On the recordMay 4, 2011
We have taken great strides to address the concerns of those from across the aisle. But they keep moving the goalposts. For instance, some did not like our definition of indirect effect and costs with respect to evaluating the impact of regulations on small businesses. So we agreed to take the language that was initially proposed by Dr. Sargeant with the Office of Advocacy at the Small Business Administration. He is the President's top small business regulatory appointee. It was expressed that the Office of Advocacy would require more funding to carry out these additional responsibilities. I agreed. We proposed increased authorization for the funding for this office. Moreover, we offset that spending with cuts in the SBA, already proposed in the President's 2012 budget. There were concerns with language that would require that rules sunset if agencies failed to review them as required by law, by the way. So we developed a compromise. Instead there would be a ``stick'' of reducing an agency's budget for salaries by 1 percent if it failed to comply with its review requirements under law. Moreover, it includes several safeguards to allow the agency to have multiple bites out of the apple to satisfy their legal requirements.…





