U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

25–346 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 115–21 

EXAMINING HOW SMALL BUSINESSES CONFRONT 

AND SHAPE REGULATIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 29, 2017 

Printed for the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho, Chairman 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire, Ranking Member 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

SKIFFINGTON E. HOLDERNESS, Republican Staff Director 

SEAN MOORE, Democratic Staff Director 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS

Page 

Risch, Hon. James E., Chairman, and a U.S. Senator from Idaho ..................... 1 

Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne, a U.S. Senator from New Hampshire ............................ 2 

Kennedy, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from Louisiana ........................................... 3 

WITNESSES

Noel, Randy, President, Reve Inc., First Vice Chairman, National Association 

of Home Builders (NAHB), Laplace, LA ............................................................. 4 

Knapp Jr., Frank, Co-Chairman, American Sustainable Business Council 

(ASBC), President & CEO, South Carolina Small Business Chamber of 

Commerce, Columbia, SC .................................................................................... 12 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING

George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center, Commission on 

Evidence-Based Policymaking .............................................................................

Comments dated November 8, 2016 ............................................................... 38 

George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center, Examining How 

Small Businesses Confront and Shape Regulations ..........................................

Statement dated March 29, 2017 .................................................................... 63 

Kennedy, Hon. John 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 3 

Knapp Jr., Frank 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15 

Lankford, Hon. James 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 74 

National Association of Convenience Stores 

Statement dated March 29, 2017 .................................................................... 76 

National Federation of Independent Business 

Statement dated March 29, 2017 .................................................................... 82 

NEMO Equipment, Inc. 

Statement .......................................................................................................... 91 

Noel, Randy 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Responses to questions submitted by Senator Inhofe ................................... 36 

Northland Forest Products 

March 8, 2017 ................................................................................................... 93 

Pete and Gerry’s Organics, LLC 

Statement .......................................................................................................... 94 

Risch, Hon. James E. 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 1 

Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

Statement dated March 29, 2017 .................................................................... 95 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

(1) 

EXAMINING HOW SMALL BUSINESSES 

CONFRONT AND SHAPE REGULATIONS 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2017 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:00 p.m., in Room 

SR–428A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. James E. Risch, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Risch, Ernst, Inhofe, Young, Rounds, Kennedy, 

Shaheen, and Heitkamp. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH, CHAIRMAN, 

AND A U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO 

Chairman RISCH. Welcome, everyone. We will call the meeting to 

order. I want to welcome everyone to this issue-focused hearing, 

and the issue, of course, today, we are talking about is the federal 

regulatory structure. From my perspective, the best thing that Congress can do to help small businesses is to get out of the way. The 

first way you do that is to get a handle on the regulatory structure. 

Often, when I talk to small business people they feel, and I think 

correctly so, that their complaints, when there is a regulation proposed, fall on deaf ears. We all know that it is much easier for a 

large business to comply when the Federal Government decides it 

is going to enact some type of regulation. If you are a large corporation, you have a fleet of lawyers and compliance officers and accountants that can handle it. If you are fixing lawn mowers in your 

garage, in a one- or two-person operation, that becomes a much, 

much more challenging prospect. 

I think that small businesses need a break from the regulations 

that they have been suffering under for the last eight years. Under 

the Regulatory Flexibility Improvement Act that we have proposed, 

agencies will be required to evaluate the impact of regulations and 

do it in a realistic fashion. As we all know, that is already required, 

but our poster child for avoiding review is the Waters of the United 

States Rule. When the rule was proposed, incredibly, the agency 

said that that rule would not significantly impact small businesses, 

and we all know—particularly those of us from the West—how untrue that is. 

I am extremely confident in America’s entrepreneurs, who provide robust economic growth when we give them the chance to advance business and innovation. We need to ensure that federal 

agencies listen to small businesses when making rules. 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

2 

I look forward to working on this committee to pass much needed 

reforms that empower the Office of Advocacy and give businesses— 

particularly small businesses—a stronger voice, while also limiting 

the ability of the federal agencies to impose new regulatory costs 

on small businesses. It is small businesses that were responsible 

for building this country. They built this country not because of the 

Federal Government, but in spite of the Federal Government. We 

want to go back to that, as far as I am concerned. 

With that, I want to yield to my good friend and distinguished 

colleague, Senator Shaheen. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEANNE SHAHEEN, RANKING 

MEMBER, AND A U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Senator SHAHEEN. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Risch, 

and thank you to our two witnesses who are here today. We appreciate your taking time to be here and share with us your views. 

And I apologize for being late. I have two other hearings going on 

at the same time, as is often the case in the Senate. 

Mr. Chairman, I also thank you for holding this hearing today, 

because, as you point out, we can do better with how the regulatory 

process addresses small businesses. I started out life, my husband 

and I did, as small business owners, and I understand the challenges that small businesses face. They need to balance their budgets, meet payroll, find new customers, attract talented workers, 

and keep pace with the changing economy. 

Small businesses have a lot to worry about and our job, on this 

committee, is to try and help them grow their businesses and make 

their lives easier, and there is no question that poorly crafted regulations can result in an excessive burden for small businesses. That 

is why we need to ensure that federal agencies have a regulatory 

process that produces smart, common-sense, and easy-to-understand rules, why we need to help them comply, and why we need 

to harmonize and streamline and repeal regulations that no longer 

make sense. 

At the same time, I think it is important that we are mindful 

that well-crafted regulations have the potential to both encourage 

innovation and provide critical protections that small businesses 

need, and in anticipation of this hearing I reached out to small 

businesses in New Hampshire and heard from a few owners about 

what they would like to see with respect to regulations, and I want 

to just share two of those stories. 

I heard from Jesse Laflamme, who is a CEO of Pete and Gerry’s 

Organics, which is a small business located in Monroe, New Hampshire, which is northern New Hampshire. They produce USDA certified organic eggs. Senator Risch thinks we do not have farming 

in New Hampshire, but we do. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman RISCH. No, I know you do. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Jesse’s business has thrived for over the last 

decade, with sales growing by more than 30 percent each year. 

That is a pretty good growth rate. He now sells his organic eggs 

at more than 9,600 locations across the country, and he writes— 

and I am quoting him now—‘‘The regulations on organic food and 

the labeling associated with adhering to these regulations give us 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

3 

an important competitive advantage in our market.’’ He further 

adds that ‘‘the organic label must have real meaning or our products will lose their value-added advantage.’’ 

I also heard from Jamey French, who is the CEO of Northland 

Forest Products, which is a family-run business in Kingston, New 

Hampshire, that produces lumber for markets throughout the 

United States. In his letter, Jamey writes that ‘‘as a small familyand employee-owned business, we rely on a stable, consistent, and 

fair regulatory environment to protect us from unfair market competition and to level the competitive playing field.’’ And he adds 

that ‘‘clean air, clean water, and regulations that discourage mismanagement of the working landscape are key to our future.’’ 

So I believe we can accomplish the goals that all of us would like 

to see, in terms of fair, effective regulations, and that is hopefully 

the mission of this committee and the goal of the hearing today is 

to hear from you all as representatives of small businesses what 

you would like to see us do to address these regulations. 

So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to 

hearing from our witnesses. 

Chairman RISCH. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. 

I am now going to recognize Senator Kennedy, who will introduce 

one of our witnesses. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN KENNEDY, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure 

today to introduce Mr. Randy Noel, who is one of our witnesses 

today. 

Mr. Noel is from Laplace, Louisiana, which is near my place of 

residence in Madisonville. He is a second-generation home builder. 

He has more than 30 years of experience in the residential construction industry. Since founding his company, Reve Inc., in 1985, 

he and his company have built more than 1,000 custom homes in 

the greater New Orleans area. Throughout his career, he has been 

active with the National Association of Home Builders at the state, 

local, and national levels. That includes serving on the Board of Directors for more than 20 years, and is the President of the Louisiana Home Builders Association, which is a very important trade 

association in my State. 

In 2018, Mr. Noel will become Chairman of the National Association of Home Builders Board of Directors, and I hope you will join 

me in welcoming Mr. Noel today. I know small businesses are important to America. They are especially important to Louisiana. We 

have over 400,000 in my state. Each is very important and Mr. 

Noel here is going to talk to us a little bit about some of the problems they have today. 

Thank you for coming, Mr. Noel. 

Mr. NOEL. Thank you, Senator Kennedy, my Senator from Louisiana. 

Chairman RISCH. Mr. Noel, we will hear from you, and then we 

will hear from Mr. Knapp. We would ask you to please keep your 

comments to about five to six minutes. Anything you have in writing will be submitted for the record, and we will have it published 

in the record. 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

4 

So thank you very much and welcome. 

STATEMENT OF RANDY NOEL, PRESIDENT, REVE INC.; FIRST 

VICE CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS (NAHB) 

Mr. NOEL. Yes, sir. Chairman Risch, Ranking Member Shaheen, 

and members of the Committee, Senator Kennedy, I am pleased to 

be here on behalf of the National Association of Home Builders on 

how small businesses confront and shape regulations. 

You already know, my name is Randy Noel, and I am from Laplace, a second-generation home builder, and I have been doing it 

for 30 years, and as Senator Kennedy said, we have built over 

1,000 homes in that area. 

But I understand how difficult and costly it can be to comply 

with government regulations. But it is not just costly for me and 

my business. These costs also deny too many Americans the opportunity to own a home. 

According to NAHB’s research, government regulations account 

for nearly 25 percent of the cost of a new single-family home. 

Worse, 14 million American households are priced out of the market for a new home. In order to reduce the regulatory burden on 

small businesses, NAHB believes you must restore congressional 

oversight authority to the process. Fix what is broken and focus on 

the disproportionate burden small businesses bear in complying 

with regulations. Today I will focus on the small business component. 

While the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires federal agencies to 

consider the effect of their actions on small entities, agencies regularly neglect input from the regulated community and, as a result, 

produce very poor impact analysis. Even with these flaws, the rules 

go into place and businesses are forced to divert precious resources 

to lengthy and uncertain legal challenges. 

Unfortunately, there is no other way to hold agencies accountable 

when they ignore the effects of regulation on small businesses, and 

agencies are not required to confirm their economic analysis with 

a respected, neutral third party. 

As an example of how agencies often go off the rails, I would 

draw your attention OSHA’s 2013 silica rulemaking. OSHA stated 

the cost to industry would be only—only—$511 million. A coalition 

of construction groups, including the NAHB, commissioned an independent study that found the true cost to the industry at approximately $5 billion—with a B—$5 billion to the industry. If I provided my clients with quotes that were 9 or 10 times below the actual cost, I would not be getting very much business. We would not 

have built 1,000 homes. 

Part of the reason OSHA got this so wrong is they relied on a 

SBREFA panel that was conducted more than a decade previously. 

The independent study showed that OSHA just does not understand the construction industry. For example, OSHA ignored some 

1.5 million workers in the construction industry who would be indirectly impacted. 

Congress can help here. It is critical to include indirect costs as 

part of any true economic impact analysis. Additionally, that economic analysis should be reviewed by a trusted third party to enLAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

5 

sure the integrity of the process. Had OSHA worked more closely 

and actually listened to the construction industry during the formation of the silica rule, perhaps the results would have been more 

effective, less burdensome rule for the industry. But at least they 

faked it. 

The same cannot be said for the EPA Waters of the U.S. In 2014, 

the EPA proposed a rule challenging the definition of waters of the 

United States under the Clean Water Act. The agency certified the 

rule and, in so doing, avoided the initial economic analysis and 

small business panel requirements which are so critical to the rulemaking process. 

I told EPA that a more thorough analysis would have revealed 

the burdens that this rule places on small entities, including small 

home builders. This rule should have triggered the requirements to 

convene a SBREFA panel. But the EPA claimed otherwise and 

there is no means to overrule. 

Clearly, EPA was not interested in a hearing for the regulated 

community. Their only objective was to move the rule past the finish line. For a rule of this magnitude, small businesses should have 

had a voice in the rulemaking process. Congress set up a process 

for small businesses to be considered in the rulemaking process but 

it did not include the mechanism to hold the agencies accountable 

for the failure to comply. 

There is no judicial review provision for the failure to convene a 

small business advocacy review panel. The RFA should be amended 

to fix this critical oversight and hold agencies accountable. 

In addition to the common-sense changes to the RFA I have listened here today, there are other key components of regulatory reform being considered by Congress. Specifically, the REINS Act, 

which would restore congressional oversight authority, and the 

Regulatory Accountability Act, which would fix our decades-old, 

badly broken regulatory system. These two pieces of legislation, 

along with the changes to the RFA and SBREFA discussed today, 

will add fuel to the engine of economic growth that American small 

businesses represent. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I will be 

ready for questions when they come. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Noel follows:] 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

6 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 3 here 25346.003
7 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 4 here 25346.004
8 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 5 here 25346.005
9 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 6 here 25346.006
10 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 7 here 25346.007
11 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 8 here 25346.008
12 

Chairman RISCH. Thank you very much. 

Our second witness is Mr. Knapp. Mr. Knapp co-founded the 

South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce in February 

of 2000, and serves as its President and CEO. He also serves as 

co-chair of the American Sustainable Business Council action fund 

and is the President of the Knapp Agency, an advertising and public relations firm. 

Mr. Knapp, welcome, and the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF FRANK KNAPP, JR., CO-CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN 

SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS COUNCIL (ASBC); PRESIDENT AND 

CEO, SOUTH CAROLINA SMALL BUSINESS CHAMBER OF 

COMMERCE 

Mr. KNAPP. Thank you very much, Chairman Risch. Thank you, 

Chairman Risch, Ranking Member Shaheen, and members of the 

Committee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would like to 

start with some facts. Most regulations affecting small businesses 

come from local and state governments. According to polling by the 

American Sustainable Business Council, 86 percent of small businesses believe that regulations are necessary, and 93 percent believe their business can live with fair and manageable regulations. 

Regulations are not killing the economy. Tens of thousands of 

new jobs are being created every month. In February, South Carolina had the largest one-month increase in the number of people 

working. Regulations level the playing field with big business, and 

protect small businesses from unfair competition. Regulations create opportunity for entrepreneurs and small businesses to innovate 

and grow, by creating new products and services, requiring new 

jobs. And small business owners care about their families, neighbors, workings, communities and environment, which they want to 

keep safe and healthy—the goal of regulations. 

So how are small businesses involved in the regulatory development process? Both the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act give small businesses impacted by proposed regulations the opportunity to weigh 

in on the regulation development process to let Federal agencies 

know how their businesses would be impacted, and encourage 

modifications to make the regulations less burdensome. 

This process is not serving our small businesses very well. It 

takes years and years to promulgate a rule. Small businesses 

across this nation really are not having input into the regulatory 

decision-making process. The process has been taken over by 

power, often big business special interest groups with their own 

agenda, and have given us regulatory paralysis. 

Now, how do small businesses confront Federal regulations that 

are of concern to them? They can personally contact the Federal 

agency to ask for clarification or help in compliance. The more effective approach would be to contact the Office of the National Ombudsman and ask for assistance in trying to resolve their regulatory issue with a Federal agency. Unfortunately, just as the regulatory decision-making process is not serving small businesses well, 

compliance assistance is also inadequate. 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

13 

Here are my recommendations for a regulatory forum that will 

actually benefit our small businesses. 

Balance the balance sheet. Why do we never see the benefits of 

regulations in any agency analysis? The positive side of the ledger 

is always blank when the potential impacts of regulations are analyzed. The economic, health, and social benefits of rules, put in 

terms of dollars, is not considered by the Office of Advocacy and 

the regulatory agencies. 

We often hear critics say that government should run more like 

a business. Well, businesses weigh the benefits versus costs when 

making a business decision. No business would invest in new 

equipment if they only considered cost. Whether the absence of 

analyzing the benefits of a regulation in the formal process is by 

statute or custom, this must change if we are to get truly accurate 

data for rulemaking decisions, and give the public complete information about the value of regulations. 

Invest in better outreach and analysis. We have essentially 

starved the regulatory agencies and advocacy, while, at the same 

time, wanting them to do more. But that cannot happen. Small 

business outreach is primarily to Washington insiders who want to 

clog up the regulatory process through heavy lobbying, litigation, 

creating public anxiety by quoting huge, bogus costs. Then the reform proposals that get the most attention fix the wrong problems, 

and would just make more problems. 

The RFA process we have today simply needs more resources so 

it can run more effectively and efficiently, giving the agencies the 

resources to conduct a quality rulemaking analysis and outreach 

we all want. 

Final point. Help small businesses understand the rules and provide compliance assistance. Once a rule has been finalized, the job 

of the Federal Government is not done. Small businesses need to 

be educated about the new rule and, when necessary, provided regulatory compliance assistance. 

Congress has also set up a process for this, not only within every 

regulatory agency but also through the SBA Office of the National 

Ombudsman. Where the Office of Advocacy works on the front end 

of a development of a significant regulation, the Office of the National Ombudsman is charged with helping small businesses on the 

back end, with all regulation compliance. It serves as the conduit 

for small businesses to have their grievances about compliance 

problems, or other issues, with Federal agencies, heard directly by 

the agencies, in an effort for successful resolution. In this way, the 

Office of the National Ombudsman, and the agencies, can detect 

patterns of compliance problems so that the agencies can revisit 

rules for modification. 

This important component of the rulemaking process is woefully 

underfunded. The Office of the National Ombudsman actually relies on volunteers to help get the message out about its vital small 

business services. It is, for the most part, unknown and underutilized. If Congress really wants to help small businesses with Federal regulations, invest more in the small business outreach, support, and feedback loop. 

In conclusion, the current regulatory process can produce good 

rules while protecting small business from unnecessary burdens if 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

14 

we provide the adequate resources for agencies to expeditiously 

carry out the requirements Congress has already put in place, on 

the front end and the back end of the process. Most regulatory reform proposals, while achieving the agenda of some seeking to 

delay and stop regulations, will inevitably fail to help the vast majority of small businesses. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today and I welcome any questions the Committee might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Knapp follows:] 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

15 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 9 here 25346.009
16 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 10 here 25346.010
17 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 11 here 25346.011
18 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 12 here 25346.012
19 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 13 here 25346.013
20 

Chairman RISCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Knapp. 

What we are going to do now is do a five-minute round of questions, using the early bird rule, and I would ask everybody to keep 

it to five minutes and then we will do a second round if it is appropriate. People can make statements, comments, or render questions. 

I am going to start very briefly and say, Mr. Knapp, thank you 

for coming here and providing your view of this. I have to say that 

your using the statistics you did at the beginning is impressive. It 

is the best face I have ever seen put on this disaster. 

[Laughter.] 

I have met morticians who could not do nearly as well as you 

did, so thank you very much. 

Mr. KNAPP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman RISCH. With that I am going to yield to the Ranking 

Member. Thank you. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, 

thank you both for being here. 

Mr. Knapp, I want to follow up because you talked about the outreach by Federal agencies—it is not focused on small businesses 

but it is really focused on Washington insiders. How would you like 

to see us address that concern? 

Mr. KNAPP. Well, the law does say that the agencies can get representation from whole organizations, trade associations, and they 

are in Washington. 

It would be great if we could get them out into the outlying areas 

in each of your districts and to hold these types of meetings. I 

think often what will happen is small businesses, in a trade association or other organization, at the ground level, you know, may 

do things differently or have a different opinion, or even help solve 

the problem. But that is not necessarily the goal at the national 

level and in D.C. You know, often trade associations, especially big 

ones, have their own agenda, and that is not necessarily to help the 

people at the local level. 

So I would like to see them out more, having more meetings, and 

actually engage in others, like Mr. Noel, at the local level. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. Mr. Noel, do you have anything 

you would like to add to that? 

Mr. NOEL. Yeah. Let me—the Department of Labor introduced 

an overtime rule and had a—I suppose it was a SBREFA panel in 

New Orleans, which I attended, and the room was filled with small 

business people discussing the impact of the—raising the limits on 

overtime pay. And there really was not anyone in the room, and 

it was all kinds of businesses—big banks, retail, you name it—and 

there really was not anyone in the room that thought it was a particularly good idea to go as high as they were going at the time. 

And it just was a little disconcerting to me that after going through 

that end of the—half of a day with them, that very little came, or 

was seen in the reports of what we said. 

That is probably the most frustrating thing with rules and regulations, and small businesses’ input. They get it, but it gets ignored, and there is not any way to make them account for that, 

and that, to me, seems to be the most frustrating thing. 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

21 

So even while when we get out of Washington, D.C., and we take 

the message and the instructions back to our local areas where the 

small businesses are, it is still not working. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Do you all think there is enough—are small 

businesses aware when there are changes being made, that they 

can weigh in on? Is there—are people getting that kind of information, do you think? 

Mr. NOEL. I can tell you the National Association of Home Builders sends out, to its 140,000 members, an e-mail, letting them 

know what is coming, and we are pretty successful with getting responses and comments on the rules and regs in front of them. But 

again, over the years that I have been involved with them, some 

25 years, even though we have had the comments and the concerns, a lot of the rules go into place without any—addressing any 

of those issues. 

Senator SHAHEEN. But people are actually getting that information because they are part of that association? 

Mr. NOEL. Association. Right. 

Mr. KNAPP. Yeah, so, and they—home builders do a great job. I 

mean, do not get me wrong. I have known the home builders in 

South Carolina and they do a—they are very active and they do a 

good job of communicating with their members. Not all business organizations are like that, and certainly not every business—small 

business belongs to a trade association as powerful as the Home 

Builders Association. 

I certainly would share Mr. Noel’s concern that if information is 

not—is being conveyed at the local level and it is sort of not filtering or getting into the final—but again, I am not going to attribute motive to the people for doing that. I would also attribute 

it to the fact that they are short-staffed and there is not enough 

money to do it. 

So I can appreciate what you are saying but there might be a different reason. 

Senator SHAHEEN. I want to point out that according to Thumbtack’s 2015 Small Business Friendliness Survey, New Hampshire 

ranked second, as the second-friendliest state in the country. Idaho 

was not far behind, at number six, for Senator Risch. 

But you talked, Mr. Knapp, about the percentage of regulations 

that are done at the state and local level, and the challenges that 

they present. Are there ways in which we, at the Federal level, can 

try and work with our local and state partners to try and address 

regulations so that we are not overlapping on regulations, and so 

that we are maybe working together in a way that is more business 

friendly? And this is like Startup in a Day, that the National 

League of Cities has launched, as one of the things that may try 

and work through some of those regulations. But do you have other 

ideas? 

Mr. KNAPP. Well, I do not know. Again, that is something that 

would have to be considered. But I will tell you that from having 

started small businesses, that the most regulations you run into 

are at the local level—local and state level. And that does not mean 

that there is not going to be a Federal regulation along the line—— 

Senator SHAHEEN. Sure. 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

22 

Mr. KNAPP [continuing]. But the first obstacles are always at the 

local level. 

Working with the states and their regulatory processes, I honestly do not know how that would work out. Everybody has got 

their own proprietary concerns, and that would really take a lot 

more effort to do that, and I do not know that the states would be 

interested. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman RISCH. Thank you, Jeanne. 

Senator Kennedy, you are up. 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank both of you for coming. I enjoyed your presentations. 

Mr. Knapp, could you—I am not quite sure I understood your 

point. This is probably my shortcoming, not yours. But in 30 seconds or less, could you tell me what you are advocating? 

Mr. KNAPP. I am sorry. What am I advocating? 

Senator KENNEDY. Yes. 

Mr. KNAPP. I am advocating that our present regulatory process 

could work if it was properly funded. I really do not think that we 

are putting—giving enough resources to the agencies and to advocacy to do the job that they should—they are trying to do. And also 

on the back end. We need to set aside—if we had never had another regulation ever passed in this country, we have got a ton of 

them on the books, do we not? 

Senator KENNEDY. I get it. I understand. 

Mr. KNAPP. And that we need to be helping those who are experiencing the present regulations. If they have compliance assistance 

issues, we ought to be helping them. 

Senator KENNEDY. So you think an ombudsman can cure all this? 

Mr. KNAPP. Well, again, the national ombudsman in the SBA’s 

office, that is what they are already charged with doing, is being 

that conduit if somebody contacts their office, saying, ‘‘I have an 

issue with this compliance—on this regulation.’’ The ombudsman—— 

Senator KENNEDY. Mr. Knapp, excuse me for interrupting. I 

know what an ombudsman does. I did not mean to cut you off but 

I have only got five minutes. 

Mr. KNAPP. Okay, sir. I apologize. But it is a different office. It 

is not the same as the agency’s. 

Senator KENNEDY. I want to be sure I understand what you are 

saying, that the answer to what I believe is the over-regulation of 

America, which is extraordinarily burdensome, the answer to too 

much government is more government. 

Mr. KNAPP. Mm-hmm. In this case, if you want to help resolve 

the problem, let us make sure the system that you have in place 

is properly funded. 

Senator KENNEDY. Okay. All right. 

Mr. Noel, do you agree with that? 

Mr. NOEL. Actually, not exactly. I will, to a comment that Ranking Member Shaheen said, that the closer—and Mr. Knapp is correct. 

Senator KENNEDY. Mm-hmm. 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

23 

Mr. NOEL. A lot of the regulations that we fool with in our industry is local. 

Senator KENNEDY. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. NOEL. Setbacks, building codes, et cetera, and some very 

good ones. I will tell you, from a personal experience, I find regulation coming from local government and from state government is 

a lot easier to comply with and have your voice heard, et cetera. 

Government closer to the people is a better government theory. 

Senator KENNEDY. Is that because you have an ombudsman 

there, or—— 

Mr. NOEL. No. We do our own advocating there, and because we 

have the connection with the elected officials and they listen. 

The thing—and there is some accountability in our State—— 

Senator KENNEDY. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. NOEL [continuing]. For whether that rule or reg fits what the 

legislation meant it to. We have—you know how the process works 

there. It goes back to an oversight committee and the oversight 

committee approves the rule or not. That, to me, sounds like the 

perfect world, in doing rules and regs, and making sure they comply with the laws that were written by the elected officials. We do 

not have that at the Federal Government level. The rule goes in 

place and then someone has to sue them to make them comply 

with the law. 

Senator KENNEDY. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. NOEL. I just—it is part of the reason, I think, we have more 

congressional oversight on these rules and regulations. We will get 

better rules and regulations and we will not put something in place 

that will cause a small businessman to have to spend hundreds of 

thousands of dollars to sue to stop. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, it has also been my experience, it is not 

just—and I would like both of you to comment on it—it is not just 

the number of rules and regulations, and it is not just the complexity. I think that you will find this to be accurate, that the Federal rules generally are much more complex than state and local. 

It is also an attitude. I mean, we need government workers who 

answer the telephone, and when they do answer the telephone, try 

to be helpful, which means making a decision. Now I know the 

safest way not to get in trouble is not to make a decision, but it 

kind of frustrates business. Businesswomen and businessmen are 

used to making a decision. It is government websites that a normal 

person can navigate. 

I guess what I am talking about is not just the number of rules, 

which is breathtaking, particularly the amount added in the last 

eight years. It is not just their complexity. It is not just the extraordinary expense. It is the attitude of the agencies. I mean, not 

every time but too often you just encounter condescension and 

smugness and this unspoken understanding that if you complain 

too much, well, what goes around comes around. 

Would you comment on that? 

Mr. KNAPP. I will say that you have just simply made the perfect 

argument for having some entity like the National Ombudsman Office to be that conduit, to be the entity that goes to those Federal 

agencies and says, ‘‘You will talk with these people. You will try 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

24 

to resolve this problem.’’ That is what they are empowered to do, 

sir. 

Senator KENNEDY. I am out of time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman RISCH. Thank you very much, Senator. You know, 

your argument is well taken. I think it even goes beyond that, that 

they should be much more results-oriented than what they are. 

This is the anecdote I tell. When I practiced law, a client called me 

and he said, ‘‘EPA guys are here and they want to inspect the business. What should I do?’’ And I said, ‘‘You tell them to get off the 

property, and never set foot on the property again unless they have 

a warrant from a judge, based on probable cause that there is 

something occurring, and if you do not, you are going to be really 

sorry. Because I went through a lot of those enforcement proceedings and all the agencies were interested in was money. 

Now let me give you the other side of that. The fire marshal 

would come to my law office and say, ‘‘Jim, I am here to inspect 

and see if you guys are in compliance. And I would say, ‘‘Come on 

in and look it over and tell me where we are.’’ And you know why 

I did that? Because I knew that guy was interested in seeing that 

my place would not catch on fire, and if it did, that they could put 

it out. He was not interested in raising money in fines. He would 

go through, he would look at it. If he got to the basement, there 

was always a problem; he would come up with a list and say, 

‘‘Here. You need to take care of these half a dozen things and I will 

be back in a month to have a look at it.’’ 

That is the way it should work, not walking in and saying, 

‘‘Okay, this is going to cost you this much, and this is going to cost 

you this much.’’ 

You are absolutely convinced after you go through some of those 

hearings that all agencies are interested in is dollars and cents, 

and for some reason, trying to slow down the business from what 

it is trying to do. 

So if the regulatory agencies were there to help to accomplish 

things, like clean up the water, clean up the air, and actually be 

helpful to the businesses, there would be a whole different attitude 

about regulations. 

So with that, Senator Ernst. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Noel, thank you for 

being here today and testifying. Your testimony was spot-on when 

you spoke about Waters of the U.S. I appreciated that very much, 

and really had some interesting interactions through their rulemaking process, when EPA came up with that version of WOTUS, 

so thank you. 

That rule gave the EPA the power to regulate 97 percent of Iowa. 

Not 97 percent of Iowa’s waters—97 percent of Iowa. So that really 

hit home with me. 

So you better believe that when that happened, when that rule 

was implemented, our small businesses were impacted at home, 

and it was EPA’s failed rulemaking process, and its lack of consideration for those small businesses, that led me to work on legislation that I introduced last year called the Prove It Act. And we are 

currently working on what we consider a 2.0 version of the Prove 

It Act and we are requesting lots of feedback from different groups. 

But at its core, the bill seeks to strengthen the voice of small busiLAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

25 

ness owners and improve the quality of agency certifications and 

analysis, which we felt was lacking as we went through WOTUS. 

Last year we had the support of NFIB, the Chamber, and 

Women Impacting Public Policy. It is a good government bill that 

says if there is a difference in opinion between the Office of Advocacy and a Federal agency on the economic impact of the rule, such 

as a certification, then Advocacy should have the ability to request 

that the agency take a second look at its analysis, which we feel 

is reasonable. It would serve as a check on whether the agency certification of no impact on small businesses is correct, which is a 

need that you mentioned in your testimony, so thank you for highlighting that. 

So my question to, Mr. Noel is this: do you think providing greater accountability for agency certification would improve the rulemaking process and outcomes for small businesses? 

Mr. NOEL. Well, absolutely. I mean, if you have no accountability 

you can do anything you want to do, knowing there is no repercussion. 

To tag on to the story about—we have builders on the north 

shore, in St. Tammany, that were making sure that the dirt did not 

go into the street, but had not had the right paperwork in their file 

to prove that they inspected it weekly, and 24 hours after the rain. 

Got fined $1,500. They were accomplishing the goal of the runoff 

but because the paperwork was not—the same thing happened on 

lead paint on a remodeling. Because he did not have a document 

saying he had given a pamphlet to a homeowner, he got fined. Now 

come on. 

Senator ERNST. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. NOEL. And there is nothing you can do about it, because the 

fine is not enough to justify hiring a lawyer and suing them, although Volks Construction did that in Baton Route and won. But 

this is not fair to the small American business. 

Senator ERNST. Right. So we do think there should be a check 

and a balance—— 

Mr. NOEL. Absolutely. 

Senator ERNST [continuing]. Available there, so that if there is 

question, go back and have them take a second look at it, and we 

are hoping to gain a little traction on that piece of legislation this 

year, or in this Congress. So thank you for that. 

And then, second, in your experience and in your role with the 

National Association of Home Builders, how many proposed regulations would you say were either improperly certified by agencies or 

made it through the process without thoughtfully considering the 

comments of the small business community? Just an estimation on 

your part. 

Mr. NOEL. How many rules came out in the last eight years? 

[Laughter.] 

Or the last 12 months. Hundreds? 

Senator ERNST. Thousands. Yeah. Thousands. 

Mr. NOEL. I know that we are dealing with, right now, at least 

five that we are spending court money on to stop. 

Senator ERNST. Wow. 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

26 

Mr. NOEL. That is not a very good use of our members’ money, 

especially if we can stop the rule from going into place before it 

harms the small business. 

Senator ERNST. Absolutely, and that is why I think the Prove It 

Act is necessary. If there is a discrepancy that can be shown, it can 

be re-evaluated before it is promulgated. 

Mr. NOEL. That is wonderful. 

Senator ERNST. Yeah, so, anyway, thank you very much, gentlemen, for being here today. I appreciate it. 

Mr. NOEL. Thank you. 

Chairman RISCH. Thank you. The last time I looked at statistics 

on the number of regulations, there were 80,000 pages of regulations passed in that year. Congress, on average, passes 800 pages 

of law. Now that is on average. That does not include a year when 

they pass ObamaCare, an extra 3,000 pages, or something. But on 

average it is 800 pages of law compared to 80,000 pages of regulatory work. 

Senator Ernst, we are looking forward to your bills and looking 

forward to debating them. 

Senator Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Noel and Mr. Knapp, first of all, thank you both for being 

here today. In South Dakota, like in 41 other states, we have a 

rules review process. The Federal Government does not have one, 

at least not one that works. At the Federal level, the Congress will 

create a law, allow the Executive branch the administrative authority to write the rules, but there is no requirement, as Mr. Noel 

has indicated earlier, that that ever be reconciled with the actual 

law itself unless, at the cost of a small business person or a business person in some place, that agency is sued. 

It seems to me that the best way to approach this is to have a 

rules review process in place at the Federal level, just like we have 

in 41 other states. 

Can I ask each of you if you would agree that that would be an 

appropriate way to handle the rules processes in the future, and 

would that actually help us solve this problem? 

Mr. NOEL. Well, I will answer it. Absolutely. It works well in my 

home state, and good rules and regulations and the people that 

participate in them, participate in the conversation, so it is not 

hard to enforce. 

Mr. KNAPP. Yes, sir. In fact, in 2002, I was part of the group that 

promoted the South Carolina—passing the—their flexibility—Small 

Business Flexibility Act. But that is on the front end, though. So 

it is a volunteer group that looks at every rule promulgated by a 

state agency, and if they have got problems with it, they take it 

back to the state agency and say, you know, ‘‘Fix this.’’ So that has 

worked exceptionally well in South Carolina. 

Your proposal regarding having an independent entity look at a 

rule to make sure it complies with what the legislation said, I have 

not looked into that. 

Senator ROUNDS. Actually, my legislation required that an agency, like in 41 states, would bring their proposed rule back to the 

appropriate committee at the congressional level for approval, before it becomes enacted, and while the agency could not—or while 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

27 

the Congress would not be able to necessarily permanently stop the 

rule, they could delay it for a period of time. 

Most bureaucrats want their rules to go into effect, and what you 

find is an interest in actually working through the issues to get an 

appropriate and fair rule in place, and that is after you have input 

from the public. The WOTUS is a great example of one which 

never, ever would have been allowed to move forward if it would 

have had a congressional oversight prior to the implementation. 

I have another question as well. Do you think—would either one 

of you think that it is appropriate for the agency responsible for enforcement and action, do you think they should fund their agency 

using the fines that they collect? 

Mr. NOEL. Absolutely not. I think it is a moral hazard. Education 

and—other things the money could be used for, other than funding 

the agency. 

Mr. KNAPP. Certainly it creates a perverse incentive to finding 

problems when you do it that way, but I imagine those agencies 

have been told by Congress maybe they have to be self-funded. 

Senator ROUNDS. The unfortunate part, CFPB is a good example, 

which is supposedly for consumers and yet it basically has the ability to go into a business that works for or markets to businesses, 

and basically they can fine a business, and they keep the money, 

and they actually operate the CFPB with those resources today. I 

find that very inappropriate. I do believe there is a moral hazard 

involved in that, and I disagree with the fact that it was ever done 

that way by Congress in the first place and should be one of the 

first things that we stop. We have legislation available now. 

Let me ask another question very quickly. Right now we have— 

at the Federal level we have, as you have indicated and as the 

Chairman has indicated, probably 80,000 rules on the books today. 

We have 1 million—there is 80,000 a year—we have a million rules 

on the books today. The total cost to the American public today is 

about $1.9 trillion annually, just to comply with the rules, and if 

you compare that, put it in numbers that people could actually understand, personal income taxes actually cost the American public, 

on April 15th, about $1.4 trillion. So the actual cost to the American economy, on an annual basis, is a half a trillion dollars more 

than what personal income taxes are to the individuals who actually own those businesses. 

It seems to me that if those rules were reviewed on a regular 

basis that we would have fewer of those, there would be more dollars to the bottom line, there would be more revenue generated on 

actual profits delivered, and you would actually have some happier 

businesspeople and you would have happier consumers as well. 

Your thoughts, gentlemen? 

Mr. NOEL. I would say I would agree with that. Certainly our 

economy has been dragged by these regulations that we have, and 

the industry that is leaving our shores is clearly an indication of 

that. 

Mr. KNAPP. My first comment about that $1.9 trillion figure, I 

think that was produced by a study for Advocacy, which later was 

disavowed by SBA, so I am not sure about the number. 

Senator ROUNDS. It is probably higher. 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

28 

Mr. KNAPP. But the look-back thing, there is nothing wrong with 

that. You know, in South Carolina that regulatory flexibility access, 

yes, they should go back and look at the rules to see if they are 

still appropriate or need to be modified. The problem with that is 

it takes money to do that, and again, I just do not think we are 

funding the process well enough to do that, which we may all agree 

with. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman RISCH. Thank you, Senator Rounds. 

I think one of the problems on this whole regulatory thing is that 

we have all forgotten, or were never taught in our basic civics 

classes in grammar school that with the regulatory structure, the 

regulatory enactment is not an inherent power of the second 

branch of government—that belongs to the first branch of government—yet somehow that has slipped away. The first branch of government, of course, from time to time, allows the second branch to 

enact those regulations, and has to because it cannot enact them 

all. For instance, a classic example is Fish and Game type things, 

shooting hours, bag limits and that sort of thing. Those are the 

rules and regs that should be sent out. 

But we need to get back to an understanding that the second 

branch of government is merely the second branch of government. 

Their job is to execute the laws that the Congress—or in the states, 

the legislature—enacts. The legislative authority is not inherent in 

the second branch of government. It only exists because of what the 

first branch gave it. 

Sometimes when you listen to courts and you listen to other people, they talk like rulemaking is an inherent part of the second 

branch of government, but it is not. When a rule or regulation is 

enacted, it has substantive effect of force of law, and it was never 

intended by the Founding Fathers to be part of the second branch 

of government. It was supposed to be such that the second branch 

would execute. 

One of the strengths of this country is the fact that it gave us 

three branches of government that would be separate and equal, 

and each would have its own lane that it stayed in. We have really 

drifted away from that. 

What we do in Idaho, I think is unique. When I came to the state 

legislature in 1975, rulemaking and rule review, et cetera, was the 

same as it is here right now. If the agencies enacted a rule pursuant to the rulemaking authority by the legislature, then that had 

the full force and effect of law. If the legislature wanted to change 

agency rules, it took a bill in each house and signature by the governor. 

What we did, when I headed the State Senate, I negotiated and 

we changed that. What we have now is a situation where the bureaucracy can pass whatever rule and reg it wants, pursuant to authority from the legislature. But that rule only lasts until the last 

day of the next regular legislative session. When the session starts, 

all the rules and regs that have been enacted during the year are 

handed out to the appropriate committees. They review them and 

the only way that the rules last is if, on the last day of the session, 

when they pass an omnibus regulatory bill, that the rule or reg is 

in there. Some 90 percent of them do pass and they are in that bill, 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

29 

but they always leave about a dozen of them on the table. This is 

done not by a statute, but by a resolution, so it does not go across 

the governor’s desk. It is the first branch of government doing what 

the first branch of government should do, and that is dealing with 

legislation. 

It is a good way to do it. I often thought that would work substantially better here, because the substance that is passed here is 

just breathtaking when you see the kinds of things that the bureaucracy does here. I mean, you look at that and you wonder why 

there is a first branch of government when the bureaucracy is 

doing what it does. 

Senator ROUNDS. Would you yield for just a—— 

Chairman RISCH. Certainly. 

Senator ROUNDS. I absolutely agree with your analysis on it, and 

I think if there was one thing that we, as a committee, could do, 

if there was a way to begin the process of an open dialog, and a 

rules review process that was more adept than the one which is 

currently here, which, you know, we are working through right 

now where it literally takes an act of Congress, signed by the President, on a rule, and you have still got limits on that in terms of 

what you can do, and it still runs through a time frame in which 

we have to be proactive in getting the thing done. 

It seems to me that any rule at the Federal level should still be 

subject to some sort of a congressional oversight, and when you 

look back at the committees that are there, it seems to me that 

they are reasonable and it would not be an unreasonable approach 

to have those committees, with jurisdiction, to review those particular proposed rules, prior to the fact that they go into effect, if 

nothing else, just because, like in 40 states, or 41 of the states, you 

actually get better rulemaking process and you get a more open intake, because the bureaucrats learn real quick that if they want it 

to happen they are going to have to accept some input from the 

people that they are regulating. 

And I think we have really fallen down on that, at the Federal 

level, and I think we could do marvelous things for our country, 

and for the businesses that are generating jobs, if we could get a 

hold of this regulatory morass that we have got today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman RISCH. Well, there is no question about that, Senator. 

We appreciate that. 

I would like to introduce Marty and Cindy France from Idaho. 

Could you stand up? They just came in. Mr. Knapp, they will be 

happy to sit down and tell you that their business was a casualty 

of government regulation. They came to see me today and it was 

fortuitous that we were having this hearing. Thank you for coming, 

we appreciate your issue, and we are going to try to see if we cannot do something about that. 

With that, Senator Heitkamp is supposedly on the way. Is that 

right? 

[Pause.] 

Gentlemen, do either of you have anything else for the good of 

the order? 

Mr. NOEL. Just other than thank you for giving me the opportunity to represent the 140,000 members of the association. 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

30 

Chairman RISCH. We appreciate that, and Mr. Knapp, we also 

appreciate you. This is not a partisan issue. Admittedly, we have 

a little different issue as to the mass of the regulations. But on the 

other hand, I think we all agree that there are some regulations 

that are necessary, there are a whole lot more that are not, and 

we all need to be vigilant on that. 

Senator Heitkamp, I have been stalling here. I have been filibustering. You know what a filibuster is? 

Senator HEITKAMP. I do. You do too. Unfortunately, we do. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman RISCH. Thank you so much for joining us. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for giving 

me an opportunity to ask a few questions. I was just over at another committee, and so I think it is always important. Small business, obviously, is the cornerstone of American business, but it is 

particularly important in North Dakota. And so I take the role on 

this committee quite seriously and always appreciate the work that 

the chairman does in a very nonpartisan way—— 

Chairman RISCH. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator HEITKAMP [continuing]. To—— 

Chairman RISCH. We have had a really good, robust discussion. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Good. Well, I will have to watch it on 

YouTube. I am sure it was so interesting it will probably make the 

nightly news. 

Chairman RISCH. It might have three views. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HEITKAMP. When I talk to North Dakota small business 

I think they continue to be really concerned about regulatory burdens and how do we kind of overcome those. But I know that a lot 

of this ground has been covered, and so I want to say where I believe it is always important to consider actual consequences of proposed legislation. So I want to ask both of you if you worry that 

legislation which adds analytical requirements, which cause regulatory delay, whether that is going to be a problem for small business, because a lot of what we hear is not just the regulation itself 

but the uncertainty and the delay in finding out what the rules are 

going to be. 

So I ask that question of both of you. Randy, maybe you could 

start. 

Mr. KNAPP. Well, thank you, Senator, and welcome. Uncertainty 

is really, really an issue for any business, small or large. How can 

they make a decision on what they are going to do if they do not 

know what the rules are going to be two years from now, four years 

from now, five years from now? So anything that does not improve 

the system and simply adds more time, more delay, is not a way 

of addressing the problem that we all agree that there are problems. 

So, yes, that would be my response. If you are going to do something that is going to actually help fix the problem, and it delays 

it a little bit, okay. But if it is simply going to delay, to stall, to 

wait for a new administration to do something, then we are not 

helping anybody. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Randy. 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

31 

Mr. NOEL. Okay. Regulations to keep water from flowing into the 

waters of the U.S. and polluting the water is a good regulation. 

When I build a home, I have to do a storm water prevention pollution plan. I have to figure out a way to keep the pollution from 

coming off my site, into the drainage system, into the waters of the 

U.S. 

The Environmental Protection Agency oversees that with the 

state. They tell you not how to do that. They refuse to tell you how 

to do that. You have to figure that out on your own, with best practices, and research, et cetera, et cetera. But they do fine you if you 

do not have the paperwork, where you were supposed to make the 

inspection every week, or after a rain, or you happen to have a little bit of river sand in your street. They do fine you and fine you 

for that. 

So when we do rules and regulations, you know, I think the 

American people get we want clean water and clean air and safety 

when it comes to building homes, et cetera, but, you know, let us 

get there with something that makes sense. The paperwork does 

not help us get there. Why are we fining them for that, you know. 

So when we do a rule or reg, if they will listen to the people that 

are involved in the rule or reg, on how to accomplish the goal, and 

actually put it in the rule or reg, we have a fighting chance. But 

if the agency just completely ignores what we tell them, there is 

no repercussion to the agency. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Yeah. I think one of the challenges that we 

have is this seemingly adversarial relationship that should not 

exist, because we all have the same goal. And, you know, one of 

the things that we have been working on is doing something in a 

broader way with advanced notice of proposed rulemaking. I like 

to put it this way, that, you know, if you gave me a task and I sat 

down and thought about it hard, and, you know, I got some input 

from some people that work around me and I write the regulation, 

and then someone comes in and tells me I am full of it, I am going 

to be a little more defensive and protective of that regulation. 

But if I open up the door, on the front end, and say, ‘‘Okay, we 

want to prevent runoff. What is the best way to do it, and how can 

we—what concerns would you have on this? Do we need to have 

paperwork every week? Do we need to have compliance checks 

every week? Can we do this in a way that we can trust each other 

a little bit, as long as we have common goals?’’ and I think that 

continues to be the challenge, this adversarial relationship that 

presupposes people do not have the same goals for clean air and 

clean water. 

So we need a little common sense in all of this and we are working to try and make it happen, but I am particularly concerned 

with the impacts that all of this has on small business, because, 

you know, if you can hire an army of lobbyists here, you know, you 

are going to be well represented. They are going to knock on our 

door. But if you are just the contractor that is out there struggling, 

trying to make it work, and you just get it heaped on and heaped 

on and heaped on, eventually you are going to give up. 

Mr. NOEL. Right. 

Senator HEITKAMP. And so we are going to continue to examine 

this area. We have got a number of pieces of legislation I think we 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

32 

need to work through, but I wanted to be here because regulatory 

reform is a big part of what I am trying to do, not just on this committee but also on the subcommittee that I serve on, on Homeland 

Security and Government Affairs. So stay tuned. We are hearing 

you and hopefully we will get you some relief. 

Mr. NOEL. Thank you. 

Chairman RISCH. Encouraging words. Thank you very much, 

Senator. 

Gentlemen, thank you. I appreciate it. It has been a good hearing 

and I thank all of you who attended. 

This meeting will be adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:02 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

(33) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

34 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 1 here 25346.001
35 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 2 here 25346.002
36 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 14 here 25346.014
37 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 15 here 25346.015
38 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 16 here 25346.016
39 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 17 here 25346.017
40 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 18 here 25346.018
41 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 19 here 25346.019
42 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 20 here 25346.020
43 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 21 here 25346.021
44 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 22 here 25346.022
45 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 23 here 25346.023
46 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 24 here 25346.024
47 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 25 here 25346.025
48 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 26 here 25346.026
49 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 27 here 25346.027
50 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 28 here 25346.028
51 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 29 here 25346.029
52 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 30 here 25346.030
53 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 31 here 25346.031
54 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 32 here 25346.032
55 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 33 here 25346.033
56 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 34 here 25346.034
57 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 35 here 25346.035
58 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 36 here 25346.036
59 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 37 here 25346.037
60 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 38 here 25346.038
61 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 39 here 25346.039
62 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 40 here 25346.040
63 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 41 here 25346.041
64 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 42 here 25346.042
65 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 43 here 25346.043
66 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 44 here 25346.044
67 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 45 here 25346.045
68 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 46 here 25346.046
69 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 47 here 25346.047
70 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 48 here 25346.048
71 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 49 here 25346.049
72 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 50 here 25346.050
73 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 51 here 25346.051
74 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 52 here 25346.052
75 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 53 here 25346.053
76 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 54 here 25346.054
77 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 55 here 25346.055
78 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 56 here 25346.056
79 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 57 here 25346.057
80 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 58 here 25346.058
81 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 59 here 25346.059
82 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 60 here 25346.060
83 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 61 here 25346.061
84 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 62 here 25346.062
85 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 63 here 25346.063
86 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 64 here 25346.064
87 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 65 here 25346.065
88 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 66 here 25346.066
89 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 67 here 25346.067
90 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 68 here 25346.068
91 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 69 here 25346.069
92 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 70 here 25346.070
93 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 71 here 25346.071
94 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 72 here 25346.072
95 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 73 here 25346.073
96 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 74 here 25346.074
97 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 75 here 25346.075
98 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 76 here 25346.076
99 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 77 here 25346.077
100 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 78 here 25346.078
101 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 79 here 25346.079
102 

Æ 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 80 here 25346.080