Posted by Sung Yoo - One of the many perks of being a NASE Advocacy Intern
(aside from the near unlimited supply of M&Ms and working with the
fabulous staff and fellow intern Jaimie), is the chance to go on
legislative hearings. This Wednesday, my first week at work and only my
third time in DC, I was instructed to go on a hearing
entitled “Lifting the Weight of Regulations: Growing Jobs by Reducing
Regulatory Burdens”. This was a topic I was particularly interested in,
as my family owns a small business as well.
Apparently, all hearings are open to the public (with some
exceptions), so going to a hearing was as simple as hailing a taxi from
the NASE office and moseying on into the Rayburn House Office Building, located just south of the Capitol Dome. For the written record, the salad bar at the Rayburn cafeteria is exemplary.
As I stood in line for security checks along with House
Staffers/Interns, lobbyists, tourists, and others, I could not help but
worry a bit about what was to come. Would I cause a political scandal?
Accidentally tweet something inappropriate, perhaps? Sneeze during a
witness’ testimony? Or maybe fall asleep during the Q&A, and be
broadcast on C-SPAN? I nervously tugged on the NASE lapel pin that
Executive Director Kristie Arslan had given us. What if The Washington
Post wants to interview me? Is this real life?!
Alas, my worst nightmares did not materialize, except for the
awkward moment I tried to walk into the Committee room 30 minutes
before the hearing and was shooed away by the tech guy (Standing in
line outside is the polite etiquette for these types of situations!). I
eventually took a seat in the second row, and before I knew it all the
Witnesses’ had seated and Chairman Sam Graves (R-MO), Ranking member Nydia Velázquez (D-NY) and other Congressmen and women had arrived and hearing convened.
To be quite frank, the beginning of Committee hearings are not very
interesting. For one, the opening statement made by the Chair, and
witness’ testimony are distributed in paper outside the Committee room,
so the statements are simply read with a great air of authority and
graciousness. The real, juicy part of a Committee hearing occurs during
the Q&A section that happens right afterwards. This is when the
lions come out to roar, the chickens come home to roost, and Snookie
gets punched in the face.
On Wednesday, the topic of discussion was on H.R. 527, the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011, and H.R. 585,
the Small Business Size Standard Flexibility Act of 2011. The two
bills are designed to remove loopholes in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA), and strengthen the power of the Office of the
Counsel for Advocacy.
If that sounds like a mouthful to you, don’t worry! Our Legal
Counsel Mike Beene tells me that even Congressmen have trouble
understanding what the heck is going on. This is the gist: The RFA was
enacted in 1980 (and amended by SBREFA in 1995), when Congress decided
federal agencies must consider the effects of their rules and
regulations on small businesses. However, many federal agencies have
continued to ignore the spirit of the RFA. The new bill in hearing is
meant to close loopholes that allow this to happen, and require federal
agencies to require better assessments of impacts regulations may have
on small businesses and other small entities. Furthermore, the new
bill would create new panels that would give small business
representatives the opportunity to become involved in the formative
stage of the creation of new rules.
Of course, at NASE, we are fully in support of the Regulatory
Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011. In these difficult economic
times, it is imperative that federal agencies consider the impact of
their regulations on small businesses. After all, small businesses
employ 53 percent of the workforce, and 64 percent of net new jobs
created.
However, regulations reforms must be a balancing act. Regulations,
after all, “protect our food supply, ensure that drugs work, and keep
financial markets transparent,” according to Chairman Graves.
“It’s hard to work and live under these regulations,” Congressmen Jeffrey Landry
(R-LA), said while complaining of safety regulations made by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). He gave an example
of workers who were not allowed to clean up the BP oil spill during
the afternoon due to the heat, and at night because of the dark.
Adam Finkel, a Witness from University of Pennsylvania Law School, retorted, “If you are amputated or dead, it is difficult to make a living too.”
Over all, my first House Committee for Small Business
hearing was a success. From learning how to actually get to the
Rayburn House Office Building, to realizing that all the Republicans
sit to the right of the Chairman while all the Democrats sit to the
left, I couldn’t have asked for a more informative hearing. I amazed at
how open our democracy is, and I am absolutely thrilled to be writing
for the NASE blog. I cannot wait to bring you more stories throughout
the summer.
Let’s just hope I don’t get lost navigating through the DC grids!