U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

79–993 2002

MAKING THE OFFICE OF ADVOCACY

INDEPENDENT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 20, 2002

Serial No. 107–49

Printed for the use of the Committee on Small Business

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

DONALD MANZULLO, Illinois, Chairman 

LARRY COMBEST, Texas 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SUE W. KELLY, New York 

STEVE. CHABOT, Ohio 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN R. THUNE, South Dakota 

MICHAEL PENCE, Indiana 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia 

FELIX J. GRUCCI, JR., New York 

TODD W. AKIN, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD, 

California 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

DAVID D. PHELPS, Illinois 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BRAD CARSON, Oklahoma 

ANI ́BAL ACEVEDO-VILA ́ , Puerto Rico 

DOUG THOMAS, Staff Director 

PHIL ESKELAND, Deputy Staff Director 

MICHAEL DAY, Minority Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 20, 2002 ............................................................................ 1

WITNESSES

Sullivan, Hon. Thomas, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, U.S. Small Business 

Administration ..................................................................................................... 3

Barrera, Michael, Small Business & Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman, U.S. Small Business Administration ................................................ 4

Glover, Jere, Brand & Frulla .................................................................................. 6

APPENDIX

Opening statements: 

Manzullo, Hon. Donald .................................................................................... 20

Vela ́zquez, Hon. Nydia ..................................................................................... 23

Prepared statements: 

Sullivan, Hon. Thomas ..................................................................................... 27

Barrera, Michael ............................................................................................... 43

Glover, Jere ....................................................................................................... 50

(1)

MAKING THE OFFICE OF ADVOCACY 

INDEPENDENT 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 2002 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:40 a.m. in room 2360, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Donald Manzullo presiding. 

Chairman MANZULLO. The committee will come to order. Welcome to this hearing of the Committee on Small Business. 

Since its inception in 1976, the Office of Advocacy has had the 

difficult and important task of being an effective voice for small 

business within the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. 

There have been a number of distinguished individuals who, as 

Chief Counsel, have directed the Office of Advocacy and have left 

an admirable record of accomplishments despite the lack of resources and limited authority. One of those Chief Counsels, Jere 

Glover, is with us here today as one of our witnesses. 

Over time, there have been various constructive suggestions to 

strengthen the office and to make it more effective and independent. We heard a number of those suggestions at the hearing 

the committee held a year ago on March 22. 

Since that time, the Senate has passed and referred to the 

House, S. 395, the Independent Office of Advocacy Act of 2001. In 

light of this legislative activity and the subject, the previous legislation that was before the committee last March has been redrafted. 

The draft bill for discussion today is less ambitious than the previous version. It makes the office more independent and provides 

the office with greater resources and more authority to represent 

the interests of small businesses. 

I was encouraged yesterday by the President’s small business 

agenda, particularly heartened with regard to specific points on the 

Office of Advocacy and how to make that office a stronger voice 

within the Federal Government. 

I believe this draft legislation, along with other provisions I intend to introduce to strengthen the Regulatory Flexibility Act mirror the President’s thinking on this issue. We must ensure that 

regulators take into account the interests of small businesses prior 

to the issuance of a new rule. The law has been ignored far too 

often by too many agencies. We must give more tooth to the chief 

counsel of Advocacy to enforce the President’s vision. 

I want to work with my colleagues on both sides of the Hill to 

pass the bill that produces real results for mainstream America. 

2

I now yield for an opening statement from my good friend and 

colleague, the Ranking Democratic member, Ms. Vela ́zquez. 

[Chairman Manzullo’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning. 

This hearing comes at a very opportune time. Yesterday we 

heard the President speak about ways to help small businesses in 

this country. I am very pleased to see he has read the legislative 

report the Democrats wrote in January. In fact, he mentioned five 

of our 11 concerns: taxes, regulatory issues, contracting bundling, 

worker health care, and expanding the Office of Advocacy. 

The President has signaled he plans to issue an Executive Order 

to give the Office of Advocacy more powers and independence. He 

could not have picked a better moment since the scope of that 

power and independence is what brings us here today. 

We support a truly independent Office of Advocacy. Small businesses agree, which is why we listed it in our report on the small 

business agenda this January. We want a smart watchdog that 

compels the agency to respond to regulatory problems that small 

businesses face. 

There are two real questions before us on this issue. First, why 

do we need an independent Office of Advocacy? Everybody says we 

do. We all want one. But, before we rush headlong into this, we 

need to know exactly what the problem is we are trying to solve. 

The problem is the Office of Management and Budget. An independent Office of Advocacy must worry about undue influence from 

the executive branch, which means shielding it from OMB. We 

have seen too many times how OMB interferes with changes at 

SBA, such as changing the size standards and subsidy rates. 

So the second real question in evaluating the legislation before 

this committee is, how do we ensure an independent office and 

shield it from OMB? This clearly cannot be done with simple window dressing like giving Advocacy a budgetary line item or adding 

so many new responsibilities that it becomes bogged down in its 

own mission. 

Advocacy has been successful because its mission has been laserfocused, and we have given it the flexibility to work with agencies 

to find creative solutions to the problems facing this country’s 

small businesses. Any future changes must follow this trend for 

Advocacy to continue serving as the voice of small business. 

Clearly, there is much more work to be done. We are here to find 

solutions to that end. I hope we can hear from Advocacy’s chief 

counsel, Tom Sullivan, about his own ideas about how to make the 

office more independent. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and to learn what ideas they have to achieve this goal. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Ms. Vela ́zquez’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman MANZULLO. I noted in the President’s initiative handed down yesterday it talks about—‘‘for a tighter cooperation between the Office of Advocacy and OMB.’’ I—maybe somebody from 

the White House was sitting in the audience here when we showed 

the problems with OMB. 

Our first witness is the Honorable Tom Sullivan, Chief Counsel 

for Advocacy. 

3

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE THOMAS M. SULLIVAN, 

CHIEF COUNSEL, OFFICE OF ADVOCACY, U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Chairman Manzullo—— Chairman MANZULLO. Could you pull the mike up closer? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Certainly. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Thank you. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Chairman Manzullo, Congresswoman Vela ́zquez, 

Congressman Pascrell, good morning and thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss ways to strengthen 

and improve the Office of Advocacy, a concept I have been supportive of even before coming on board as chief counsel. 

I was also encouraged by President Bush’s announcement yesterday and the small business agenda he formalized during the Women’s Entrepreneurship conference. 

Thank you also for accepting my written statement into the 

record. I will summarize some of the key points. 

First, let me say that I am committed to working with this committee, Congress, and the President both to ensure the Office of 

Advocacy’s independence well past my tenure and to make sure 

that the government is accountable to small businesses through 

compliance with the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(the RFA), and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). 

I believe these two goals, strengthening the independence of the 

office and enhancing the effectiveness of the RFA and SBREFA, are 

best addressed separately because each by itself deserves the full 

attention of both Congress and the administration. 

Later this week, our office will be releasing the annual report on 

agency compliance with the RFA for Fiscal Year 2001. I can assure 

you that this committee will be the first to see that report. This 

report will detail successes and failures and will help frame the debate on how we can all work together to ensure greater attention 

to the unique needs of small businesses early in the regulatory 

process, the tenet of the RFA. 

With respect to the issue of strengthening the Office of Advocacy, 

the focus of our discussion this morning, I want to express my appreciation to the committee and staff for their willingness to look 

carefully at various options in crafting legislation to strengthen 

Advocacy’s role as the voice for small business within the Federal 

Government. It will be important to keep in mind preserving both 

the chief counsel’s independence and the flexibility to respond to 

new concerns as they arise. 

I believe that if legislation is needed to improve the Office of 

Advocacy’s independence and ability to carry out its mandate, it 

should be done as cleanly and simply as possible. 

I should also note for the record that the administration and, in 

particular, Administrator Barreto’s team have been fully supportive 

of my office. Discussion of legislative options that seek greater 

independence for Advocacy should not in any way imply an immediate need to exercise that budgetary independence. Legislation, if 

needed at all, should be framed in the context of an Office of Advocacy that does not necessarily have the luxury of having such an 

accommodating landlord as I have in Hector Barreto. 

4

In a few minutes we’ll hear from Michael Barrera, the SBA’s current National Ombudsman. I know that Michael shares my vision 

of our complementary roles in support of small business. 

Michael and I met to discuss our respective offices even before 

I came on board, and we continue to meet regularly. I am proud 

to announce that, just this morning, we signed a memorandum of 

understanding that will help both our offices work together to benefit small business while at the same time recognizing the independence of the Office of Advocacy. 

With the Chair’s permission, I would ask that that Memorandum 

of Understanding be inserted into the record. 

Chairman MANZULLO. The statements of the witnesses and of the 

members, along with the memorandum, will be admitted without 

objection. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

There have been some legislative proposals to require Advocacy 

to report on specific subjects. While these provisions may be wellintentioned, such a legislative mandate sets a precedent that contradicts the flexibility inherent in Advocacy’s role. 

Advocacy has a strong history of listening to small business owners and working with this committee to develop the research and 

action agenda that makes the best use of Advocacy’s resources. I 

fully intend to build on that tradition and capacity. For that reason, I am reluctant to endorse legislative provisions that constrain 

our research flexibility. 

I am encouraged by this committee’s dedication to the Office of 

Advocacy’s success and the benefits that obviously are realized by 

small business owners themselves. I pledge my full cooperation and 

the resources of Advocacy to work toward solutions that will help 

our country’s economic engine, small business. 

[Mr. Sullivan’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman MANZULLO. Thank you. Our next witness will be Michael Barrera, the National Ombudsman. Mr. Barrera accompanied 

Administrator Barreto to northern Illinois, I think, the first week 

after your boss was confirmed and had a great time there. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL BARRERA, SMALL BUSINESS AND 

AGRICULTURE REGULATORY, ENFORCEMENT OMBUDSMAN, 

U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. BARRERA. Mm-hmm. 

Chairman MANZULLO. I really appreciated the fact that you came 

along and had a lot of input and met a lot of fine people in northern Illinois, including my brother at the restaurant. So that was a 

lot of fun, Michael. 

Mr. BARRERA. Unfortunately, I didn’t get a chance to eat, but I 

look forward to going back. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Yes. That’s good. We’ll be looking forward 

to your testimony. 

Mr. BARRERA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Could you put the mike a little bit closer. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BARRERA. Is that better? Okay. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman Manzullo, Ranking Member 

Vela ́zquez, Congressman Pascrell, and Congressman Langevin, for 

5

providing me my first opportunity to comment on how the Office 

of the National Ombudsman can help improve the regulatory environment for small businesses. 

First of all, I would like to state that I look forward to working 

with the committee, Congress, small entrepreneurs, and the new 

chief counsel for Advocacy, Tom Sullivan, to improve the regulatory 

enforcement environment for our nation’s 251⁄2 million small businesses. In fact, I have already met with staff from both the Senate 

and House Small Business Committees and with Mr. Sullivan on 

several occasions to discuss how the Office of Advocacy and the Office of the National Ombudsman can work together to ensure a fair 

small business regulatory environment. 

As Mr. Sullivan mentioned earlier, we both agree that a strong 

working relationship with frequent communication between the two 

offices is critical to the SBA’s mission of aiding and counseling 

America’s small businesses and protecting small businesses against 

unnecessary regulatory burdens. 

The President also recognizes the importance of regulatory fairness for small businesses and, just yesterday, unveiled his plan to 

help create an environment where small businesses can flourish. 

Some components of his plan include issuing an executive order 

to provide greater enforcement powers to the Office of Advocacy, instruction to the director of OMB to seek the views and comments 

of small businesses on existing Federal regulations, paperwork requirements, and guidance documents, instruction to the OMB and 

Advocacy to work together to strengthen the enforcement of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act and for increasing the coordination between OIRA and Advocacy. 

Along those lines, Mr. Sullivan and I have taken the initiative 

to strengthen the complementary roles we each play in working to 

benefit small businesses. Like Tom, I am also pleased to announce 

that, as of today, we have signed a memorandum of understanding 

that, while maintaining our independence, enhances our relationship that will enable us to put forth our best efforts to assist the 

small business community. 

As part of SBA, the SBA National Ombudsman can communicate 

small business issues directly to the SBA administrator and appropriate program managers. Administrator Barreto has recognized 

the importance of the SBA National Ombudsman and sources to 

the SBA’s field offices to use my office as another tool to assist and 

protect small businesses. 

The mission of the SBA National Ombudsman is now more relevant and more effective than ever before because it is now a core 

function of the SBA, and its services are available at the grassroots 

level through local SBA offices. 

I believe that Administrator Barreto underscored his commitment to regulatory fairness by making the appointment of the National Ombudsman one of his first after his confirmation. Since 

that time, the Office of the National Ombudsman has held six regulatory enforcement fairness hearings and six regulatory enforcement fairness roundtables. 

We plan to have at least one hearing and one roundtable in each 

federal region. This increase in hearings and roundtables is directly 

6

attributed to Administrator Barreto’s commitment to make the 

mission of this office a core function of the SBA. 

In addition to the increase in the number of hearings, attendance 

at the hearings and roundtables has also increased dramatically. 

For example, attendance at our hearings in Orlando and Albuquerque drew crowds of approximately 70 and 80 small business 

owners and other interested parties, respectively. 

Additionally, through contacts and efforts of our district field offices, we have received excellent news coverage for our hearings. 

This support greatly assists our office in marketing the resources 

of the SBA National Ombudsman. 

As demonstrated by this committee’s March 6, 2002, hearing on 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act, there was continued need to eliminate unnecessary regulatory burdens on America’s small businesses. 

On behalf of President Bush, Administrator Barreto, and the Office of the SBA National Ombudsman, I look forward to working 

with the chief counsel, our legislative partners, and America’s 

small businesses to eliminate the unnecessary regulatory burdens 

and excessive regulatory enforcement burdens on our nation’s entrepreneurs. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. I will be happy 

to answer any of your questions. Thank you. 

[Mr. Barrera’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman MANZULLO. Thank you. 

Our next witness will be Jere Glover with Brand & Frulla. 

I thought you retired. I know you got that sailboat. 

STATEMENT OF JERE W. GLOVER, COUNSEL, BRAND & 

FRULLA 

Mr. GLOVER. I did retire from the Federal Government, Mr. 

Chairman, but I am still back in the practice of law. 

Chairman MANZULLO. You didn’t retire from life. 

Mr. GLOVER. I did not retire from life. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Okay. 

Mr. GLOVER. Nor small business advocacy. 

Chairman MANZULLO. We look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. GLOVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. It’s great to be here with you discussing an issue that’s very 

near and dear to my heart. 

You know, yesterday was a great day. Any time a President mentions small business, it’s a great day. When the President mentioned strengthening the Office of Advocacy, it’s a really great day. 

And when he talks about stopping contract bundling, it just makes 

it phenomenal. So I will tell you that we have to be very pleased 

about hearing that happen. 

I’ve had this fantasy that’s gone on for years, this, perhaps, 

dream, and that is that at one presidential debate, the two candidates will discuss what is best for small business. We haven’t 

reached that yet, but, certainly, yesterday was a good day. 

Well, let me try to put the discussion about the Office of Advocacy into context. First of all, you have to recognize that the role 

within the Small Business Administration has declined over time. 

When you look at the number of resources that SBA has dedicated 

7

to advocacy, it’s less than two percent. When you look at SBA’s 

budget, again, less than two percent. 

But let’s put it in a little broader context. We had roughly 50 employees when I was there. I understand the number is down a little 

bit, and I’m not sure where that’s going to end up right—overall. 

But the Department of Commerce, which is tasked with primarily helping large firms—and I’m not questioning their justification for their existence of their number of employees, but they have 

32,981 employees. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has 110,000 

employees. The Department of Labor has 15,374 employees. All 

told, the Federal Government has 1,660,313, according to the last 

count I saw, full-time Federal employees. 

Having less than 50 do the research, fight the regulatory battles 

and provide important information to policymakers for decisions 

seems like things are a little askew. 

When I was first in the Office of Advocacy in the late 1970s, we 

had five percent of SBA’s budget and about five percent of the employees. The Congress put a floor in the legislation, which I mentioned in my testimony, that said, ‘‘Not less than 69 employees and 

less than $3 million in research would be spent on the Office of Advocacy.’’ That kind of clear congressional direction held the office 

in good stead for many, many years, but over the last few years 

we’ve seen some things begin to—the numbers and things erode. 

If we look at this from a cost benefit analysis, there have been 

roughly $16 billion in regulatory savings by actions by the Office 

of Advocacy and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, $16 billion. If you 

do a cost benefit analysis on SBA’s Office of Advocacy’s budget, you 

find out that it’s $800 returned for every dollar spent. That kind 

of cost benefit analysis is the kind that you would like to see in 

everything the government does. 

Now we have to remember that this office is, by its very nature, 

controversial. There will be people who don’t like what it does. We 

can remember back in 1995 when a vote on the floor of the House 

of Representatives came within 30 votes of eliminating that office 

forever. I think we have to recognize that, left to their own devices, 

this office will not receive the focus, the attention, and the priority 

that it deserves.

Let me go back to the President’s statement on advocacy. It’s a 

great statement. I dare say that the administrator did not call the 

chief counsel up last night and said, ‘‘I just had a great meeting 

with the President. I’m going to increase your slots by 25 percent, 

and you’ve got another half-million dollars in research.’’

I know, when SBREFA was passed and the panel process was 

put in place, which tremendously increased the responsibilities for 

the Office of Advocacy, we didn’t get a single slot or a single dollar 

to implement that. In fact, the—the report that we filed before the 

election on the background paper on the Office of Advocacy 1994–

2000 has a chart which shows the Office of Advocacy’s staffing 

overtime. And when SBREFA passed, we actually lost six slots because SBA was in a government-wide freeze—an agency-wide 

freeze. We never got those slots back. So I think that we have to 

recognize that something specific really does need to be done. 

Now I will tell you that—that I was very proud of all of the accomplishments that the Office of Advocacy had while I was there. 

8

I was certainly appreciative of the congressional support that the 

office had. Could I have done more if I had had more resources? 

Absolutely. I have total confidence in Tom Sullivan, the current 

chief counsel. He will do the very best job that he can do with the 

resources and personnel he has. Can he do more with more? Absolutely. 

I think the historical precedent when this committee, back in the 

early 1980s, when the first chief counsel who I had the privilege 

of working under and mentoring under and learning from left, and 

a new chief counsel came in, they wanted to make sure that the 

office didn’t lose the status. And that’s why it said, ‘‘Not less than 

69 employees, not less than $3 million in research.’’

That kind of provision did make a difference, and it stayed there 

for a long time. Let me just ask the question. Between those periods in the late 1970s, early 1980s, is the Office of Advocacy less important today than it was then? Does it have less responsibilities? 

Is small business less important? Does Congress care less about 

small business? I think not. I think it’s time to restore the office 

to its prior status and provide it with the resources. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. 

[Mr. Glover’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman MANZULLO. Well, thank you very much. The—Ms. 

Vela ́zquez, did you want to go first? 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. I don’t mind. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Okay. Go ahead. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Get my thoughts together here. Thank 

you. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Sullivan, the President announced a new 

small business initiative yesterday, and you mentioned that too in 

your testimony. With this new executive order in the works, should 

we be considering legislation now too, or should we wait until we 

can see the effects of this executive order? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, let me—let me actually touch on a few 

things specific to the Office of Advocacy in the announcement yesterday. First, one accomplishment that is done already, as far as 

a memorandum, is our written agreement to work very early and 

often with Dr. John Graham in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. And, with the Congresswoman’s permission, I would 

like to insert that Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) also into 

the hearing record because it is a monumental document. 

Chairman MANZULLO. That will be accepted into the record without hesitation or objection. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Do you have a copy of that memorandum? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Could you hand it to us up here so we 

could look at it? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. And your counsel also has a copy that was 

provided previous to this. I want to make sure that you know that 

we get everything to the committee before the hearing, not in the 

middle. 

I do want to also answer the Congresswoman’s other part of the 

question, and that is whether or not we need legislation now when 

9

there is an executive order that, in fact, does a lot in the same direction and with the same purpose of what some of the legislation 

before us attempts to do. 

My answer is, any time you have legislation, presidential announcements, executive orders, or roundtable discussions that focus 

on strengthening the Office of Advocacy, I’m all for it. 

Whether or not we’re jumping the gun by formalizing legislation 

that could be overcome by executive order, I think that those 

things have to be considered. The timing of those two documents 

is important. 

I think that it is tremendously helpful that the President has 

committed to formalizing an executive order, and I’m sure that the 

President wants to make sure that any legislation that seeks to do 

the same thing is complementary, not contradictory, to the executive order. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. But if you mention that, in the Executive 

Order—it contains a lot of elements that are in the legislation. 

Shouldn’t we wait to see those—if that Executive Order really 

works or not? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I want to be as responsive as possible without getting into specifics of a document that has not been written yet. But 

I think it is wise that this discussion happen now because the purpose of both the executive order and the legislation is absolutely 

similar. So, to the extent that they complement and do not contradict each other, I do think that it’s a good idea that those considerations be brought back to the President, and I’ll certainly convey 

that. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Okay. Mr. Sullivan, I understand you signed a 

memorandum of understanding with OIRA as part of the President’s new Small Business Initiative. How does this memorandum 

actually change any of the current processes in place for interagency review? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, like so many things that we do at the Office 

of Advocacy, we build on the successes of the past. I am honored 

to share the panel not only with Michael Barrera, but with the past 

chief counsel, Jere Glover. 

The Office of Advocacy has historically had an exchange of letters 

with Dr. Graham’s office, the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs. That exchange of letters simply formalizes a working relationship of examining agency proposals and how they impact business, quite frankly, how they benefit businesses, more along the 

lines of what Dr. Graham’s shop does. 

What the MOU does is to go even further. It specifically calls 

upon Dr. Graham’s executive order authority to send back regulations and uses that authority to examine whether or not agencies 

have complied with the Reg Flex Act according to the Office of Advocacy. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Sullivan, giving Advocacy its own line item 

is being characterized as giving Advocacy independence. However, 

Advocacy will still need to submit budget requests to the administration, just to OMB instead of SBA. 

This question is meant—no. I’m sorry. I just want for you to tell 

me, if this office is given this line item, does this mean that your 

budget request will be submitted to OMB instead of SBA? 

10

Mr. SULLIVAN. The Congresswoman is referring to two separate 

draftings of how an independent budget would work. There is the 

draft that is the discussion of this hearing that is worded as concurrent submission. And I believe that the way that would work 

would be that the Office of Advocacy would separately submit its 

budget to Congress.

The preferable approach, in my opinion, if legislation is needed 

to separate our budget, is what is contained in S. 395 that the 

Chairman mentioned in his opening statement. And that isn’t a 

concurrent budget submission, but rather required within the 

President’s budget that the Office of Advocacy be a line item similar to the way our research budget is line-itemed currently. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. And let me ask you, given the fact that as—as 

the Office of Advocacy, you may be, at times, critical of the office 

of OMB. And, given that time of relationship, we can expect that 

relationship to be confrontational at times. So, after spending a 

year holding OMB’s feet to the fire, how likely is it that OMB will 

approve your budget? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, I think one of the advantages of having the 

Office of Advocacy’s budget clear, whether it be submitted concurrently or whether it be part of the President’s budget, is that it is 

out in the open. This is an item, a dollar amount that then gets 

the full attention of this committee, the full attention of OMB and 

the President and the various entities that do have budget approval authority. 

I think the more folks that know the benefits of the Office of Advocacy and the resources that we need to do a good job, the better 

off we are. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. During our hearing on Reg Flex compliance, you 

testified that legislation to strengthen the Reg Flex Act should be 

an avenue of last resort. It’s two weeks later, and this bill contains 

new authority for the Office of Advocacy. Are we now already at 

the point of last resort? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, actually, we’re starting a whole new chapter 

and an exciting chapter that was formalized yesterday in the President’s announcement and small business agenda. 

One of the things that would happen ideally, before reaching the 

last resort, would be to have the President’s emphasis of agencies 

complying with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. That has happened. 

That has happened in the proclamation and commitment to formalize that agenda through an executive order. 

So when I came here a month ago and talked about things that 

I would prefer rather than changing the law, those have, in fact, 

happened, and I’m very excited about it. So, to the extent that we 

discuss legislative options now, I think we’re dealing with a whole 

new framework and an exciting framework, but certainly something that should be taken into account prior to changing existing 

laws. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. We will have a second round, right? 

Chairman MANZULLO. Well, I—yes, of course, of course. It’s just 

the two of us here. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Thank you. 

11

I have a couple of questions. And I can understand the President’s proposal yesterday, and it’s a lot of things that we’ve been 

talking about here, but I would suggest—and I appreciate everything that they—that both of you gentlemen are doing. 

Our committee never got any heads-up that the President was 

even considering any small business agenda. And then we found 

out on the grapevine, placed a call, and then the extent of our 

briefing was a phone call that came to our staff on Friday afternoon, that somebody came from the SBA on Friday afternoon. I 

mean, this is not acceptable. 

The—we sit up here and pull the hair out of our heads. We had 

to throw together a rather ugly meeting, a very ugly meeting, with 

the head of OIRA and the Administrator. As a result of that, we 

get a Memorandum of Understanding. 

I just want to know when is the SBA going to come to this Committee, the Committee of Jurisdiction and say, ‘‘We’re working on 

legislation. We’d like you to have some input into it.’’ I mean, do 

you think that would be a good idea? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, let me actually address this on behalf of the Office of Advocacy but not address the questions that 

you put, more appropriately to the administration. 

But with regards to legislative drafting and the vetting, the full 

vetting of views so that we both can benefit from our experiences, 

I have met, as you know, regularly with your staff. And, in particular, I am absolutely pleased that my concerns in the drafting 

of legislation were not only listened to, but then formalized in a redraft that we have before us today. And so the working relationship with the Office of Advocacy, in my view, is not constrained at 

all. 

Chairman MANZULLO. I’m not talking about our relationship. I’m 

just—I guess I’m just expressing to you the frustration—perhaps 

it’s of the Republican Congress that the Members just can’t get the 

ear of the President. We have no input. Phone calls are not returned. The—I know how hard you work there, but it’s as if—you 

know, the President comes out with a small business agenda, and 

Members of Congress—I mean, we’re supposed to carry the water, 

at least on a portion of this legislation, and, you know, we’re glad 

to do that. 

But I think at the minimum perhaps, you know, both of you are 

the ultimate middlemen. If you stop to think about it, you really 

are, and you’re placed there for a reason. And you’re both doing an 

excellent job on it, but there has to be a better relationship between the Administration and the Committees of Jurisdiction because, at this point, there is none. And I’m not criticizing Mr. 

Barreto because he’s been—he gets a hundred percent in my book. 

But there’s a huge disconnect going on here. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I appreciate the comments of the chairman. Although I do have the luxury of independence from the administration, I will absolutely view yesterday’s announcement and the twoday announcement of the small business agenda, first in Missouri 

and then yesterday at the Reagan center, as an opportunity to engage both with the White House and with this committee to flush 

out exactly how the agenda can work cooperatively. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Let me give you a suggestion. 

12

Mr. SULLIVAN [continuing]. Whatever legislative options may 

exist. 

Chairman MANZULLO. One suggestion would be for the President 

to sit down with the Administrator and the Chairman of the Committee on some common goals for the—I mean, this is so simple, 

but it’s not done. And I’m convinced that, unless we raise hell at 

this Committee level, we don’t have any voice going into the White 

House. 

I mean, we’re going to have another hearing, very contentious 

hearing, coming up in two weeks dealing with the Administrator 

of HCFA because of the continuous pounding by that organization 

of small businesses. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mister——

Chairman MANZULLO. Yes, I would yield. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. I’m sorry. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just would like to share with you the fact that Mitch Daniel 

now will have more to say in terms of contract bundling. And I 

think that it’s appropriate that we bring him into this Committee 

so that he could explain and share with this Committee what his 

views are regarding contract bundling. 

Chairman MANZULLO. That’s a good idea. 

I’m looking at this Memorandum of Understanding with you and 

OIRA, and I know it’s a good start. The words in it, however, are 

precatory. Every word is a ‘‘may’’. For example, on page two—and 

I know, Tom, you fought to put ‘‘shall’’ in there. 

For example, in IV, Responsibility to Advocacy, ‘‘During OIRA’s 

review of an agency rule under Executive Order 12866, OIRA may 

consult with Advocacy whether—regarding whether an agency 

should have prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis.’’

Now, under the bill that Ms. Vela ́zquez introduced and on which 

I’m a co-sponsor, that’s the bill that lodges the power within the 

SBA Administrator to say that these do apply. Would you be in 

favor of that particular—what’s the number of it, Ms. Vela ́zquez? 

[A discussion was held off the record.] 

Chairman MANZULLO. 1324. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, actually, the language that you’re 

reading in the MOU is deliberate, and it’s deliberate for two reasons. One is that it maintains the independence of the Office of Advocacy. 

Dr. Graham was extremely sensitive to the misperception, once 

we sign an MOU, that the Office of Advocacy and the President’s 

regulatory advisor be somehow portrayed as being in cahoots on 

regulatory issues. And so the ‘‘may’’ wording is deliberate. 

Second, it was in the full anticipation—because we just signed 

this yesterday—that the executive order would put more teeth into 

some of the flexibility that is otherwise contained in the MOU, 

while, at the same time, maintaining the independence. So you see 

that we have a challenging but fantastic opportunity in front of us 

to formalize that. 

And I do need to talk about our communication with the committee and the White House because I view the announcement as 

tremendously beneficial to small business, obviously, to our office 

and the powers that our office have to help small business, but not 

13

as a communication breakdown, but as an opportunity to fully engage with the White House. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Let me explain communication breakdown. 

The Executive Order was issued, and we found out about it in the 

press, and no one ever gave us a copy of that order. Or it hasn’t 

been issued. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. It has not been issued. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Okay. All right. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. And, in fact, therein lies, I think, a great opportunity for this committee——

Chairman MANZULLO. It is. I mean, now what——

Mr. SULLIVAN [continuing]. To work with the White House and 

also Mitch Daniels on contract bundling. 

Chairman MANZULLO. But let me ask you this question. When 

we request a meeting with the White House to go over these 

things, it falls on deaf ears. I mean, there is a very serious breach 

between the majority in this House and the White House with regard to these issues. And that is that members of Congress are not 

given the opportunity to speak with the President directly on small 

business issues. 

And, somehow, on all the vetting and everything that’s going on, 

I would just urge you to go back to the Administrator and say, 

‘‘These are the committees that are involved.’’ We are the ones that 

are elected. We’re the ones that have to face the people. We’re the 

ones that have to pass the legislation. 

I mean, this frankly has taken a ball, and you pitch it from one 

hand to the other hand to the other hand. There would be nothing 

unconstitutional with the President consulting this Committee or 

this Chairman with regard to wording of the Executive Order. In 

fact, that’s the very same problem we got into when the SBA Administrator and the Chief of Staff issued the rules for—the emergency rules that made the entire nation a disaster area, refusing 

to allow this Committee to have any input. And, evidently, the 

message never got through. I mean, why are Members of Congress 

refused to have any input in any decisions that are being made by 

the SBA? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I am not in a position, Mr. Chairman, to respond——

Chairman MANZULLO. I can appreciate——

Mr. SULLIVAN [continuing]. Or speculate on this line of comment 

or question. I apologize. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Well, you don’t have to apologize. That’s 

not your area. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Would the Chairman yield? 

Chairman MANZULLO. Of course, I would yield. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. I think, Mr. Chairman, and I don’t just want to 

come here and excuse Mr. Barreto, but I was impressed when I 

was reading the President’s speech. And the first question that I 

asked my staff is, ‘‘Was Hector Barreto there?’’ And the President 

didn’t even mention Hector Barreto in his speech. I think that the 

two people that we need to work with and talk to is Mitch Daniel 

and Larry Lindsay, the——

Chairman MANZULLO. Let me reclaim my time. 

14

The Office of the President is working with our staff on drafting 

that Executive Order, so I stand corrected on that. But there is a 

lot of frustration that’s going on here. It’s obvious that a lot of work 

is being done to tighten the avenue of communication on it. 

The—with regard to the ombudsman and the regulatory fairness 

hearing and roundtable schedule for Fiscal Year 2002, I don’t see 

Illinois in here. 

Mr. BARRERA. We can definitely put it in there if you would like 

that. 

Chairman MANZULLO. But we did have a hearing, I think. Was 

it two years ago? 

Mr. BARRERA. I think we did. 

Chairman MANZULLO. We did. That’s correct. 

Mr. BARRERA. What we tried to do, Mr. Chairman is one of the 

comments I heard when I started is that we weren’t getting out to 

enough states in the country, and we’re trying to spread that out. 

And, as you know, we went to Indianapolis for the first time, and 

we’re going to Milwaukee for the first time, which are in that Federal region. But, if the Chairman would like a hearing, we would 

do everything we can to have one there. 

Chairman MANZULLO. We would be delighted to work with you 

on that. I do not forget the fact that the Administrator came out, 

spent an entire day there. To me, that was an informal hearing 

when 30 small business people gave them their ear at my brother’s 

restaurant. So we don’t forget about that. 

Mr. BARRERA. Well, I think it also shows, Mr. Chairman, how 

committed he is. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Absolutely. 

Mr. BARRERA. To the regulatory fairness. He knows your commitment, and he wanted to bring me along. And I enjoyed Rockford. 

I really enjoyed the small towns. 

Chairman MANZULLO. That’s great. You enjoyed the pizza at my 

brother’s restaurant too, I think. 

I don’t have any further questions. Do you have anymore, Ms. 

Vela ́zquez. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Out of New York City, Mr. Sullivan, I just would 

like to know if SBA provided comments to OMB on the recent CMS 

prescription drug card regulation. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. It’s my understanding that we did provide comments. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. And were your comments made part of the public record? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. It is also my understanding that those comments 

from Advocacy, as part of the inter-agency review, were not made 

part of the public comment docket. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Is it your understanding that OMB is able to 

pick and choose which comments are made part of the public 

record?

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is not my understanding. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. That is not your understanding. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No. I apologize, again, for what appears to be a 

lack of responsiveness. I do not know how OMB or the issuing 

agency decides which comments they put in the record and which 

they do not. 

15

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. So why do you think they didn’t do it? Why they 

don’t follow the law? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Again, I don’t know if I’m in a position to be able 

to speculate on how an issuing agency decides whether or not to 

include interagency review comments into the record. 

I should say that it is an absolute compliment to the Office of Advocacy that not only do we monitor closely compliance with the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act during preproposal and proposed regs, 

but when the Administration does circulate proposals outside of 

that context, then we do comment also through that process. So it’s 

almost a dual commenting procedure. The internal OMB clearance 

process does not lend itself to the public letter writing that is such 

a key part of the Office of Advocacy. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Sullivan, within the last 15 months, do you 

know how many regulations you have commented on as far as 

OMB inter-agency review, and how many of those comments were 

not made part of the public record? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I do not know, Congresswoman Vela ́zquez. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Have you received any feedback from OMB or 

CMS regarding changes that were made to regulations based on 

Advocacy’s input? Do you know if the outcome of the regulation is 

the same? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. We have received comment back, in particular, 

from CMS, which used to be HCFA——

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. You have——

Mr. SULLIVAN [continuing]. On our comments on their lack of attention to the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I do not know whether or 

not those communications are in written form to date. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Could you yield for a second? 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Sure. 

Chairman MANZULLO. The—I would state that one of the reasons 

we’re having this hearing with HCFA on April 10th is because 

HCFA blew off the Office of Advocacy, I think, no less than four 

or five times with such arrogance that the only way we can have 

accountability is to bring HCFA here. But Office of Advocacy did 

its job. And we want to work with you, Tom, to make sure that you 

have a lot more teeth to compel that organization to listen to small 

businesspeople. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I thank the Chairman, and I also thank the President for also——

Chairman MANZULLO. Yes. 

Mr. SULLIVAN [continuing]. Following along those lines to make 

sure that agencies do pay very serious attention to their obligations 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Sullivan, I just would like to ask you that—

please submit to the Committee copies of the regulation that you 

have commented on in the last 15 months. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. We would be happy to do so, Congresswoman 

Vela ́zquez. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I have other questions, but I just 

would like to submit it so that they could respond to us in writing. 

Chairman MANZULLO. The——

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. I have—I do have one last question. 

16

Chairman MANZULLO. Oh, go ahead. But, first of all, you want 

to submit written questions? 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Yes. 

Chairman MANZULLO. And then how——

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Both to the——

Chairman MANZULLO. How long would it take you to submit the 

written questions and what——

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Tomorrow. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Tomorrow. 

And then how much time would you need to respond? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. We will respond as soon as we’re able. We’re 

happy, certainly, to receive any of the questions from the Committee and respond appropriately. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Okay. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Okay. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Sullivan, you mentioned having Advocacy 

funding out there in one of the questions that I asked you before. 

So I want to ask your input on a provision in the draft bill that 

we are considering. What is the budget now? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I don’t have an exact amount, but it is around $8 

million. 

Chairman MANZULLO. I need to do a couple of housekeeping 

things. Is it my understanding that you’re going to be giving this 

Committee copies of comments that you made to OMB on the prescription card, your comment on that? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Again, we’ll be responding to written questions 

that, I think, would clarify what the Committee wants to know. 

And we are happy to provide detailed responses to any of the questions that the committee provides. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Okay. Well, I have a functional question. 

When we are approached by constituents or the broader small business community, sometimes they don’t know whether to send them 

to Michael, who is also an attorney, or to the Ombudsman or to the 

Office of Advocacy. Sometimes we do both. Could you give us some 

guidelines on how we should do that? Can you even give us some 

examples? 

Mr. BARRERA. I don’t think you can go wrong to send them to either one of us, Mr. Chairman. And I think the Memorandum of Understanding that we just signed addresses that. Both of our offices 

know what our jurisdictions are, and, under our Memorandum, if 

this is an issue that our office should handle, and it gets to Advocacy they’ll send it to us. An issue that we believe Advocacy can 

handle, we’ll send it to them. And we don’t really want to have 

small business decide which side is good. They have enough to 

worry about. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Yeah. 

Mr. BARRERA. So they send them to us, or we would welcome 

submissions from the Congress and from you, and we’ll figure it 

out for you. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. The Chairman did ask for a specific example, and 

there’s a great one. During one of Mike’s travels—and he’s on the 

road a good deal; that’s part of his job—one of the small business 

owners approached Mike with a regulatory comment on an EPA 

17

rule having to do with small oil refineries. And Mike, just as is memorialized in the MOU, passed that on directly to our office so that 

we were able to incorporate that into an Advocacy comment in the 

regulatory process. 

So it is working well, and it’s going to work even better now that 

we’ve formalized our relationship in an MOU. 

Chairman MANZULLO. We have been receiving numerous inquiries from across the country from small businessmen and women 

who are being cut off by major banks for financing even when 

they’re not in default. 

I got involved in a case involving one of my constituents, and the 

bank got creative and went to the SBA and got a $1.3 million 7(a) 

loan, which would save the day. But, had I not gotten involved—

it was just a very general letter. I mean, they sent the letter of the 

bank saying, you know, ‘‘These people are going to default.’’

They provided an avenue of payment, and ‘‘I realize there are 

regulations, et cetera, but can you help them out?’’ And, all of a 

sudden, the bank stopped what could have been a foreclosure proceeding destroying a small business, and they got creative with a 

7(a) loan. 

And one of the things that you might just want to think about—

and we’re not asking for a comment—is that this has become an 

epidemic in the small business community, as you know. And that 

would be—I don’t know if the word is ‘‘advertise,’’ but let these 

banks know that are really coming down on small businesses the 

availability of the 504 and the 7(a) programs. It could ultimately 

or already be considered the loan of last resort. At least the banks 

should be more than willing to turn to the SBA and say, ‘‘Hey, 

we’ve got this situation.’’

Have you received many complaints like this, the Ombudsman or 

the Office of Advocacy, from small businesspeople? 

Mr. BARRERA. I have not heard complaints like that. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Okay. 

Mr. BARRERA. But I will say this, the Administrator has been 

very helpful in this when I have my hearings and roundtables, I 

am also now starting to have small business roundtables just in 

general. And we have heard small businesses tell banks—we invite 

banks to these hearings—‘‘We need more help with this.’’ And it’s 

generally launched like that, but nothing about the specifics——

Chairman MANZULLO. Did this Administrator bring on board, 

about two or four months ago, somebody from the private sector 

with a background in creative financing? 

Mr. BARRERA. It’s Ron Bew, I believe. 

Chairman MANZULLO. What is his name? 

Mr. BARRERA. I think Ron Bew is now the head of Capital Access. 

Chairman MANZULLO. That’s correct. But I’m just raising this because we’re getting more and more of these calls. 

Ms. Vela ́zquez, have you been receiving calls like that also on the 

small businesspeople who have limited access to capital or banks 

that are—— Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Every day. But one of the areas where we’ve 

been getting a lot of calls is on contract bundling. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Okay. 

18

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Sullivan, I just would like to take this opportunity to ask you if the Office of Advocacy currently keeps a 

contract bundling database. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. We do not currently maintain the contract bundling databases, no. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Are you planning to do that? The President, in 

his speech, made reference to contract bundling as a very important issue. So——

Mr. SULLIVAN. The Congresswoman is correct. In addition to a 

number of tremendously exciting proposals that all help small business, contract bundling is one of them. 

The Office of Advocacy already has a significant role, as this 

committee knows, in contract bundling. And that role is pretty 

darn effective. And I would point most recently——

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. I’m sorry. That role is pretty what? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Pretty darn effective. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Effective? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Effective, yes. Now does that mean that contract 

bundling is no longer a problem? Absolutely not. Does it mean that 

the Office of Advocacy, using its current authority, effectively 

weighs in, for instance, against the Missile Defense Agency effort 

to lessen its SBIR commitment. Writing letters that we not only 

get to the heads of departments, but make sure that your staff and 

this committee knows well, is a way to convince folks about the necessity of looking closely at how small businesses are affected in 

contract bundling. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Under the draft house proposal, certain parts of 

contract bundling functions will be transferred to the Office of Advocacy. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. It is my understanding that the draft before us 

doesn’t. And, in my written statement, I do share some reluctance 

on taking over SBA programmatic functions. 

One solution legislatively is to put them in the Office of Advocacy. That is a compliment, in that it does show that we’re doing 

a good job. In programs that may be struggling, some folks view 

that putting them into our offices will make sure that they, in turn, 

will be done well. 

But in each of those areas, whether it be the State of Small Business Report, in which we do have a role, or contract bundling or 

others—we actually do have a current role, a good role—maybe I 

overstated it by saying ‘‘a pretty darn effective role’’—but a good, 

important role. I’m not sure whether taking on a programmatic 

function, a core responsibility of each of these programs enhances 

our office’s role or, quite frankly, take it back further. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Barrera, I do have some questions for you, 

but I will submit them so that you can answer to me. 

Mr. BARRERA. Okay. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. And I just want to say that, since you have been 

in this office, you have been doing a great job, and I look forward 

to talking and working with you. 

Mr. BARRERA. In fact, we are coming to New York, I believe, in 

May, Congresswoman, and we’re coming to Illinois. 

Chairman MANZULLO. You’ve already been there. We welcome 

you again. 

19

Again, on that note, you’re all doing a great job. I don’t know 

how many times Tom has stopped by, and Michael has stopped by. 

And, Jere, we’ve known each other for what, nine, 10 years now? 

Mr. GLOVER. Yes, sir. 

Chairman MANZULLO. I have a tremendous sense of working 

with this. In fact, back in 1993 I was a freshman. And I had the 

horrible task of leading the legislation to change the Clean Air Act 

with respect to something called the Employee Commute Option. 

This was forced carpooling on small businesses. 

And that was a—but you want to get your own party on that—

and started fighting big time on the Employee Commute Option. 

And, at that point, I realized—I said, ‘‘Hey, you know, this guy is 

really independent. I wonder if he’s Republican or a Democrat.’’

And it made no difference to you, Jere. You were in there just 

fighting for the small businessperson. And party label meant nothing to you, nor to you, Michael, or to you, Tom. 

And I’ve come to admire that Office of Advocacy. In fact, I am 

the one that wants you to be able to start a class action lawsuit 

on behalf of small businesspeople. But I don’t think anybody’s 

going to let me go that far on it. But that’s how much strength I 

want to give to make that Advocacy Office a world class law firm 

with lots of resources and the ability to start actions and intervene, 

as opposed to the limited jurisdiction now. But I will take that bill 

up another day. 

And, again, we thank you for coming here. We look forward to 

working with you. 

This committee meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

20


Insert offset folio 21 79993A.001
21


Insert offset folio 22 79993A.002
22


Insert offset folio 23 79993A.003
23


Insert offset folio 24 79993A.004
24


Insert offset folio 25 79993A.005
25


Insert offset folio 26 79993A.006
26


Insert offset folio 27 79993A.007
27


Insert offset folio 28 79993A.008
28


Insert offset folio 29 79993A.009
29


Insert offset folio 30 79993A.010
30


Insert offset folio 31 79993A.011
31


Insert offset folio 32 79993A.012
32


Insert offset folio 33 79993A.013
33


Insert offset folio 34 79993A.014
34


Insert offset folio 35 79993A.015
35


Insert offset folio 36 79993A.016
36


Insert offset folio 37 79993A.017
37


Insert offset folio 38 79993A.018
38


Insert offset folio 39 79993A.019
39


Insert offset folio 40 79993A.020
40


Insert offset folio 41 79993A.021
41


Insert offset folio 42 79993A.022
42


Insert offset folio 43 79993A.023
43


Insert offset folio 44 79993A.024
44


Insert offset folio 45 79993A.025
45


Insert offset folio 46 79993A.026
46


Insert offset folio 47 79993A.027
47


Insert offset folio 48 79993A.028
48


Insert offset folio 49 79993A.029
49


Insert offset folio 50 79993A.030
50


Insert offset folio 71 79993A.051
51


Insert offset folio 72 79993A.052
52


Insert offset folio 73 79993A.053
53


Insert offset folio 74 79993A.054
54


Insert offset folio 75 79993A.055
55


Insert offset folio 76 79993A.056
56


Insert offset folio 77 79993A.057
57


Insert offset folio 78 79993A.058
58


Insert offset folio 79 79993A.059
59


Insert offset folio 80 79993A.060