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

40–601 PDF 2008

FULL COMMITTEE HEARING ON

IMPROVING THE PAPERWORK

REDUCTION ACT FOR SMALL BUSINESSES

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 28, 2008

Serial Number 110-75

Printed for the use of the Committee on Small Business

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York, Chairwoman 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

CHARLIE GONZA ́ LEZ, Texas 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

RAUL GRIJALVA, Arizona 

MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine 

MELISSA BEAN, Illinois 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

DAN LIPINSKI, Illinois 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

BRUCE BRALEY, Iowa 

YVETTE CLARKE, New York 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

MAZIE HIRONO, Hawaii 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio, Ranking Member 

ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

TODD AKIN, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

LYNN WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida

MICHAEL DAY, Majority Staff Director 

ADAM MINEHARDT, Deputy Staff Director 

TIM SLATTERY, Chief Counsel 

KEVIN FITZPATRICK, Minority Staff Director

STANDING SUBCOMMITTEES 

Subcommittee on Finance and Tax

MELISSA BEAN, Illinois, Chairwoman 

RAUL GRIJALVA, Arizona 

MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

VACANT, Ranking 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

Subcommittee on Contracting and Technology

BRUCE BRALEY, IOWA, Chairman 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

YVETTE CLARKE, New York 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee, Ranking 

ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

TODD AKIN, Missouri 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma

(II) 

Subcommittee on Regulations, Health Care and Trade

CHARLES GONZA ́ LEZ, Texas, Chairman 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

DAN LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MELISSA BEAN, Illinois 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

LYNN WESTMORELAND, Georgia, Ranking 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida

Subcommittee on Urban and Rural Entrepreneurship

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina, Chairman 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

YVETTE CLARKE, New York 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska, Ranking 

ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland 

MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee

Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight

JASON ALTMIRE, PENNSYLVANIA, Chairman 

CHARLIE GONZA ́ LEZ, Texas 

RAUL GRIJALVA, Arizona 

VACANT, Ranking 

LYNN WESTMORELAND, Georgia

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page

Vela ́zquez, Hon. Nydia M. ....................................................................................... 1

Chabot, Hon. Steve .................................................................................................. 2

WITNESSES

PANEL I: 

Dudley, Honorable Susan E., Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC ............... 3

PANEL II: 

Brady, Dr. Linda, Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, on behalf of the American Hospital Association ......................................................... 12

Daly, Jr., Robert P., Kaw Roofing and Sheet Metal, Inc., on behalf of the 

National Roofing Contractors Association ......................................................... 14

Katzen, Honorable Sally, George Mason University Law School, Arlington, 

VA .......................................................................................................................... 16

Greenblatt, Drew, Marlin Steel Wire Products, LLC, Baltimore, MD, on behalf 

of the National Association of Manufacturers ................................................... 18

Garbini, Robert, National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, Silver Spring, 

MD ......................................................................................................................... 20

APPENDIX 

Prepared Statements: 

Vela ́zquez, Hon. Nydia M. ....................................................................................... 29

Chabot, Hon. Steve .................................................................................................. 31

Dudley, Honorable Susan E., Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC ............... 33

Brady, Dr. Linda, Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, on behalf of the American Hospital Association ......................................................... 43

Daly, Jr., Robert P., Kaw Roofing and Sheet Metal, Inc., on behalf of the 

National Roofing Contractors Association ......................................................... 54

Katzen, Honorable Sally, George Mason University Law School, Arlington, 

VA .......................................................................................................................... 59

Greenblatt, Drew, Marlin Steel Wire Products, LLC, Baltimore, MD, on behalf 

of the National Association of Manufacturers ................................................... 65

Garbini, Robert, National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, Silver Spring, 

MD ......................................................................................................................... 75

Attachment from National Ready Mixed Concrete Association: Driver’s Daily 

Log ......................................................................................................................... 81

Statements for the Record: 

Altmire, Hon. Jason ................................................................................................. 32

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. ............................................................. 82

(V) 

(1)

FULL COMMITTEE HEARING ON IMPROVING 

THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT FOR 

SMALL BUSINESSES 

Thursday, February 28, 2008

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2360 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Nydia Vela ́zquez [chairwoman of the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Vela ́zquez, Clarke, Chabot, and Graves. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN VELA ́ ZQUEZ 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Good morning. I call this hearing to 

order to address improving the Paperwork Reduction Act for small 

businesses. 

The federal paperwork burden continues to grow for small firms. 

As agencies churn out regulations and notices at a rate of nearly 

1,500 pages per week, it seems that every day brings some new paperwork on small businesses. In their most recent annual report, 

OMB found that the overall burden increased nearly 700 million 

hours from F.Y. 2005 to F.Y. 2006. 

Paperwork is costly for small firms. According to an NFIB study, paperwork and recordkeeping costs small businesses nearly $50 per 

hour. Not surprisingly, small businesses cited the volume as being 

the one of the most difficult problems. 

The Paperwork Reduction Act, or PRA, was created in 1980 with 

the intent of curtailing the growth of paperwork, but, unfortunately, it hasn’t done so. One question the Committee seeks to address today is whether current law provides OMB with the right 

tools to limit their growth or if changes must be made to the PRA 

to improve its effectiveness. 

At today’s hearing, we have present the administrator of the office that was created as part of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Administrator Dudley 

is charged with overseeing and enforcing this important law. It is 

my hope that she can talk frankly about the underlying weaknesses of the law and whether she has adequate resources to enforce it. While OIRA has a difficult task, small businesses deserve 

to know exactly why their paperwork burden continues to grow. 

In today’s testimony, we will surely hear about some of the successes of OIRA, but we also wish to understand the obstacles that 

are preventing the office from reducing paperwork requirements for 

2

small businesses. Additionally, it is critical to get answers why 

some agencies continue to violate the law. 

It is our hope to identify what steps are needed to reverse the 

growth in paperwork. Some critics have pointed out the reason 

there is poor compliance with PRA may be due to the fact that 

OMB guidance is inconsistent with the intent of the Act. 

While the statute says that agencies should work to reduce paperwork burdens on small businesses, OMB guidance seems to incorrectly limit the scope of the law. I am interested in hearing the 

reasons for this inconsistency and whether the small business sections of the law are being misinterpreted by OIRA. 

Ensuring that agencies are considering the economic impact of 

their regulations and paperwork requirements on small firms is 

critical. It is a primary reason the Committee established the Regulatory Flexibility Act: to focus on reducing unnecessary paperwork 

burden created due to federal regulations. We have already has 

passed legislation to strengthen RegFlex this Congress, but it is 

important to examine whether that law and the PRA are working 

in a cohesive manner. 

The PRA should not serve to discourage agencies from conducting proper regulatory flexibility analyses. All too often we see 

agencies implementing regulations that ignore or understate economic impacts on small businesses. In many instances, this is because of a lack of communication between the agencies and the 

small business community. 

Under PRA, an agency that wishes to survey more than 10 small 

businesses to determine the economic impacts of a rule is required 

to receive OMB approval. Since approval may take months, agencies that are eager to move forward with regulations may not be 

properly assessing potential impacts on small businesses. 

Enforcement and oversight of PRA is important, but we have to 

open the prospects of strengthening it to achieve real change. Today’s panels will offer insight on what types of reforms may be 

needed and if the need for further accountability is required. 

The reality is the federal paperwork burden continues to grow at 

a troubling rate, and it is harming our nation’s entrepreneurs. And 

it is clear that the purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act is not 

being realized. I look forward to working with Ranking Member 

Chabot to ensure this important law is meeting its full potential for 

small businesses. 

I want to thank all of the witnesses for coming here today, and 

I yield to the ranking member for his opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF MR. CHABOT 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you 

for holding this hearing on the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

Although this Committee has legislative jurisdiction over the Act, 

it has not undertaken a comprehensive review of the Act since it 

was last reauthorized back in 1995. During the 1960s and 1970s, 

Congress enacted dozens of pieces of legislation that imposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements on the American citizenry, 

including millions of small businesses. 

In response to this mushrooming growth in paperwork, small 

businesses cried out at a White House conference. And Congress 

3

responded with the passage of the Paperwork Reduction Act back 

in 1980. 

The Act has three primary objectives: one, minimization of federal reporting and recordkeeping requirements on individuals and 

business, especially small businesses; reduction in the government’s cost of collecting and utilizing the information obtained from 

the public; and, three, maximization of the value of the information 

obtained. 

To meet these objectives, the Paperwork Reduction Act prohibits 

the establishment of a recordkeeping or reporting requirement unless it is approved by the Office of Management and Budget’s Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs, or OIRA. 

Prior to such approval, the agency requesting information from 

the public must perform an extensive assessment of the cost and 

benefits of the collection of the information. After completing that 

task, the agency then sends a formal request to OIRA for approval 

of the collection of information. 

Prior to OIRA approval, that office must satisfy itself, after providing the public with an opportunity to comment, that the collection of information satisfies ten specific statutory standards, which 

are designed to ensure that paperwork burdens on the public are 

minimized while still providing the federal government with the 

necessary information. 

Despite the Act and extensive review by the agency and OIRA, 

the number of hours spent by the public in reporting to the federal 

government increased from 7.4 billion hours in fiscal year 2000 to 

9.2 billion hours in fiscal year 2007. 

Given this, it remains an open question whether the Paperwork 

Reduction Act is meeting the laudable goals of minimizing paperwork burdens on the public. I am particularly interested in hearing 

what recommendations the witnesses have to modify the Act to 

achieve its goal of burden reduction without sacrificing the government need to obtain critical information. 

With that, I yield back.

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. It gives me great pleasure to welcome 

the Honorable Susan E. Dudley. She was nominated by the President on July 31st, 2006 and appointed on April 4th, 2007 to serve 

as Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget. 

From 1998 through January 2007, Ms. Dudley served at the 

Mercatus Center at George Mason University, where she directed 

the Regulatory Studies Program, 2003 to 2006. She has authored 

more than 25 scholarly publications and regulatory matters, ranging from e-rulemaking to electricity, health care, the environment, 

and occupational safety. 

Ms. Dudley, you are welcome. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SUSAN E. DUDLEY, ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. DUDLEY. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairwoman 

Vela ́zquez and Ranking Member Chabot. I am happy to be here to 

4

testify about improving the Paperwork Reduction Act for small 

businesses. 

I actually have had the pleasure of testifying before this Committee before, but this is the first time as OIRA Administrator. 

And I want to assure you that I do share your commitment to reducing the regulatory and paperwork burdens that America’s small 

businesses confront daily, and I appreciate the opportunity to explore new approaches to advancing this important goal. 

Small entrepreneurs are the engine of economic growth in America. They represent over 99 percent of all employers and provide 60 

to 80 percent of net new jobs. Yet, they bear disproportionate burdens when it comes to paperwork and regulatory burdens. 

OIRA, along with SBA’s Office of Advocacy and other federal 

agencies, is working both to minimize unnecessary burdens and to 

help America’s small businesses comply with regulatory and reporting requirements. 

As you both have mentioned, my office has an important role in 

the Paperwork Reduction Act. The PRA that created OIRA back in 

1980 and the reauthorizations of the Act in 1985 and 1995 as well 

as the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002 have further 

enhanced OIRA’s role in eliminating unnecessary, duplicative, and 

unjustified paperwork burdens, particularly on small entities. And 

these goals remain high priorities for my office. 

Through OIRA’s day-to-day reviews of agency information collection requests, we seek to ensure that agencies reduce the paperwork burdens associated with existing collections of information 

and impose the least burden necessary when they issue new collections of information. 

Motivated by the PRA and the SBPRA requirements, federal 

agencies have taken a number of steps over the past several years 

to reduce the amount of information they collect from small businesses and to ease their compliance burdens. Nonetheless, as you 

both mentioned, we continue to see paperwork burdens grow. The 

government-wide paperwork burden increased more than eight percent in fiscal year 2006. 

I strongly support the PRA’s goal of reducing government reporting burdens while improving the management of agency information resources, and I generally believe it is having a positive effect. 

However, there may be things we can do, both administratively 

and legislatively, to improve it further. 

We face two challenges. I will divide it into two categories. One 

involves streamlining the method of collection to ease the burden, 

particularly on small businesses. And the other involves reducing 

the amount of information being collected. 

So to address the first challenge, agencies have worked to simplify and redesign forms. And they are relying more on technology 

and e-commerce to streamline reporting. 

SBA’s business gateway initiative, a result of the SBPRA task 

force recommendations, offers small businesses a single access 

point to federal regulatory and paperwork compliance resources. 

For example, business.gov is an innovative search-focused Web site 

where businesses can access up-to-date regulatory and paperwork 

compliance information and save time doing so. We have also made 

5

some progress on the second challenge: reducing the amount of information collected. 

The IRS is responsible for over 75 percent of the federal government’s total reporting burden. Recently its Office of Taxpayer Burden Reduction launched an initiative to reduce burden on small 

business taxpayers who owe $1,000 or less in employment tax by 

allowing them to file those ET returns as well as pay taxes due on 

an annual, rather than a quarterly, basis. IRS estimates this 

change will reduce reporting burdens by 30 million hours annually. 

Despite efforts such as these, agency implementation of new statutes has continued to increase paperwork burdens. In each session 

of Congress, laws are passed that create new programs for federal 

agencies to implement and quite frequently new agency demands 

for information. This is the biggest challenge we face in trying to 

minimize paperwork burdens, in large part because there are real 

tradeoffs associated with these new collections. 

For example, third party disclosure requirements, such as nutrition labeling on food, imposes burdens but may be the most effective and least intrusive method of protecting consumers. Surveys 

and other information collection may improve the design and enforcement of regulations, making them more effective and less burdensome in the long run. 

Nevertheless, it would be valuable for legislators as they draft 

new legislation to consider the paperwork implementations of alternative proposals, particularly as they affect small entities. 

For OIRA’s part, we will continue to work with agencies such as 

IRS and EPA, which impose paperwork burdens that are particularly demanding for small businesses, to minimize the burden and 

maximize the utility of information collected. 

I look forward to discussing these further with you and other 

ideas that you may have to improve the effectiveness of the PRA. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dudley may be found in the Appendix on page 33.]

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Ms. Dudley. 

Administrator Dudley, I mentioned in my opening remarks the 

study that was conducted by the General Accounting Office in 2006 

that found that agencies were not adequately complying with the 

small business provisions. 

And in the study, it was determined that most of the information 

collection records failed to explain small businesses’ impacts or examine less burdensome alternatives for small firms. Can you tell 

us, since that study was released in 2006, has the situation improved for small businesses? 

Ms. DUDLEY. I can tell you that this is something that my office 

working with the agencies as they issue new requests and as we 

review because every three years we review existing requests for 

information as well, this is something that we do pay attention to. 

We pay attention to the burden that is imposed and the effect it 

has on small entities. 

That doesn’t mean that that’s not something that we can do better and that we continue to work on doing that better and underVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:09 Apr 04, 2008 Jkt 033615 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\CLERK SB-LD\HEARINGS\TRANSCRIPTS\40601.TXT LEANN
6

standing what the real implications are and whether there are 

things within the statutory constraints that we can do better. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. What specific steps has OIRA taken to 

ensure agencies are complying with the small business provision of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act? 

Ms. DUDLEY. One of the things that we are recently working—

and this is going to get a little into the weeds—the system by 

which agencies submit their data to us, so their information collection requests. And we have an element of that. 

So it’s a data field that they need to enter what are the small 

business impacts. And that is something that I think one of the 

things it will do is still a work in progress, but I think within the 

next few years, it will give us a better sense of this total burden, 

what is the impact on small businesses. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. But can we wait a few years when we 

know the costs that represents for small businesses? 

Ms. DUDLEY. I am not saying we wait a few years to see for us 

to work. Each information collection we try to focus on the small 

business impacts as well. What I’m saying, in a few years, we may 

have a better sense of, of that eight billion hours, how much of that 

is borne by small businesses? 

So I think it’s a twofold maybe answer to your question. One is, 

in our individual reviews, we are focusing on the burden. And we 

are looking at the impact on small businesses. And separately in 

the long run, we hope to be able to get a better handle on exactly 

what is it that small businesses face. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Okay. One of the goals of the Paperwork Reduction Act was to stop unnecessary paperwork requirements within the agencies before they were sent to OMB. However, 

this is not happening. The General Accounting Office has found the 

agency’s processes for reviewing information collection requests are 

ineffective. 

Agency chief information officers tasked with this responsibility 

are simply not giving them sufficient scrutiny. Do you believe that 

other officials in the agencies should be given the responsibility of 

reviewing information collections, rather than CIOs? 

Ms. DUDLEY. Well, that is a good question. I think there are various officials in agencies that we work with when we review information collections because often they are part of a regulatory program or another program. So there are different officials within 

each agency that are responsible. 

I recently had a meeting with a deputy secretary of an agency 

on an issue involving paperwork. So I don’t know whether that requires any kind of statutory change because I think it is happening. I think there are senior officials, including the CIO but 

maybe not exclusively the CIO. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Let me ask you, can you tell me if the 

CIOs have the necessary resources to do their job, training and expertise to do their job? 

Ms. DUDLEY. I think it does go back to the fact that it is ultimately the head of the agency or department that is responsible. 

And it may not always be the CIO. The CIOs have I think taken 

some good initiatives to streamline reporting of information, make 

it easier to report. 

7

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. What is the main focus of the CIOs? 

Ms. DUDLEY. They have a lot of IT responsibilities. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. But they focus more on keeping the 

system going, working? 

Ms. DUDLEY. That may be the case in some areas. And I think 

in those areas, I don’t think that means the Paperwork Reduction 

Act is not being paid attention to by others. At least my experience 

has been the program office often is the ones that take the initiatives to reduce burdens working with the CIOs. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Some people, some critics have suggested that to make the Paperwork Reduction Act more effective, 

the volume of information collection requests that are being sent to 

OMB needs to be reduced. This could be done by limiting OMB review to significant paperwork collections and shifting more of the 

review responsibility to the agencies. 

OMB already has delegation authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Would delegating more authority to agencies on lowerpriority information requests help OIRA focus on more significant 

paperwork issues? If so, how would you envision this delegation occurring? 

Ms. DUDLEY. I have not focused on this enough, although I think 

that is a very interesting question. I would like to look at that and 

perhaps get back to you. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. I think this is a very important issue 

here. And so I would like to get an answer in writing within the 

next week. 

Ms. DUDLEY. We will do that. Thank you. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Now I would yield to Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

What are some of the reasons that small businesses spend more 

time to comply with federal paperwork requirements than, say, 

large businesses would, in your opinion? 

Ms. DUDLEY. I think some of the requirements are not per-employee. So if there are some paperwork requirements that a firm 

with several hundred employees could handle and spread over a lot 

of employees, I think often those analyses are on a per-employee 

basis. And so obviously with fewer employees, it’s more per employee. 

Mr. CHABOT. Sure. Okay. Thank you. 

The Paperwork Reduction Act was last reauthorized in 1995, as 

we know. What effect has the utilization of the Internet, for example, had on federal reporting and recordkeeping requirements that 

are not reflected in the statutory language of the Paperwork Reduction Act? 

Ms. DUDLEY. I think business.gov. So we have made some improvements there. Business.gov I think has. I think it is exciting, 

the opportunities that we have with eGov so that you have one 

place to go for grants, grants.gov, e-filing of income tax returns. I 

think that it has improved. So it hasn’t reduced the amount of information that is collected, but it has streamlined and made it easier. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

If you know, what has been the feedback from small businesses 

with respect to the SBA’s business gateway? 

8

Ms. DUDLEY. I don’t know. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Can you get that information later for us? 

Ms. DUDLEY. Yes, I can. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Thank you. 

And, finally, do you think there should be an effort to incorporate 

plain language initiatives to reduce reporting and recordkeeping requirements on small business? 

Ms. DUDLEY. I mean, that makes sense. And what I don’t know 

is how far we have already come there and how much. So that is 

something I can also look into. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Very good. All right. Thank you very much. 

I yield back, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Ms. Clarke? 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Ranking 

Member Chabot. 

Honorable Dudley, in your written testimony, small businesses 

represent 99 percent of all employers and provide 60 to 80 percent 

of net new jobs. You stated that research by the SBA suggests that 

small entities disproportionately shoulder regulatory and paperwork burdens. How does your research explain some of the criticisms in regards to complying with regulatory and reporting requirements? 

Ms. DUDLEY. The criticisms from small businesses about the difficulties? 

Ms. CLARKE. Yes. 

Ms. DUDLEY. This would be the Office of Advocacy’s research and 

I think might suggest that the reason for the criticism is that they 

feel they bear a greater burden. 

Ms. CLARKE. How has the OIRA been particularly sensitive to 

small businesses? 

Ms. DUDLEY. In our reviews of paperwork, of information collections, we do try to look at the effect of those. First of all, we try 

to make sure that the burden estimates are accurately represented. 

We look at the effect on small entities as well as the general population. 

Ms. CLARKE. So you would say that the burden estimates are accurate? 

Ms. DUDLEY. That is something that I would say we spend—in 

our reviews of agencies’ information collection requests, that is the 

bulk of our effort, to ensure that they are. So we scrutinize them 

carefully to try to make sure that they are as accurate as possible. 

Ms. CLARKE. And so you would say that they are accurate? 

Ms. DUDLEY. I think it is not an exact science. So I don’t think 

that there are intentional misrepresentations, but, unlike the budget, where we really know how much is being spent, it’s harder to 

know. 

Ms. CLARKE. It kind of defies the reasoning for measurement if 

there is no indication or you don’t have some sort of measurement 

tool that would indeed give you the sense of the tipping point, 

right? 

Ms. DUDLEY. Yes. I would say, actually, that the fact that you 

have given us the Paperwork Reduction Act does give us a need to 

measure. And we have been improving the measurement. 

9

So I think, even if the measurement is never going to be perfect 

because different people will take different amounts of time, I think 

you really have provided the incentives to get that measurement 

better and better. 

An example would be the IRS last year. Part of the eight percent 

increase that I mentioned in burden, a lot of that came from the 

IRS just reestimating the burden of filing taxes. And so we didn’t 

really change the burden, but we have a better model for estimating it. And it turns out it is bigger than we thought. 

Ms. CLARKE. So how do we, then, flag it for change? 

Ms. DUDLEY. I think it is changing. I think you have. And I think 

you provided agencies a strong incentive. And we are working with 

them to make sure it is accurate. 

Ms. CLARKE. And following a short period of modest decline from 

2002 to 2004, the federal paperwork burden has increased at a 

rapid rate. Do you know why there was such a rapid increase? 

Ms. DUDLEY. There are probably three factors. And one is these 

adjustments to the burdens that I just mentioned. And so it is actually not a change in the burden, but we are estimating it more 

accurately. So that is one factor. 

Another is legislative changes. And that was a large change in 

the 2002 to 2005. That was the bulk of it. It was things like Medicare part D. 

And then the third tends to be the smaller of the three, is discretionary agency actions. And that is where we feel we have the most 

control as we review paperwork collections. 

Ms. CLARKE. And so it just seems to me that what we have done 

is put a spotlight on the problem. We have begun to essentially get 

a sense of how broad the problem is. 

But what I am not hearing is where our act basically serves as 

the trigger for reduction and what you are prepared to do to help 

in that process. 

Ms. DUDLEY. I think your act is actually doing more than you 

may suggest because we don’t know what paperwork would look 

like if we weren’t tracking it. So if we weren’t measuring or tracking paperwork at all, who knows what it would look like. 

I mean, so I agree. We all would like to find a way to reduce it 

further. 

Ms. CLARKE. Who do you believe has the responsibility at the end 

of the day to making that change, to identifying that tipping point 

and really enforcing a change? 

And, of course, we are all looking at this because we know of the 

cost to the small business. And the more that we kind of study the 

study and draw this process out, the more that these businesses 

are really suffering a huge burden. 

So we don’t want to be so academic about this that we are not 

bringing relief to the problem. And having an active place which 

highlights and spotlights that is great. To me it’s the action that 

we are able to put in place through each of our agencies that says, 

you know, this is the time that we are going to change this. 

Do you have a sense of where we are with regards to that? 

Ms. DUDLEY. You had asked where the responsibility lies? 

Ms. CLARKE. Right. 

10

Ms. DUDLEY. I think it does lie with all of us. And I think the 

other thing I think we need to realize was I mentioned in my prepared remarks that there are real tradeoffs. So sometimes asking 

for more information may avoid other costs on small businesses 

and is valuable in itself. And so there are real tradeoffs. And it is 

hard to take all of those tradeoffs into account. 

So I would say when we pass new legislation, we need to understand what will this require? And I think my office and the federal 

agencies, we need to continue to work and say, given the constraints that we have, what is the most efficient way that we can 

do this to avoid burdening small businesses? 

Ms. CLARKE. Has there been given significant thought to integrated information sharing through technology? Oftentimes we 

know that these businesses are filling out paperwork for a myriad 

of regulatory agencies. And it is all the same information over and 

over. 

And they, too, can use the technology to update any information 

that would then be disseminated to the various entities that would 

need that information. Has there been a lot of conversation or 

thought around that sort of integrated technological system? 

Ms. DUDLEY. Yes, conversation and thought and some pilot studies. But I think you’re right. I think that is an exciting opportunity 

for improvement, the data harmonization. 

So if a lot of different agencies ask for similar but not quite the 

same information using several different forms, how can we do that 

so that there is one place to provide the information and then have 

it shared? 

We are working on that. There is resistance to it. There are barriers to it. But I think that we are making some progress towards 

that. 

And I think you are right. I think that is an exciting opportunity 

not to limit the amount of information we have but to collect it in 

a much more streamlined way. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you, 

Honorable Dudley. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Ms. Dudley, I am concerned that the 

Paperwork Reduction Act is discouraging agencies from properly 

conducting analysis of small business impacts pursuant to RegFlex. 

This is because the law requires OMB approval when an agency 

conducts a survey of small firms regarding the potential impacts of 

regulations. Agencies often try to avoid these types of delays in the 

rulemaking process. 

Do you believe the PRA should be amended to exempt information collection requests from OMB clearance if they are purely voluntary and requested for the purpose of doing a RegFlex analysis? 

Ms. DUDLEY. That is something that I think is something that 

is worth exploring. And I know it is very different from the way 

the PRA was initially created to include voluntary as well as mandatory. So I think that will take a little—I certainly can’t give you 

an off-the-top-of-my-head answer. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. What can you tell us today is a recommendation from your end where you feel that legislatively 

changes should be made to make the PRA more effective? 

11

Ms. DUDLEY. I know that there have been efforts to examine 

that. The administration has not developed a position on how to 

make it and I think, in large part, because it doesn’t always appear 

to be, but I think it is working pretty well and so whether there 

are specific changes that we can make to fix the things that I think 

you have all accurately identified. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Well, I think that if you stay here for 

the second panel—

Ms. DUDLEY. There will be recommendations? 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. —they will say that it is not working 

for them. And so, Ms. Dudley, do you have any staff that will remain for the second panel? 

Ms. DUDLEY. Yes. Yes, I do. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Chabot, do you have any more? 

Mr. CHABOT. I don’t have any other questions. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Well, Ms. Dudley, you are excused. 

And, again, thank you for your participation this morning. 

Ms. DUDLEY. Thank you very much. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. I will ask for the witnesses from the 

second panel to please take your seats. And now we recognize Ms. 

Clarke for the purpose of introducing our first witness on the second panel. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Ranking 

Member Chabot. 

It is truly a privilege for me to introduce the distinguished panelist, whose work has been of great benefit to the people I serve 

in the 11th congressional district. I am very honored today to introduce Dr. Linda Brady. 

She is currently the President and the CEO of Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center, located in Brooklyn, New York. Dr. Brady has 

served in her current role at the medical center since 1999. A cum 

laude graduate of Barnard College, Dr. Brady received her medical 

degree from New York University School of Medicine and completed her psychiatric residency at the Albert Einstein College of 

Medicine, Bronx Municipal Hospital Center. 

Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center, located in the East Flatbush 

section of central Brooklyn, was founded in 1925 as a chronic care 

facility to serve the then Jewish community within a cultural context. As the community diversified, Kingsbrook expanded its services and programs to meet community needs. An 864-bed medical 

training institution, Kingsbrook comprises a 326-bed acute care 

hospital and a 538-bed adult and pediatric skilled nursing longterm care facility. 

Today Dr. Brady is here to testify on behalf of the American Hospital Association. The AHA is the national organization that represents and serves all types of hospitals, health care networks, and 

their patients and communities. Close to 5,000 hospitals, health 

care systems, networks, and other providers of care, and 37,000 individual members come together to form the AHA. 

I am proud to have Dr. Brady here representing my district. I am 

grateful for you being here today. And I look forward to hearing 

your testimony. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

12

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Welcome, Dr. Brady. And you will have 

five minutes to make your presentation. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF MS. LINDA BRADY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

KINGSBROOK JEWISH MEDICAL CENTER, ON BEHALF OF 

THE AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION 

Dr. BRADY. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member. And hello to Congresswoman Clarke. 

I am Dr. Linda Brady, President and CEO of Kingsbrook Jewish 

Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York. On behalf of the American 

Hospital Association’s nearly 5,000 member hospitals, health systems, and other health organizations, and its 37,000 individual 

members, I appreciate the opportunity to share with you the administrative burdens faced by hospitals and what should be done 

to reduce them. 

As a valued and trusted public resource, our society holds hospitals in special regard. As a result, we are closely monitored and 

evaluated by local, state, federal, and private regulators charged 

with protecting the public and ensuring that public funds are spent 

wisely and in the public’s best interest. However, providers are increasingly concerned that health care regulation is out of control 

and has lost a sense of fairness and common sense. 

Currently administrative costs comprise between $145 and $294 

billion of our nation’s health care spending and are a chief factor 

in the growth of that spending. It is time for a dramatic change. 

Should all regulations be eliminated? No. The issue is not whether to regulate but how. Just as providers constantly work to ensure 

that what they do benefits patients first and makes prudent use of 

resources, government must do the same by standardizing requirements, being efficient in its demands, and eliminating some of the 

redundant administrative burden placed on providers. 

Hospitals operate in an increasingly constrained financial environment. As a result, every dollar is precious to preserving our 

mission. Medicare currently reimburses hospitals only 91 cents for 

every dollar of care that they provide to a Medicare patient. And 

Medicaid payments are worse, only 86 cents for each dollar of services. In 2006 alone, this combined underpayment totaled $30 billion. That is on top of an additional $31 billion in uncompensated 

care. Meanwhile more and more of hospitals’ precious resources are 

being diverted to comply with inefficient, duplicative, and burdensome regulations. 

Nearly 30 federal agencies regulate hospitals. And little coordination exists among them or between similar agencies at the state 

and local levels. As a result, redundancy abounds. 

For example, CMS conducts six types of activities to protect 

against improper payments, waste, fraud, and abuse. Multiple contractors are tasked with carrying out these activities to one degree 

or another. 

While each contractor has an individual purpose, they often seek 

the same information, requiring duplicate effort by hospital personnel, who must pull, review, and process patient charts and appeals time and time again. 

13

The Medicare Recovery Audit Contractor Program is particularly 

troublesome because the RACs are paid on a contingency fee basis, 

meaning they keep a percentage of the payments they recover, with 

limited risk for making the wrong decisions that unfairly hurt providers. This bounty hunter-like payment mechanism has led to excessive chart requests and aggressive denials on the part of the 

RACs. 

Kingsbrook, for example, has seen many cases of wound 

debridement denied for incorrect coding. In 119 cases, the RAC 

claimed that we used the improper code because the word 

‘‘excisional’’ was not written on the patient’s chart. However, the 

charts contained skin biopsy results clearly demonstrating that 

skin had been removed for testing. 

The RAC was unwilling to accept clinical addenda to the medical 

record, despite the fact that every medical and legal expert we consulted said that such documentation was sufficient to make a determination. 

As of December 31st, 64 cases, totaling $894,000, have been overturned in our favor upon appeal. Fifteen cases are still pending. 

The cost to us in terms of money and man-hours expended to overturn these erroneous denials and recoup money that was rightfully 

owed us was great. 

And, yet, we continue to be subjected to denials for the same documentation issue because the RAC program lacks a feedback loop. 

This example only hints at the levels of confusion and waste caused 

by duplicative oversight mechanisms. 

In conclusion, we urge the administration and Congress to work 

together to ease the regulatory burden confronting health care providers by creating a more common sense approach to developing 

and issuing future regulations. Equally critical is the need to provide relief from the most burdensome, inefficient, or ineffective regulations, those that take away critical time spent with patients. 

My written statement contains specific actions the AHA believes 

will help ease this burden. Hospitals are committed to doing the 

right thing the first time to ensure quality patient safety and payment accuracy. However, duplicative regulatory and oversight 

mechanisms only increase confusion and drive up costs for both 

hospitals and the health care system as a whole as well as for the 

government. 

We need smarter, more efficient regulation, rather than additional rules and oversight so that the people of America’s hospitals 

can spend more time with patients and less time with paperwork. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Brady may be found in the Appendix on page 43.]

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you very much, Dr. Brady. 

And now our second witness is Mr. Robert Daly, who is the 

President of the Kaw Roofing and Sheet Metal Inc., established in 

1923 in Kansas City. And he is testifying on behalf of the National 

Roofing Contractors Association. 

Mr. Daly has served on NRCA’s Board of Directors and many 

NRCA committees and in 2007 was elected as president of the association. Established in 1886, NRCA is one of the construction inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:09 Apr 04, 2008 Jkt 033615 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\CLERK SB-LD\HEARINGS\TRANSCRIPTS\40601.TXT LEANN
14

dustry’s oldest trade associations and the voice of professional roofing contractors worldwide. 

Welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ROBERT P. DALY, JR., PRESIDENT, KAW 

ROOFING AND SHEET METAL, INC., ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ROOFING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. DALY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member 

Chabot, and distinguished members of the Committee. 

My name is Robert Daly. I am President of Kaw Roofing and 

Sheet Metal, a small business in Kansas City, Kansas. I also serve 

as President of the National Roofing Contractors Association. 

NRCA welcomes the opportunity to testify on the growing paperwork burden on small business. 

NRCA not only represents over 4,600 contractor members, but 

what we accomplish ultimately affects over 20,000 roofing contractors in the United States. Our burden also mirrors that probably 

of every specialty contractor in the U.S. as well. 

Let me state at the outset that small business owners recognize 

the need for sensible regulation in order to protect employees, consumers, and the environment. However, it is critical that the implementation of regulations and the required paperwork be governed by the type of common sense that small business people 

must employ every day if we are to survive. 

It is not an exaggeration to say that small businesses are drowning in a rising flood of paperwork. My experience bears this out, 

and statistics back it up. Paper files that I must keep that used to 

be one-quarter or a half-inch thick are now anywhere from 6 to 12 

inches. The paperwork requirements in our business are at least 10 

times what they were 20 years ago. 

If you are a small business person like myself, forget about filing 

cabinets. Instead, you need to think in terms of entire storage 

rooms to accommodate your paperwork. Paperwork requirements in 

our relations with general contractors, or GCs as we call them, 

demonstrate the challenges we face. 

Just a few years ago, we had to provide general contractors with 

duplicates or at most three copies of government paperwork. Today 

we often have to provide six copies of this paperwork. 

There have been instances in which my firm provided three copies of certain paperwork to a general contractor, when they needed 

six. Rather than copying the three copies they already had, they 

demanded that we provide those three copies. 

It appears that the further down the food chain you are, the 

more one has to produce while others up the food chain tend to 

manage things. Therefore, not only does the paperwork burden fall 

on us, but also we have to maintain copies for our own records. 

The onslaught of government regulatory agencies include paperwork requirements that are not entirely cohesive of everything 

such as OSHA to deal with in regards to material safety data 

sheets, and safety policies that must be placed on the job in a written form. 

We have DOT daily logs. We have forms regarding the disposal 

of materials in regards to EPA. The Department of Homeland Security requires that we fill out forms for transportation of certain 

15

materials. Prevailing wage jobs require that we fill out weekly 

wage reports. And the list goes on and on. 

I understand that these entities’ mission is to improve worker 

safety and the security of our country. And we fully subscribe to 

that. But there must be a way to streamline the proliferation of paperwork while still achieving that goal. 

The paperwork burden is most acute for small construction firms 

that wish to work on federal projects. In my experience, 10 to 15 

years ago, our firm would often bid federal projects. And the paperwork was manageable. 

Now paperwork requirements for federal projects are so excessive 

that a firm has a difficult choice to make. You either don’t bid on 

federal contracts or if you are going to bid on federal contracts, you 

must hire additional staff to deal with the extra paperwork demands. This drives up overhead costs and puts small businesses at 

a disadvantage to larger competitors. Small businesses’ decisions 

not to bid leaves the government with less-qualified contractors to 

choose from. 

Small businesses often do not have the resources capable of 

tracking government regulations. Even diligent small business 

owners may inadvertently make an error or miss deadlines associated with government paperwork. It is particularly disturbing to be 

hit with fines or penalties for minor inadvertent paperwork violations. 

One of my pet peeves is that people knock on my doors and come 

in and start crying to me about how the river is dirty, but nobody 

suggests how to clean it up. I think one of the things we would like 

to do as a part of this is make some recommendations as to what 

we would like to see done. 

We recommend that Congress provide increased funding for the 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget. OIRA has had some success over the years 

in reducing or streamlining paperwork requirements. However, the 

office has been constrained in recent years by declining budgets. 

To address the problem of inadvertent paperwork violations, 

NRCA urges Congress to consider the Small Business Paperwork 

Relief Act of 2007. The bill would direct federal agencies to not impose civil fines for certain first-time paperwork violations. 

The bill does not exempt businesses from paperwork requirements but merely gives an owner acting in good faith some leeway 

to correct a first-time mistake. This is a common sense approach 

to reducing the paperwork burden on small businesses while still 

providing for the safety and health of workers in our communities. 

NRCA urges the Committee members to take a serious look at 

this bill as a proposal that could be taken as a first step to address 

the paperwork burden on small businesses. NRCA looks forward to 

working with this Committee to develop effective solutions to the 

paperwork problem facing small businesses. 

Thank you, again, for considering NRCA’s views. I would be 

pleased to answer any questions which you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Daly may be found in the Appendix on page 54.]

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Daly. 

16

Now it is with great pleasure that I welcome the Honorable Sally 

Katzen. Ms. Katzen is a former Administrator at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and 

Budget. She served as Deputy Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Deputy Director of the National Economic Council 

at the White House. She has had various leadership roles in the 

American Bar Association and is a visiting professor of law in 

George Mason University. 

Welcome. 

THE HONORABLE SALLY KATZEN, FORMER OIRA ADMINISTRATOR, VISITING PROFESSOR OF LAW, GEORGE MASON 

UNIVERSITY 

Ms. KATZEN. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Vela ́zquez, Ranking Member Chabot, Congresswoman Clarke. 

My written testimony will be included in the record, so I want 

to use my time to emphasize a few points. First, each of you and 

all of these witnesses have spoken repeatedly and eloquently about 

the heavy burden of paperwork on small businesses. I just want to 

drop a footnote here that use of total burden hours, the nine billion 

hours, can be misleading because that figure includes not only the 

hours spent incurring a liability or monitoring an obligation like a 

tax form, but also hours spent to obtain a benefit, like a small business loan or a student loan or veterans’ benefits or Social Security 

benefits or Medicare benefits. All of those hours are combined. And 

to speak of the totals repetitively I think masks the very important 

differences. 

Now, it is true that the heaviest burden comes from the IRS, and 

it is customary to beat up on the IRS for its heavy-duty forms. I 

would like to point out that the IRS is the most aggressive agency 

in attempting to streamline and simplify forms. Administrator 

Dudley referred to it this morning. The GAO cited it as a model, 

along with EPA, two years ago for an effort to try to break through 

all of this. 

There is also the benefit side of the burden, and, again, Administrator Dudley spoke about it. It is in my written testimony, and I 

won’t go through that. 

Clearly, all of this aside, paperwork does pose very serious burdens on small businesses. And I think you are right, it is great that 

you convened this hearing, and that you asked the questions. 

As to the issue you posed to Administrator Dudley, is the PRA 

really working, I was at OIRA for five years during the Clinton administration. My own instinct—no empirical data is there because 

there is no counter-factual baseline from which to measure—my instinct is it does work. Some of the proof of that is in the remarks 

that you and others have made about the fact that agencies are reluctant to send things forward to OIRA. They realize that the PRA 

process imposes time, cost, effort, and constraints, and negotiating 

with OMB is not always the most fun thing to do. And, therefore, 

I think agencies have held back. 

Now, can we do better? I think, yes, we can. And I wanted to 

move to the positive side. To do that, we must first identify the 

barriers. We are all in agreement that the single largest barrier is 

the fact that Congress mandates these information collections. 

17

I suspect as we sit here talking about reducing burdens, there 

are hearings in other rooms in this building and across the way, 

where committees are thinking about how they should impose new 

obligations. National security, we have seen a lot of that. We see 

it in a lot of other areas as well. And the fact that Congress is making these decisions is something that the PRA can’t do anything 

about, regrettably. The PRA does not trump another statute. 

The other barrier goes to the issue that Congresswoman Clarke 

was talking about, which is the multiplicity of same requests. How 

do we stop that? Well, I think the government is taking some steps 

with this business gateway to try to get information once and use 

it for several purposes. But a lot of times a form will have specialized questions with specialized terms or, you might say, idiosyncratic definitions. 

The term ‘‘employee’’ might be used by various programs in the 

same agency or in different agencies in different ways. So you can’t 

take the answer from one form and incorporate it wholesale into 

another form. Why do those definitions’ differences exist? It is not 

because of agency silliness or stubbornness. It is because the underlying program creates certain terms which the agency has to 

abide with. 

Now, one of the things that I was very excited about was when 

the task force was set up. The first item on the agenda was, come 

up with ways of consolidating information requests across agencies 

and even within an agency. And I eagerly awaited the first report. 

The first report was long on the challenges they face, but short 

on the accomplishments. There were I think five or six in appendix 

5, several of which had gone back several years. And what was particularly disappointing is that there was no road map of how to go 

further. 

Why not call for the agencies to put forth a list of instances 

where, with some technical modifications in the definitions or the 

cutoffs or some of the other qualifications, you could, in fact, consolidate a number of requests within an agency or across agencies? 

And then this Committee, working with the committees of jurisdiction, can serve this up to the Congress and actually accomplish 

some real difference. 

I have to invoke the committees of jurisdiction. Dr. Brady was 

talking about the source of this, of the regulations, which come 

from HHS or CMS or the different agencies. It’s not clear that by 

your saying, ‘‘Reduce paperwork, reduce paperwork, reduce paperwork’’ is going to produce anything until the committees of jurisdiction say, ‘‘Let’s get real.’’

Two other quick things, if I may. The suggestion of the Chairwoman on the role of the CIO and on whether OIRA should be limited to review of significant forms are two items that I discussed 

at some length in my testimony before the House Government Reform Committee, it was then called, I think, in 2006. I would be 

happy to get you a copy of that testimony, but those are ideas that 

I think do bear looking at. Otherwise I would continue pressing on 

what you have accomplished in setting up the agenda in the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act. 

18

I am not saying the PRA works perfectly. To the contrary, we 

need to do more. But there are ways of doing it that are smart and 

productive. And I would encourage you to work in that regard. 

Thank you. I will be happy to take any questions. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you very much. 

Our next witness is Mr. Drew Greenblatt. Mr. Greenblatt is testifying on behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers. He 

is the President of the Marlin Steel Wire Products, established in 

1968 in Baltimore, Maryland. Marlin manufactures wire racks, 

baskets, and hooks. 

The National Association of Manufacturers was founded in Cincinnati, Ohio in 1895 and represents 130,000 manufacturers in all 

50 states. 

Welcome. And you will have five minutes. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Katzen may be found in the Appendix on page 59.]

STATEMENT OF MR. DREW GREENBLATT, PRESIDENT, MARLIN 

STEEL WIRE PRODUCTS LLC, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Thank you, Chairwoman Vela ́zquez, Ranking 

Member Chabot, and members of the Committee on Small Business. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of 

the National Association of Manufacturers regarding the Paperwork Reduction Act and the work of this Committee to improve it 

for small businesses. 

The National Association of Manufacturers is the nation’s largest 

industrial trade association, and it represents small and large manufacturers in all 50 states. Three-quarters of NAM’s membership is 

small and medium-sized manufacturers. We represent the 14 million men and women that actually make things. 

My name is Drew Greenblatt. And I am the President and 

Owner of Marlin Steel Wire Products. We make steel wire baskets, 

and we make wire hooks, like this. We make them all in Baltimore 

City, Maryland. We import nothing from China. And we make everything in Baltimore. 

Marlin Steel Wire custom-builds wire products for clients in the 

pharmaceutical industry, automotive industry, and aerospace manufacturing. We employ 27 people. We have grown 33 percent in the 

last 2 years. And we tripled in the last ten years. We are adding 

people. And we want to keep on adding people, but we don’t want 

to keep on adding paperwork. 

NAM’s mission is to enhance the competitiveness of manufacturers by shaping a legislative and regulatory environment conducive 

to U.S. economic growth and to increase the understanding among 

policy-makers, media, and the general public about the vital role of 

manufacturing to America’s economic future and living standards. 

I compiled all the forms in my business—if you look over at this 

picture right over here—that we generated in a single year. We 

piled them up on top of each other. As you can see, it is more than 

six feet tall. If you look at this photo, you can see my plant manager, Simon Matthews; our production specialist, Nan Brand, all 

next to last year’s paperwork. This is crazy. 

19

That’s why it is no surprise to me that the federal government 

reported that it imposed 9.2 billion hours of paperwork on the public in 2007. The cost per employee for small firms was almost 

$22,000 per employee. It’s $10,000 per employee if you are a medium-sized firm. And it’s almost $9,000 for large firms per employee. 

NAM did a very good report on the structural costs imposed on 

U.S. manufacturers that harm workers and threaten our competitiveness. They examined these structural costs that are borne by 

us, and they compared our tax and regulations burdens against our 

competitors in Canada, Mexico, Japan, et cetera. And the finding 

was that our government is imposing 32 percent more paperwork 

on us than our foreign competitors. That is a major disadvantage 

for us. 

We welcome the role that Chairwoman Vela ́zquez and this Congress are addressing because it is so important for small business. 

Improving the Paperwork Reduction Act is necessary, and it is a 

noble enterprise. 

The federal government can do much better. No one can say with 

a straight face that we have eliminated as much of the unnecessary 

burden that we can. No one is saying that there is no fat left in 

the system. 

We have to find ways to identify true duplication of our information within agencies. But OIRA currently has no way to validate 

an agency’s certification of duplication. They just take agencies at 

their word. 

OIRA’s staff has shrunk from 90 employees to 50 employees. The 

staff dedicated to writing, administering, and enforcing regulations 

has grown from 146,000 to 242,000 people. OIRA’s budget has actually shrunk by $7 million in inflation-adjusted terms. 

Every hour I spend on paperwork is an hour of lost productivity. 

And lost productivity means I am unable to hire the next employee, 

I am unable to make capital equipment purchases, or I can’t spend 

time growing my business. 

Let me give you an idea what I would do with the freed-up time. 

We sell a great deal of products to foreigners. Toyota is my second 

biggest account. Today we are running jobs for GlaxoSmithKline in 

England. We also run jobs for Unilever out in Holland. In the last 

six months, our company has exported products to the U.K., Mexico, Belgium, Canada, New Zealand, and Japan. My favorite is Taiwan. 

We actually exported. We made it in Baltimore. We exported to 

Taiwan. There is a guy in Taiwan that opened up a box of wire 

baskets, and it said, ‘‘Made in the U.S.A.’’ That is neat. We are 

doing a lot of things right. 

We design products with the most sophisticated computer-aideddesign, like this product for Hubert in Congressman Chabot’s district in Harrison, Ohio. They are a very good account of mine, and 

we appreciate them. 

We make high-quality products that don’t get returned, but we 

have to do a lot of paperwork. And this is a distraction to our mission. We are afraid that the paperwork we are going to fill out, 

there are going to be typos in it or mistakes. So a lot of times we 

20

will farm out this paperwork and have to pay vendors to fill out 

paperwork for us because we are not good at filling out paperwork. 

Millions of small businesses like mine pay these outside fees. 

Our competition in China doesn’t have to pay that fee. In India, 

they don’t have to pay that fee. 

In Marlin’s case, we have to pay to comply for our 401(k) plan, 

to do our payroll. We have to farm all of that out. We pay them 

so much a year that we can’t hire a $15 an hour person who is 

going to work full-time on our production floor. 

We would be more competitive if we could hire that person. That 

person would have a job, a job here in America. Thus paperwork 

actually reduces employment because we are diverting cash from 

hiring people. Instead, we are filling out forms. 

We want our small businesses vibrant since we hire people and 

we take the risks to grow. Government’s goal should be take off the 

shackles of the small business hiring machine. 

Again, Madam Chairwoman, thank you for this opportunity to 

testify. And I would be happy to respond to any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Greenblatt may be found in the 

Appendix on page 65.]

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Greenblatt. 

And our last, but not least, Mr. Robert Garbini. He is the President of the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association. Mr. 

Garbini has been active in the association since 1991, serving as 

the executive vice president and chief operating officer. The 

NRMCA was founded in 1930 and represents the ready-mixed concrete industry. 

Welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT GARBINI, P.E., PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL READY MIXED CONCRETE ASSOCIATION 

Mr. GARBINI. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman Vela ́zquez, 

Ranking Member Chabot, and Congresswoman Clarke. First off, I 

would like to compliment Mr. Greenblatt on being a fine representative of small business in the United States. 

I am Robert Garbini, the President of the National Ready Mixed 

Concrete Association. Thank you for inviting me to testify about 

the Paper Reduction Act and the federal paperwork burdens faced 

by the ready-mixed concrete industry. 

NRMCA is a national trade association representing producers of 

ready-mixed concrete, the vast majority of which are small businesses. Nationwide there are roughly 7,000 ready-mixed concrete 

plants, employing and using 70,000 ready-mixed concrete mixer 

drivers’ trucks that are annually delivering 450 million cubic yards 

of ready-mixed concrete to the point of placement. 

Ready-mixed concrete producers recognize that as small businesses, Congress specifically intended them to benefit from the 

Paper Reduction Act mandates that agency collection of information have practical utility, are not duplicative and impose the least 

burden possible. 

I would like to take this opportunity to share with the Committee an example of how the Paper Reduction Act could be better 

21

utilized to unsaddle at least the ready-mixed concrete industry and 

other short-haul operators from a lingering paperwork burden. 

Concrete mixer drivers are an on-call and delivery product on a 

just-in-time basis. They operate exclusively in the short-haul construction industry, generally beginning and ending each shift at 

the same plant location and rarely exceeding a 50 air-mile radius. 

In fact, the industry’s studies show that a concrete mixer driver’s 

average delivery is only 14 miles from the ready-mixed plant. They 

actually only drive four to six hours per day. As a result, industry 

truck drivers are eligible for an exemption from the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration’s hour-of-service requirement that a 

driver’s daily log be kept. 

Currently a 100 air mile radius log exemption is available if the 

driver returns to the plant and is released from work within 12 

consecutive hours; at least 10 consecutive hours of off-duty separate each 12 hours on duty; and, third, the driver does not exceed 

11 hours maximum driving time. If these restrictions are met, instead of the daily log, an electronic time clock can be used to record 

a driver’s hours. 

It is notable that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration cited paperwork burden reduction as a basis for the 100-mile 

air log exemption when it was first provided in 1980. Unfortunately, concrete mixer truck drivers are unable to take full advantage of the exemption. This is almost always caused by a driver 

surpassing the 12-hour return time limit. 

The hours of service regulations afford a driver, all drivers, a 

maximum of 14 consecutive hours of on-duty time per shift, after 

which drivers may not drive. Yet, ready-mixed drivers who otherwise meet the requirements of the 100 air mile log exemption must 

still complete a log if they exceed the 12 hours on-duty time during 

the shift. Unlike in the long-haul trades, it is very difficult in the 

ready-mixed concrete industry to predict on any given day whether 

the 12-hour threshold will be surpassed. 

If the driver surpasses the threshold but does not expect to do 

so, which is most times the case, he must go back and retroactively 

log his time status for the entire day on a sheet similar to this in 

15-minute increments, no less. This is simply not practical for a 

concrete mixer driver as their duty status changes frequently 

throughout the day and completing an accurate log from memory 

is difficult. 

To preempt this difficulty, many ready-mixed concrete producers 

have instructed their drivers to log every day every 15 minutes in 

case they exceed the 12-hour threshold. The Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration has claimed that the threshold is necessary 

as a safeguard to ensure that drivers adhere to driving time limitations. Yet, concrete mixer drivers only drive four to six hours per 

day. Requiring them to return to the plant within 12 hours so that 

they don’t exceed the 11 hours of driving time is regulatory overkill 

by itself. 

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has, with one 

hand, used the Paperwork Reduction Act to provide the 100 air 

mile long exemption; yet, with the other hand, has taken the exemption away by establishing a seemingly arbitrary 12-hour return 

time limit. 

22

NRMCA urges the agency and the Office of Information Regulatory Affairs to take another look at the 100 air mile log exemption to see if the Paperwork Reduction Act can be better utilized 

to correct this problem. 

The solution for the ready-mixed industry is a very simple one. 

The 100 air mile exemption should be consistent with the hours of 

service regulations by changing the 12 hours on-duty time to 14 

hours, which would allow ready-mixed drivers to take full advantage of the 100 air mile log exemption for their entire shift. 

This seemingly small fix, which can be effected by a regulatory 

change only, would have no safety impacts and would provide real 

relief from paperwork, the paperwork burden that has plagued the 

ready-mixed concrete industry for decades. 

I would also say that a change such as this would impact, I 

think, the third purpose of the Paper Reduction Act, which was examining the value of information required. 

Madam Chairman, that concludes my statement. And I would be 

pleased to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Garbini may be found in the Appendix on page 75.]

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Garbini. 

We are going to have a series of votes, three votes, but I am 

going to start asking some questions. And we are going to stand 

in recess and come back right after the votes. 

I would like to cut right to the chase and ask each one of you. 

We heard the Administrator, Administrator Dudley, saying that 

the PRA is working. So do you all agree with the Administrator 

that—and I heard Ms. Katzen. And I would like to come back to 

you with some specific questions regarding this matter, but to each 

one of the witnesses, would you say that the PRA is working; that 

is, reducing the burden that small businesses are facing regarding 

paperwork and reduction? 

Dr. BRADY. I can just tell you that the amount of paperwork or 

information that is required and the burden to us has only increased. It is very hard for me to say that this is working and that 

there really is a successful effort, not effort but outcome, in terms 

of the ability to reduce duplicative reporting and regulation. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Daly? 

Mr. DALY. I would have to agree with Dr. Brady. Basically I see 

no evidence of it decreasing. However, it is kind of like having a 

safety program where you don’t really know how bad or how serious someone is injured. So, relatively speaking, it could be worse 

than what it is now. 

So to say that it’s not doing any good I would not think is fair, 

but it needs to be improved. And I think duplication is one of the 

problems. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Greenblatt? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. No, I don’t think it is helping. And I think the 

government is strangling small businesses. And we cannot compete 

because of all of the paperwork. 

Mr. GARBINI. Madam Congresswoman, I would also say that I 

think your own evidence shows that. If the volume of paperwork 

23

declined, I think then in that case, we would all agree it was working but not so. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Ms. Katzen, can you talk to us about 

your experience during the five years that you were at OIRA? Do 

you feel that the resources that OIRA has today are sufficient for 

them to do their job? 

Ms. KATZEN. I think you can always do more with more. And I 

noticed that a number of the witnesses have called for an increase 

of funding and staff for OIRA, I would not disagree that additional 

staff would be helpful. 

I think it is also important to have additional funding for the 

agencies who are being asked to do these tasks in addition to what 

else they have to do. In a day of fiscal discipline and in a time 

when we’re trying to straight-line or decrease funding for domestic 

agencies to satisfy our general fiscal needs, the agencies have an 

enormous difficulty in bringing to the table the kind of expertise 

they need. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. 

So the Committee stands in recess. 

[Brief recess.] 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. I recognize Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Dr. Brady, I will begin with you, if I can. Of the funds spent on 

administrative costs by hospitals, what percentage derives from 

private insurance carriers and what percentage stems from federal, 

state, or local government paperwork, if you know or you can estimate if you don’t know exactly? 

Dr. BRADY. I don’t know exactly. I would say most I would suspect is probably government-related, although, you know, some of 

the insurers now, like the Medicaid advantage plans, it’s sort of a 

hybrid, if you will. So if there were an opportunity, if government 

could use some standards or the government plans or government 

insurers to abide by, that would be a plus. 

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Daly? And I, first of all, have to comment that 

your name, Daly, is my wife’s maiden name. 

Mr. DALY. Oh, really? 

Mr. CHABOT. So her name was Daly. 

Mr. DALY. Spelled the same way? 

Mr. CHABOT. Yes, spelled the same way and everything. And 

when I first got started, Cincinnati City Council was the first office 

I ran for and not too long after we got married. And because my 

name is Chabot, and nobody in my family had ever been involved 

in politics, so people weren’t familiar with the name. We sort of 

thought kiddingly about maybe going with her last name, running 

with a political name like Daly, rather than Chabot, although we 

weren’t in Chicago. 

Mr. DALY. Right, right. 

Mr. CHABOT. And we’re not Democrats. But other than that, it 

would have been a great opportunity there. But we appreciate your 

testimony. 

Let me ask, in your firm, who handles the reporting and recordkeeping requirements? And do you ever have to request assistance 

from lawyers or other outside consultants to comply with the paperwork requirements? 

24

Mr. DALY. Yes. Basically what we do is—a good example, eight 

to ten years ago, one of my primary parts of being in the family 

business, in the business itself, was I estimated and did quite a bit 

of this task. 

I literally quit doing that because I took on the responsibility of 

making sure that we properly met a lot of these regulatory requirements. Since then, I have been able to delegate that to one or two 

people in my office to the extent that they were all able to handle 

it. 

We now keep an attorney on retainer, which we have never done 

before in order to review and look at a lot of what we get into. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

And, Dr.—is it Dr. Katzen? 

Ms. KATZEN. Whatever. 

Mr. CHABOT. Ms. Katzen. Whatever, yes. What would be the 

drawback to reducing the reporting burdens on small businesses 

seeking to obtain benefit from the government if there would be 

any? 

Ms. KATZEN. Well, as a generality, there is no down side to reducing burden. What would we be losing since some of the parts 

of the applications are to verify eligibility? You would have to have 

that information if you want to hold the agency accountable to say 

only those who are eligible have received the benefit. We read each 

day in the newspaper about scandals that are uncovered where an 

agency has paid money out, good money, good taxpayer money, to 

people who weren’t really eligible for the benefit. 

Now, if you eliminated all the forms and you just said, ‘‘I want 

a student loan, whether I qualify or not,’’ you would lose that ability. 

That is not to say the forms can’t be streamlined more. I am not 

saying we are perfect by a long shot, but the answer to your question has to be, I think, it depends. It depends on what it is you 

would be cutting out. 

And, if I may, we talk about the IRS being the major source of 

the burden. Some of that is, as I said, the 1040s. Some of it is that 

people can get tax benefits. If you want standard depreciation, it 

doesn’t take a whole lot of form filling out. But if you want accelerated depreciation, if you want to be a subchapter S corporation, if 

you want to be a limited partnership, if you want to take advantage of things which Congress, in its infinite wisdom, has decided 

are necessary and beneficial, then it takes filling out forms. 

Now, would you have people simply say, ‘‘I am a small business, 

and I want to accelerate depreciation. So I am just going to put 

down an amount’’? What is it that you would be reducing in the 

burden for these people who would be receiving a benefit? 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

Mr. Greenblatt, first of all, I just had a question. You all were 

started back in the 1800s, I think you said, and it was in Cincinnati. Is that correct or—

Mr. GREENBLATT. No. I’m sorry. NAM, National Association of 

Manufacturers, was established in Cincinnati. My company was established in 1968. 

Mr. CHABOT. And you were actually established in Baltimore at 

that time? 

25

Mr. GREENBLATT. Actually, we were established in New York. In 

the last ten years, we have been in the State of Maryland, in Baltimore City. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. But the National Association of Manufacturers had its origins in Cincinnati, then? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Yes. 

Mr. CHABOT. Back in the 1800s? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Yes. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. 

I thought something that you had said was particularly interesting. You mentioned that, I think, the United States has 32 percent worse paperwork requirements than other countries around 

the world. And when one considers I guess we are including in that 

communist China, People’s Republic of China, for example. We are 

not including in that? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. No, no. It is our nine biggest trading partners. 

Mr. CHABOT. Oh, it is our trading partners only. Okay. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. And these are the people that are ruthless 

against us out in the real world. 

Mr. CHABOT. So what countries are we talking about? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Canada, Mexico, Japan, China, Germany. 

Mr. CHABOT. Well, China. So China would be. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. U.K., South Korea, Taiwan, and France. So, 

you know, when we are going up against a Chinese or a Taiwanese 

or a French factory, we have 32 percent more paperwork shuffling 

going on than they do. 

Mr. CHABOT. Yes. I mean, that is pretty incredible when you consider that somebody like China is on that list, that our paperwork 

requirements are that much more burdensome. And I think that 

shows why we really do need to do a much better job of relieving 

some of this burden that is now on small businesses, medium businesses, and large businesses as well. 

If you had to make one change in the Paperwork Reduction Act 

or to do something about what you see on an everyday basis, what 

would you do if you were in one of these seats up here and had 

the ability to make a change in this area? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Well, if there were some sort of rules that said 

every year for the next three years we have to have ten percent 

less paper three years in a row, I still think we can get everything 

we need accomplished. But there would be a lot less forms to fill 

out. There would be a lot less pieces of paper to read. 

And the second thing would be if we could make the paperwork 

in English language, as opposed to Washington bureaucratese, it 

would be easier to digest the data and then respond quickly. 

A lot of times we get into positions where we are not exactly sure 

what we just read. So we have to have two or three people in a 

room staring at a phrase, ‘‘Does that apply to us? Does that rule 

apply to us? Is that not including us now anymore?’’ And this is 

an enormous, monumental distraction. And we are looking at 

things that are not germane to making good, quality product or 

shipping faster. 

One other thing I wanted to mention regarding what Dr. Katzen 

just said about depreciation. I am a small company. And we have 

26

13 robots. And we have about a million and a half dollars worth 

of equipment. 

I just got a bill this week from my accountant. To figure out my 

depreciation for this year was $3,500. Okay? Now, that is complete 

waste to shuffle the paper to figure out how much my depreciation 

costs. And, rather than me buying another piece of equipment or 

me hiring a person to work for two months for me, instead I’m paying an accountant to figure out a depreciation schedule. 

We should have no depreciation schedules. It makes accountants 

very busy, but it doesn’t make me more efficient against China or 

France or Germany. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

And, finally, Mr. Garbini, relative to ready-mixed concrete 

plants, I know that some of your paperwork is obviously from the 

federal government, a considerable amount of it. How much of it 

is from the state or local level as well? 

Mr. GARBINI. Congressman, I am not sure exactly how to answer 

that particular question. We might have to come back to you about 

the—I would have to say on the environmental side and the safety 

side we have the same regulatory requirements that you see with 

any small business. So I don’t know what the proportion would be. 

Bob, do you have any sense of that? No. We would have to come 

back to you with that. 

Mr. CHABOT. All right. That’s fine. Okay. I will yield back, 

Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Garbini, in terms of the log form that you have to fill out 

regarding short-haul drivers, can you explain how detailed these 

forms are and how much time it takes to complete them? Also, does 

it make sense for a driver traveling in short distances to be required to complete a log? 

Mr. GARBINI. Well, the form I think was the last one up there. 

And I can have someone bring this up to you so you can take a look 

at it. What it shows, there are four categories in there broken down 

from midnight to midnight. And it shows four categories: off-duty, 

sleeper berth, driving, and on-duty. And it is broken down in 15-

minute intervals. 

And if you can imagine any driver in a busy day—and certainly 

it is hard on the ready-mixed concrete delivery man, who is in and 

out of a truck—he is dealing on a construction job site or he is back 

at the plant—trying to individually stop all of a sudden and fill one 

of these 15-minute things out. It is almost impossible. 

And, by the way, Madam Chairwoman, there are no sleeper 

berths on a ready-mixed concrete truck. So that goes to show you 

how this is misdirected. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. Thank you. 

Ms. Katzen, in answering my question commenting about when 

I asked each of the witnesses to comment regarding the assertion 

of the Administrator that, yes, the PRA, Paperwork Reduction Act, 

is working, you mentioned the fact about the empirical data. So my 

question to you is, how do we measure or how does OIRA measure 

whether or not the goals of the Paperwork Reduction Act have been 

accomplished? 

27

Ms. KATZEN. Well, I think there are things that you can measure, those are the data that so many people here have relied on. 

What I was alluding to was the impossibility of measuring what 

the situation would be like without the Paperwork Reduction Act 

because there is no counter-factual-base line to use. 

It is something similar to what Mr. Daly was saying, that the 

cup is probably a quarter to maybe a third full in that the PRA has 

made some difference. But there is a long way to go. 

The ability to measure is essential, but you can’t measure 

against what you don’t know. I think you used the safety example, 

that there are no safety requirements. If we didn’t have an air traffic controllers’ system, how many plane crashes would there be? 

Who knows? We know how many there are now with such a system 

in place. That leads us to think that maybe it is working, although 

maybe not perfectly. 

I don’t think the PRA has as good a track record as the FAA and 

the air traffic controllers, but that is the kind of analogy that I was 

trying to use. 

The problem with measurement, actually, Madam Chairwoman, 

is significant. I don’t want to be a skunk at the picnic, but, in fact, 

almost everybody is relying on the Mark Crain study that was done 

for SBA for the nine billion hours. But he takes the total regulatory 

costs, which are not just paperwork. It is paperwork plus regulations. 

In my written testimony, I note—and I really want to emphasize—that study is not universally acclaimed. Very credible sources 

have pointed out, time and again, that the estimate of the total 

regulatory burden is so impossible that OMB has given up that 

task completely, and then to divide it by the number of employees 

to get a per-employee basis. It is particularly significant that he is 

using the high end, he is using 1.1 trillion while OMB has used figures like 34 or—I’m sorry—44 billion. There is a huge difference 

there, which makes his bottom line somewhat suspect. 

I do not deny there is a burden. And the time is better spent on 

other things. But before we latch onto that figure and say that is 

the gospel, I would just raise a red flag. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. What really struck me was the fact 

that the Administrator came here. And when I asked specific questions or I made specific suggestions, basically there weren’t concrete recommendations or answers to the Committee. And for 

someone who is there and knows what is happening every day, it 

really makes me wonder. 

I don’t think that the Committee has to have all the answers. We 

need to have the type of synergy in terms of the people that are 

working at OIRA to be able to tell us what is working, what is not 

working if consolidation should happen, if we should take the responsibility from the chief information officer and give it to somebody else if they need more resources. 

Ms. KATZEN. The chief information officer was assigned this task 

in the 1995 PRA because it was thought essential to have someone 

outside the program office providing a dispassionate, objective view 

of the need for the information collection request. The CIO was 

thought to be that person. 

28

As I pointed out a couple of years ago in other testimony, the 

CIO official has lots of other responsibilities. And you alluded to 

that, and I thought correctly so. They have got their hands full. 

Ours were busy with Y2K. Now there are all sorts of other kinds 

of issues. I think that it is a legitimate inquiry as to whether there 

are other people within the Department, the General Counsel’s Office, the Office of the Secretary, that can perform this second look, 

this dispassionate objective review. 

And, in any event, OIRA should be following up and providing 

its own objective review. I think you are right to press those points. 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Chabot, do you have any? 

[No response.] 

Chairwoman VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Well, again thank you all for your insightful information. And I ask unanimous consent that members 

will have five days to submit a statement and supportive materials 

for the record. Without objection, so ordered. 

This hearing is now adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the foregoing matter was concluded.]

29


40601.001
30


40601.002
31


40601.003
32


40601.004
33


40601.005
34


40601.006
35


40601.007
36


40601.008
37


40601.009
38


40601.010
39


40601.011
40


40601.012
41


40601.013
42


40601.014
43


40601.015
44


40601.016
45


40601.017
46


40601.018
47


40601.019
48


40601.020
49


40601.021
50


40601.022
51


40601.023
52


40601.024
53


40601.025
54


40601.026
55


40601.027
56


40601.028
57


40601.029
58


40601.030
59


40601.031
60


40601.032
61


40601.033
62


40601.034
63


40601.035
64


40601.036
65


40601.037
66


40601.038
67


40601.039
68


40601.040
69


40601.041
70


40601.042
71


40601.043
72


40601.044
73


40601.045
74


40601.046
75


40601.047
76


40601.048
77


40601.049
78


40601.050
79


40601.051
80


40601.052
81


40601.055
82


40601.053
83

Æ


40601.054