Republican Small Business Committee RSS Articles

$3M in Broken Promises to Small Business

Mon, 20 May 2013 04:00:00 GMT

$3M in Broken Promises to Small Business
By Chairman Sam Graves
May 20, 2013

In his 2013 State of the Union, President Barack Obama said, “[o]ur government shouldn’t make promises we cannot keep.” When it comes to small business policies, the lofty promises have faded to pretensions.

The House Small Business Committee has made it a priority to afford small businesses every opportunity to compete for federal contracts. On the campaign trail, the President made a similar promise, only to preside over an administration that – the Committee recently discovered – disregarded the contracts that small businesses had won. The General Services Administration (GSA) failed to pay more than 1,200 small businesses what they were owed, and has admitted this extensive error. This is the same administration that is faulted for falling short of the yearly goal to award 23 percent of federal contracts to small businesses – now for six years in a row.

The value of small business contracting is indisputable. These firms bring healthy competition to the federal market to drive down prices. They are our nation’s innovators and job creators, and securing a federal contract helps them grow and offers more benefit to the economy. Each year, the federal government spends over $500 billion on goods and services, contracting with a variety of entities, both large and small. It makes sense to ensure opportunities for small businesses in this federal marketplace. Adding these players to federal contracting means lower prices for American taxpayers. Small businesses win as they get more contracts; workers win as small businesses create jobs; and taxpayers win as prices are driven down.

Approximately $50 billion, or roughly one in every ten federal contract dollars, is spent through the GSA’s Multiple Award Schedule (MAS). Last year, when GSA announced potential changes to MAS which would result in nearly 9,500 small vendors losing their contracts, the Small Business Committee noticed a discrepancy in GSA’s math. Under GSA’s proposed change, they would be terminating thousands of small business contracts for not making enough sales, since these low performing contracts were not generating enough fees for GSA. This is within GSA’s right, as their contracts require that each business make at least $25,000 a year in sales. However, GSA also promises those small businesses, which spend between $6,000 and $40,000 to get their contracts in the first place, that each contract will receive at least $2,500 in sales.

We can all agree with the goal of finding ways to reduce spending, but this one didn’t pass the test. How could terminating so many contracts save money when GSA is required to pay a minimum guaranteed payment of $2,500? The Committee asked, and the answer kept changing. One day GSA expected to save $24 million, another day the answer was $6 million. It didn’t add up.

Finally, the answer came. The savings that GSA was claiming did not account for paying some of these firms the $2,500. More astonishingly, since 2008, there were 3,300 of these canceled federal contracts – but only 27 of them had been paid. Of the remainder, at least 1,334 had submitted the necessary paperwork to be paid, and 1,281 of the eligible firms were small businesses. This is the same agency that inexcusably found the money to pay for conferences with hot tubs, magicians and conga lines, but it hadn’t found the money to honor its contractual obligations to these small businesses.

The good news is that the GSA has agreed to do right by these small companies and will pay the $3,108,888. That’s a small victory for small businesses, but it is troubling that an agency which is responsible for so many federal contracts failed to live up to its end of the bargain for so long. The U.S. government’s promise must be a guarantee.

Competition is a powerful and essential part of this nation’s economy, and vital to cutting government costs. At every turn, small businesses should be encouraged to compete. When they do, we all win.

Read the article online HERE.

Red Tape Record Breakers

Sun, 19 May 2013 04:00:00 GMT

Red Tape Record Breakers

By Wall Street Journal

May 19, 2013

President Obama is opposing a bill passed by the House last week that would require the Securities and Exchange Commission to better measure the costs and benefits of new regulations. That's no surprise considering that the latest annual index of federal rules shows that Team Obama is now the red tape record holder.

For two decades, Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute has tracked the growth of new federal regulations. In his 20th anniversary edition this week, he'll report that pages in the Code of Federal Regulations hit an all-time high of 174,545 in 2012, an increase of more than 21% during the last decade.

Relying largely on government data, Mr. Crews estimates that in 2012 the cost of federal rules exceeded $1.8 trillion, roughly equal to the GDP of Canada. These costs are embedded in nearly everything Americans buy. Mr. Crews calculates these costs at $14,768 per household, meaning that red tape is now the second largest item in the typical family budget after housing.

Last year 4,062 regulations were at various stages of implementation inside the Beltway. The government completed work on 1,172, an increase of 16% over the 1,010 that the feds imposed in 2011, which was a 40% increase over 722 in 2010.

Another way to measure the regulatory burden is by pages in the Federal Register, which includes new rules as well as proposed rules and supporting documents. By that measure the Obama Administration did not break the all-time record of 81,405 pages it set in 2010. But the 78,961 pages it churned out in 2012 mean that the President has posted three of the four greatest paperwork years on record.

And to be fair, if Mr. Obama were ever to acknowledge that this is a problem, he could reasonably blame George W. Bush for setting a lousy example. Despite the Obama myth that the Bush years were an era of deregulation, the Bush Administration routinely generated more than 70,000 pages a year in the Federal Register.

When it comes to "economically significant" rules, which are those estimated by the feds to cost at least $100 million each, Mr. Crews notes that the current Administration is "in a class by itself." The bureaucracy finished up 57 such rules in 2012 and another 167 are in the pipeline.

These are largely the progeny of the Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank and the EPA's effort to use regulation to impose an anti-carbon-fuels agenda that even a Democratic Senate won't pass. Since Mr. Obama doesn't want to accurately assess the costs of these rules, we'll rely on Mr. Crews.

Committee Schedule for Week of May 20

Fri, 17 May 2013 04:00:00 GMT

Week Ahead for the Committee: May 20-24

Committee to to Hold Hearing on Challenges for Small Construction Contractors

The House Small Business Committee, chaired by Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO), today announced the schedule for the week of May 20, 2013:

On Thursday, May 23rd, at 10:00 a.m., the Small Business Subcommittee on Contracting and Workforce, under the chairmanship of Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY), will conduct a hearing titled Building America: Challenges for Small Construction Contractors. The hearing will expose problems faced by construction, architecture and engineering contracting small businesses and discuss potential legislative solutions. The hearing will specifically address challenges with surety bond issues; the use of reverse auctions for construction services; subcontracting credit allowances; and the procurement process for design-build contracts.

“Small businesses play a vital role in our federal procurement system, and construction contractors often perform work cheaper and quicker than their larger counterparts – providing a real benefit to the taxpayer,” said Subcommittee Chairman Hanna (R-NY). “As a former construction contractor, I know firsthand the challenges small firms face dealing with federal laws and regulations. Many bureaucratic obstacles impede this subsector, so hearings like this are important to explore solutions for the problems they face. By helping small contractors, we can rebuild the hard-hit construction industry and bring jobs back to our communities.”

Watch the hearing live HERE.

Event Details:
Thursday, May 23, 2013, 10:00 a.m. EDT
2360 Rayburn House Office Building
Small Business Subcommittee on Contracting and Workforce
Building America: Challenges for Small Construction Contractors

###

Chairman Graves Adds Three New Regulations to “Small Biz Reg Watch”

Fri, 17 May 2013 04:00:00 GMT

House Small Business Committee Chairman Sam Graves (R-MO) today announced that two new proposed rules and a request for comment have been added to the Committee’s new digital resource, “Small Biz Reg Watch”: the SBA Women-Owned Small Business Federal Contacting Program; the DHS/DOL Wage Methodology for the Temporary Non-Agricultural Employment (H-2B) Program; and the extension of the EPA Lead Paint Rule to Public and Commercial Buildings.

Small Biz Reg Watch is a new initiative of the Committee, launched in January, to help small businesses participate in the development of federal regulations. This online resource on the Committee’s website will regularly highlight proposed regulations that could impact small companies and instruct business owners on how they can make comments to the federal agency considering the proposed regulation.

“These proposed regulations have the potential to affect a large amount of small businesses, and the private sector should have the opportunity to participate in the rule-making process so they can affect the outcome,” said Graves. “Compliance with environmental regulations costs small businesses four times more than large firms, so I’m pleased that the EPA has extended the comment period to provide more time for input from small businesses. We’re also pleased that the Administration appears to be working to issue rules that will make it easier for Women-Owned Small Contractors to compete.”

The SBA has published an interim final rule implementing a statutorily-mandated provision that removes the limitation on the dollar amount of set-aside contracts that women-owned small businesses can compete for under the Women-Owned Small Business Program. This statutory change is, in part, the result of the Committee’s 112th Congress small business contracting reforms that were signed into law on January 3, 2013, as part of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013. Committee Member Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA) recently led an effort by the Congressional Women’s Caucus to expedite this rulemaking. This comment period ends June 6th.

The Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Dept. of Labor (DOL) have issued an interim final rule that changes the prevailing wage methodology used by DOL to calculate certain prevailing wages paid to H-2B workers and employees recruited in connection with an H-2B Application for Temporary Employment Certification. The H-2B program allows non-agricultural employers facing a worker shortage to hire temporary unskilled workers from foreign countries, and is predominantly used by small businesses in the construction, amusement, landscaping, hotel, restaurant and forestry industries. The wage methodology rule, issued on April 24, 2013, is currently in effect under a “good cause” exemption and has increased the wages that small employers must pay to H-2B workers. This comment period ends June 10th.

The EPA has extended the comment deadline for interested parties to provide information and data on the presence of lead-based paint hazards in commercial and public buildings and information. The EPA is considering whether to extend its lead paint rules to cover renovation, repair, and painting activities in public and commercial buildings in a potential rulemaking. Small businesses that manage or perform renovations, repairs, or painting activities on the exterior or interior of public and commercial buildings will face increased compliance costs if EPA decides to move forward with a rule. This comment period ends July 20th.

Through the Small Biz Reg Watch initiative, the Committee regularly communicates with small businesses via email, social media, and through district events around America when new comment periods begin for select proposed rules that have a significant impact on a wide array of small businesses. The website URL is: www.smallbusiness.house.gov/RegWatch

###

Washington Post: GSA Failed to Pay Thousands of Small Government Contractors Since 2008

Thu, 16 May 2013 04:00:00 GMT

GSA failed to pay thousands of small government contractors since 2008

By J.D. Harrison, The Washington Post
May 16, 2013

An investigation by House lawmakers has revealed that the U.S. General Services Administration failed to fully pay thousands of small federal contractors in the past five years.

GSA officials confirmed the error, acknowledging that 1,334 government services firms had been shorted more than $3 million since 2008, the vast majority of them small businesses, because the agency neglected to fulfill a “guaranteed minimum payment” clause outlined in many of its contracts.

A spokeswoman for the agency declined to comment on why the payments were not issued in recent years but said officials will begin soon begin issuing payments to every company that was eligible but did not receive money, dating back to 2007.

The Republican-led House Small Business Comittee, which uncovered the oversight, plans to release a full report of its investigation on Thursday but shared preliminary details exclusively to The Washington Post.

“Contracting with small businesses is good for the economy and it’s good for the taxpayer because small companies bring cost-savings to the federal government,” Committee Chairman Sam Graves (R-Mo.) said in a statement. “But when federal agencies don’t live up to their end of the bargain, small businesses are discouraged from competing and taxpayers lose the benefits of government efficiency.”

The GSA offers an online catalog of government services known as the Multiple Awards Schedules (MAS) Program, from which other agencies can purchase an array of goods and services, from ink pens to construction services, usually at discounted prices. In order to be listed, contractors must undergo a rigorous and often expensive vetting process, and once approved, they must meet minimum government sales mandates in order to stay in the program ($25,000 in combined sales the first two years and $25,000 each year after that).

Meanwhile, the government has its own obligations in the agreement. Businesses that suffer through the vetting process and make it into the program are guaranteed at least $2,500 in orders from federal agencies.

“That minimum sales guarantee is essentially the government paying for the promise that the company makes to deliver the agreed-upon goods and services when ordered at agreed-upon prices,” Alan Chvotkin, executive vice president and counsel of the Professional Services Council, an industry group, said in an interview.

Chvotkin pointed out that the guarantees apply only to contractors who enter into indefinite, multiple-award programs, not those who compete for individual contracts.

So, if a company is removed from the MAS program for not hitting its minimum sales requirement (the $25,000) before it even reaches $2,500, the government must pay the difference. That is supposed to happen automatically when a firm is removed—but officials said they have not been sending those payments.

Graves’ team discovered the mistake last summer while looking into some the agency’s proposed changes to the structure of the MAS program last summer. Those changes would likely remove some contractors from the MAS program; however, the committee’s regulatory affairs team could not find where in its proposal the GSA had accounted for losses stemming from minimum payments issued to some of those ousted businesses.

It turns out, they weren’t factored in because they weren’t being paid.

Nearly a year later, GSA Federal Acquisition Services Commissioner Thomas Sharp confirmed “the problem” in a letter to Graves, noting that the agency owes $3,108,888 to small business contractors.

“Moving forward, GSA intends to administer clause I-FSS-106,” Sharp wrote, referring to the minium payments provision that has been in existence in its current form since 2003. GSA officials also plan to start paying the firms they shorted in the coming months.

“If a contract has been terminated, and the company is no longer in the program, they should be receiving the money,” said Chvotkin. “It’s a contractual right for those businesses, and it’s regrettable that GSA has been holding back on funds legitimately owed to contractors.”

The findings of the investigation add a new element of controversy for an administration already reeling from several scandals. The White House has been defending its response to the attacks in Benghazi, the Department of Justice’s seizure of AP phone records, and the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative groups.

Committee Investigation Finds More Than One Thousand Small Business Contractors Weren’t Fully Paid

Thu, 16 May 2013 04:00:00 GMT

House Small Business Chairman Sam Graves (R-MO) today announced that a year-long investigation into a federal contracting program has uncovered that the government owes more than one thousand small businesses millions of dollars.

“Contracting with small businesses is good for the economy and it’s good for the taxpayer because small companies bring cost-savings to the federal government,” said Chairman Graves. “But when federal agencies don’t live up to their end of the bargain, small businesses are discouraged from competing and taxpayers lose the benefits of government efficiency. Although we’re extremely disappointed that this error has occurred, the General Services Administration has owned up to their mistake and will distribute payment this year.”

The General Services Administration (GSA) Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) program manages approximately 19,000 contracts for goods and services for the entire federal government. About 80 percent of the vendors are small businesses, making up 35 percent of the $50 billion in annual MAS sales. A successful MAS contract can be a boon to a small business, however, pursuing a MAS contract may cost the small business between $6,000 to $40,000 for a standard GSA proposal. Competing for a federal contract is not only time-consuming but very costly, especially for small businesses, who often don’t have a large procurement team like larger corporations may have. GSA regulation states that each business will receive at least $2,500 in sales, but requires that each small business make at least $25,000 in sales per year to keep their contract.

GSA generates revenue from fees based on contract sales. Last year, GSA proposed terminating thousands of small business contracts for not meeting the $25,000 annual sales threshold, because these contracts were not generating enough fees for GSA. The Committee was concerned about the effect on small businesses and the loss of competition, since over half of the 19,000 vendors could have lost their contracts. Further, the Committee noted that GSA’s case for cancelling these contracts in terms of dollars saved did not account for paying some of these firms the $2,500 they would be owed under their contracts. When the Committee began questioning why the $2,500 was not included in the calculations, it became clear that GSA was not adhering to its own contracts and had not paid the required termination costs to small businesses for at least five years.

Between Fiscal Year 2008 and Fiscal Year 2012, there were 3,300 of these canceled federal contracts. Of these, 1,334 were eligible for a minimum guaranteed payment from GSA; 1,281 of the eligible firms were small businesses. Because of this error, GSA will pay $3,108,888 owed to these companies. The remaining firms had not filed the necessary forms, so it is unclear if GSA would have owed them the $2,500 payment.
The Committee’s investigation began shortly after a June 2012 Small Business Subcommittee on Contracting and Workforce hearing on the GSA MAS Program, chaired by Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC). A series of letters between GSA and the Committee during the Fall and Winter led to an admission of error on May 6, 2013.

The Committee has placed advocacy for small business contracting opportunities among its highest priorities under Congressman Graves’ chairmanship, especially in light of the fact that the government has missed its goal to award 23 percent of all federal contract dollars to small businesses for six consecutive years. In early 2012, the Committee introduced a series of contracting reform bills aimed at increasing opportunities for small business, creating protections to fight fraud and abuse, and empowering advocates who fight for small business during the federal acquisition process. On January 3, 2013, the President signed the legislation into law as part of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013.

###

Hearing Underscores Keystone XL Pipeline’s Benefits for Small Businesses

Thu, 16 May 2013 04:00:00 GMT

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House Small Business Subcommittee on Agriculture, Energy and Trade, led by Chairman Scott Tipton (R-CO), today held a hearing appraising the benefits that many small businesses would reap from construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline.

The Committee heard about the economic benefits that will be available to small businesses from both the construction – and the long-term operation – of the Keystone XL Pipeline. In testimony, witnesses discussed how the pipeline would enhance our nation’s energy security, expand economic and job growth, and lower energy prices for Americans. According to a 2012 study by the NFIB, the “Cost of Natural Gas, Propane, Gasoline, Diesel, Fuel Oil” ranks as the third highest concern among small business owners.

Additionally, the pipeline’s construction would be a boon to many rural communities spanning the western United States along the northern and southern routes from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, bringing in local commercial activity and creating opportunities in fields that include numerous small business contractors. The project would boost the demand for various skilled labor occupations, and create an estimated 42,100 jobs.

“This hearing provided convincing testimony that this vital project is truly a keystone on which we can continue building our national prosperity,” said Chairman Tipton. “At a time when we should be focusing on economic growth and energy security, moving forward with this project is simply common sense. We have a rare opportunity to create thousands of jobs immediately, many through small businesses, and do so in a responsible way.”

Materials for the hearing are posted on the House Small Business Committee’s website HERE.

Notable Quotes:

Brent Booker, Secretary Treasurer, Building and Construction Trades Department, Department, AFL-CIO, Washington, DC, said, “America's Building Trades Unions emphatically support the construction of the Keystone pipeline which will move oil from deposits in Canada to existing refineries in Texas, Oklahoma and the Midwest. Our unions have been actively involved with this project for almost 5 years now, and we are adamant in our belief that the economic, energy security, and national security benefits associated with the construction of this pipeline are too many and too significant to allow it to be derailed by a narrow and misguided political agenda being advanced by a small minority of ill-advised environmental groups… The choice is clear and, again, any further delay by the Obama Administration is unacceptable.”

Peter Bowe, President and CEO, Ellicott Dredges, Baltimore, MD, testifying on behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers, said, “One way or the other, Canadians will eventually solve their distribution problems, with or without US governmental collaboration. To the extent this process is delayed, the producers will suffer economic loss, and their US suppliers, like Ellicott Dredges will suffer as well, including diminished employment.”

Mat Brainerd, President, Brainerd Chemical Company, Tulsa, OK, testifying on behalf of the National Association of Chemical Distributors, said, “My industry would benefit from building the pipeline in three distinct ways. First, like many industries, chemical distribution benefits from economic growth generally. Second, building the pipeline would reduce our costs for aromatic and aliphatic chemicals, diesel and rail tank cars. Third, it would benefit the economics of hydraulic fracturing, which is an important market that many in our industry serve.”

###

Hearing Examines Patent Reform Law and Safeguards for Small Business Innovations

Wed, 15 May 2013 04:00:00 GMT

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House Small Business Committee, led by Chairman Sam Graves (R-MO), today held a hearing examining the changes in the patent system, and how to best protect the innovations of small businesses as new challenges arise.

The Committee heard testimony on the changing landscape of patent law and the effects on small firms, which develop 16 times more patents per employee than large companies. The hearing included discussion of Patent Assertion Entities, or “patent trolls,” and analysis of the early small business impact of the American Invents Act, which was signed into law in September 2011.

“The American Invents Act significantly reforms and strengthens the U.S. patent system. These reforms help reduce barriers to entry for small businesses and foster innovation, but small innovators still face too many claims from patents trolls,” said Chairman Graves. “Today’s hearing offered insight into ways we can further aid small business through a strong and fair patent system. Small firms lead the way in developing new patents, and the law must be an ally of invention to promote economic growth and America’s competitiveness.”

Materials for the hearing are posted on the House Small Business Committee’s website HERE.

Notable Quotes:

Dennis D, Crouch, Associate Professor of Law, University of Missouri School of Law, Columbia, MO, said, “…thousands of small and mid-sized companies are sued for patent infringement each year -- both by competitors and by patent licensing companies. Today, many cases settle in an unsatisfying way with the accused infringer paying a settlement fee simply in order to avoid the high cost of fully defending the lawsuit.”

Jeff Grainger, Managing Partner, The Foundry, LLC, Menlo Park, CA, testifying on behalf of the Medical Device Manufacturers Association, said, “…We depend upon a strong patent system that provides a fast and efficient examination process, discourages frivolous patent challenges, and imposes serious sanctions on infringers.”

John R. Thomas, Professor of Law, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, said, “Patent trolling remains a significant concern for U.S. enterprises of all sizes. In my opinion, trolling results from systemic problems within the U.S. patent system and is not amenable to a quick fix.”

Mark Grady, Founder and President, Indigital, Fort Wayne, IN, said, “Certainly, patent fee reform is helpful to our small business, as is the ‘first to file’ and ‘provisional patent’ concepts that makes the decision to file a patent clearer and easier… We remain optimistic that the Act, with some refinements, will yield faster results for higher quality patents without harming small businesses.”

###

Graves Hosts Small Business Expo, Focused On Best Practices

Mon, 13 May 2013 04:00:00 GMT

House Small Business Committee Chairman Sam Graves (R-MO) today hosted a Small Business Expo in Kansas City, Missouri, to highlight some of the opportunities and challenges for small business owners in this economy.

Rose Mitchell from Hy-Vee, Inc. was the keynote speaker, joined by panelists from both the federal government and the private sector to provide insight, training and information to small business owners.

“I enjoy hearing small business owners share with me their passion for their work or their product, and their hopes for future expansion, yet too often they’re concerned about the federal government’s role,” said Chairman Graves. “Again today, I find that owners of small firms are openly worried about rising healthcare costs, the requirements of the health care law, regulations and taxes. Their message to Washington is that the growing burden is stifling their ability to hire.”

“Small companies create seven out of every 10 jobs in America,” Graves continued. “The Expo is a great resource for small business owners to network and gain information to help grow their business in a challenging economy. Entrepreneurs tend to exhibit the spirit and persistence to weather setbacks, and find a way forward. I’m always proud of their strength and dedication.”

Graves places an emphasis in the Committee on hearing directly from entrepreneurs and engaging small businesses throughout the country. He frequently joins other Members of Congress in their districts to dialogue with owners of small firms.

The Expo included a variety of panel topics: Access to Capital, Social Media 2.0, The Health Care Law and What it Means for Your Business, Best Business Practices, Success Through Networking, and an Introduction to Crowdfunding and Early Stage Seed Capital.

Graves has hosted the Sixth Congressional District Small Business Expo for the past five years.

###

Obamacare’s Coming ‘Train Wreck’

Fri, 10 May 2013 04:00:00 GMT

Obamacare’s coming ‘train wreck’
By Chairman Sam Graves
May 10, 2013

The health care law has the look of a plan that isn’t coming together, and the administration appears unable to foresee the outcome and stay a step ahead of the potential mess. The Wall Street Journal’s David Kessler totaled up the many changes and estimated 30 million to 40 million people will be damaged in some way by the new law. That’s a lot of disruption to a lot of lives, even if President Obama, from his comments at last week’s news conference, looks at it as a mere 10 percent to 15 percent of the population.

Instead of acknowledging the serious problems facing this cumbersome law and proposing remedies, the president downplayed the impact. His comments this week suggest that those with employer-based insurance won’t be affected. The Washington Post gave those remarks “two Pinocchios,” their way of saying it isn’t strictly true. In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reports 7 million to 8 million will lose their employer-based insurance because of the health care law.

By now, you’ve heard nervous Democrats express their concerns about the far-reaching law that was hastily pushed through on a partisan vote in 2010. A key architect of the law, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, told Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius that he sees a “huge train wreck” coming in the implementation of it, and — of particular concern to the Small Business Committee — admitted that “small businesses have no idea what to do, what to expect.”

He’s not alone in his fears. His colleague, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia Democrat, said the law is “beyond comprehension.” These are not comforting words to the small-business owners scrambling to comply with new paperwork, costs and requirements. Henry Chao, of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, one of the officials responsible for establishing the law’s information-technology structure, expressed his hope that getting the law into place is not bungled so badly that it becomes “a Third World experience.”

From the beginning, everything about this law has been done in reckless haste. It was pushed through Congress, over the objections of the American people, and without earning a single Republican vote. Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “but we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it.” A law with consequences this vast should have been written deliberately, scrutinized objectively and debated thoroughly. The president said he expects “glitches” and seems OK with that. A glitch is what you call it when it’s someone else’s problem. I suspect the people dealing directly with the law’s imperfections in the form of losing their existing policy, paying higher premiums or spending precious time and resources on compliance might find the term “train wreck” to be more on point.

Even now, this law should be repealed and replaced for the good of the American people. Those who have blocked that course correction and supported this law have a duty to aggressively move to prevent disastrous outcomes from a mismanaged implementation.

Small businesses say requirements of the health law are their biggest concern, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce survey released in April. That’s just the requirements of the law they know now, before any glitches to come are added to the mix. It’s also noteworthy that 71 percent said the law makes it harder for them to hire more people. This reflects what we heard directly from small-business owners testifying in an April 17 committee hearing.

The concerns of entrepreneurs are not misplaced. The law’s burdensome new requirements fall most heavily on those who are least likely to have adequate resources. Small businesses don’t have staff with the time and expertise to deal with the new system. It’s a huge drain on these smaller firms. As Mr. Baucus noted, many are just struggling to know what to do. They’re worried they’ll incur penalties or unexpected new costs.
The Department of Health and Human Services exhibited disarray in April by announcing a delay in the Small Business Health Option Plans. Should we expect a string of announcements of delays, or quick fixes and a general lack of readiness? The president seems unwilling to fully acknowledge the scope of the task before him.

I am strongly opposed to the health care law as bad policy on a number of fronts, including economic impact on small businesses, and I voted repeatedly to repeal it. But as long as the law stays on the books, the Small Business Committee is committed to doing what it can to help entrepreneurs comply despite the obstacles. The committee has posted a compliance resource for small businesses and listed our top requirements for 2013 and 2014. In doing so, we focused on putting the new rules and obligations in plain English.
It’s encouraging that there are sounds of alarm from some of the designers of the health care law. That’s a start, but time is short, solutions are needed, and the president’s cheery rhetoric won’t get the job done.

Read the article online HERE.