Burdensome Regulations: Examining the Effects of DOL Rulemaking on America's Job Creators (House Small Business Committee hearing, October 19, 2023)

Summary

Transcript of the House Committee on Small Business hearing Burdensome Regulations: Examining the Effects of DOL Rulemaking on America's Job Creators, convened October 19, 2023 during the 118th Congress, First Session, published as Small Business Committee Document Number 118-031 (GPO 54-099). Chairman Roger Williams presided with Ranking Member Nydia Velázquez. Witnesses were Paul J. Ray of The Heritage Foundation, Mario Burgos of Prairie Band, LLC for Associated Builders and Contractors, Ric Suzio of The Suzio York Hill Companies for the National Stone Sand and Gravel Association, and Frank Knapp Jr. of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce. The appendix contains post-hearing responses to Hon. Nydia Velázquez and Hon. Judy Chu and submissions from Engine and the National Association of Realtors.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Burdensome Regulations: Examining the Effects of DOL Rulemaking on America's Job Creators (House Small Business Committee hearing, October 19, 2023).” Original at www.govinfo.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/burdensome-regulations-examining-the-effects-of-dol-rulemaking-on-amer-2eae3ddede/, SHA-256 ea2f8edcd3e5e194e9e0c87ecc0729e3c92f55b8bf384502d11dda908e4125bf.

Full text

BURDENSOME REGULATIONS: EXAMINING THE EF-
FECTS OF DOL RULEMAKING ON AMERICA’S
JOB CREATORS

HEARING
BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
UNITED STATES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION

HEARING HELD
OCTOBER 19, 2023

Small Business Committee Document Number 118–031
Available via the GPO Website: www.govinfo.gov

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
54–099 WASHINGTON : 2024
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas, Chairman
BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas
MARIA SALAZAR, Florida
TRACEY MANN, Kansas
JAKE ELLZEY, Texas
MARC MOLINARO, New York
MARK ALFORD, Missouri
ELI CRANE, Arizona
AARON BEAN, Florida
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
NICK LALOTA, New York
NYDIA VELÁZQUEZ, New York, Ranking Member
JARED GOLDEN, Maine
KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky
MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ, Washington
HILLARY SCHOLTEN, Michigan
SHRI THANEDAR, Michigan
JUDY CHU, California
SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire

BEN JOHNSON, Majority Staff Director
MELISSA JUNG, Minority Staff Director

(II)
CONTENTS
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Hon. Roger Williams ................................................................................................ 1
Hon. Nydia Velázquez ............................................................................................. 2

WITNESSES
Mr. Paul J. Ray, Director, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy
Studies, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC ........................................ 3
Mr. Mario Burgos, Chief Strategy Officer, Prairie Band, LLC, Albuquerque,
NM, testifying on behalf of Associated Builders and Contractors ................... 5
Mr. Ric Suzio, Vice President, The Suzio York Hill Companies, Meriden,
CT, testifying on behalf of the National Stone Sand and Gravel Association
(NSSGA) ................................................................................................................ 6
Mr. Frank Knapp Jr., President & Chief Executive Officer, South Carolina
Small Business Chamber of Commerce, Columbia, SC, testifying on behalf
of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce ........................ 8

APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Mr. Paul J. Ray, Director, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy
Studies, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC ................................. 21
Mr. Mario Burgos, Chief Strategy Officer, Prairie Band, LLC, Albu-
querque, NM, testifying on behalf of Associated Builders and Contrac-
tors ................................................................................................................. 33
Mr. Ric Suzio, Vice President, The Suzio York Hill Companies, Meriden,
CT, testifying on behalf of the National Stone Stand and Gravel Asso-
ciation (NSSGA) ............................................................................................ 39
Mr. Frank Knapp Jr., President & Chief Executive Officer, South Caro-
lina Small Business Chamber of Commerce, Columbia, SC, testifying
on behalf of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce 48
Questions for the Record:
Questions from Hon. Velázquez to Mr. Burgos and Answers from Mr.
Burgos ............................................................................................................ 51
Questions from Hon. Chu to Mr. Knapp and Answers from Mr. Knapp ..... 53
Additional Material for the Record:
Engine ............................................................................................................... 55
National Association of Realtors (NAR) ......................................................... 58

(III)
BURDENSOME REGULATIONS: EXAMINING
THE EFFECTS OF DOL RULEMAKING ON
AMERICA’S JOB CREATORS

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2023

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in Room
2360, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Roger Williams [chair-
man of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Williams, Luetkemeyer, Meuser, Sala-
zar, Molinaro, Alford, Crane, Bean, Velázquez, Landsman,
McGarvey, Scholten, Thanedar, and Davids.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Before we get started today—first of all,
good morning to everybody—I want to recognize Congresswoman
Salazar from the great State of Florida to lead us in the pledge and
the prayer. If you will all rise, please.
Ms. SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Dear Lord, we come to your throne in the name of Jesus.
And we ask you to bring peace to Congress, to the Republican Con-
ference, to Israel, to everything that is occurring in the Middle
East, and to make this hearing a very successful one.
We ask in your name, Jesus. Amen.
Thank you.
We pledge——
All. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of Amer-
ica and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Good morning, everyone. I now call the
Committee on Small Business to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of
the Committee at any time.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
And I want to welcome you to today’s hearing, which will focus
on examining the effects of the Department of Labor’s rulemaking
on Main Street America.
First, I want to thank the witnesses, all of you, for being here
today. I know you have traveled to be here with us this morning,
and we appreciate you taking the time to do that.
As our nation’s job creators continue to fight difficult economic
headwinds, agencies such as the Department of Labor continue to
implement overreaching regulations that create expensive new
(1)
2

compliance costs and make it harder for our nation’s job creators
to hire more workers and expand their operations.
So, with that, I will yield to our distinguished Ranking Member
from New York, Ms. Velázquez.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you, Chairman Williams, for convening
this hearing so we can learn more about the impact that the De-
partment of Labor’s regulations are having on small businesses.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the witnesses
for being here.
Let me say at the outset that I understand that complying with
federal, state, and local regulations can be onerous for small-busi-
ness owners. Small businesses don’t always have the resources that
larger companies do to monitor regulatory actions.
That is why Congress passed the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
RFA, and created the Office of Advocacy. The Office of Advocacy
serves as an independent voice for small businesses, and it works
to educate agencies about the effect the rules have on small busi-
nesses. The office also seeks to find targeted solutions that are less
burdensome while achieving the desired results.
Ninety-nine-point-nine percent of all U.S. businesses today are
considered small. Some of these small firms can have 1,500 employ-
ees and up to $47 million in receipts, depending on the industry.
That is why it is vitally important to make this distinction during
our discussion today and make sure that big businesses are not
hiding behind the guise of small businesses to promote an anti-reg-
ulatory agenda.
Contrary to what we will hear today, federal regulations can and
do benefit small businesses and boost our economy.
I know that we are short on time, so let me say that the bottom
line is this: smart, well-crafted, commonsense regulations have the
potential to unleash innovation and provide critical health and
safety protections.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you.
And I will now introduce our witnesses.
Our first witness here with us today is Mr. Paul J. Ray.
Thank you, Mr. Ray, for being here.
Mr. Ray is the director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Eco-
nomic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, located here in
Washington, D.C.
So, Mr. Ray, again, thank you for joining us, being with us.
Our next witness with us today is Mr. Mario Burgos. Mr. Burgos
is the chief strategy officer at Prairie Band, LLC, located in Holton,
Kansas. Prairie Band, LLC, was created in 2010 by the Potawatomi
nation to create economic stability by diversifying, managing, and
expanding the economic interests of the nation.
So, Mr. Burgos, thank you for joining us today. We appreciate
that very much.
Our next witness here with us today is Mr. Ric Suzio—I said it
right, didn’t I, Ric?—Suzio—who is vice president of The Suzio
York Hill Companies, located in Meridian, Connecticut.
The company got its start over a century ago when the L. Suzio
Construction Company was founded by a Leonardo Suzio, an
Italian immigrant, which we talked about. Great story. Now in its
3

third generation, the company is still a family business, with his
grandchildren playing an active role in management, including
having over 33 years at his family’s business himself.
So I want to recognize and thank you very much for being here
today.
I now recognize the Ranking Member from New York, Ms.
Velázquez, to briefly introduce our last witness.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is my pleasure to introduce Mr. Frank Knapp, the President
and CEO of the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce.
He also serves on the advisory board for the South Carolina
Small Business Development Center and was recognized by the
SBA as the 2014 South Carolina Small Business Financing Advo-
cate of the Year.
From 2015 to 2017, Mr. Knapp served on the SBA’s Region IV
Regulatory Fairness Board, an advisory body to the SBA Office of
the National Ombudsman.
Welcome, Mr. Knapp, and thank you for being here with us
today.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you.
And we appreciate all of you being here today. Again, I would
like to say that.
Now, before recognizing witnesses, I would like to remind them
that their oral testimony is restricted to 5 minutes in length. If you
see the light in front of you turn red in front of you, that means
your 5 minutes is up and you have concluded, and you should wrap
up your testimony shortly thereafter.
With that in mind, I now recognize Mr. Ray for his 5-minute
opening remarks.
Mr. Ray?

STATEMENTS OF PAUL J. RAY, DIRECTOR OF THE THOMAS A.
ROE INSTITUTE FOR ECONOMIC POLICY STUDIES, THE HER-
ITAGE FOUNDATION; MARIO BURGOS, CHIEF STRATEGY OF-
FICER, PRAIRIE BAND, LLC; RIC SUZIO, VICE PRESIDENT,
THE SUZIO YORK HILL COMPANIES; AND FRANK KNAPP, JR.,
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SOUTH CARO-
LINA SMALL BUSINESS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

STATEMENT OF PAUL J. RAY
Mr. RAY. Thank you, Chairman Williams, Vice Chairman
Leutkemeyer, Ranking Member Velázquez. It is an honor to be
hear today with you. Thank you for the kind invitation.
I don’t need to tell the Members of this Committee about all the
good things small businesses do for their owners and workers, their
customers and communities, and our country. The small-business
record speaks for itself.
Almost half of all Americans work in a small business, and small
businesses have created two of every three new jobs in the United
States in the last 25 years. Small businesses are responsible for
many of the breakthroughs that make American life what it is
today and for the prosperity that even in our current business cli-
mate makes America the envy of the world.
4

But a small business does not merely achieve results; it also
opens a path for a dignified life of initiative, creativity, and service.
Millions of Americans feel the desire to put their own ingenuity
and initiative to work, making their communities and world a bet-
ter place, and small business provides an opportunity to do just
that.
To do their important work, our small-business owners and
workers need a legal and regulatory system that allows them to
navigate the present and plan for the future. Unlike their larger
peers, small businesses do not have armies of lawyers and compli-
ance officers to analyze regulations; nor do they have squadrons of
lobbyists to advise on how those regulations can change; nor do
they often have large profit margins or cash reserves that let them
respond with agility to surprising regulatory developments.
This is why small businesses need regulatory stability, clarity,
and certainty. But our regulatory system fails to give small busi-
nesses what they need.
Consider stability. The American Founders placed an immensely
high value on legal stability. As James Madison put it, quote, ‘‘It
will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men
of their own choice if the laws undergo such incessant changes that
no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will
be tomorrow,’’ end quote. Madison knew that rapid legal change
privileges ‘‘the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few’’—
again Madison’s words—‘‘over the industrious and uninformed
mass of the people.’’
Unfortunately, today’s regulatory system is subject to precisely
the, quote, ‘‘incessant change’’ that Madison worried about. Agen-
cies issue hundreds of pages of new regulations, amendments to
regulations, and other administrative materials every business day.
On many issues of importance to small business, such as labor
and employment, regulations change dramatically with every
change in White House control. There are now even Republican
and Democratic versions of many important regulations which the
agencies toggle between based on who is in power.
But even when regulations hold steady, small businesses often
have great trouble knowing what those regulations require of them.
This is because federal regulations are many, complex, and ob-
scure. The Code of Federal Regulations is over 185,000 pages long
and regulates everything from the electrical grid down to the di-
ameter of spaghetti.
To make matters worse, many important regulatory documents
cannot even be found in the Code of Federal Regulations. Instead,
they are scattered across agency websites or archives in the form
of guidance, regulatory preambles, adjudicatory decisions, and
other kinds of documents.
It is hard for many small-business owners, busy enough just run-
ning their own businesses, to discover all the mandates they must
comply with, let alone what those mandates mean for them.
Even putting these issues aside, our regulatory system fails to
give small businesses the certainty they need on account of the way
the agencies enforce their regulations—an enforcement process that
too often is worse than the penalties it threatens.
5

Governing law leaves agencies enormous discretion in how they
enforce the regulations they administer, and agencies too often
have failed to conduct investigations or adjudications in a way that
is fair, accurate, and prompt.
Too often, agencies leave small-business owners in legal limbo, as
they did to the poor Boucher family, Indiana farmers who cut down
a few trees on their own land in 1994 and in 2019 were still stuck
in litigation against the USDA.
Some of the problems small-business owners face are baked in to
the way we regulate, but Congress could help. For instance, the
REINS Act would impose more robust procedures on rulemaking
and so slow the pace of regulatory change. The GOOD Act would
demand that agencies make their regulatory materials more easily
accessible by small businesses. And legislation after the pattern of
Executive Order 13924, section 6, would require agencies to create
and stick to fair and prompt procedures in investigations and adju-
dications.
There are other measures, too, that Congress could take, which
I would be happy to discuss in questions.
Thank you.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much.
And I now recognize Mr. Burgos for 5-minute opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF MARIO BURGOS
Mr. BURGOS. Chairman Williams, Ranking Member Velázquez,
and Members of the U.S. House Committee on Small Business,
thank you for the invitation to testify this morning on the Depart-
ment of Labor’s rulemaking and what impact it is having on the
job creators across the country and the concerns that the recent
surge of federal regulations have raised during my own personal
small-business journey.
My name is Mario Burgos, and until July of this year I was the
president and CEO of Burgos Group, headquartered in Albu-
querque, New Mexico. This is a company I founded in 2006 and
grew, along with my brother, as a small-business federal prime
contractor. We primarily focused on general and electrical construc-
tion.
And in July of this year, we made the decision to sell our com-
pany to Prairie Band, LLC, a company which was founded in 2010
to contribute to the long-term economic stability of Prairie Band
Potawatomi nation, located in the State of Kansas. I now serve as
the chief strategy officer of Prairie Band, LLC.
To understand why we chose to exit our business, the business
that we labored to build over a decade and a half, I think it is im-
portant to provide you with some background.
In 2009, at the height of the Great Recession, our family busi-
ness—we pivoted. We pivoted to focus on the federal construction
opportunities made possible under the American Recovery and Re-
investment Act, which was signed into law by President Barack
Obama. Our company became a vehicle for realizing the American
Dream of two brothers who are first-generation Americans. Our fa-
ther emigrated from Ecuador.
Under the Obama and Trump administration, our company grew
from the two brothers to 195 employees, with a track record of com-
6

pleting over 100 projects doing sustainability, renovation, mod-
ernization. These projects were done for 13 different federal agen-
cies from coast to coast.
Our growth landed us on the Inc. 5000 Fastest-Growing Private
Companies—on that list 6 years in a row. Now, that is something
that less than 3 percent of those companies that are on that list
ever make.
We were recognized in 2015 as the SBA Small Business Prime
Contractor of the Year for Region VI, which is the region with
Texas and the States that surround it. And in 2017, I was honored
to be the SBA Small Business Prime Contractor of the Year—I am
sorry—Small Business Person of the Year for the State of New
Mexico.
Unfortunately, the number of rapidly changing and ever-increas-
ing federal and state regulatory requirements affecting the con-
struction industry led us to conclude that our most prudent action
would be to exit the business that we had labored to build.
The recent Department of Labor updates to the regulations im-
plementing the Davis-Bacon and related acts is just the latest ex-
ample of additional burdens and barriers being erected that make
it difficult for small businesses to participate in the economic in-
vestments of the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
or to support our nation’s essential national defense missions.
In my written testimony, I have provided specifics on how re-
quirements for the construction under the Davis-Bacon and related
acts have harmed my business by creating significant confusion
and costing critical dollars.
The construction industry now grapples with an avalanche of
new and impending regulations, most of which have either been fi-
nalized or are poised for imminent execution, effectively creating a
new tax on countless businesses that now must choose to either
struggle to comply, sell, or cease operations.
It is my sincere hope that this Committee will consider the testi-
mony that I am making and take the actions that will remove bar-
riers and simplify compliance for America’s small businesses.
Thank you again for the opportunity to serve as a witness for
this hearing, and I look forward to answering any questions you
may have.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much.
And I now recognize Mr. Suzio for 5-minute opening remarks.

STATEMENT OF RIC SUZIO
Mr. SUZIO. Chairman Williams, Ranking Member Velázquez,
and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for hav-
ing me today. I am Ric Suzio, representing both The Suzio York
Hill Company and the National Stone, Sand, and Gravel Associa-
tion.
NSSGA is the leading voice and advocate for the aggregate in-
dustry, representing over 450 producers of crushed stone, sand, and
gravel across the United States as well as the equipment manufac-
turers and service providers that support these industries. We are
essential to the growth of our nation, providing 2.5 billion tons of
materials needed to build communities, homes, deliver clean water,
7

produce energy, and modernize our transportation networks, as
well as providing good-paying careers.
I am privileged to work for my family company, which has deep
roots in Connecticut’s construction history for over 125 years. Our
story is not just about construction; it is about being deeply embed-
ded in the community.
I am here to represent hundreds of small producers, bringing
forth concerns and triumphs of countless businesses like mine. We
have great concern with the ever-changing regulatory environment
which poses challenges to small businesses. We often lack the re-
sources to interpret, comply, and adapt to these regulations, lead-
ing us to hire expensive consultants.
Many times, these regulations are solutions looking for a problem
and do nothing to address actual challenges we face, like finding
the skilled workforce needed to build our nation’s infrastructure.
Over time, this financial burden risks driving consolidation with-
in our industry, overshadowing the essential role of small busi-
nesses.
The Suzio York Hill Company is a multigenerational family oper-
ation founded in 1898 that boasts a dedicated team of 93 employ-
ees. We are proud to have second-generation coworkers with un-
matched loyalty and dedication. Several of our coworkers have re-
tired after serving the company for over 40 years. We are engaged
with the International Union of Operating Engineers’ Apprentice-
ship Training Program, showcasing our commitment to professional
growth and training.
In my full testimony, I highlighted eight new policies that are
making it hard for our industry to build America’s infrastructure
and communities, but I would like to take this time to highlight
two acute challenges.
The Mine Safety and Health Administration is working to update
the existing occupational exposure limit for silica, reducing it to the
Occupational Health Safety Administration’s 2016 standard.
While a safe silica exposure limit is paramount to protecting
miners, we are concerned that the proposed rule establishes a new
one-size-fits-all regulatory criteria that will result in the
misallocation of limited resources and fails to adequately protect
the health of many of our nation’s miners.
The vast majority of mining in America occurs in above-ground,
non-metal mines, where there is little risk of exposure. However,
MSHA’s rule seems to apply new standards in reporting that is
meant to address challenges faced in underground coal-mining,
which accounts for a small percentage of overall mining operations.
As the rule is finalized, we need more flexibility for metal/non-
metal and the MSHA rule to confirm with OSHA standards that
are already in place and working.
Historically, small businesses have relied on the flexibility of hir-
ing independent contractors, not just to manage their costs but to
effectively adjust to the dynamic market demands. The simpler cri-
teria provided by the 2021 independent contractor rule gave clarity
and certainty to these businesses.
With its potential repeal, many small enterprises face the dual
challenges of increased costs and bureaucratic complexities. In the
aggregates industry, where independent contractors are integral,
8

businesses frequently mobilize such contractors daily. Imposing
more rigid classification leads to added taxes, fees, and administra-
tive burdens, increasing the cost of essential materials during an
already-inflationary period.
In conclusion, I would like to extend my gratitude to the Com-
mittee Members for allowing me the opportunity to testify on these
issues, and look forward to your questions. Thank you.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much.
I now recognize Mr. Knapp for opening remarks.
Mr. Knapp?

STATEMENT OF FRANK KNAPP, JR.
Mr. KNAPP. Thank you, Chairman Williams, Ranking Member
Velázquez, and Members of the Committee.
I am Frank Knapp, the president and CEO of the South Carolina
Small Business Chamber of Commerce. We are a statewide advo-
cacy organization working at both the State and federal levels with
5,000-plus supporters.
I co-founded our organization over 23 years ago, and good regula-
tions at the state and federal level has long been an issue we have
championed. Nine years ago, my organization worked to pass our
State’s Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Act, modeled after
the federal law.
I am also a small-business owner, and, from 2015 to 2017, I
served on the SBA Regulatory Fairness Board, which advises the
SBA National Ombudsman on matters of federal regulatory con-
cern to small businesses.
I want to be very clear: We expect every federal agency to fully
comply with the law. That is the way we make sure that real small
businesses have their voices heard and considered when new rules
are being made.
No one wants to unnecessarily burden small businesses in order
to comply with regulations. If there are less onerous ways of
achieving the goals of new regulations, then those ways should be
adopted.
But make no mistake about the need for regulations. They are
the rules that give small businesses a level playing field to compete
with each other and with big businesses. They help protect our en-
vironment so all of us can have healthier lives. They protect a
small business’s most precious asset, their employees, who we don’t
have enough of today. And they try to protect our economy to avoid
cataclysmic events.
I have never heard an entrepreneur say that they decided not to
start a business because of federal regulations. Now, this doesn’t
mean that new federal regulations might not put some financial
burden on existing real small businesses. But big cost estimates
have been generated for years for their shock value and dire warn-
ings that federal regulations are crushing small businesses. How-
ever, the definition of what constitutes a small business ends up
showing that 99 percent of all businesses are small businesses,
even some with up to 1,500 employees. We and I believe most peo-
ple recognize businesses with less than 100 employees as real small
businesses, and those are the ones the RFA should focus on.
9

Plus, all we hear about is the cost of proposed regulations; we
never hear about the benefits. We don’t get real regulatory analysis
in which benefits are supposedly taken into consideration. All of us
should understand that proposed regulations have benefits; other-
wise, they wouldn’t be proposed.
Regulations address the health and well-being of workers, the
local community, and the entire country. This creates a healthier
economy for small and all businesses to prosper. Good regulations
create opportunities for entrepreneurs and small businesses to in-
novate and grow by creating new products and services, which cre-
ate new jobs.
These benefits might be difficult to quantify, but totally ignoring
them only serves the purpose of those who oppose regulations or
those who want to cast aspersions on an administration acting re-
sponsibly.
Our nation’s economy is strong. The Federal Reserve has been
trying to slow its growth. The problems that small businesses have
had with growth have been due to the lack of workers and access
to capital, not federal regulations.
But we do need improvements in the rulemaking process if we
are serious about agencies proposing good regulations with mini-
mal cost to small businesses.
Agencies should do a better job of reaching out to small busi-
nesses across the country and not just talk with Washington-based
trade associations often controlled by big businesses.
Agencies should project costs for real small businesses with fewer
than 20 employees and fewer than 100 employees. Agencies should
project direct benefits of proposed regulations to the impacted
small businesses and local economy.
If agencies need more resources to implement these recommenda-
tions, they should get them.
And one more thing: With all this concern about proposed new
regulations, there is far too little concern with helping a small busi-
ness comply with existing federal regulations, a process that is in-
timidating, confusing, and too time-consuming. All of those who
have testified here have expressed concern about this issue.
Let’s simplify this process by having one federal agency be a re-
source for all small businesses regarding regulatory compliance
concerns, an agency that could work with the appropriate federal
agency and ensure that the concerns have been successfully ad-
dressed.
The SBA National Ombudsman’s Office is already set up for this
responsibility and has a successful track record of this regulatory
compliance assistance. Empower and fund this office for a more ef-
ficient and small-business-friendly process. Legislation has pre-
viously introduced in Congress to do just this. There may be some
coming down the road this session. And I recommend that such a
bill be passed.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today, and I
welcome any questions the Committee may have.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much.
And we will move into Member questions now, but I would ask
the Members, since we are under a timeframe here, let’s keep our
questions limited so we can hear answers from the witnesses.
10

Mr. Ray, during your time as the Administrator of OIRA, your
office played an important role with the Trump administration to
reduce the regulatory burden on America’s creators.
So my question is, can you describe how the regulatory process
could be improved so we can better take small-business interests
into account?
Mr. RAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the question.
Yes. So I think it is very helpful to break the question down into
two parts: how the regulatory process can be improved with respect
to individual rulemakings and how it can be improved with respect
to the regulatory system writ large.
I recall one of the most interesting conversations I had as Ad-
ministrator during the Trump years with a representative of the
small-business community. I asked him: Which rulemaking has
been most helpful for your Members, unlocking their potential to
thrive and create jobs and economic growth?
And he said: Well, it is not any one regulation that has been so
helpful; it is the knowledge that there is stability and certitude
across the board. Our Members know that we are not going to face
new regulations coming down the pike, changing the rules of the
game, so we don’t have to hold, basically, cash reserves in place to
respond to new regulatory developments.
And I thought it was a very interesting comment.
It seems to me that the best thing that could be done to make
the regulatory process as a whole more responsive to the needs of
small business would be to slow the pace of regulatory growth
across the board.
So one thing the Trump administration did to do that was, of
course, the Two-for-One Executive Order as well as the provision
of the same order that required cost caps.
I think the most important thing that could be done to the regu-
latory process with respect to small business is to slow the growth
across the board and create greater stability.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Burgos, you have talked about you ultimately decided to sell
the business that you created with your brother after regulations
became too costly to deal with.
So can you walk us through, quickly, how you came to this con-
clusion? You talked a little bit about it, but remind us again what
made you come to the conclusion to sell the family business.
Mr. BURGOS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. So the biggest reason was, we
had an experience where we were a subcontractor on one of the
border-wall projects in Arizona.
And at the end of December, right before Christmas, we received
a note from DOL saying that they had been directed to audit all
border-wall subcontractors and contractors, and they gave us a list
of 15 documents that we needed to provide. And of those 15 docu-
ments, we had until January, the first week in January, to provide
them.
To respond to those 15 documents, just to give everybody an idea
of what the burden of paperwork is, it required us to put together
800 pages of documentation—800 pages of documentation.
So we provided those 800 pages of documentation. And this went
on until April of 2022, is when the decisions were finally decided.
11

And during that time, we had interesting conversations with the
Department of Labor. They came back and they told us, for exam-
ple, 5 months later: Hey, this is great. You guys are obviously a
good contractor. You put together all this documentation. You put
it together—you didn’t do a data dump. You actually put it to-
gether in a nice order for us to review. Unfortunately, did you call
the union before you decided how to comply with the Davis-Bacon
wage rates?
And we said: No, we didn’t call the union. I have been doing this
for a long time, and the Davis-Bacon wage rates spell out exactly
how you go about doing this, and I wasn’t aware that you needed
to call the union.
And they actually said: Well, you don’t, but, unfortunately, even
though the Davis-Bacon wage rates say that there is a pipe-layer
category—which is somebody who touches pipe; and conduit is
what we were putting in the ground, which is pipe—they said: Un-
fortunately, the electricals union prevailed over the laborers union,
and, therefore, you needed to pay everybody on your job site as an
electrician.
And then they turned around and told us that was $685,000 that
we owed in back wages, and they would be happy to hold that in
trust in order to continue having discussions with us. Then they in-
creased it to $950,000 several months later, almost a million.
And then when we asked them, how are you coming up with this,
they kept changing what the rules were. And, ultimately, they said
the analysis was that they looked at our contract and our contract
noted that we were going to have switchgear and transformers and
light poles and pull wire. And we had that 30 percent of our labor
force were electricians and 70 percent were ‘‘other’’—operators and
laborers and other designations that were on the wage rate deter-
mination.
And so we said, that is correct. And in January the President
issued his executive order stopping our work. And in April we took
delivery of the switchgear and the transformers and the rest of the
wire and the other things that were electrical components.
And they said: Oh. Okay. Well, then we will reconsider that.
And ultimately we settled for 300-and-some-odd-thousand dol-
lars. And we just can’t continue to afford to do that.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you.
My time is up. I now recognize the Ranking Member for 5 min-
utes of questions.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Knapp, the size standard for some industries allows small
firms to have receipts up to $47 million and 1,500 employees. In
regard to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, are these size standards
overly broad?
Mr. KNAPP. Absolutely. The criteria for a small business can go
up to 1,500 employees, and that means 99 percent of all businesses
in the country are considered a small business. The term becomes
useless.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Should there be specific changes to the RFA
or the Office of Advocacy to better address the concerns of the
smallest of small businesses?
12

Mr. KNAPP. Yes, absolutely. Congress passed laws to protect
small businesses. If most small businesses—well, half of them have
four or fewer employees. Eighty-five percent probably have less
than 20 employees. I would like to say a small business is up to
100 employees. That is where Advocacy and the RFA should focus.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Should the RFA be amended to require the
Office of Advocacy to take into consideration the benefits of regula-
tions on small businesses?
Mr. KNAPP. Absolutely they should. If Advocacy is only looking
at the cost, they are missing the big business picture. And if they
are making recommendations based just on cost and not on a true
cost-benefit analysis, then the recommendations and comments to
you as decision-makers is not all the information. You can’t make
a good decision unless you know really what the cost-benefit is.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Can you give us some of the benefits of these
Labor rules on small businesses?
Mr. KNAPP. Well, yes. The rules are there to protect employees.
They are there to have a healthier workforce. Every business wants
a healthier workforce, no question about that, and regulations
strive for that.
They also create the lay of the land, the playing field, this level
for everybody to compete. If you don’t have rules—if you don’t have
rules, if football games don’t have rules, it is a mess, and it is un-
fair, and it gives the advantage to people who are willing to do un-
savory things.
So thank you.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you.
You are based in South Carolina, right?
Mr. KNAPP. I am.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. How important is outreach by federal agen-
cies to ensure agencies hear directly from small businesses rather
than Washington trade groups?
Mr. KNAPP. Yeah, look, the agencies need to get out of Wash-
ington. They need to quit relying just on trade associations that
often are controlled by big businesses. They need to get out there
and to talk to these gentlemen here about how this is going to af-
fect you, before the rule goes into place.
That is how you are going to collect good information. The people
out in the field, the small-business owners, they are the experts.
Ask them. Ask them for their input. Listen to what they say.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you.
Mr. Suzio, it is important for the Office of Advocacy and the Of-
fice of the Ombudsman to travel throughout the country to hear di-
rectly from small businesses like yours.
Can you share instances when the Department of Labor con-
ducted similar outreach around the country? And did it lead to
positive changes within your business?
Mr. SUZIO. Actually, with the Department of Labor, I can’t ad-
dress that, but what I can say is, we had a very good experience
with MSHA.
Several years ago, there was quite a few fatalities in our indus-
try, and MSHA went around and did a ToolBox Talk, coffee-hour
talk, with our employees. It wasn’t punitive. It was educational and
13

informative. And it was very helpful to us and them. And it built
a great rapport, where no one felt threatened.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you.
Mr. Paul Ray brought up the issue of certainty for small busi-
nesses. Do you agree that a government shutdown is bad for small
businesses and that it will delay critical Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act funding for your industry?
Mr. SUZIO. Without a doubt. And we rely on federal funding.
The States have matching funds. They will not release work until
they know that there is a secure package. And the short-term CRs
kill our industry and keep us from building roads for the citizens
of America.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Well, sir, here we are, only 29 days before a
shutdown, and we still don’t have a Speaker.
I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you, Ms. Velázquez.
I now recognize Chairman Luetkemeyer from the great State of
Missouri for 5 minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank all of you for being here today, especially our small-
business owner for taking time away from your businesses.
One of the things that concerns me is that, since President Biden
took office, 677 final rules have passed. This has cost American
businesses $430.5 billion.
Now, this figure is come up with by adding the cost—every time
they do a rule, the government is supposed to also put a cost to
implementing that rule. So this isn’t my number. This isn’t the
Chairman’s number. This is the government agency’s number,
themselves, when they initiate a rule.
$430 billion in a little over 2.5 years, and 215 million (ph) hours
of paperwork. In fact, as projected, President Biden’s current regu-
latory framework will cost Americans $1.5 trillion over the next
decade.
Mr. Burgos, you talked about this in your testimony with regards
to the cost of continuing to comply, continuing to go through the
rigmarole of trying to be compliant with the new rules and regula-
tions and moving of the goalposts and the moving targets that they
are continuing to go after.
You know, Mr. Knapp talked about the benefits of these rules
and regulations. There may be some. But when you weigh all this,
your testimony tells me that there is not a lot of benefits to some
of this stuff here if you are going to keep moving the goalposts on
folks.
Would you like to comment on that?
Mr. BURGOS. I would. And thank you very much.
It is impossible for a small business to comply when the regula-
tions are constantly being changed. And I would actually, respect-
fully, say that the cost to small business and business in general
is much, much higher.
For example, for the Department of Labor’s newest revisions to
the Davis-Bacon and related acts, they estimate it is going to cost,
I believe, $255 for a business to comply. So, if you take that num-
ber, just as an example, what they say is, essentially, it is 5 hours
14

of a human-resource person to read the 800 pages of documenta-
tion——
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Speedreader, huh?
Mr. BURGOS. That is correct, sir. It would take you 16-plus
hours if you read at a—at a pace. And then trying to understand
it. It is all in legalese. So the additional cost of that.
You know, $50 an hour? I have yet to find an attorney that will
work for me for $50 an hour. I have looked. I can’t find one. They
cost several hundred dollars now. And they don’t charge you 1 hour
to read 800 pages.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. One of the concerns that I have—and I
have been here a long time, and I have seen these rules and regu-
lations go on. And one of the biggest problems that I have with
them is this power grab by the bureaucracy to take more power to
themselves and away from all of you small-business guys. They
want to control what you do even more. And unfortunately for
small business, it doesn’t level the playing field. It makes an
unlevel playing field.
Mr. Suzio, would you like to comment on that from the stand-
point of you having to compete as a small business against the big
guys with regards to these rules and regulations? It is costing nu-
merous—those guys can spread this cost out over a lot more rev-
enue compared to what a small business can do.
Mr. SUZIO. Correct, sir, without a doubt. And the margins in our
industry are so minimal that, when I ask friends of mine or other
counterparts around the country why they chose to no longer be a
family-owned business, the number-one answer I get is there was
no succession plan or the family was fighting, but close right be-
hind it is we could not compete anymore.
And that is why the big boys keep getting bigger. Because com-
panies like ours, we don’t have an engineer, we don’t have a legal
department. We rely on our national associations to bring a lot of
this forward to us. And it is just impossible to compete. And, as I
said, the large companies have a huge advantage over those of us
that truly are small, family-owned businesses.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. It seems to me that you need a tiered sys-
tem here. If you have a small business, you need to have a dif-
ferent set of rules that you have to comply with versus the big
guys. Otherwise, the little guys are never going to be able to com-
pete.
Mr. SUZIO. Yes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. One of the things that concerns me is—
I have been here, again, a long time, and this particular adminis-
tration continues to weaponize guidance. And it just drives me up
the wall, from the standpoint of: You have laws, and you have rules
to implement the laws, and you have guidance to clarify the rules.
Guidance is not enforceable. It is not enforceable, period.
And yet this administration continues to allow its bureaucracies
to go out here and intimidate the business community by issuing
guidance and then trying to go out and enforce it and threaten
them with lawsuits if they don’t comply with their guidance.
Have you guys seen that kind of activity in your world, Mr.
Burgos or Mr. Suzio?
15

Mr. SUZIO. Yes, we have. And we don’t mind when government
comes in in a cooperative way to educate us and be a resource. But
when they automatically come in and are punitive or looking for
fault within an organization that tries to do everything right, it is
very frustrating.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, gentlemen, very much. Appre-
ciate your time here. And when you are away from your business,
I know it is a sacrifice. Thank you so much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. I now recognize Representative McGarvey
from the great State of Kentucky for 5 minutes.
Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank all of you guys for being here today.
I want to reframe a little bit about what we are doing. Because,
actually, what you see in this Committee is a whole bunch of peo-
ple who are interested in helping small businesses succeed. They
are the backbone of the economy in all of our districts.
And as we talk about this process, sure, we have heard about
overreach. We want to be able to help our small businesses with
that. But let’s also talk about the process of rulemaking and how
and why it is important.
Not every rule is overreach. Not every rule is unnecessary. You
know, I believe that our workers deserve fair compensation. I be-
lieve that our workers deserve a safe working environment. And I
don’t think it is in any way radical to propose legislation in this
environment that makes that possible.
Just look at my district in Kentucky. Just recently, the DOL’s
Wage and Hour Division uncovered a company that was employing
11- and 13-year-olds at a distribution center and allowing them to
work the forklift. Just recently in my district, in Louisville, Ken-
tucky, Wage and Hour Division discovered 10-year-olds working
until 2:00 a.m. at a McDonald’s, with one operating the deep fryer.
And what made that crackdown possible? This process here.
And so I have always been a believer. And what we are doing
here today is important, because we want our small businesses to
succeed. You can be pro-worker without being anti-business.
So, Mr. Knapp, you touched on how well-crafted regulations have
the ability benefit the economy by leveling the playing field,
incentivizing innovation, and protecting health. Can you give us
some examples of regulations that do that?
Mr. KNAPP. Let me first say, on your comments regarding some
of your businesses in your State, those people are breaking the
rules, right? And, therefore, they have an unfair advantage in com-
petition with other small businesses. And that is why rulemaking
is important. Because they do level—if everybody has to follow the
same rules, then it does create that level playing field.
Even things that—there was an NPR story the other day about
the climate rule changes. A company called Corteva in Indiana,
they make seeds and chemicals, and here was their comment:
‘‘There is money to be made producing things like biofuels to power
ships and airplanes with less climate pollution. Often, rules then
inspire innovation, and they inspire a different process of deliv-
ering services that moves everything forward and benefits all of
us.’’
16

Mr. MCGARVEY. I appreciate that.
And you are right; it does give an unfair advantage sometimes
when people break the rules, and why some of this is necessary.
One of the things I would love to have a conversation about in
this Committee is about how we can improve the rulemaking proc-
ess. Because, again, we don’t want unnecessary burdens on our
small businesses. We want our small businesses to succeed. But we
also know that rules are necessary and part of that.
So, Mr. Burgos, I understand your concerns with the updated
Davis-Bacon regulations. And I understand that a lot of those con-
cerns, based on what you have told us today, are on compliance
costs. And I get that. If I find an attorney for $50, I will send him
your way, but you might not want to use him.
So is there a way for us to reduce burdens on businesses while
still carrying out the intent of Davis-Bacon, which is higher wages
for our construction workers?
Mr. BURGOS. Absolutely. The simplest way is to streamline the
paperwork requirements.
The examples you provided, for example, in Kentucky, I am pret-
ty sure those examples are against the law already. That is very
simple to—so it doesn’t require a Davis-Bacon wage-rate revision.
As far as—and the other thing we need to do is remove the sub-
jective nature. So, as my testimony, my written and verbal testi-
mony demonstrated, there is a subjective nature. There is not a
clear-cut rule.
If there was a clear-cut rule that said—which we did, for exam-
ple, in our issue, is follow the Davis-Bacon wage rate and pay the
wage rate that was determined. But then there are other things
like the Frye act that was passed—that was a court case from the
1970s. DOL’s response, when I said, ‘‘Well, I don’t know what that
is,’’ they said, ‘‘Well, Google it from the 1970s,’’ and it doesn’t
apply, and it is not answered in the revisions that were done and
put out.
So, if we really want to make a difference, we would take 800
pages and put it down to very simple rules. ‘‘Here is the wage
rate’’—for example, ‘‘Minimum wage, here is the wage rate you are
going to pay.’’ That is, like, one line. It doesn’t require a whole lot
of—800 pages of narrative to support.
Mr. MCGARVEY. No, I appreciate that input from you.
And my time is going to run out. I would love to ask another
question about how we could do that, whether the Ombudsman
could be more involved with the SBA’s Regulatory Fairness Board,
how we could work that process together, but I have 6 seconds left.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. All right.
I now would like to recognize Representative Crane from the
great State of Arizona for 5 minutes.
Mr. CRANE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As a small-business owner myself and somebody who represents
a bunch of small businesses in Arizona’s Second Congressional Dis-
trict, I, too, am concerned about the overreach and the increasing
size of the bureaucracy.
And, Mr. Burgos, as I listen to your story, it really bothers me
to hear that. To listen to how you came here, you and your brother
17

started this company, and then you grew it to—what did you say?
190 employees?
Mr. BURGOS. 195.
Mr. CRANE. That is impressive, sir. Congratulations.
And then to hear that you ended up deciding to sell your com-
pany because of all the red tape and regulation, it is completely
disappointing, to say the least.
What year, sir, were you guys audited, and what year did the
overreach begin that you were talking about?
Mr. BURGOS. It was December ’20 is when we were—so right
before Christmas.
Mr. CRANE. Can you talk about the impact to the employees
that you had and their families when you guys started going
through—you know, had to file that 800-page document to answer
these questions.
Mr. BURGOS. The impact was twofold.
First off, first was, the President’s executive order required us to
lay off 135 employees. It stopped our work. And we were under a
pay-when-paid contract, which really put a lot of fiscal strain on
our company. Because, to date, the agencies are still negotiating
with the prime contractors. Which, all prime contractors had a 35-
percent-or-greater small-business subcontracting requirement, and
those subs often weren’t paid unless the prime contractor is paid,
and they haven’t been paid yet.
And so that required additional layoffs at our company——
Mr. CRANE. Yeah.
Mr. BURGOS.—while we were also then turning around and tak-
ing our dollars to spend with attorneys to go ahead and ultimately
settle with the Department of Labor.
Mr. CRANE. Yeah.
Another thing that one of my colleagues pointed out a second ago
is how sometimes these bureaucracies can become weaponized.
Have you seen that as well, sir?
Mr. BURGOS. I have. Because, in this case, there was no indi-
vidual who had—Department of Labor was very clear, there was
not an individual who said we were not paying the correct rates.
At no point during the investigation did they come up with any-
thing that said that. What it was was, ‘‘Hey, we have just deter-
mined that you need to pay more.’’
And I found it interesting that I have done over 100-plus projects
and this one was selected because it was tied to the border wall.
Mr. CRANE. Yeah. So it was political, wasn’t it.
Mr. BURGOS. I couldn’t say who directed the Department of
Labor.
Mr. CRANE. Yeah.
Mr. BURGOS. I just have never been told that——
Mr. CRANE. Well, it is funny, because I have my own experience
with that. I ran a small business for about a decade, a veteran-
owned small business, where we manufactured our products in the
United States of America. And the very week I announced that I
was running for Congress, I was driving to work, I got a call from
one of my employees, and he said, ‘‘Hey, you need to get down here
ASAP. OSHA is down here to do a surprise inspection.’’ Never hap-
pened before. Never happened before.
18

And that is one of the things that American citizens, they are
terrified about. They are seeing this government that is supposed
to protect them and represent them become weaponized against
them.
And so I do agree with what my colleague, I think Mr.
McGarvey, said, that you can be pro-worker and also pro-business
at the same time, but you also—we also have to recognize how
things play out.
Like, I have seen a lot of my colleagues fight for standardizing
minimum wages, right, and saying that that is pro-worker. But
what they don’t realize is, often, if they don’t increase the amount
of profits that a business owner is making, often regulations like
that negatively impact workers. Because employers are like, ‘‘Well,
you are saying I have to pay these guys more money now, but you
are not increasing the amount of money I am making,’’ so they end
up having to lay off people.
Have you seen anything like that, Mr. Burgos, in your business
experience?
Mr. BURGOS. There is absolutely an impact when we just con-
tinually raise rates. It has an impact on what benefits we are able
to offer.
And I think what everybody needs to remember is, in a family-
owned business like the one I had, you know, our employees are
also part of that family.
Mr. CRANE. Yeah.
Mr. BURGOS. I mean, we are not a large, huge company. Even
at 195 employees, I was in the field to make sure that our business
didn’t fail.
Mr. CRANE. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much.
I now recognize Representative Meuser from the great State of
Pennsylvania for our final questions.
Mr. MEUSER. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
Yeah, unfortunately, all, we have to get to another meeting, but
greatly appreciate you all coming in and sharing your stories.
I do apologize for missing some of your opening, but I will read
it, because what you have to say is very compelling and very im-
portant. We are here as the Small Business Committee to serve as
your advocates, your voice in Congress, and I hope we can keep the
dialogue going.
You know, you have all been dealing with Bidenomics, you know,
not to get political about it, but, I mean, let’s face it. The highest
inflation in our lifetimes, or some of us anyway, since the 1970s.
Energy—losing our energy independence. Gasoline, groceries are
certainly affected.
Interest rates have an enormous effect on small businesses. I
mean, I had a small business recently, and this company did about
$75 million in sales, but their line of credit was about $15 million.
And the interest-rate increases have added almost $2.5 million to
their bottom line. And their margins, their net income, is barely
$3.5 million. So, you know, either they are engaged in inflation
raising prices; meanwhile, they are trying to compete—it is an
19

American-based company—you know, with the rest of the world. So
some serious issues there.
And, by the way, from the federal government standpoint, less
net income means less net revenue in taxes, right? And what a big
surprise. Look at our revenues for personal income tax, for
passthroughs. It is enormously down. In fact, we are going to be
down as a federal government about $100 billion just in small-busi-
ness income tax because of that inflationary squeeze.
So your sales are up; your net revenues are down. You are deal-
ing with—and now we throw, you know, all the regulations—not
just throw them in. That is what this hearing is about.
So, as Mr. Luetkemeyer brought up, it is not a fair playing field.
And I know it very well. Over 20 years in business, we went from
a small business to a larger business. And, you know, from the
1990s to the early 2000s or even late 2000s, the 2010s, the level
of compliance and regulations, we had a roomful of people. If we
would have had to do that in the late 1980s or early 1990s, we
never would have gotten off the ground. So it is getting a lot worse.
And as our colleague brought up a little while ago, he was talk-
ing about underage workers and people being forced to, you know,
work extended hours. Those laws have been on the books for 80,
90 years against that, okay? We are not talking—that is an en-
forcement issue, okay, and, clearly, a bad apple running that com-
pany.
So, quickly—I promised our Chairman I was going to be quick—
federal or state, which are more of a problem to you, from a regu-
latory standpoint?
Mr. Suzio?
Mr. SUZIO. I would definitely say federal, because they are more
overbearing and, also, they tend to pass it with a paintbrush for
all businesses, whereas at the State they are more looking at the
local and the size and the reactions to them.
Mr. MEUSER. Who do you call when you are running into these
federal issues? Largely, you probably handle it yourselves, or you
have your compliance guy or, you know, whoever it might be—envi-
ronmental. Who do you call?
Mr. SUZIO. In our case, we call our national associations. That
is who have the resources to help us, guide us through it. If we did
not have them, we would not be sitting here today.
Mr. MEUSER. I am going to have to yield back. Thank you very
much.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you.
And I will yield a minute, 17 to my colleague from Michigan.
Mr. THANEDAR. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you so much for
your kindness. I will just be quick and not take much time.
I just wanted to know—we are less than 30 days away from a
possible government shutdown. And I just want to know, any wit-
nesses, how they perceive a likely shutdown will impact our hard-
working small businesses.
Mr. SUZIO. In our case, being a construction materials supplier
that does work with the State of Connecticut, it will affect us tre-
mendously and adversely affect our employees with the number of
hours they can work. Because the State will not let any work out
unless they have a true funding mechanism. And CRs are not reli-
20

able and are inconsistent, and they lead to stagnation in our indus-
try.
Mr. THANEDAR. Thank you.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Anybody else?
Mr. THANEDAR. I yield back, Chair.
Chairman WILLIAMS. All right.
I now yield the time to Ms. Scholten, 1 minute, from the great
State of Michigan.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, I
really appreciate it.
And thank you so much to the witnesses today. I have read and
reviewed your testimony. Incredibly important to the work that we
are trying to do today.
And I thank my Republican colleagues for holding such an im-
portant hearing.
I hear consistently from small businesses across west Michigan
and throughout our State. They are the backbone of our economy
in west Michigan. Most small businesses don’t have attorneys, ac-
countants, other resources to learn every federal regulation and fig-
ure out how to be competitive in this space.
I am the Ranking Member on the Government Contracting Sub-
committee. I am going to take my response for the record, because
I know we are limited in time. But, Mr. Burgos, in particular, in
your testimony, you mentioned that the lack of small contractors
in the defense industry is a national security issue. I couldn’t agree
with you more.
What regulatory reforms do you think could increase the com-
petitiveness of small businesses versus larger businesses with ad-
vantages in this space?
Mr. BURGOS. So we have set-asides already. What we need now
is we need the burdensome nature of the regulations to be stream-
lined so that businesses can understand.
Next week, I am going to actually be speaking to the Hispano
Chamber, to those small businesses that are interested in entering
the small-business sector. And what they are is overwhelmed by
how to go ahead and enter the sector, and we need to streamline
that.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Thank you.
Thank you.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much.
I would like to thank our witnesses here today. We have a last-
minute scheduling problem. As you know, we have to elect a
Speaker. But we will have to adjourn the meeting a little earlier.
But I want to thank all of the witnesses for taking time to be up
here today.
And all Members will have 5 legislative days to submit any ques-
tions that were not asked in writing to the witnesses.
And, with that being heard, this hearing is adjourned. Thank
you.
[Whereupon, at 11:02 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
21

APPENDIX
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62

File and source

File: CHRG-118hhrg54099.pdf
Size: 3,129,990 bytes
SHA-256: ea2f8edcd3e5e194e9e0c87ecc0729e3c92f55b8bf384502d11dda908e4125bf
Our copy: CHRG-118hhrg54099.pdf
Original: www.govinfo.gov