My district is made up of thousands of small businesses and farmers, and you are talking about putting somebody out of business. One thing that I heard time after time after time was ``thank you'' for doing something about the regulatory burden we are putting on small businesses and farmers in today's environment with the Federal Government. It is outrageous, I think, when a small business person on Main Street is more concerned about somebody coming in his door from the Government, supposedly to ``help them,'' than they are about any competitor down the street. They can compete with that other person, they can offer a better service, they can work harder, they can give a better quality of product, but they absolutely feel helpless with someone from the Government coming in and dictating to them exactly what they can and cannot do. If I heard one thing time and time again, it is ``thank you for trying to at least start some regulatory relief to get the Government off our backs. It is bad enough they are deep in our pockets, but please help us get the Government off our backs. Let us operate, let us grow, let us prosper. We will be responsible, because our children live here. We are going to take care of things to make sure that we have a good quality of life and a safe working place, but this regulatory overkill is simply stifling business and stifling opportunities in my district.
Tom Latham: “My district is made up of thousands of small businesses and farmers, and you are talking about putting somebody out of…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing the regulatory burden on small businesses and farmers in his district.
Share
More from Tom Latham
I appreciate very much the gentleman raising the issue. I think we should remember, this is an appropriation bill. It is a funding bill. It is not an authorizing bill. This is an issue that should be dealt with by the committee of…
I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment…
I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding. Yes, we were aware of it. We have been advised by the DOT of the ramifications of this amendment in the revised form. That is why I rise in opposition. It is DOT's concerns we are raising.
I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.





