news

STATEMENT

of the Honorable Nydia M. Velázquez, Ranking Member

United States House of Representatives, Committee on Small Business

Federal Permitting

Wednesday September 6, 2017 at 11:00 am

Like raising revenue and funding various programs, regulation is a fundamental tool government uses to implement public policy. The costs and benefits associated with federal regulations have been a subject of great controversy – with the costs estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars and the benefits even higher.

An inherent part of the regulatory process is permitting, in which a business must obtain approval from the federal government for a project. 

While federal permits are critical to ensuring public safety, they can also represent a costly and complicated hurdle for small firms.  Unchecked regulations can, over time, become out-of-date, requiring companies to devote significant resources to compliance. 

This can be especially problematic for smaller companies that lack in-house lawyers and the economies of scale enjoyed by their larger competitors.  It is reasons like these that prompted Congress to enact the Paperwork Reduction Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which help ease and minimize small firms’ compliance costs.  

Despite the drawbacks, we should remember that permitting requirements also advance important public goals-- helping ensure worker safety and protecting our air and water from pollution.  I think we would all agree that certain processes should require a permitting process.   For example, it seems like basic commonsense that a permit for the disposal of nuclear waste is appropriate. 

Similarly, a careful review will find that some permits actually help small businesses – and are critical to protecting local economies.  For example, in accordance with the Clean Water Act, large boats are required to obtain a permit before operating in U.S. Waters. This limits pollutants and toxic chemical compounds released into our waterways. 

This not only protects the public health, but also ensures aquatic life remains plentiful and healthy for human consumption, keeping intact local job-creating fishing industries.

Examples like these underscore why a “one-size-fits-all” method for slashing regulations is inappropriate. Agencies should examine their use of permits on a case-by-case basis. In doing so, they can streamline and remove outdated regulations --without compromising the public health and safety, or jeopardizing local environmental resources.

One such method for analyzing the regulatory landscape was included in the FAST Act, which created the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council to streamline and expedite permitting requirements for infrastructure projects. Ensuring the FAST Act is fully implemented and the council fully functional could go a long way towards reducing permitting burdens.  Unfortunately, President Trump has yet to nominate an Executive Director of the council. 

Improving compliance assistance can also go a long way toward leveling the playing field for small businesses. That’s why it is so important that agencies are adequately staffed. Slashing budgets and imposing hiring freezes means agencies have fewer resources to help small companies navigate and comply with these processes.  New technology can also play a role in reducing regulatory burden.

It is my hope that today’s discussion will shed light on how we can further reduce compliance costs for small companies without raising risks to the public health and the environment. 

With that, I once again thank the witnesses for being here and offering their insight, and I yield back the balance of my time.