Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the chairman of the Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 527.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. America's economic recovery remains sluggish, with the unemployment rate still at 9 percent. Jobs are the key to economic recovery, and small businesses are the primary job creators in America. A study for the Small Business Administration found that regulations cost the American economy $1.75 trillion annually, or over $15,000 per household. Mr. Chairman, while job creators suffer under the weight of these regulations, Federal employees are visibly writing even more to implement the mandates of new laws like ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank. The same study also found that the cost of regulatory compliance is disproportionately higher for small businesses. This hurts their ability to create jobs for Americans. Last month a Gallup poll found that small business owners consider ``complying with government regulations'' as the ``most important problem'' they face. On February 8, 2011, I introduced H.R. 527, the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011, to provide urgently needed help to small businesses. Mr. Graves and Mr. Coble are original cosponsors along with the bill's 24 additional cosponsors. This bill primarily reinforces the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. It only requires agencies to do what current law and common sense dictate that they should be doing. Current law requires agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis so agencies will know how a proposed regulation will affect small businesses before it is adopted. But the Government Accountability Office has found in numerous studies that agencies are not always adhering to these laws. For example, current law allows an agency to avoid preparing a regulatory flexibility analysis if the agency head certifies that the new rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses. But these terms are not defined in the law, and agencies routinely take advantage of this and fail to prepare any analysis. The bill fixes this problem by requiring the Small Business Administration to define these terms uniformly for all agencies. Also, it requires agencies to justify a certification in detail and to give the legal and factual grounds for the certification. And this bill restricts agencies' ability to waive the Regulatory Flexibility Act's requirements. The legislation also requires agencies to document all economic impacts, direct and indirect, that a new regulation could have on small businesses. Agencies already must account for indirect economic impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act. Small businesses deserve the same level of scrutiny. This bill assures that small businesses will have a voice in the regulatory process. Currently, only three agencies, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau must consult with small business advocacy review panels before issuing new major regulations. Building on this, the bill requires all agencies to use advocacy review panels. Equally important, this bill strengthens requirements that agencies review and improve existing regulations whenever possible to lower the burden on small business. It enhances the Small Business Administration's ability to comment on and help shape major rules. It assures that the law is uniformly implemented so agencies can not interpret their way out of its requirements. And the bill improves judicial review. Some critics of regulatory reform may claim that this bill undermines agencies' ability to issue new regulations. On the contrary, the bill only strengthens the existing law with carefully tailored commonsense reforms. Especially in light of current economic conditions, this bill is a timely and logical step to protect small businesses from overregulation. Like the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011 recognizes that economic growth ultimately depends on job creators, not regulators. The economy is already on shaky footing. It is more important than ever for regulators to look before they leap to impose more regulations. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. The amendment aims to require an agency to account for rules implementing the free trade agreements when the agency considers the cumulative impact of a proposed rule. I support free trade because I believe it is in the best interest of American business, workers, and consumers alike. The gentleman from Pennsylvania and I may differ on this issue, but in the context of this amendment, that is beside the point. It can't hurt to make sure that agencies consider the impact of rules implementing the free trade agreements in their regulatory cumulative impact calculations. I don't think the analysis will show that free trade destroys American small businesses. Quite the opposite is true, in fact. But that isn't a reason not to do the analysis. We should know how these kinds of regulations contribute to the cumulative regulatory burden on small businesses. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I do support this amendment and hope to have the gentleman from Pennsylvania's support for the bill on final passage. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. The bill only requires agencies to do what common sense and current laws dictate they should be doing right now. The Department of Homeland Security is not exempt from the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Like other agencies, the Department should analyze how a new regulation will affect small businesses before issuing the regulation. If the Department needs to issue a regulation in a true emergency situation, such as one involving national security, it can already do so under the ``good cause'' exception to notice-and-comment rulemaking in the Administrative Procedure Act. This good cause exception would allow the agency to bypass the analysis required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act as well. As written, the amendment would exempt the Department from H.R. 527 but not from the Regulatory Flexibility Act, itself. The result of this would be two versions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act at play in the Federal Government--one for the Department and one for everyone else. Small businesses do not need any more confusion and uncertainty when they are trying to participate in the Federal regulatory process. For these reasons, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to close; so I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding me time, and I also want to thank him for his sponsorship of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, our immigration system should be designed to benefit Americans and our economy. And this bill introduced by Congressman Chaffetz does just that, and I'm happy to be a cosponsor. The Immigration and Nationality Act generally provides that the total number of family-sponsored and employment-based green cards available to natives of any one country cannot exceed 7 percent of the total number of green cards available each year. Because of these annual numerical caps on green cards and the fact that some countries have more of the skilled workers that American employers want, natives of these countries must often wait years longer for green cards than natives of other countries. For foreign professionals with advanced degrees and aliens of exceptional ability, green cards are now immediately available to approved applicants from most countries. However, because employers seek so many workers from India and China, the per-country caps result in green cards only being available to these individuals who first applied before November 2007, 4 years ago. For foreign professionals with bachelor's degrees and skilled workers, green cards are now available to applicants from most countries who first applied on or before December 2005. However, for the same reason, because employers seek so many workers from India and China, the per-country cap results in green cards only being available to those from China who first applied before August 2004 and for those from India before July 2002. Similar per-country caps exist in the family-sponsored green card categories. That's why natives of most countries who are siblings of U.S. citizens will get green cards only if they first applied before June 2000, 11 years ago, and the siblings from the Philippines have had to wait since 1988. H.R. 3012, the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, eliminates the employment-based per-country cap entirely by fiscal year 2015. It also raises the family-sponsored per-country cap from 7 percent to 15 percent. This legislation makes sense. Why should American employers who seek green cards for skilled foreign workers have to wait longer just because the workers are from India or China? American business employers have already proved to the U.S. Government that they need these workers, that qualified workers are not available, and that American workers will not be harmed. It makes sense to repeal the employment-based per-country caps. So I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3012. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Utah for sponsoring this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) control the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I will yield the gentleman an extra minute.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on House Joint Resolution 2, as amended, currently under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague from Texas (Mr. Canseco), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Fleming, a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Buchanan), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 394) to amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, to the end that the House concur in Senate amendment No. 1 and concur in Senate amendment No. 2 with the amendment I have placed at the desk.