual property
policies, particularly patents and copyrights, to protect the
innovations of American entrepreneurs.
Efforts to increase exports by small businesses.
The focus of oversight will emphasize the best mechanisms
to promote and protect advanced technology innovations of small
businesses.
Reductions in programs and spending
In addition to the programs and policies already cited, the
Committee will examine any and all including, but not limited
to, programs and offices listed below in order to find areas in
which to reduce the federal deficit:
Small Business Lending Fund operated by the
Department of the Treasury.
State Small Business Credit Initiative operated by
the Department of the Treasury.
Patriot Express Loan Program overseen by the SBA.
Express Loan Program overseen by the SBA.
Emerging Leaders Initiative started by the SBA.
Drug-Free Workplace Program.
SBA Office of Policy.
SBA Regional Administrators.
Office of Advocacy Regional Advocates.
SBA Deputy District Directors.
SBA Office of International Trade.
SBA Office of Native American Affairs.
In particular, the Committee will assess whether
reorganization and reassignment of employees to more critical
functions at the SBA, such as positions as procurement center
representatives, will provide a more effective agency at
assisting small businesses generate growth.
PART B
Implementation of the Oversight Plan of the Committee on Small Business
for the One Hundred Twelfth Congress
A. Oversight of Federal capital access programs
In its review of the Small Business Administration's (SBA)
fiscal year (FY) 2012 budget request, the Committee analyzed
the agency programs devoted to providing access to capital to
small businesses. During a March 2, 2011 hearing on the SBA
budget, at which the SBA Administrator testified, and as part
of the Committee's views and estimates on the FY 2012 budget
adopted on March 15, 2011, the Committee outlined its concerns
with and proposals for improving the SBA programs devoted to
small business financing, including the 7(a) Loan Program, the
Certified Development Company Loan Program, the Microloan
Program, the Small Business Lending Intermediary Pilot Program,
the Small Business Investment Company Program, the Surety Bond
Program and the Disaster Loan Program.
On June 1, 2011, the Committee on Small Business met for a
hearing titled, ``Access to Capital: Can Small Businesses
Access the Credit Necessary To Grow and Create Jobs?'' The
hearing provided a forum for lenders and business owners to
discuss the current economic environment and how they are
working together to support private sector job growth.
Witnesses from the lending side discussed the demand for
capital and current initiatives to encourage small business
lending. Small business owners testified about the current
economic environment and the capital that is required to expand
and hire new workers. The value of the SBA lending programs,
particularly the 7(a) guarantee program, was discussed in
detail.
On June 2, 2011, the Committee secured a commitment from
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the SBA's
Loan Management Accounting system. This system is designed to
manage the SBA guaranteed loan portfolio, but is severely
outdated. The Committee's views and estimates letter on the FY
2012 budget request, adopted by the Committee on March 15,
2011, outlines concerns with the Loan Management Accounting
System used by the SBA and resources devoted to it.
B. Oversight of SBA and other Federal entrepreneurial development
programs
On March 15, 2011 the Committee adopted its views and
estimates on the FY 2012 budget that outlined several
duplicative entrepreneurial development programs at the SBA.
This letter will be used as a template for legislation to
consolidate and/or eliminate said programs.
On May 25, 2011, the Committee on Small Business held a
full committee hearing titled, ``Promoting Entrepreneurship and
Job Creation by Decreasing Duplication at SBA.'' This hearing
examined duplicative programs at the U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA), specifically focusing on the
entrepreneurial development Programs. The panel discussed the
overlap that occurs within SBA's entrepreneurial development
programs and how private efforts meet the needs of businesses
seeking professional educational opportunities.
C. Oversight of Federal Government contracting matters
On March 16, 2011, the Committee on Small Business met for
a hearing titled, ``Spurring Innovation and Job Creation: The
SBIR Program.'' This hearing marked the beginning of the
Committee's work to reauthorize the Small Business Innovation
Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR)
programs. Last fully reauthorized in 2000, the SBIR program
sets aside federal research and development dollars to be
provided in the form of grants to small businesses that offer
innovations and needed products to the federal government. As
such, the program offers an effective way to jump start
entrepreneurs, grow the economy, and create jobs.
On April 7, 2011, the Subcommittee on Healthcare and
Technology met for a hearing titled, ``The Creating Jobs
Through Small Business Innovation Act of 2011.'' The hearing
was the second in a series of Committee events associated with
the reauthorization SBIR and STTR programs. This hearing
examined a draft of legislation reauthorizing the SBIR and STTR
programs. Witnesses discussed the benefits of specific
provisions in the draft legislation designed to improve and
modernize the SBIR and STTR programs.
On April 15, 2011, the Committee sent a letter to the SBA
requesting access to the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting
Systems to better carry out its oversight responsibilities.
On May 5, 2011, the Subcommittee on Economic Growth,
Capital Access and Tax met for a hearing titled, ``Professional
Services: Proposed Changes to the Small Business Size
Standard.'' The Subcommittee hearing examined the impact of
size standard regulations proposed by the SBA to redefine who
is a small business in the professional, scientific, and
technical services industries. The transcript of the hearing
and written testimony was provided to the SBA via a letter
dated May 6, 2011, to be included in the administrative record.
On May 12, 2011, the House Committee on Small Business and
the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform met for
a joint hearing entitled, ``Politicizing Procurement: Will
President Obama's Proposal Curb Free Speech and Hurt Small
Business?'' This hearing examined the proposed Executive Order
(``EO'') mandating the disclosure of political donations by
government contractors as a prerequisite to receiving a
government contract, and evaluated its impact and consequences
upon the federal acquisition system. Specifically, the
Committees expressed concerns that this proposed EO would
inject politics into the procurement process, violate political
free speech rights, and usurp the legislative power of
Congress. This hearing followed a letter to President Obama,
dated April 21, 2011, detailing Chairman Graves' concerns with
the impact of the EO on small contractors.
On May 26, 2011, the Small Business Subcommittee on
Contracting and Workforce met for a hearing titled, ``Defer No
More: The Need to Repeal the 3% Withholding Provision.'' The
hearing examined the effect of Section 511 of the Tax
Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, which will require
federal, state and local governments to withhold 3 percent from
all payments for goods and services purchased from small
businesses. The Subcommittee heard witness testimony that
Section 511 will: cost more to implement than it would generate
in revenue; restrict the already tight cash flow of small
companies; and destroy jobs.
On June 9, 2011, the Committee on Small Business and the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform sent a letter to
the Department of Health and Human Services to seek information
about a contract awarded by the Biomedical Advanced Research
and Development Authority (BARDA). The Committees expressed
concern about the procurement process used to select the
recipient, which started as a small business set-aside, but was
then cancelled, and BARDA made a sole source award.
D. Oversight of SBA management
The Committee continues to oversee the management of the
SBA through hearings, meetings with agency personnel, and
industry representatives.
On March 2, 2011 the Committee held a hearing on the SBA's
proposed budget for FY2012. This hearing reviewed the
administration's funding requests as well as agency management
of key policy initiatives for the fiscal year. The Committee
heard testimony from SBA Administrator Karen Mills. The
information garnered at this hearing was utilized in the
Committee's development of views and estimates on the FY 2012
budget, subsequently adopted by the Committee and submitted to
the House Budget Committee on March 17. 2011. The Committee's
views and estimates letter recommends that 14 programs be
zeroed out and three programs receive less money than the SBA
requested for FY12. The total dollar figure is difficult to
quantify, but is approximately $100 million in cuts or 10
percent less than the SBA's FY12 budget request.
E. Oversight of Federal regulatory and paperwork burdens
On February 16, 2011, the Committee on Small Business met
for a hearing titled, ``Putting Americans Back to Work: The
State of the Small Business Economy.'' The Committee examined
obstacles to small business job creation and economic growth
and attempted to identify specific tax, regulatory and health
care policies that are inhibiting job creation and economic
growth. The hearing set the stage for future Committee
deliberations related to the obstacles impeding entrepreneurs'
and small firms' ability to strengthen our economy and put
Americans back to work.
On March 21, 2011, the Committee sent a letter to the
Department of Labor (DOL) regarding a rule on wage methodology
for temporary non-agricultural employment H2B program (76 Fed.
Reg. 3,452). The letter questioned the methodology used to
determine the prevailing wage under the rule and the impact on
small businesses.
On March 30, 2011 the Committee on Small Business met for a
hearing entitled, ``Reducing Federal Agency Overreach:
Modernizing the Regulatory Flexibility Act.'' The purpose of
the hearing was to examine the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA). This hearing laid the foundation for
Committee consideration of RFA reform and efforts to improve
agency compliance with the Act.
On April 12, 2011, the Committee sent a letter to the
Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
regarding potential regulatory action related to the extra-
label use of cephalosporin antimicrobial drugs in food-
producing animals. Concerns were raised by agriculture
producers, veterinarians, and consumers over the adverse impact
the ban would have on food safety and animal health. A rule was
proposed and revoked in 2008. The letter was sent in response
to information suggesting the FDA is considering reissuing the
rule.
On April 14, 2011, the Committee sent a letter to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy at the SBA to encourage analysis of the
Securities and Exchange Commission's proposed rule related to
use of conflict minerals (75 Fed. Reg. 80,948). The letter
focused on compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act and
the rule's impact on small entities.
On May 12, 2011 the House Committee on Small Business
Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations and Regulations met
for a hearing entitled, ``Green Isn't Always Gold: Are EPA
Regulations Harming Small Businesses?'' The hearing examined
Environmental Protection Agency regulations that negatively
affect small businesses, most specifically those related to the
Clean Air Act and the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act.
The Subcommittee heard testimony from small business owners
about how EPA has neglected to take into account the Regulatory
Flexibility Act when promulgating regulations despite
significant direct and indirect burdens experienced by small
businesses.
On June 13, 2011, the Committee sent a letter to the
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Grain Inspection, Packer and
Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) regarding a proposed rule to
amend the Packer and Stockyards Act of 1921 (75 Fed. Reg.
35,338). The letter calls into question USDA's compliance with
the Regulatory Flexibility Act in determining the impact of the
regulation on small businesses involved in the beef, pork, and
poultry industries' supply chain.
On June 14, 2011, the Small Business Subcommittee on
Investigations, Oversight and Regulations met for a hearing
entitled, ``Do Not Enter: How Proposed Hours of Service
Trucking Rules are a Dead End for Small Businesses.'' The
hearing reviewed the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration's proposed rule on trucking Hours of Service and
explored how this regulation would harm small businesses by
reducing allowed duty times for motor carriers and thereby
hindering the ability for owner-operators and other small
businesses to deliver goods nationwide.
F. Oversight of Federal tax policy
On February 9, 2011, the Committee on Small Business met
for a hearing entitled, ``Buried in Paperwork--A 1099 Update.''
The hearing focused on the health care reform law's expanded
1099 reporting mandate, which would have required businesses to
file a 1099 form for virtually every business-to-business
transaction of $600 or more in property and services. In a
letter dated February 10, 2011, the Committee shared the
information garnered at the hearing with the Chairman and
Ranking Member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
On April 13, 2011, the Committee on Small Business met for
a hearing entitled, ``How Tax Complexity Hinders Small
Businesses: The Impact on Job Creation and Economic Growth.''
As Congress considers the issues related to fundamental tax
reform, the concerns of America's small businesses about tax
reform should be part of that debate. This hearing examined the
complexity of the current tax code, the difficulty that
entrepreneurs have in complying with it and the resulting
effect on hiring and economic expansion. In a letter to the
Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Ways and Means
dated April 13, 2011, the Committee shared the views of the
witnesses who testified as relevant to the ongoing debate on
tax reform.
G. Oversight of health care policy
On March 22, 2011, the Committee sent a letter to the
Department of Health and Human Services requesting information
related to the treatment of small businesses in the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) (P.L. 111-148)
waiver process. The Committee is concerned that the process for
receiving waivers may be unfair to small firms. The Committee
also asked the GAO to examine the waiver process. On June 14,
2011, the GAO issued a report regarding HHS waivers of
restrictions on annual limits on health benefits.
On June 2, 2011, the Small Business Subcommittee on
Healthcare and Technology met for a hearing entitled, ``Not
What the Doctor Ordered: Health IT Barriers for Small Medical
Practices.'' The hearing examined the adoption of health
information technology by small medical practices. The
Subcommittee considered witness testimony regarding the
barriers that small providers have encountered and possible
solutions for addressing those barriers.
H. Oversight of energy policy
On April 14, 2011, the Small Business Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Energy and Trade met for a hearing entitled,
``Drilling for a Solution: Finding Ways to Curtail the Crushing
Effect of High Gas Prices on Small Business.'' The purpose of
this hearing was to bring to light the negative impacts of
rising fuel costs on small business and to understand the
effects of short- and long-term solutions such as increasing
domestic oil production and further developing renewable energy
sources.
I. Oversight of trade and intellectual property policy
On April 6, 2011, the Committee on Small Business met for a
hearing entitled, ``Help Wanted: How Passing Free Trade
Agreements Will Help Small Businesses Create New Jobs.'' The
hearing focused on the benefits and importance of passing the
pending free trade agreements to small businesses. Lowering
trade barriers will spur small business exports, which will
then lead to job creation and long-term economic growth.
J. Reductions in programs and spending
On March 15, 2011 the Committee reported its views and
estimates on the FY 2012 budget that outlined several programs
at the SBA that should be considered for reduced spending or
eliminated altogether. The letter suggested a reallocation of
resources, both financial and personnel, to better meet the
agency's mission. This letter will be used as a template for
legislation to consolidate and eliminate unnecessary or
duplicative programs. Overall, the Committee recommended the
elimination of 14 programs, totaling approximately $100
million.
REGULATORY REVIEW
LEGISLATIVE AND OVERSIGHT ACTIVITY RELATED TO REGULATIONS, ORDERS,
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS AND PROCEDURES, BY FEDERAL AGENCIES WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation, order, administrative Oversight and legislative
action activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1099 Reporting Requirement in the The Committee held a hearing
Patient Protection and Affordable Care regarding the burden on small
Act (PPACA) (P.L. 111-148). businesses of the expanded
1099 reporting requirement in
PPACA. The Committee shared
the information gained in the
hearing with the Committee on
Ways and Means in a letter
dated February 10, 2011.
Ultimately, the provision was
repealed (P.L. 112-15).
SBA 504 Loan Refinancing Program (76 On March 2, 2011, the Committee
Fed. Reg. 9,213). held a hearing on the SBA
budget request for FY 2012,
and on March 15, 2011, the
Committee reported its views
and estimates on the FY 2012
SBA budget, including a
recommendation that the 504
Loan Refinancing Program be
considered for elimination and
that no funds be allocated for
the SBA to oversee this
program.
Department of Labor (DOL) rule on wage The Committee sent a letter
methodology for temporary non- dated March 21, 2011 to DOL
agricultural employment H2B program questioning the methodology
(76 Fed. Reg. 3,452). used to determine the
prevailing wage under the rule
and the impact on small
businesses.
Department of Health and Human Services On March 22, 2011, the
(HHS) waivers provided under the Committee sent a letter to HHS
Patient Protection and Affordable Care requesting information related
Act (PPACA). P.L. 111-148). to the treatment of small
businesses in the PPACA waiver
process.
Securities and Exchange Commission's On April 14, 2011, the
(SEC's) rule related to conflict Committee sent a letter to the
minerals (75 Fed. Reg. 80,948). Chief Counsel for Advocacy to
encourage analysis of the
SEC's proposed rule,
compliance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, and the
impact on small entities.
Proposed Executive Order on disclosure The Committee submitted a
of political contributions by Federal letter to President Obama on
contractors. April 21, 2011, to express
concerns about the impact of
the proposed Executive Order
on small contractors. On May
12, 2011, the Committee held a
joint hearing with the
Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform to review
the proposal.
SBA Proposed Size Standards for North The Subcommittee on Economic
American Industry Classification Growth, Tax, and Capital
System (NAICS) Sector 54 Industries Access held a hearing on May
related to professional services (76 5, 2011 to review the size
Fed. Reg. 14,323). standard proposal. On May 6,
2011, via a letter to the SBA,
the Subcommittee submitted the
transcript of and written
statements from the hearing
for the administrative record.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The Subcommittee on
regulations related to the Clean Air Investigations, Oversight, and
Act (42 USC, Chapter 85) and the Regulations held a hearing on
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act various EPA regulations and
of 1976 (P.L. 95-609). their impact on small
businesses on May 12, 2011.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Grain The Committee sent a letter
Inspection, Packer and Stockyards dated June 13, 2011, to the
Administration (GIPSA) proposed rule USDA regarding compliance with
to amend the Packer and Stockyards Act the Regulatory Flexibility Act
of 1921 (75 Fed. Reg. 35,338). in determining the impact of
the regulation on small
businesses involved in the
beef, pork, and poultry
industries' supply chain.
Tax credit for small businesses The Committee requested a GAO
established by the Patient Protection analysis of the small business
and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) (P.L. tax credit established by
111-148). PPACA.
Department of Transportation Federal The Subcommittee on
Motor Carrier Safety Administration's Investigations, Oversight and
Hours of Service regulations (75 Fed. Regulation held a hearing on
Reg. 82,170). the impact of trucking Hours
of Service regulations on
small businesses on June 14,
2011.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Under House Rule X, the Committee on Small Business has jurisdiction
over the protection of small business including ``regulatory
flexibility,'' as well as jurisdiction over the participation of small
businesses in government contracts.