Opening Statement

Floor Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
in Opposition to  H.R. 527 the “Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2015"
February 5, 2015

[I yield myself such time as I may consume]

M. Speaker –

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

     Indeed, the real purpose of this legislation is to impede the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, the Dodd-Frank Act, and other legislation that the majority opposes, under the guise of protecting small businesses from allegedly burdensome regulatory requirements

     Let’s face it, H.R. 527 is just another attempt to:

• prevent regulatory agencies from promulgating regulations that protect the health and safety of Americans;
• overwhelm regulatory agencies with unnecessary and costly analyses; and
• give well-financed businesses and anti-regulatory organizations even more opportunities to thwart the rulemaking process.

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

     It also explains why many of the nation’s leading consumer, labor, and environmental organizations have expressed similar concerns about this “dangerous” measure, including –

• the AFL-CIO,
• the American Lung Association,
• the Consumer Federation of America,
• Consumers Union,
• the Natural Resources Defense Council,
• Public Citizen,
• the United Auto Workers, and
• the National Women’s Law Center,

     One of my principal concerns about this bill is that it could jeopardize Americans’ health and safety.

     Our federal agencies are charged with promulgating regulations that impact virtually every aspect of our lives, including the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, the cars we drive, and the toys we give our children. Small businesses, like all businesses, provide services and goods that also affect our lives. So, it makes no difference to a victim – who breathes contaminated air or drinks poisoned water –  whether the hazards were caused by a small or large business.  But, the far-reaching legislation before us today would undermine the ability of federal agencies to quickly respond to emergent health and safety concerns.

     Section 5 of the bill, for example, repeals the authority under current law that allows an agency to waive or delay the initial analyses required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act “in response to an emergency that makes compliance or timely compliance . . . impracticable.”  So, if there is a widespread E. coli outbreak or an imminent environmental disaster that could be quickly addressed through regulation, this bill says “Don’t worry.  Don’t rush.  Let’s have the Chief Counsel for Advocacy decide.”  That is why I have an amendment, which we will consider later, that will restore the current law that allows agencies to waive certain rulemaking requirements in response to an emergency.

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

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

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

     I share my colleagues’ belief that small business plays an important role in our economy, but this bill does nothing to alleviate the purported burden on small entities of complying with federal regulations.  In fact, it does not include a single provision offering assistance to small entities, whether through subsidies, government-guaranteed loans, preferential tax treatment for small firms, or fully funded compliance assistance offices.  Instead, the bill merely aggrandizes the power of professional lobbying class in Washington, creating new opportunities for well funded business interests to intervene in the process.

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