House Small Business Committee hears testimony on Advocacy office, regulatory costs and tariffs
Loading...
Summary
The House Committee on Small Business heard from Dr. Casey Mulligan, chief counsel of the SBA Office of Advocacy, on outreach and efforts to reduce regulatory burdens; members pressed the office’s independence and its response to tariffs affecting small firms.
The House Committee on Small Business convened a hearing titled “A Voice for Small Business: How the SBA Office of Advocacy Is Cutting Red Tape,” where Dr. Casey Mulligan, chief counsel of the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy, testified about the office’s outreach and efforts to reduce regulatory burdens for small firms. Members focused much of their questioning on the office’s independence and the economic effects of tariffs.
Mulligan told the committee Advocacy has increased agency engagement since the current administration took office, saying regional advocates are in the field and that "I have the only hiring authority" for the office, which he described as central to maintaining an independent voice. He said Advocacy has flagged roughly 300 regulatory issues for deregulatory action and recounted examples where the office worked with other agencies to resolve trade and export problems.
Ranking Member Nydia Velázquez (D‑N.Y.) expressed concern that the office’s proximity to the SBA and administration initiatives could undercut its independence, saying she has "concerns over the growing lack of independence between the Office of Advocacy and SBA." Mulligan replied that his testimony was not circulated for clearance and that OMB and other offices receive a courtesy copy at the same time as the committee.
Several Republican members said deregulation has already produced substantial savings and cited large aggregate figures for regulatory costs and estimated savings under the current administration. Members from both parties repeatedly pressed Mulligan on tariffs: Rep. McGarvey and others said small businesses in their districts are reporting higher costs and lost sales, while Mulligan said Advocacy’s role is to listen and be persuasive with agencies and the White House, giving examples such as a coffee importer and fishermen whose concerns were raised.
Lawmakers also discussed legislation to strengthen Advocacy’s statutory tools. Members and Mulligan referenced the Prove It Act (legislation discussed at the hearing) as a means to address what Mulligan called "fictional certifications" — agency certifications that a rule does not significantly affect small entities, which he said frustrates meaningful review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and 5 U.S.C. § 602. Mulligan voiced support for legislation that would give Advocacy clearer authority to question such certifications and seek remedies.
Several members raised staffing and regional representation in the Office of Advocacy. Rep. Cisneros (D‑Calif.) noted that Region 9 lacked an advocate on the office website and urged a quick appointment for California’s roughly 4.3 million small businesses; Mulligan said filling regional advocate roles was a priority and expected nominations soon. Mulligan also agreed to provide the committee a breakdown of outreach efforts — locations, participant types and demographics — to help Congress evaluate whether Advocacy is reaching diverse small business communities.
The committee recessed briefly for an unrelated briefing and then resumed. No formal votes or committee actions were taken during the hearing; members were given five legislative days to submit additional materials and written questions for the record.
The hearing highlighted bipartisan recognition of the Office of Advocacy’s role while underscoring sharp differences on policy priorities — particularly over tariffs and the pace of deregulation — and left open potential statutory changes members may pursue.
