Surety in the Senate and the Latest on Other Federal  Legislative Efforts

With many Congressional races on the not too distant horizon occupying the minds of members of Congress, fewer “working” days
remain in this Congressional cycle. Yet, as the session draws closer to  its conclusion, surety industry interests and legislation are
receiving considerable attention from Congress. In a previous column, I covered the early legislative journey of H.R. 3534, the Security
in Bonding Act of 2012, introduced by Representative Richard Hanna (NY). Much has changed since that time. After passing by voice
vote from the House Committee on Judiciary on March 20, H.R. 3534 was reported and placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No.
322, on April 27, and, on May 15, was considered by the House of Representatives under  suspension of the rules and passed. Various
members of the House of Representatives made remarks in support of H.R. 3534, including Representative Pierluisi (PR), who
articulated his support by stating, “Measures such as H.R. 3534 are intended to  mandate more reliable collateral standards, which is a
commendable goal.” He added, “Such strengthened requirements should help to  ensure that American taxpayers are not made to  pay
for the consequences of undercollateralized bonds.” In his remarks of support, Representative Mulvaney (SC), an original cosponsor of
H.R. 3534, after noting that H.R. 3534 is not “the most glamorous thing we’re going to  do in this 112th Congress”, remarked that H.R.
3534 is “important” and signifies “the fact that we are actually doing something on a bipartisan basis to  help the country.”

On May 16, H.R. 3534 was received in the Senate and referred to  the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. The
steady, bipartisan and non-controversial progression of H.R. 3534 through the House of Representatives is a fact that is viewed
favorably by Senate offices. As one Senate staffer declared to  me, “I do not think we’ll oppose a bill that was passed by voice vote in
the House.” NASBP and the Surety & Fidelity Association  of America (SFAA), in fact, contacted all members of the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs to  acquaint them with the importance of H.R. 3534. Additionally, staff contacted key
members of the Senate Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship to  explain the importance of H.R. 3534 to  the interests of
small construction businesses. To date, Senate office contacts or visits made by NASBP and SFAA staff include: Senator Lieberman
(CT), Senator Collins (ME), Senator Levin (MI), Senator Coburn (OK), Senator Brown (MA), Senator McCain (AZ). Senator Pryor (AR),
Senator Johnson (WI), Senator Landrieu (LA), Senator Portman (OH), Senator McCaskill (MO), Senator Paul (KY), Senator Testor (MT),
Senator Moran (KS), Senator, Cardin (MD), and Senator Snowe (ME). Staff meetings have been positive, with a general consensus
from Senate staffers that the bill may go straight to  committee mark up at the end of June or in early July.

NASBP also  has worked with the House Committee on Small Business on a series of contracting reforms to  address  improper contract
bundling and confusion over federal mentor-protégé programs as well as an increase in the contract limit for the Small Business
Administration (SBA) bond guarantee program from $2 million to  $6.5 million. That contracting reform package was placed in the
National Defense Authorization Act of 2013, which the House Armed Services Committee passed on May 10 and the House of
Representatives passed on May 18. The Senate crafted its own version of the National Defense Authorization Act, which does not
contain these reform measures, however. NASBP and SFAA will work diligently to  have the Senate include such beneficial measures in
its package. Members of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, specifically Senators Cardin and Snowe, are
advocates for increasing the contract cap of the SBA bond guarantee program and likely will be helpful allies in seeking to  include
such language in the package.

NASBP and SFAA continue to  speak with congressional offices about exempting the contract threshold of the federal Miller Act from
periodic adjustments for inflation. At this point in the Congressional cycle an amendment to  a budgetary bill may be the only vehicle
to  accomplish  this legislative goal. We remain optimistic that the surety industry can interest a member of Congress to  assist us in
introducing the exemption.

Many may argue that Congress has not moved issues forward which are critical to  our Nation. I am glad to  report, however, that we
have found receptive ears on our concerns in Congress and thankful that our issues continue to  move forward. For those coming to
the NASBP Legislative Fly-in, please make it a point to  thank members of Congress for their support of our positions,  particularly the
members of the House Committees on Judiciary and Small Business.