[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MARKUP OF: COMMITTEE PRINT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
UNITED STATES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
SEPTEMBER 9, 2021
__________
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Small Business Committee Document Number 117-031
Available via the GPO Website: www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
45-539 WASHINGTON : 2021
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
NYDIA VELAZQUEZ, New York, Chairwoman
JARED GOLDEN, Maine
JASON CROW, Colorado
SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois
CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia
TROY CARTER, Louisiana
JUDY CHU, California
DWIGHT EVANS, Pennsylvania
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania
ANDY KIM, New Jersey
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri, Ranking Member
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas
JIM HAGEDORN, Minnesota
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York
ANDREW GARBARINO, New York
YOUNG KIM, California
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas
BYRON DONALDS, Florida
MARIA SALAZAR, Florida
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
Melissa Jung, Majority Staff Director
Ellen Harrington, Majority Deputy Staff Director
David Planning, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Hon. Nydia Velazquez............................................. 1
Hon. Blaine Luetkemeyer.......................................... 2
APPENDIX
Additional Material for the Record:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute...................... 69
Amendment Roster............................................. 159
Amendment by Hon. Luetkemeyer 1v1............................ 160
Amendment by Hon. Luetkemeyer 2v1............................ 161
Amendment by Hon. Hagedorn 1v1............................... 163
Amendment by Hon. Hagedorn 2v1............................... 164
Amendment by Hon. Stauber 1v1................................ 165
Amendment by Hon. Stauber 2v1................................ 167
Amendment by Hon. Meuser 1v1................................. 168
Amendment by Hon. Meuser 2v1................................. 169
Amendment by Hon. Tenney 1v1................................. 172
Amendment by Hon. Tenney 2v1................................. 190
Amendment by Hon. Garbarino 1v1.............................. 191
Amendment by Hon. Garbarino 2v1.............................. 192
Amendment by Hon. Young Kim 1v1.............................. 196
Amendment by Hon. Young Kim 2v1.............................. 198
Amendment by Hon. Van Duyne 1v1.............................. 200
Amendment by Hon. Van Duyne 2v1.............................. 201
Amendment by Hon. Donalds 1v1................................ 202
Amendment by Hon. Donalds 2v1................................ 203
Amendment by Hon. Fitzgerald 1v1............................. 204
Amendment by Hon. Fitzgerald 2v1............................. 206
MARKUP OF: COMMITTEE PRINT
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2021
House of Representatives,
Committee on Small Business,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:25 a.m., in Room
2360 Rayburn House Office Building and via Zoom, Hon. Nydia
Velazquez [chairwoman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Velazquez, Golden, Crow, Davids,
Mfume, Phillips, Newman, Bourdeaux, Carter, Chu, Evans,
Delgado, Houlahan, Mr. Andy Kim, Craig, Luetkemeyer, Hagedorn,
Stauber, Williams, Meuser, Tenney, Garbarino, Ms. Young Kim,
Van Duyne, Donalds, Salazar, and Fitzgerald.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Good morning, everyone. We are about
to start and I just would like to please ask every Member to
have your cameras on.
Good morning. A quorum being present I call this morning's
meeting of the Committee on Small Business to order. Pursuant
to Committee Rule 13 and House Rule XI, Clause 2, the Chair
announces that she may postpone further proceedings today on
the question of approving the measure or adopting an amendment
on which a recorded vote is ordered.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time. So ordered.
I would like to begin by noting some important
requirements. In accordance with the attending physician's most
recent guidance, all Members and staff who attend this hybrid
markup in person will be required to wear masks in the hearing
room. Furthermore, all Members and staff who have not been
fully vaccinated must also maintain six-foot social distancing
from others. With that said, Members will be allowed to briefly
remove their masks if they have been recognized to speak.
Welcome to our hybrid markup. Today we will be considering
the Small Business title of reconciliation pursuant to S. Con.
Res. 14, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2022 which will provide $25 billion over 10 years to the
Small Business Administration. As required by House rules,
copies of the Committee Print have been made available to
Members and the public at least 20 hours in advance.
Small businesses are the engines that drives economic
growth, employing more than 60 million Americans. They are also
the glue that binds our communities together. They form local
tax bases to create good paying jobs and reinvest in our cities
and towns. Put simply, when they are successful our country is
successful.
Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic has devastated small
businesses across the country. To build our economy back to
pre-pandemic levels and beyond, we must fully support our
nation's entrepreneurs. The package we are considering today
will make historic investments in SBA programs that go beyond
just recovery and provide long-term solutions to perennial
challenges like access to capital, entrepreneurial development,
federal procurement enhancement, and innovation.
Expanding access to capital is this Committee's number one
priority because it promotes long-term economic growth,
particularly for the smallest of the small businesses. With
that said, lending reports have shown that loans under $150,000
have decreased by more than 40 percent over the past decade. To
fill those gaps in our lending market and ensure 100 percent of
entrepreneurs have the capital they need to launch and grow
their businesses, this package provides a $4.4 billion
investment in direct lending of less than $150,000, and
targeted loans of $1 million to government contractors and
small manufacturers.
Most importantly, SBA will continue to work with mission
lenders to leverage the inroads that were made over the past
year to reach entrepreneurs that have long been left behind.
Today's package also provides more than $9.5 billion in the
SBIC program to ensure small entities with high growth
potential have the long-term capital they need to scale up. It
also creates a pathway for investing more patient capital in
small manufacturers and firms in critical industries to meet
our nation's most pressing needs. It also expands the program's
geographic reach, investing in companies all throughout the
country rather than just the coastal hubs.
Contracting is another fool-proof way to advance our
economy. To reverse the 38 percent decline in the number of
small businesses participating in our federal contracting
programs since 2010, today's package invests more than $2
billion over 10 years to increase federal contracting
opportunities for small businesses. To jump start new business
development in the recovery, it provides roughly $2 billion to
create a national network of incubators and accelerators.
Whether it is the college graduate with a dream of scaling the
successful coffee business, or the STEM researcher on the brink
of a major discovery, these innovation investments will enable
gifted entrepreneurs to bring their ideas to marketplace and
accelerate their growth. Put simply, this investment in the
SBA's core programs, capital contracting, and counseling will
put small companies on the path to a long-term success, and in
turn puts economic growth in communities across the country.
I am proud of the work our Committee has accomplished, and
I urge all Members to support this measure. I would like to
recognize the distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Luetkemeyer,
for his opening statement.
Mr. Luetkemeyer, you are muted.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair. It has been one of
those mornings. I want to thank everybody for their patience
this morning, I am the reason that everybody is late. For some
reason my computer decided not to be able to hook up with the
Committee's computer network there. I want to thank Michael who
worked with us tirelessly for about 45 minutes to get this
done. But we are on finally and look forward to today's
hearing.
As you know, Madam Chair, our nation's small businesses are
working tirelessly to get back on their feet and serve their
communities once again. This past year has presented challenges
unlike anything we have endured in the past. Now more than ever
it is our duty on this Committee to provide much needed relief
to these struggling small business owners in the most
responsible and efficient way possible.
Madam Chair, as you have mentioned time and time again in
your opening statements, the Small Business Committee is known
on Capitol Hill for working together in a bipartisan manner to
achieve real results for main street, USA. I think we can agree
that this was something we could all be proud of.
However, over the course of this past year it has become
abundantly clear that the Small Business Committee is no longer
a Committee of bipartisanship. The Democrats' true colors came
to light early on in February's markup as topics of great
importance were drafted without our thoughts or ideas. Even
though Republican Members proposed commonsense amendments, we
were entirely blocked from engaging on the legislation.
I am here today to remind our colleagues on the other side
that there is no bipartisan outreach of any kind in the
crafting of this legislation either. No meetings, no phone
calls, no Zooms, no conversation with the Senate or the White
House, nothing at all. Instead, on Tuesday afternoon of a
Jewish holiday that is observed by Members and staff alike, we
were given a 90-page partisan document that we were expected to
digest and vote on Thursday morning, less than 48 hours later.
I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, what is
the big rush? Is this the legislation standard you really want
to set? Democrats claim to be interested in solving America's
small business issues with bipartisan solutions, when in
reality the left is attempting to use that false narrative as a
back door to enact their own Bernie Sanders Socialist wish list
that will change the fabric of America forever.
The Republicans on this Committee will not stand by and
allow Democrats to top bipartisanship because they ram through
$23.6 billion in partisan spending today without allowing us to
come to the table to discuss these paramount issues.
Just yesterday, Speaker Pelosi, a Democrat, said that the
Democrats would only pay for half of what they are spending
through the reconciliation. So, the question remains, who pays
the other half of this out-of-control monster? Middle-class
Americans? Small businesses? This is a shame and disgrace.
I would like to remind my colleagues on the other side that
prior to COVID-19 small businesses were projecting competence,
optimism, and job creation all around. Program policies and tax
cuts for the middle class resulted in historic unemployment
levels across the board by focusing on a smart regulatory
environment combined with lower taxes. Small businesses had the
economic freedom and opportunity to innovate and expand. The
partisan path you are taking will not help small businesses. In
the end it will only kick them while they are already down.
This Committee must come together to allocate funding where
it is needed while ensuring American taxpayer dollars are
safeguarded.
With that I urge my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle to take Republican amendments into serious consideration,
and provide common sense, bipartisan relief to main street.
With that, Madam Chairman, I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Thank you very much. The gentleman
yields back. Does any Member seek recognition for the purpose
of making an opening statement? The gentleman from Minnesota is
recognized, Mr. Phillips, for 5 minutes.
Mr. PHILLIPS. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to strike the
last word.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. PHILLIPS. In my office we have a saying. It is that
representation begins with listening. That is our foremost
responsibility as Members of Congress.
My constituents, probably like most of my colleagues, have
spoken, loudly and clearly. Small business owners are still
hurting and too many are struggling to stay afloat. Congress
has created numerous relief funds in response to the economic
fallout caused by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, including the
Restaurant Revitalization Fund, the Shuttered Venues and
Operators Grant Program, and the Paycheck Protection Program,
which collectively saved thousands of businesses and countless
jobs. Still, many small businesses were entirely left out or
could not access much needed relief before the funds ran out
and they are now facing additional layoffs or even closure 18
months into this pandemic, and now in the face of the Delta
variant.
As of June 30, 2021, the Small Business Administration
received more than 278,000 RRF applications totaling $72
billion in requested funds, far greater than what Congress had
allocated. Some women, veteran, and minority-owned restaurants
who applied were informed by the SBA that aid was coming, only
to find out later that they would receive nothing, I repeat,
nothing, due to lawsuits filed against the program. Others who
applied heard nothing at all, only learning from news reports
that money for the RRF had run out.
Two weeks ago, Representative Angie Craig and I met with
small business owners in the Twin Cities who are part of the
live events industry, which has also been disproportionately
impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Many wept, literally wept,
as they shared their heartbreaking stories of their lifelong
dreams and hard-earned savings slowly slipping away as the
weeks and months have dragged on. Restaurants and gyms and live
entertainment venues, small businesses of all kinds have made
it known they have been left in the cold and they need our
help.
I applaud the legislation that we are considering today. It
is going to help entrepreneurs and small business owners access
capital and other vital resources, a priority that I know we
all share. Yet while the $25 billion allocated here to support
small businesses is a vital and worthy investment, I say that
we can and we must do more. That is why I am pleased to share
that with the support of the speaker and leadership of
Chairwoman Velazquez that the Small Business Committees in the
House and the Senate will soon begin working on a targeted
small business relief package to help those industries who are
still in great, and sometimes desperate, need.
Democrats and Republicans alike understand the importance
of small businesses to our country. They are the backbone of
our economy. We cannot allow our nation's main street
businesses and community gathering places to suffer when we
have both the tools and the resources necessary to keep them
afloat. Too many lives and livelihoods, not to mention the
American economy, depend on the strength of our small
businesses. I look forward to working with my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to craft a relief package that meets
the challenge of this moment.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
Does any other Member seek recognition for the purpose of
making an opening statement?
Ms. CHU. Madam Chair, I seek recognition.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. CHU. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
I would like to thank Chairwoman Velazquez for her hard
work on today's legislation to fulfill our Committee's
instructions to build back better for America's small
businesses.
We are now a year and a half removed from the start of the
COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S., and small businesses are still
suffering. From the start they have shouldered a tremendous
burden to keep our country safe. I am proud of the work that
our Committee did to help them through this crisis, but our
work is not yet done. Despite surging cases in many parts of
the country, most of the pandemic supports that have buttressed
our economy are no longer available for small businesses. The
Paycheck Protection Program ended after disbursing $800 billion
in assistance. Enhanced unemployment benefits have expired, and
programs like the Restaurant Revitalization Fund have exhausted
their funds. A recent survey found that nearly half of all
small business owners now have less than 3 months of cash
reserves on hand, and 9 out of 10 support further federal
assistance.
This need makes it clear why the Democratic majority and
President Biden are acting boldly to pass this Build Back
Better bill, and our work on this Committee will again be
essential in supporting the small business economy.
This time we are looking past the COVID-19 pandemic and
building a stronger, fairer, more durable small business
economy that will lay the foundation for long-term growth and
success for everyone.
This bill touches every corner of the small business
economy. It will ensure that more underserved businesses can
participate in the robust federal contracting opportunities
that will follow from infrastructure investments, including by
putting more small firms on the path to becoming supplying
contractors. It will expand the reach of the Small Business
Administration by establishing a national network of small
business incubators, growing the state trade expansion program,
and creating new offices of Native American Affairs, world
affairs, and emerging markets. It will also expand
opportunities for capital investments and increase access to
government backed lending.
I am especially proud of the provisions in this legislation
to expand access to capital, particularly its investment of
$600 million into the Community Advantage, or CA, program. For
years I have worked to enshrine this program, which has
operated as a pilot for 10 years, as one of SBA's core lending
programs. By providing 10 years of funding for Community
Advantage this bill recognizes the tremendous success of CA at
reaching the underserved businesses that have had the hardest
time accessing financing from banks and even the SBA's
traditional 7(a) lending program.
CA is unique because it is administered not by partnering
banks, but by nonprofit, mission-oriented lenders. These are
the same lenders who stepped up to connect underserved small
businesses to the Paycheck Protection Program after they were
turned away by the big banks. Because CA lenders provide
technical assistance to their client, this funding will provide
the hands-on guidance necessary to help under resourced
businesses grow and find success.
Of course, this is just one of the many creative new tools
and thoughtful improvements included in this bill. We are also
leveraging the Small Business Investment Company program to
extend venture capital into underserved markets and improve
SBIC diversity. We are investing billions into a new direct
lending model at SBA to allow the agency to provide affordable
loans directly to the smallest businesses.
This bill will help our small business economy take the
next step to move out of crisis management and into fairer,
stronger, more durable, long-term growth so that we can truly
build back better.
I support this legislation and I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back. Does any
other Member seek recognition for the purpose of making an
opening statement? Seeing no other Members that wish to be
recognized, we will now move to consideration of the Committee
Print providing for reconciliation pursuant to S. Con. Res. 14,
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2022.
The clerk will report the Committee Print.
The CLERK. The Committee Print by the Committee on Small
Business providing for reconciliation pursuant to S. Con. Res.
14.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, the first reading
of the Committee Print is dispensed with. Without objection,
the Committee Print shall be considered as read and open for
amendment at any point.
The Chair recognizes herself to offer an amendment in the
nature of its substitute.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered
by Ms. Velazquez.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, the reading of the
amendment is dispensed with. Without objection, the amendment
in the nature of a substitute will be considered as original
text for the purposes of further amendment. So ordered.
I would now like to recognize myself briefly. The ANS
includes no significant changes to the text of the language
that was circulated to the public this past Tuesday. The
changes include minor drafting edits such as fixing definitions
and updating spending limits.
I would like to recognize the Ranking Member for 5 minutes
for his statement on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise in
opposition to the legislative provisions you have outlined in
your amendment in the nature of a substitute. In short, today's
budget reconciliation is simply more ill-advised, out of
control spending on behalf of President Biden and the
Democrats.
As we have witnessed, the small business economy operates
at its best when it is free from the tethers of the federal
government. However, the programs that you are creating and
amending today, in addition to the accompanying increase in
government spending, completely contradict the purpose of small
business relief. Committee Republicans have been raising red
flags for months. Continued and prolonged direct federal
assistance will further perpetuate a failing artificial
economy. It is abundantly clear that we must provide small
businesses with the tools they need to regain their footing and
provide for their communities and employees.
As a lead Republican on the House Small Business Committee,
I refuse to stand by and let the future of our small business
economy become further dependent on Washington. Specifically,
this legislation before us today either creates or expands
numerous SBA contracting programs without the proper oversight
requirements. It is unwise for Members of this Committee to
advance such programs without ensuring that American taxpayer
dollars are safeguarded. Unfortunately, this utter lack of
oversight expands beyond this contract and provisions.
Additionally, the language directs and appropriates federal
dollars for services the private sector already provides the
private sector incubators and accelerators ubiquitous across
the country. The SBA should not be in the business of
duplicating or replacing those or these successful private
sector initiatives.
Not to mention the proposed funds associated with several
of these duplicative programs are astounding. They range from
the hundreds of millions to even a billion dollars. I repeat,
the Democrats are pushing a billion dollars in funding that
duplicates services the private sector already is successfully
providing.
Moreover, this same language creates investment programs,
working groups, and outreach requirements for programs that are
already in place to serve small businesses and their
communities.
With that I ask one simple question. Should $2 million from
American taxpayers go toward a working group or a program that
is already operating well? I think the answer is no. In
addition, SBA direct lending in any form must not proceed. We
have documented evidence that the SBA cannot properly and
efficiently underwrite loans. The SBA's COVID-19 Economic
Injury Disaster Loan program showed and continues to show, by
the way, that this agency does not provide the proper oversight
of taxpayer dollars, when you've got a third of the program
that looks like fraudulent dollars being disbursed, we have got
a huge problem. Why do you want to empower these people even
more? Makes no sense.
Lastly, the language extends provisions from the December
COVID bill for years in the future. There is no way to know
what the small business economy will look like at that point in
time. I question this timeline put in place, and so should my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
Overall, I firmly believe that small businesses drive our
nation forward, but we must create an environment for them to
do so. Small business prosperity can be achieved and we can
have evidence that it works through pro-growth policies
focusing on a smart tax and regulatory environment.
Unfortunately, both the language in this amendment and the
language that has unhinged $3.5 trillion bill does just the
opposite.
I am deeply concerned with this entire bill. Therefore, I
must oppose this amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by the Chair.
At this time I would like to yield to the Ranking Member of
the Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations and Regulations,
the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Van Duyne.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and
Ranking Member Luetkemeyer.
We are almost 8 months into the Biden Administration and it
has become evident to anyone watching that something is very
wrong. Just looking at our economy alone inflation is at a 30-
year high. Job report after job report fails to meet
expectations. Over 50 percent of small businesses say they
cannot hire much needed employees. Despite still not having
spent all the funds in the last reconciliation bill, we are now
rushing to consider the most significant single spending bill
in our history. Even though all economic indicators show that
this is the absolute wrong path to choose, this President is
trying to ram through close to $6 trillion in new and
unnecessary spending this year alone.
And yet while Medicare and Social Security are quickly
approaching bankruptcy and federal debt is headed past $30
trillion, this bill fails to address any of those issues. In
fact, it makes it worse.
The tax increases in this bill will hurt millions of small
businesses and stifle future investments. We had the
President's own SBA Administrator in front of this Committee
deny inflation or tax increases have any sort of effect on
small businesses or middle-class households.
This legislative package also fails to address the fraud in
the SBA programs. Report after report has shown that SBA
programs face billions in fraud and misuse but focus on
oversight, and this package is minimal.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. May I ask for more time, please? One more
minute.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. We have quite a few amendments to go
through, I think that during the debate on the amendments you
will have time to expand on your statement.
We will now proceed to consider pre-filed amendments in the
order listed in the amendment roster, starting with Luetkemeyer
1v1.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Missouri seek
recognition? Mr. Luetkemeyer, you are muted.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, thank you. I have an
amendment at the desk.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to the Committee Print.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of
the amendment will be dispensed with. The Ranking Member is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair. As I stated
earlier, this three and a half trillion monstrosity is a
disaster for our economy and for our small businesses. I
further believe the nation is better off without this
additional reckless spending as the country's national debt
approaches 30 trillion. Further spending in the billions must
be justified and required.
Moreover, the language in this reconciliation markup props
up an artificial small business economy that is increasingly
reliant on the federal government. Congress must work to create
an environment that allows main street to prosper and grow
independently.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that would
prevent the federal government's encroachment on private sector
small businesses.
I just want to conclude by saying at some point we have to
realize that these dollars come from someplace. We cannot keep
printing them. As I think my colleague, Ms. Van Duyne, just
said, we have still got money from the COVID bill back in the
early part of the year that has not been spent and yet we are
trying to spend another $3.5 trillion that we don't have. We
are going to have to tax people, which is going to slow down
the economy and kill small businesses, to make this happen.
This is insane what is being proposed. It makes no sense
whatsoever. It is going to decimate our economy, it is going to
decimate our small businesses, and we are responsible. We are
the Small Business Committee that should be looking out for the
wellbeing of our citizens and our small businesses.
All of us have just come off last month with our district
work periods and our August recess here, going around and
talking to small businesses. They are struggling. They are
struggling right now. They need help, but they don't need this
kind of help. This kind of help is nonsense. They need the help
from the standpoint of letting them alone. We found out what
actually works with regards to lower taxes and less regulation.
It empowered them, they got an economy going at a speed that
was unbelievable prior to the pandemic, and it can happen again
if we just stay out of the way.
Madam Chair, my amendment does just that. It gets
government back out of the way and stops this nonsense. With
that I yield back and ask for the support of my amendment.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Do other
Members wish to be recognized on the amendment? I would now
like to recognize myself.
I respectfully disagree with the Ranking Member's amendment
which will strike the entire text.
The COVID-19 pandemic shined a spotlight on SBA programs
and we learned that they were not reaching small businesses in
all communities. Over the course of the past 6 months, we held
hearings, listened to the experts, and this package is a result
of that hard work.
It invests in SBA capital, contracting counseling, and
innovation programs to better serve all small businesses across
the country.
With regard to lending, small dollar loans have been
declining steadily. In fact, loans under $150,000 declined by
about 44 percent. I guess that the private market has not been
doing a good job. Loans under $50,000 declined by even more.
$4.4 billion for the establishment of a direct loan program
will go a long way to fill the gaps for those small businesses
that have been left behind.
Turning to contracting, the federal government is the
largest single purchaser of goods and services with nearly $600
billion in spending each year. Yet there has been a 38 percent
decline in the number of small businesses that participate in
the federal contracting process. This package will provide over
$2 billion to deliver intensive training programs for small
businesses with the skill and knowledge to enter, operate, and
be successful in the fair marketplace.
With regard to innovation, the bill strengthens our
ecosystem by investing over $2 billion in multiple incubators
and accelerators to help startups launch and grow their
businesses, and in turn create good paying jobs. To build our
economy back to pre-pandemic levels and beyond we must provide
support to our nation's entrepreneurs. So, therefore, I oppose
this amendment.
Is there any further debate on the amendment?
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Yes, Madam Chairman, may I be recognized?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Would you please identify yourself?
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Beth Van Duyne, Texas, 24.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Ms. Van Duyne is recognized.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Thank you. I am picking up where I had left
off. The federal government's role is not to pick winners or
losers, but to allow the greatest opportunity for our citizens
to flourish. I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague from
Minnesota, we must do more. We must allow our small business
owners to be independent from additional government control and
in charge of their own success. Unfortunately, this bill and
the actions taken by this Administration point to a different
story.
Finally, as we have consistently said, Republicans are
willing to work in a bipartisan manner to refine and improve
the SBA and work on bipartisan legislation. But yet again,
Republicans are being forced out of the process entirely.
I want to make something very clear. Democrats will own the
ramifications of this partisan effort to force through two of
the largest spending bills in history without considering the
consequences. But, unfortunately, it is the rest of us who are
going to have to suffer.
We have asked our small businesses to be resilient for the
last 18 months. And yet the government has repaid their
patience by creating harmful policies that have limited their
labor supply, threatening to raise their taxes and increasing
inflation. It is beyond time that this Administration gets out
of their way.
For these reasons I must oppose this amendment in the
nature of a substitute offered by the Chair. I yield back.
Thank you.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back. Is there
any further debate on the amendment?
Mr. DONALDS. Yeah, Madam Chair, this is Representative
Donalds from Florida, 19.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DONALDS. Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I have to tell
you, reading this package, and I agree with the Ranking Member
and what he is trying to do. This original package is obscene.
I have never seen anything like this.
I am not talking about it in terms of being, you know, a
Member of the minority party or anything like that. I am
speaking as somebody who actually did lending with the SBA. I
worked at a community bank, I did credit underwriting for many
years, I ran a credit department. When you have to deal with
SBA on the ground it takes time. They are always late to the
deal when it comes to getting these deals done. They are never
early, they are never on time, they are late. Giving them
significantly more dollars is not going to speed up the
process, it is only going to allow the bureaucracy that is SBA
to become even more slow and more unresponsive.
The point that was made about maybe the private sector has
not been able to do a good job lending money, the reason that
is the case is because the federal government, through
regulations that were put through in another committee, the
Financial Services Committee, more than a decade ago, have
crippled community banking in the United States. I know because
I worked at one. I was involved when a lot of these regulations
started coming through. It has crippled community banking in
our country, which actually crippled banking relationships for
micro businesses and small business across our country.
The federal government throwing more money into more pots
is not going to solve the problem of having lenders on the
ground who do not have the regulatory burden on their neck from
a federal government that, frankly, doesn't even know what it
is doing in the first place. That is our core problem.
If we want to talk about getting access to capital for
small businesses, minority businesses, veterans' businesses,
micro businesses, whatever classification you want to throw out
there, then what is required is us taking a look at the
regulatory framework of banking overall, not dropping billions
of dollars into SBA. That is not going to solve the problem. It
will make it look good from D.C. Members of Congress will say,
``oh, look, we did something.'' But it is not going to
effectuate what actually happens on the ground.
I am not speaking about this as a legislator. I am speaking
on it as a former banker, somebody that was in the streets,
that has done the hard work, that has underwritten these small
loans that the majority party is talking about have evaporated.
That is because it has been an insane regulatory environment in
community banking for the last decade. If you talk to any
community banker, and I have talked to a lot of them in the
State of Florida. I had during my time in the state legislature
and my time now, they will tell you the exact same thing.
This is a bad package, this is not what we should be doing.
We should be looking at regulatory reform.
I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Is there any further debate on the
amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the
gentleman from Missouri.
I ask all Members attending virtually to please unmute
yourself for the vote.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The
amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, I would like to move that we
have a roll call vote on that, please, the yeas and nays.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has requested a
recorded vote. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to
Committee Rule 13 and House Rule XI, Clause 2, further
proceedings on the amendment are postponed.
Now we will move to consideration of Luetkemeyer's 2v1
amendment.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Missouri seek
recognition?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the
dais, I ask it to be read.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of
the amendment will be dispensed with. The Ranking Member is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair. Due to lack of
oversight controls and the SBA Administrator's inability to
administer many of these programs, fraudulent actors have been
taking advantage of and abused many COVID-19 relief programs.
Reports indicate that some of this funding has been sent
overseas to bad actors in poor nations.
This amendment will help us determine if American taxpayer
dollars illegally made their way to Afghanistan or individuals
associated with the Taliban. The American people deserve to
know this information.
I think it is very important that we understand where these
dollars are going. There are some reports out there that
indicate that some of these dollars went to the wrong people
and got in the wrong hands. I think SBA needs to report back to
us exactly if this has happened, who got it, when they got it,
how they got it. If not, that is fine, it is just another rumor
that we need to put to rest. I think it is very important that
we get to the bottom of this, and I think a report is very
appropriate.
With that I urge its adoption.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Do other Members wish to be
recognized on the amendment?
Mr. CROW. Madam Chair, I wish to be recognized.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman from Colorado is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CROW. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, too,
Ranking Member Luetkemeyer. It has been a real pleasure working
with you and I appreciate our collaboration and the positive
work we have done across the aisle and with the other Members
as well.
I do, however, have to respectfully oppose this amendment,
I believe, on several fronts. Number one, this amendment is
designed I think to slow up or to prevent us from moving
forward with a package today that is going to be incredibly
helpful to small businesses, to America, and that is going to
resolve numerous issues. We certainly do not want to have
amendments that are going to prevent this larger package from
moving forward to address the work that needs to be addressed
for the American people and to help us build back and address
the crisis that continues. Frankly, there are so many of our
small businesses that need help, and that is timely in that
respect as well.
Secondly, I share your view of the need for increased
transparency and oversight in Afghanistan. As you know, I am a
veteran of that war and served in both the Armed Services and
the Intelligence Committee, and pay a lot of attention to
issues of national security, to issues of the Taliban, and, you
know, we will be working with many of you to conduct that
oversight in the months and years ahead. However, this is not
the proper vehicle to do that. We have oversight mechanisms
through the OIG, we have oversight mechanisms through the
Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets Control. There are
many people and entities that are far better suited to do that
and I do not agree--adding duplicative and unnecessary
government bureaucracy and additional mechanisms in place that
would be inefficient, that would not actually achieve that
purpose but would instead achieve a purpose of slowing down or
preventing us from passing what is a terribly needed bill and
one that we are taking up today.
For all of those reasons I respectfully oppose the
amendment.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment?
I ask that my colleagues oppose this amendment which tries
to derail this process today.
Is there any further debate on the amendment? Seeing none,
the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from
Missouri.
I ask all Members attending virtually to please unmute
yourself for the vote.
All those in favor of the amendment, say yes, aye.
All those opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The
amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, I would like to move for the
roll call vote of the ayes and nays on this, please.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has requested a
recorded vote. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to
Committee Rule 13 and House Rule XI, Clause 2, further
proceedings on the amendment are postponed.
Now we will move to consideration of amendment number 3,
Hagedorn 1v1. For what purpose does the gentleman from
Minnesota seek recognition?
Mr. HAGEDORN. I have an amendment at the desk, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute for the Committee Print offered by Mr. Hagedorn.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of
the amendment will be dispensed. The gentleman is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. HAGEDORN. I have two amendments at the desk. If the
clerk could clarify. I think Number 1 has to do with the
Congressional Budget Office, is that correct? Or is this the
one on the executive order? We may have numbered them and----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. We are considering 1v1.
Mr. HAGEDORN. Could you read the amendment?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. CBO, sir.
Mr. HAGEDORN. CBO, okay, thank you. I had it right. Madam
Chair, thank you for the opportunity and the amendment here. We
want to talk about the step up in basis issue that the
Administration and the Committee and others in Congress are
pushing.
What our amendment would do is to have the Congressional
Budget Office take a look at the proposal that is in the
overall bill that would change some of these tax implications
on a stepped-up basis has to do with the new death tax for that
matter, and capital gains that people would pay upon the death
of somebody who is trying to transfer, in this case a small
business, along to someone in their family.
I am very concerned that this will have an adverse effect
on small businesses, and if the Congressional Budget Office
were to come back with that finding, then the spending in the
bill would be rescinded for all intents and purposes.
My purpose behind that is that if we are going to put
something so draconian in play that we are going to actually
hurt small businesses, and we are the Small Business Committee,
then we should start at square one. We should start over and
look at this.
This is a proposal that is out there that has been done
before. Senator Max Baucus, who Chaired the Finance Committee
for many years, he talks about how this was implemented back in
the '70s and then again in 2010 and basically establishing this
form of death tax. It was so draconian that they had to go back
and repeal it very quickly because it was devastating small
businesses and farms.
I don't think too many Members, if they get out and talk to
small businesses or some of the small business groups, have to
go too far before they find people who say that this proposal
of eliminating the stepped-up basis would just be devastating
to small businesses, to our family farmers, and others trying
to carry on the business and the farms into the future from
generation to generation.
That is one of the best things we have in America, if you
build a farm, if you build a business, it is a family business,
you carry it on, and it becomes a great enterprise into the
future. I don't think we want to stop that.
So, I would just appeal to the Committee to support my
amendment and to make sure that we do everything possible to
look into this and to protect our small businesses.
With that I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Do other
Members wish to be recognized on the amendment?
Ms. CHU. Madam Chair, I seek recognition.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady seeks recognition in
opposition to the amendment?
Ms. CHU. Yes.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. CHU. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
First of all, it asks the Congressional Budget Office to
provide analysis of tax policy to Congress. But actually, it is
the Joint Committee on Taxation that is responsible for
providing analysis of tax policy to Congress. So, requesting
the study from CBO is a pointless exercise.
Additionally, any changes to step-up in basis would be
within the exclusive purview of the Ways and Means Committee.
Any amendment to constrain or eliminate funding in our
Committee's jurisdiction based on what another committee may or
may not do is a foolish concession of our Committee's
responsibilities to help small businesses.
For these reasons I oppose this amendment and I urge my
colleagues to do the same.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back. Do any
other Members seek recognition on the amendment?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, Congressman Luetkemeyer seeks
recognition. Move to strike the last word.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you. I certainly support the
gentleman from Minnesota's amendment. I think he is ensuring
that spending contained in this regulation package is not
personal businesses.
I beg to differ with the young lady from California who
thinks that this is only something in the purview of other
committees. This is the Small Business Committee for us to look
at studies or require studies that look at the effects of other
things with regards to small businesses. We are not making any
sort of change here, any change in the law. We are looking for
a study to see what the effects of this is on small businesses,
which is well within our purview.
If we see that it is hurting it, then we can go on and ask
the Ways and Means Committee or whoever to kick it out. But
that is something we can use our study with to make our point.
This is the purpose of this, to look at the reason for this
second death tax, if you will, being implemented by the
Administration in this monstrosity of a bill here.
All this is going to do is speed up consolidation of small
businesses and farms. I have had a farmer come up to me and
say, look, Congressman, I bought my farm 40 years ago for $300
an acre, now it is worth $6,000 an acre. If I die after this
goes into effect, my family can't afford to keep the farm, I
lose it, my family loses it.
The same thing with small businesses. I have had many small
business owners come up to me during this period here and
begged me not to allow this thing to happen. This is a
disaster. For CBO, which is the Congressional Budget Office,
which looks at all the information with regards to these bills,
to do a study, is quite appropriate, I think, especially when
we request it as the Small Business Committee.
So, I certainly support Mr. Hagedorn's amendment. I think
it is very timely, and very appropriate.
With that I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Do other
Members wish to be recognized on the amendment? I will
recognize myself briefly.
As the gentlelady from California has indicated, this
amendment does not take the ideal course of action. I, too,
will be happy to work with my colleagues to request a report
from the Joint Committee on Taxation. With that I ask my
colleagues to oppose this amendment.
The question is on the amendment by the gentleman from
Minnesota.
I ask all Members attending virtually to please unmute
yourself for the vote.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The
amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. HAGEDORN. Madam Chair, I ask for the yeas and nays.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has requested a
recorded vote. A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to
Committee Rule 13 and House Rule XI, Clause 2. Further
proceedings on the amendment are postponed.
Amendment number 4 consideration, Mr. Hagedorn, 2v1. For
what purpose does the gentleman from Minnesota seek
recognition?
Mr. HAGEDORN. I have an amendment at the desk, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of
the amendment will be dispensed with. The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HAGEDORN. Thank you, Madam Chair, appreciate that.
Members of the Committee, this amendment was simply make sure
that the Small Business Administration could not utilize funds
moving into the future to implement President Biden's Executive
Order No. 13985 on equity.
I think we all want equality out of SBA, we want to make
sure everybody is treated the same. But as far as President
Biden's executive order on equity, we still don't know exactly
what means.
Going on about 90 days ago, I wrote the Small Business
administrator, Ms. Guzman, and said could you explain to me how
you are going to reorient SBA programs in order to conform with
this Biden Administration executive order on equity? Still
nothing back. So, we do not even have an understanding from the
SBA as to what they are looking at doing, let alone how they
would expend the funds.
We have had a little bit of a taste of what equity means in
SBA programs recently with the debacle, I guess you would say,
of the Restaurant Revitalization Fund and the way that was
rolled out. The Administration and the Democrats in Congress
put together a system by which we would have a priority list
that would be funded first and then we would have, you know, a
group of people that would be funded later. The priority list
included, for all intents and purposes, everybody who was not a
white male restaurant or bar owner. What happened is the
priority list filled up, the money, for all intents and
purposes, expended, there was no money left. Sixty billion
dollars is needed still to fund the program and to fulfill the
needs of those other restaurant owners. That is not fair, that
is not equal. I don't know how that is not discriminatory. I
asked the Administrator herself during one of our hearings, can
you explain how that is not really racist or discriminatory?
She had no answer.
So, until we have some more understanding of what SBA would
like to do with these programs, what their policies are going
to be, I don't think we should be funding them. And so that is
the purpose of the amendment, is to make sure that we do not
expend any funds out of SBA to fulfill the President's
executive order.
With that I encourage my colleagues to support the
amendment, and I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Do other
Members wish to be recognized on the amendment?
Ms. CHU. Madam Chair, I seek recognition and move to strike
the last word.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady is recognized.
Ms. CHU. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Not
only is this amendment bad policy, but it would undermine the
very mission of the Small Business Administration. President
Biden's executive order does a very important thing: it directs
agencies to consult with Members of communities that have been
historically underrepresented in and underserved by the federal
government. This is a principle part of SBA's mission and
underpins its work on federal contracting, capital access, and
entrepreneurial development.
Now, why is this executive order important? We all saw
firsthand the cost of neglecting underserved businesses when
PPP first launched and big banks turned away countless small
businesses from even applying. This left entire communities
already suffering from disproportionate infection and mortality
rates from COVID behind in our economic recovery. That is why
we have had to set aside for lenders to specifically work with
underserved businesses for these mission-based lenders to help
these businesses. This was a policy that passed Congress
multiple times, actually on a bipartisan basis, and was signed
into law by President Trump.
Most importantly, these set-asides work because SBA works
best when it is proactively addressing the needs of the
underserved.
I urge strong opposition to this amendment, and I yield
back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back. Do other
Members wish to be recognized on this amendment?
Mr. MFUME. Madam Chair, it is Kweisi Mfume of Maryland to
speak in opposition, and I move to strike to the last word.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MFUME. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The executive
order directs that the various agencies within the government
develop a plan to promote equity, inclusion, and accessibility.
That executive order was signed on June 25th. It will be
October 20th shortly and that is the period of time, 125 days
later, that that plan will be then submitted to the White House
for consideration.
So, we are getting into the weeds in terms of presidential
authority and policy by trying to get in front of an executive
order that has a conclusion date for a plan to be considered,
which we have not yet met because we are still in September. I
think at the very least we ought to allow the federal agencies,
by the way, and SBA is included, who are working now together,
talking together, and convening themselves to come up with
their idea of a plan to implement equity, diversion, and
inclusion in different aspects of government awards.
Now, if we do not do that, then we have just taken the guts
and the teeth out of the executive order. We have jumped in
front of a process of which we have no control. We have
subverted the work that has already taken place and is still
taking place by government agencies, and at the end of the day
we still would not have done anything meaningful in this regard
except to slow a process that is already underway.
At the very least we ought to let itself play out. Doing
this now in this bill prevents that from happening because this
bill eventually will be voted on before October 20th.
I would urge strong rejection of this amendment, Madam
Chair, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Do other
Members wish to be recognized on the amendment?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, this is Congressman
Luetkemeyer. I would like to speak, please.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman from Missouri is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to support
the gentleman from Minnesota's amendment that would prohibit
the use of federal funds to implement President Biden's
executive order. His executive order mandates a program that
provides preference based on race and identity. As a reminder,
the Democrats used this exact same preferential reconciliation
process, which was deemed unconstitutional by two separate
state courts, Texas and Tennessee, to create the Restaurant
Revitalization Fund.
I think the gentleman from Minnesota correctly pointed out
the problems that we have with this. I think there is a better
way to make sure that we make sure that everybody has free and
fair access to these funds and these programs, but to
prioritize them goes against the very constitution. The way
that the Texas and Tennessee courts have decided, you cannot do
what was proposed and was in law, in fact, in the Restaurant
Revitalization Program.
I am fearful we are going down the same road again. We have
got to find a better way to do this. In fact, if you look at
the programs that SBA already has and some of the directives
that are in those programs, there is already in these programs
a lot of safeguards to make sure these things are working. If
they are not working correctly, then we have got to go in and
fix those programs to make sure it happens because SBA's
probably not doing it correctly. I am not sure this executive
order is the right approach, and I think the gentleman from
Minnesota's got the proper way to go about trying to fix these
problems.
With that I support his amendment, and I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. For what
purpose does the gentleman from Louisiana seek recognition?
Mr. CARTER. Madam Chair, I rise to vigorously oppose this
amendment.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CARTER. I ask that the last word be struck.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman----
Mr. CARTER. This amendment prohibits any Small Business
Administration funding in this act to be used for
implementation of President's executive order 13985. Executive
order 13985 is advancing racial equity and support for
underserved communities through the federal government and
strengthens the federal workforce by promoting diversity,
equality, inclusion, and accessibility.
The executive order is based on a growing body of evidence
which demonstrates that diverse, equitable, and accessible work
places yield higher performance.
My district is southeast Louisiana and it has just
experienced a devastating hurricane. We are in the process of
recovering and rebuilding. I am fighting to make sure that
small business owners in my community are involved in the
recovery following Hurricane Ida. They should be the ones
getting paid to rebuild our communities, not some out of state
business interests that don't recognize the value of
disadvantaged businesses, African American, women, Latina, and
other--veteran owned as well. This amendment will go directly
against that. It will make it harder for our local businesses
to get involved and would keep up the history of small firms
who do the actual work, but get pennies on the dollar while
often times being offered nearly a small percentage of what it
is due to close out the account because they have waited 90,
120, or so many days before being paid. Small businesses simply
cannot operate this way.
This amendment would ensure these individuals remain
historically and systematically disadvantaged and reward big
businesses instead.
When your community is going through a tough disaster,
local small businesses should be the ones that we are able to
use to help in the recovery, not just big businesses. The need
to recognize and support our minority and small business
enterprises is always great, but it is especially important in
the aftermath of a disaster.
The Administration recognizes that and this executive order
is a step in the right direction to recognize the tremendous
value that small businesses bring to our community. We watched
the PPP dollars whereas they came in and went out. Small
businesses had to compete with large businesses. By and large,
large businesses in most cases have accountants, lawyers, and
consultants to navigate the system and to advance while the
dollars are available. In many cases small businesses, by the
time they got themselves acclimated and prepared to apply, all
the resources were gone.
Let us stand firm and send a message to the American small
business owner that we hear you and we are here to support you
in every possible way.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment?
I will recognize myself briefly.
I am echoing Ms. Chu's comments. I ask that my colleagues
oppose this poison pill amendment.
The question is on the amendment by the gentleman from
Minnesota. I ask all Members attending virtually to please
unmute yourselves for the vote.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The
amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. HAGEDORN. Madam Chair, I ask for the ayes and nays.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has requested a
recorded vote. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to
Committee Rule 13 and House Rule XI, Clause 2, further
proceedings on the amendment are postponed.
Now we will consider amendment number 5, Stauber 1v1. For
what purpose does the gentleman from Minnesota seeks
recognition?
Mr. STAUBER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk
please.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection further reading of
the amendment will be dispensed with.
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. STAUBER. I thank you, Madam Chair.
In the summer of 2020 civil unrest plagued cities across
this nation and our small businesses paid the price.
Small businesses were looted, damaged, burned to the ground
and destroyed that summer and the leaders in Washington, the
media, and some Members of this very chamber encouraged it. And
how did our local governments respond? How did they decide to
rebuild their communities, to help their small businesses in
their time of need? They decided to defund the police, they
reduced budgets, forced officers into early retirement, and
chilled recruitment. They removed any protections the small
businesses had left, all while hiring private security for
themselves.
The local governments in big cities across this nation
abandoned small businesses. It is plain and simple.
Today, our local communities are still suffering. Crime is
an all-time high, deaths and assaults on our law enforcement
men and women are off the charts. The families who have tried
to rebuild from the damage and destruction done to their
businesses are still struggling. Arguably, it is pretty
difficult to find customers when they are worried about the
next carjacking or drive by shooting that might take their
child's life.
My amendment will require the Small Business Administration
to create a report on the number of small businesses which were
looted in the summer of 2020. It will require the SBA to note
how many of these small businesses are in communities where
that local government has decided to move protections for the
community Members and small businesses by defunding the police
and leaving those communities less safe.
It will also require the SBA to report on the status of
recovery for those small businesses looted, burned, and
damaged. And I believe what we will find is that many small
businesses are still struggling to survive in those areas. That
is if they have made it already thus far.
It is high time that we understand the real effects of the
defund the police movement. I encourage adoption to my
amendment.
I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment?
The gentleman from Louisiana is seeking recognition.
The gentleman needs to unmute.
Mr. CARTER. I am sorry, Madam Chair. That was still--my
hand was still up from the last comment, so I waive.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Thank you.
Do other Members wish to be recognized on this amendment?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, Luetkemeyer from Missouri
would like to strike the last word and be recognized.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman from Missouri is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you very much.
I certainly support the gentleman from Minnesota's
amendment to direct SBA to report the number of small
businesses looted during the civil unrest of 2020. I think we
need to know the extent of the damage done to the various small
businesses in these different communities. By knowing that
extent and continuing to see this defund the police movement,
we will know the exposure of additional businesses to perhaps
be damaged and come under attack by different groups. At that
point then perhaps some other measures can be taken to protect
them.
I think it is our job as the Small Business Committee,
which our purview over the small businesses is to look out for
their well-being on all fronts. I think it is important that we
get this done.
This gentleman in Minnesota is a former police officer
himself. He knows the kind of problems that exist in
communities and can be best able to understand those
ramifications. I think this amendment really does a good job of
letting us know the extent of the continued risk that could be
out there for our small business communities.
With that, I urge the adoption of the amendment. I yield
back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
Do----
Mr. MFUME. Madam Chair, Mr. Mfume of Maryland to speak in
opposition and to strike the last word please.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman from Maryland is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MFUME. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I am
sure it is well intentioned, but I think this is the wrong
vehicle for it and let me tell you why.
We could easily as a Committee, or you and the Ranking
Member, or any other Member of the Committee, request the SBA
to do that and they will follow through. I would think that the
SBA probably is not the best source to get that information or
to have that kind of an overview or an investigation. I think
that would be the inspector general, of which any Member of
Congress can request and get the inspector general to provide
what I would believe would be a much more detailed set of
answers to the gentleman's questions.
But to attach it to this vehicle, in my opinion, does the
wrong thing. It doesn't get to the heart of the issue and it
sort of sidetracks where we're going with this bill.
I would rise in opposition to it and urge consideration by
the gentleman of either a letter from the Committee seeking
that information, or a request to the inspector general from
the Member himself, as other Members do from time to time, to
request that information.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
Is there any further debate on this amendment?
I would recognize myself briefly.
Mr. STAUBER. Madam Chair? Madam Chair, Stauber here.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Stauber, you already have spoken.
Mr. GARBARINO. Madam Chair?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Yes, Mr. Garbarino.
Mr. GARBARINO. I would like to strike the last work and
yield to Mr. Stauber.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. STAUBER. Well, thank you. It won't take me that long.
I appreciate my colleague's most recent comments here and I
will ask if he will commit to work with me. I am getting these
numbers. My colleague from Maryland who just spoke.
Mr. MFUME. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely.
But, again, I want to point out, if I might, Madam Chair,
the fact that the Ranking Member and the Chair of the Committee
writing on behalf of a full committee would probably get a
quicker response than you or I individually. But if you just
want to do that, I will be more than happy to do it to the
extent that I have the ability to also shape the request.
Mr. STAUBER. Thank you.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there
any further debate on the amendment?
I will briefly recognize myself.
Criminal looting and burning destroys the very communities
and small businesses that need uplifting. We can all agree that
victims of crimes, including small businesses, need support of
their local law enforcement and other local community
institutions and services to recover and rebuild. This
legislative effort that we are working on today will make
meaningful long-term investments to support small businesses in
underserved communities. However, I disagree with the premise
of this amendment because it will divert critical SBA resources
away from the focus of our effort today, providing billions of
diverse investments to capital access, procurement, training,
and start up support.
The Small Business Administration--and I agree on this with
Mr. Mfume--should not be wasting critical funds on reports that
local and state governments, and even other agencies already
provide.
For this reason, I oppose this amendment and I urge all my
colleagues to do the same.
The question is on the amendment by the gentleman from
Minnesota. I ask all Members attending virtually to please
unmute yourself for the vote.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposing, say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The
amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. STAUBER. Madam Chair, I request a recorded vote.
Thank you.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has requested a
recorded vote. A roll call vote is ordered.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 13 and House Rule XI, Clause 2
further proceedings on the amendment are postponed.
We now move to amendment consideration number 6, Stauber
2V1. For what purpose does the gentleman from Minnesota seek
recognition?
Mr. STAUBER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of
the amendment will be dispensed with.
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. STAUBER. Thank you, Madam Chair, once again.
I must reiterate the disastrous effects of the defund the
police movement. In my home state of Minnesota, people no
longer feel safe going to Minneapolis. City councils are
supposed to do everything they can to protect and promote their
citizens and city. Minneapolis city council has destroyed it.
This has happened across the nation. Cities that once were
the biggest tourist attractions in the United States are now
desolate or consumed with crime. It is heartbreaking and small
businesses in these communities are paying the price.
Earlier this year the Community Navigators program was
created. The program focuses on targeting outreach to small
businesses during economic recovery, yet local governments have
created the very environments that small businesses need
economic recovery from. That is why I am offering this
amendment.
My amendment will bar local governments who have defunded
the police and actively made their communities less safe, from
participating in the Community Navigators program. However, it
will in no way--and I repeat, it will in no way bar families
and businesses in these communities from participating in this
program.
Small businesses deserve to have community navigators, like
the many small business resource partners that are doing
everything they can to help their communities succeed, not lead
to their demise.
I encourage adoption of my amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment?
Ms. NEWMAN. Madam Chair, I seek recognition.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady is seeking recognition
in opposition to the amendment?
Ms. NEWMAN. Correct. Thank you.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. NEWMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you Ranking
Member.
I rise today to oppose this amendment because it infringes
on, you know, the basic freedoms of state and local government.
It really is curious to me.
Local governments tend to be really terrific at
understanding their own needs. I don't think the federal
government should be telling them what to do.
The Community Navigator pilot program engages with states,
local governments, SBA resource partners, and a lot of other
organizations to target outreach to small businesses in
underserved communities. This vital outreach is meant to level
the economic playing field by providing SBA counseling,
training, and a lot of really good programs. Typically they
provide education, resources to small businesses, and other
counseling that really lifts up all of those who have been
traditionally overlooked and underserved.
This program is vital to kind of leveling the playing
field.
State and local governments should not be penalized from
participating in a program meant to help their most vulnerable
businesses simply because a few Members of the minority party
feel they should spend money on policing.
Again, I reiterate that the local government should really
have domain over how they spend their money and develop
programs. I think they are best suited for that.
In closing, I oppose this amendment because it is a poison
pill and will hurt small businesses that need the services most
and is designed to prevent investments in our country and build
back better for those who deserve it most.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back.
Is there any further debate on the amendment?
Mr. MFUME. Madam Chair, it is Mr. Mfume of Maryland to
speak in opposition.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman from New York is
recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Garbarino.
Mr. GARBARINO. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Strike the last work.
I yield to my colleague, Mr. Stauber.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. STAUBER. Thank you very much to my good friend,
Representative Newman from Illinois. You made a statement that
struck me. I really appreciate this statement. I want us all to
remember this as we move forward. I quoted it. ``The federal
government shouldn't tell local governments what to do''. I
can't tell you how much I appreciate that quote.
I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
Is there any further debate on the amendment?
Mr. MFUME. Madam Chair, it is Mr. Mfume of Maryland to
speak in opposition.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MFUME. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to strike the
last word.
I don't know that this particular bill is trying to tell
local governments what to do--this amendment. What it does is
to bar local participation if we, the federal government,
thinks that the municipality took a vote on something or a
position that we didn't like. So it is to bar them. I think
that is dangerous territory because I just cannot think--and
maybe I am wrong. I am not a historian, but I just cannot think
of a time when the federal government moved to bar a local
municipality from participating in a program that was designed
to be helpful for everyone. It is a tremendous reach, it is a
dangerous precedent and I think in this case it is kind of ill-
conceived because it is not going to, in my opinion, create
anything different except a great deal of animosity, a
dangerous precedent, and an over reach by the federal
government by barring participation of any municipality who
took a position that we ``the federal government'' didn't like.
I am in opposition to this and I would urge its rejection.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
Is there any further debate on the amendment?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, this is Luetkemeyer from
Missouri.
I move to strike the last word.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman from Missouri is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you very much.
This amendment prohibits the local government from
participating in the Community Navigators' program as such
government has taken actions to defund the police.
I think the gentleman has correctly stated the problems
that he is trying to solve here that he sees. I don't think we
can reward local governments who do not value the safety of our
citizens. It is very simple. We--and another previous speaker,
the gentleman from Maryland, made a comment about not
understanding why we can put some ties and strings on things.
We do that all the time with regards to monies that the federal
government appropriates to different groups and different
entities, whether they are states, local governments, school
districts, water districts, whatever. We put strings and ties
and every single thing that we do at the federal government to
any dollars that we sent out, number one, for accountability,
to make sure people behave appropriately, make sure all
entities use the dollars in the correct manor, to make sure
they are going to actually where they are going to go. And we
audit those dollars, or are supposed to be auditing those
dollars, to make sure that happens.
So for us to put into this bill here some protections to
make sure that these local folks are valuing the same values
that we believe are important with regards to how they are
managing their city and city government I think is quite
appropriate, especially whenever we are going to be funding
some of the stuff.
I certainly support the gentleman's amendment and move for
its adoption.
With that, I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
Is there any further debate on the amendment?
Madam Chair?
Who is seeking recognition please?
Mr. STAUBER. Stauber is seeking recognition and I am sure
one of my colleagues is going to give me time.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has already spoken.
Mr. MEUSER. Madam Chair, I yield time to my colleague.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Who is seeking recognition?
Mr. MEUSER. Madam Chair, this is Representative Meuser from
PA 9.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Meuser, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MEUSER. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will yield my time to
Mr. Stauber.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. STAUBER. Thank you very much.
I do want to reply to my good friend from Maryland. I will
give you four instances where the federal government held
federal highway funds from state and local projects to reduce
the breath alcohol from .10 to .08. That is just one that the
federal government has put forward for safety measures.
I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
Is there any further debate on the amendment?
Madam Chair, I seek recognition. I know I have already
spoken, so if one of my colleagues should seek to yield time, I
would gladly accept it.
Mr. CARTER. Madam Chair, I yield time to Mr. Mfume.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Who is seeking recognition please?
Mr. Carter, the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CARTER. Yes, Madam Chair, I would like to relinquish my
time to Mr. Mfume.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields his time to Mr.
Mfume from Maryland.
Mr. MFUME. Thank you, Madam Chair.
If someone who has got a mic open could close it or mute
it, that would be good.
What we are talking about here was what was--what came out
of my colleague's mouth and not mine, and was ``if their values
are not our values'' then we have a right to do this.
Values get to be subjective after a while. It depends on
where you live, how you grew up, what you believe in, what you
worship, what you don't. It is a dangerous road to say if their
values are not our values then we have every right to bar them
from participating in a program that we set up to be helpful to
everybody. I can't stress enough that values ought not be the
test here, because tomorrow it is somebody else's values. Or if
the shoe is on the other foot, then it is their values against
ours.
I think it is punitive, I think it is extremely subjective.
On the issue of values, I think that is the wrong criteria in
terms of justifying its implementation or its acceptance.
Again, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for yielding.
I yield back, Madam Chair, and I urge a no vote.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
Is there any further debate on the amendment?
The gentleman from Minnesota, for what purpose?
Mr. PHILLIPS. I move to strike the last word, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. PHILLIPS. I just want to acknowledge, we are all
concerned about crime in cities and throughout the country, and
concerned about looting. In fact, we had an insurrection right
here in this very Capitol just some months ago. If you are one
of the 35 Republicans that voted to initiate a bipartisan
commission to investigate that, I would love to have a
conversation with you about these issues. I would love to. If
you are not, come on. For goodness sakes.
With that, I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
Is there any further debate on the amendment?
I will recognize myself briefly.
As Miss Newman stated, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
poison pill amendment.
The question now is on the amendment by the gentleman from
Minnesota. I ask all Members attending virtually to please
unmute yourself for the vote.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those in favor, say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The
amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. STAUBER. Madam Chair, I request a recorded vote.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has requested a
recorded vote. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to
Committee Rule 13 and House Rule XI, Clause 2 further
proceedings on the amendment are postponed.
Now we will consider amendment number 7, Meuser 1V1. For
what purpose does the gentleman from Pennsylvania seek
recognition?
Mr. MEUSER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk
and I ask for consideration.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of
the amendment will be dispensed with.
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MEUSER. Yes, Madam Chair.
We are working on something here that is quite serious,
right, the idea of expanding the size of our government
spending, our national debt, by $3.5 trillion plus, more than
15 percent of our overall debt in just one big swoop. Excessive
spending that nearly 50 percent plus of the U.S. House of
Representatives thinks is absolutely not necessary, as well as
a reflection of the American people.
The idea that we are discussing here, hidden taxes on small
businesses and other issues related to public safety and local
jurisdictions is--boy, we have just really got to give that a
little bit more thought.
My amendment, Madam Chair, is about the American people
deserving the true cost--understanding the true cost of such
excessive government spending of their taxpayer dollars. We
need to keep in mind, especially when it will directly affect
their finances.
In recent months American families have been forced to
adjust their budgets around a more than 5 percent jump in
prices on gasoline, food--we all know the products that have
increased--inflation that hasn't been seen since the '70s,
which was a result of the last excessive spending package,
which wasn't all unnecessary, but even Democrat economists said
that three times too much, that being the so-called Rescue
Package.
These inflation prices, in effect of $1.9 trillion within
the American Rescue Package, negatively affected families and
businesses alike in my district, wiped out wage increases, and
sent the cost of living way up. After persevering through a
pandemic that had its own devastating effects, small businesses
are dealing with added costs, dealing with the inability to get
workers, because we are overcompensating in many states the
unemployed, and are continuing to struggle with all of these
rising costs of goods and services.
Despite its effects on our economy, my Democrat colleagues
are eager to use the same--completely partisan by the way--
budget reconciliation process to spend another $3.5 trillion.
This proposal will not only increase taxes, as stated, on our
small businesses, on families, less than at $400,000, with
everything that is hidden in here.
My amendment would require the Congressional Budget Office
to project the inflationary impact of this reconciliation bill.
This would mean American families and small business would know
from the CBO the impact on their budget, what their value of
their dollar decrease would be, what their cost of goods will
increase because of this reconciliation process initiative that
dramatically increased the role of government in their lives,
as stated.
When inflation was a significant concern in the '70s, as
stated, the CBO issued inflationary projections for individual
bills. Restoring this practice for this bill is a common-sense
initiative, a transparency initiative that will enable us to
understand the true inflationary impacts of this spending bill
on main street and families in all of our districts.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment?
I will recognize----
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Luetkemeyer. I would like to move to
strike the last word.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman from Missouri is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you very much. I will try and be
very brief here. You know, this is, I think, an extremely
important amendment from the standpoint that we need to know
the effects of this bill, this $3.5 trillion bill, inflationary
effects, on our small businesses and our families. If you will
remember, you know, inflation, quite frankly, is taxation. So,
you get something for nothing--you pay a bill for nothing here.
You get nothing back in the inflationary cost of things.
If you remember back when we were getting ready to pass the
$1.9 trillion bill back, I think, it was in February, they said
at that time, that we still had $1 trillion left from the
previous bills that was unspent. CBO said that if nothing
happened, if we did not pass this bill, we would have a 5
percent increase in our GDP by the end of the year and it was
unnecessary. CBO said that. And here, what we are doing is
asking them again to do a 5-year inflationary study to see what
the effects of this bill on top of this other $1.9 trillion
that was not necessary that is out there now, what that is.
I think it is very appropriate and I certainly thank the
gentleman for his thoughtful initiative here because inflation
is eating away at the very heart of our economy. Again, like I
said, inflation is taxation. It is a hidden cost that you get
nothing for. People who prior to the pandemic, their wages were
increasing, real wages were increasing. Now, the inflation is
eating away at their ability to pay their bills because those
dollars don't go as far as they used to anymore. The pay
increases they got are now eaten up by inflation and we are
back to square zero.
I certainly support this amendment. I urge for its
adoption. With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there
any further debate on this amendment?
Mr. MFUME. Madam Chair, Mr. Mfume of Maryland to speak in
opposition.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman from Maryland is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MFUME. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to strike the
last word. I don't want to be objecting to everything, but in
this particular case, it is important to point out that the CBO
regularly publishes projections of economic budget outcomes.
They do it on their own, which incorporate the assumption that
laws, current laws, and laws that are being proposed do, in
fact, have an impact. The baseline projections that they cover
is a 10-year period, which goes beyond the 5-year period being
requested in this amendment. Most of those reports are
projections that describe the differences between current
projections and previous ones. They compare economic forecasts
with those of other forecasters. They show the budgetary impact
of alternative policy assumptions, and they generally do that
every January. They follow-up in every March and then again in
August.
Those things are going to happen whether we pass this or
not. They are going to happen in a much more detailed way with
greater comparisons over a longer period of time than is being
requested in this particular amendment. So, again, I think this
is the wrong vehicle to use to get the CBO to do what they are
going to do anyway come this January, which they have been
doing for years. Which, in this case, will go far beyond what
is being requested in this particular amendment.
I would urge a no vote. But this time, Madam Chair, I am
going reserve the balance of my time until the end of the
debate in case I have to try to further clarify my point. I
yield back right now and reserve.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman reserved. Is there any
further debate on the amendment? I would now like----
Mr. MEUSER. Madam Chair, may I be recognized? This is
Representative Meuser.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Meuser, I believe that you have
already spoken on this amendment.
Mr. GARBARINO. Madam Chair?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Yes?
Mr. GARBARINO. May I be recognized?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Garbarino, for what purpose are
you----
Mr. GARBARINO. I would like----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ.--seeking recognition?
Mr. GARBARINO.--to strike the last word and yield to my
colleague Mr. Meuser.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes. The gentleman from?
Mr. MEUSER. Pennsylvania.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Is recognized.
Mr. MEUSER. Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank my colleague
Representative Garbarino.
Respectfully, to the gentleman in opposition, those reports
will come out well after the fact of such a reconciliation
monstrosity, frankly, being passed, right? The $3.5 trillion of
taxpayer dollars without them having transparency as to what
the results and impact of this unbelievable level of spending.
Again, adding 15 percent to our national debt in one swoop. I
would think for the benefit of transparency and truth for what
this bill will mean to those that we are passing it for, those
who we work for as elected representatives, such information
would be important as to whether or not they would be
supportive or have further questions of their representatives.
With that, I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there
any further debate on the amendment?
Mr. MFUME. Madam Chair, reclaiming my time. Mr. Mfume of
Maryland.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Mfume, you are recognized.
Mr. MFUME. Yeah, to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I
absolutely understand----
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, this is Congressman
Leutkemeyer from Missouri. You can't hold reserve time during a
hearing like this. He has to go back through another one of
your Members. Let's make sure we get this,----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER.--you know, this correct.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman from Missouri is
correct. If there is any Member that will seek recognition for
the purpose of yielding to Mr.----
Ms. HOULAHAN. Madam Chair?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ.--Mfume?
Ms. HOULAHAN. Madam Chair, it is Rep Houlahan. I seek to be
recognized.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady from Pennsylvania----
Ms. HOULAHAN. I move to strike the last word.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. HOULAHAN. I would like to yield my time to
Representative Mfume, please.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Mfume is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MFUME. Thank you, Madam Chair. I really thank the
gentlewoman for yielding her time. I will not consume all of
it. I just want to point out the fact that as I was about to
say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I really understand his
concern here. I understand his angst. I mean, sometimes we
ought to have that same angst when we talk about spending tax
dollars for anything. So, I am not objecting in that regard.
I just think that in this case, that the CBO is going to do
what it does every January, which is 4 months from now. If we
pass this amendment, the SBA could not conceivably do what it
is being asked to be done before passage of the bill, and maybe
not even before January. It strikes me as an effort that may
have good intentions but will not yield the results that are
being sought. Again, I think it confuses the efforts of what we
are doing here by interjecting something that may be well
intentioned, but unable to reach its conclusion and provide the
information before these matters are voted on or even before
January when the CBO will do what it does every year. Which,
again, as I said before, is even more extensive in terms of
what is being asked for in this amendment.
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I yield back, Madam
Chair. I urge a no vote.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Ms. Houlahan yields back?
Ms. HOULAHAN. Yes, Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my
time.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. Is there any further
debate on the amendment?
I would now like to recognize myself on the amendment. I
certainly share the concerns of my colleague, Mr. Meuser, about
the impact of inflation of our small businesses. Over the past
year and a half, many of the supply chains our small businesses
have formed and depended on were disrupted by the pandemic.
Many small business owners have been left to find new suppliers
at higher prices. Fortunately, the Biden Administration has
already taken steps to mitigate price increases by taking
action against the meat packing industry for illegal price
fixing, which is increasing and creating crises for restaurants
across the country. Furthermore, other legislation introduced
this Congress will work to strengthen our supply chains and
make them more resilient, such as the bipartisan infrastructure
package passed by the House, which makes investments in
domestic manufacturing, roads, bridges, airports, and seaports.
This is a poison pill amendment designed to undermine our
efforts to provide billions of dollars in small business
assistance to support the long-term growth of entrepreneurs.
Therefore, I must oppose this amendment and I urge my
colleagues to vote no.
The question is on the amendment by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania. I ask all Members attending virtually to please
unmute yourself for the vote.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
The amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. MEUSER. Madam Chair, I request a recorded vote, please.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has requested a
recorded vote. A roll call is ordered. Pursuant to Committee
Rule 13 and House Rule XI, Clause 2, further proceedings on the
amendment are postponed.
Now, we will consider amendment number 8, Mr. Meuser, 2V1.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Pennsylvania seek
recognition?
Mr. MEUSER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk
and I ask for its consideration.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of
the amendment will be dispensed with. The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MEUSER. Thank you, Madam Chair. As we have all
unfortunately witnessed in recent weeks, the Biden
Administration's handling of our withdrawal from Afghanistan
resulted in truly an unmitigated disaster. The Taliban have
taken over the country by force reaching the capital in a
matter of days, forcing the U.S. and our allies to evacuate
along with leaving Americans behind. We left quite a bit of
equipment as well and military hardware. Not only have
Americans been harmed and stranded in this debacle, but the
level of cost for this equipment is extraordinarily high and
somewhat unknown. We are spending a lot of time estimating its
cost.
My amendment would require the SBA to convene a committee
of procurement officers from throughout the federal government
to assess and identify the actual dollar amount and number of
items procured from small businesses that have been left behind
in Afghanistan. The mess created by the Biden Administration in
Afghanistan has implications that reach far beyond the already
severe issues our nation has already to bear. Adopting this
amendment will not only help us fully comprehend the damage and
the costs incurred but will further assist in making sure that
something like this doesn't happen so hastily in the future.
Thank you and I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Do other
Members wish to be recognized on the amendment?
Mr. CROW. Madam Chair, I wish to be recognized.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr.
Crow, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CROW. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to Mr. Meuser
for recommending this amendment. I actually agree with the
spirit and the content of this amendment. In fact, you know, as
a veteran of this war and as somebody who has led in Congress
on issues of Afghan oversight and review over the last couple
of years, including my amendment in 2020 with Ms. Cheney to put
some oversight in place, I actually don't think this is the
right vehicle to do it.
I would know that because I actually led just a week ago,
the Armed Services Committee's amendment actually does what you
are proposing to do. We passed an amendment that actually is in
the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act,
which would actually complete this comprehensive assessment, do
an inventory of equipment left behind, and ask the
Administration and the Secretary of Defense to submit a written
report no later by the end of this year on the status of all of
that equipment, where it is, and then the plans to remediate
and recover that equipment.
We already have something in place, and we have something
in place that is within a committee of jurisdiction on this
issue because the committees of jurisdiction oversee it. These
issues are Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and House
Intelligence. I, frankly, would be hard pressed to think of a
committee that would be less appropriate to do something of
this nature than the Small Business Committee, perhaps the
Joint Committee on the Library would be potentially less
appropriate to conduct this type of work.
This is not the time or the place for an amendment of this
nature. This amendment not only was not the right place and the
vehicle through this Committee, but it would have the overall
impact of just slowing down what is otherwise a bill focused on
American businesses. Small businesses that are in desperate
need of relief and support and that should remain our focus
here today.
For all of those reasons, Madam Chair, I oppose the
amendment, and would recommend all of my colleagues do the
same. I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there
any further debate on the amendment?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, this is Congressman
Luetkemeyer of Missouri. I move to strike the last word.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman from Missouri is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you very much. I certainly support
the gentleman from Pennsylvania's amendment. I think that we
need to know the extent of small business equipment that has
been given to the Taliban, which they can then use against us.
I see I am frozen. Hopefully, we are not totally frozen here.
It's just disappointing to see and hear the previous
gentleman's comments with regards to comparing the seriousness
of our handing over of military equipment and our request to
understand the impact on small businesses, the tieback to them,
to a committee on libraries. I think that is denigrating to our
small business folks and it is certainly disappointing. With
that, I aim to support and adopt the amendment. I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there
any further debate on the amendment?
Mr. MFUME. Madam Chair, Mr. Mfume of Maryland to speak in
opposition.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman rises to strike the
last word?
Mr. MFUME. Yes, I do.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman from Maryland is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MFUME. Thank you, Madam Chair. My opposition comes as
the result of the redundancy that would take place if this were
to be passed. Also, the inability on the issue of compliance.
On the redundancy, the distinguished gentleman from Colorado is
correct. This has already been passed by the proper committee
of oversight. It is part of the National Defense
Reauthorization Act. It is going to take place and it is going
to take place on a very large scale. We will all look at that
information as we should.
I agree with the author of the amendment that it is very
important to find out just what is left and to be able to make
sure that that is a historical fact. And that we as a
government have that information not only to make sure that if
we are in a similar situation, we learn from this one. More
importantly, just to know because all this equipment was paid
for by taxpayers. It is well intentioned in that regard, but it
is redundant considering that it has already been passed and it
is already now in a bill for approval before the House.
The compliance matter gets to the heart of the amendment in
which the amendment seeks to get the SBA to gather and compel
procurement officers at every agency in the government to give
them an assessment of what they may have purchased that has not
been accounted for or what they believe may not be accounted
for. I would just remind my colleagues that the SBA does not
have the authority to be able to command procurement officers
across the government to give them anything. I mean, if I were
running the Department of Energy or NASA, I would reject this,
and my procurement officer would not be a part of it simply
because of the domain issue.
In a particular agency, that is their domain. They cannot
be compelled by another agency, particularly SBA, to comply
with something like this. It is difficult to bring about
compliance should it pass, and should it pass, it is obviously
redundant to something that has already previously passed and
is now in a bill awaiting finally passage.
I commend the gentleman. I understand his intent. I think
as the gentleman from Colorado said, this is not the right
vehicle for it. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there
any further debate on the amendment?
I will recognize myself briefly to ask my colleagues to
oppose this amendment since it proposes to take necessary
important resources away from small businesses. Particularly,
in the area of lending and contracting support.
Now, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania. I ask all Members attending virtually to please
unmute yourself for the vote.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
The amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. GARBARINO. Madam Chair, I do ask for a recorded vote,
please.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has requested a
recorded vote. A roll call is ordered. Pursuant to Committee
Rule 13 and House Rule XI, Clause 2, further proceedings on the
amendment are postponed.
Now we will move to consider amendment number 11, Garbarino
1V1. For what purpose does the gentleman from New York seek
recognition?
Mr. GARBARINO. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have an amendment
at the desk.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of
the amendment will be dispensed with. The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GARBARINO. Thank you. We, as Members of Congress, have
heard for months that crucial federal funding investments must
be made to address the infrastructure needs across the country.
We must not delay in providing such funds once the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Investment in Jobs Act is considered by
Congress. I agree with many of my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle, the country is clamoring for infrastructure
investment and commonsense bipartisan solutions. That very
statement was expressed to Speaker Pelosi in a letter dated
August 12th from nine of my democratic colleagues, two on this
committee. Unfortunately, House democratic leadership has
instead prioritized the partisan goal of pushing through this
reconciliation budget resolution, a portion of which we are
marking up here today.
My amendment directs that the SBA prioritize the
implementation and issuing of rules or guidance to carry out
the requirements of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act before the SBA issues rules or guidance or
expending amounts appropriated to carry out the reconciliation
budget resolution. If this amendment is agreed to, it will
prioritize the consideration of the infrastructure package over
the partisan wish list and reckless spending of congressional
leadership and the White House. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Do any
other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, this is Congressman
Luetkemeyer from Missouri. I move to strike the last word.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman from Missouri is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you very much. Again, I support the
gentleman from New York's amendment here. I think it is
important that we prioritize how we are going to be funding the
different needs that are out there with regards to our country
and our small businesses. I know Mr. Garbarino's next amendment
is going to deal with the Restaurant Revitalization Fund. I
think this is an example, I think, of the fact that there is no
money in this bill for that very important program and I think
this is--his amendment rightly points out that we need to
prioritize things especially in our purview that are not being
taken care of. I certainly applaud the gentleman's initiative
and amendment. I urge its adoption. With that, I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there
any further debate on the amendment?
I would now like to recognize myself. I share the views of
my colleague that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill will help
many small firms and their communities across the country.
However, I would like to remind my colleague that the Small
Business Administration does not currently have any involvement
in carrying out the rules for the Bipartisan Infrastructure
bill.
We should be weary of tying the hands of the administration
and slowing down the process of implementing the contents of
funding under consideration today. Slowing this process will
lead to delays and uncertainty for small businesses across the
country, ultimately hurting small businesses and the
communities they serve alongside slowing down the economic
recovery for all Americans.
Our role here should be to help small firms and create the
conditions for a steady economic recovery. Therefore, I oppose
this amendment and I encourage my colleagues to vote no.
The question is on the amendment by the gentleman from New
York. I ask all Members attending virtually to please unmute
yourselves for the vote.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
The amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. GARBARINO. Madam Chair, I would request a recorded
vote.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has requested a
recorded vote. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to
Committee Rule 13 and House Rule XI, Clause 2, further
proceedings on the amendment are postponed.
Now, we will move to consideration of amendment number 12,
Garbarino 2V1. For what purpose does the gentleman from New
York seek recognition?
Mr. GARBARINO. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have an amendment
at the desk.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of
the amendment will be dispensed with. The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GARBARINO. Thank you. Small businesses across the
country have been crippled by the effects of and the response
to the COVID-19 pandemic and emergence of the Delta variant. No
industry has been hit harder than the restaurant industry. The
second largest private sector employer in the country has now
seen more than 110,000 restaurants close since the pandemic
began. Recent reports claim that the trend of closing
restaurants that began in 2020 has continued into 2021.
Seventeen percent of restaurants have closed in this country
during the first half of this year.
Once again, these small family-owned entrepreneurs need our
help and our assistance. Since being elected to Congress, I
have focused on providing relief to our small businesses,
especially to our restaurants, taverns, and eateries. Early on,
I became a cosponsor of the Restaurants Act, a bill that would
inject 120 billion in restaurant relief for these struggling
small businesses.
To continue my early support for restaurants, I offered an
amendment in this very Committee that would have provided
additional funding to the Restaurant Revitalization Fund from a
proposed 25 billion to 45 billion in the American Rescue Plan.
Unfortunately, the Restaurant Revitalization Fund was woefully
underfunded by my colleagues. I am now a staunch supporter and
cosponsor of the Ranking Member's proposal known as the Entree
Act to provide 60 billion in existing funds to properly fund
the Restaurant Revitalization Fund. Now, I bring forward this
amendment to provide all of the 23.6 billion in funding to the
Restaurant Revitalization Fund and to insert provisions of the
Entree Act to ensure proper oversight is applied to the
Restaurant Revitalization Fund and preferential treatment is
prohibited.
As I mention preferential treatment and proper oversight, I
must also request this Committee's attention to other SBA
COVID-19 response programs. Most notably, the Shuttered Venue
Operators Grant Program. Today, through this amendment, I am
asking for additional funding to the Restaurant Revitalization
Fund, but I call on this Committee to hold necessary hearings
to hear testimony and consider expansion of the Shuttered Venue
Operators Grant Program to provide much needed assistance to
amusement parks, arcades, and other concession operators. These
small businesses have been ignored long enough. It is time we
take responsibility and provide the attractions industry the
relief they deserve.
This amendment is not a poison pill, in my opinion. It
helps small businesses in every Member's on this Committee's
district. No one on this Committee can say they haven't heard a
restaurant in their district say that they didn't get money
from the Restaurant Revitalization Fund. They need this help.
They need it right now. I have heard from my colleagues today
on this Committee who said we need to do something that is
going to help businesses, small businesses right away. This
amendment will do that by adding 23.6 billion to the Restaurant
Revitalization Fund, which needs more than that, but it is a
good start.
Madam Chair, I think we should all agree to adopt this
amendment. I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Do other
Members wish to be recognized on the amendment? The gentleman--
--
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. This is Mr. Luetkemeyer from Missouri. I
would like to strike the last word and speak on the amendment.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Well, I will recognize a Member from
my side, the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Phillips, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PHILLIPS. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to salute my
colleague from New York. I think there is almost unanimous
agreement that we have to replenish the RRF and take care of
our nation's restaurants that have struggled because of COVID-
19. Given the bipartisan and bicameral support for replenishing
RRF, we should work together in a bipartisan fashion to
increase that funding so that more eligible business can
receive that assistance.
Most of us are supportive of the bipartisan Restaurant
Revitalization Fund Replenishment Act, which has over 200
cosponsors at the moment. We have got to come together as
Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate and provide
additional relief for struggling businesses all around the
country. Unfortunately, funding levels in the bill that we are
considering today cannot cover that $46 billion shortfall in
RRF. The amendment does not include support for very important
and other hard-hit industries like gyms, live entertainment
venues, hotels, and travel businesses, and the like that are
also struggling mightily because of COVID-19.
Given the ongoing challenges facing small businesses across
many different sectors that this Committee continues to hear
about, we are focusing today on broad-based programs designed
to help small businesses and entrepreneurs in the long run
rather than just another round of minimal funding that could be
gone in just a few weeks and may not even meet the full demand.
With that said, I am wholeheartedly committed to working
with you, my friend from New York, on a short-term economic
relief package for all hard-hit industries that help meet the
challenges of this moment. I am happy to report once again, as
I did in my opening comments, that work has already begun on a
package that will indeed meet this important need. With that, I
yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there
any further debate on the amendment?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, Congressman Luetkemeyer from
Missouri. I move to strike the last word.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman from Missouri is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you very much. I certainly
appreciate Mr. Phillips' comments a moment ago. I think he is
spot-on from the standpoint that it is unfortunate there is not
enough money in this bill to actually fully fund what we
believe is going to be the needs of the Restaurant
Revitalization Program. I want to congratulate my colleague
here, Mr. Garbarino, from New York who I think has rightly
pointed out a problem that exists that we can fix with this
bill.
This is something we can actually fix. The Entree Act
actually fixes the problem in two ways. It fixes it from the
standpoint of adding more money to it and number two, it fixes
the constitutional problem which exists as we talked about a
while ago because of the court cases in Texas and Tennessee
that said you can't do what we just did in this bill. This
money will be then going back to folks and will be able to be
accessed on a first come first serve basis. I am glad to see we
have got some support across the aisle on this issue because I
think this is a bipartisan issue to be able to get this fund
refunded here.
I would ask my colleagues to remember we need to be looking
at ways to be helpful to small businesses here. At some point,
you all have got to be ready to vote for something. You can't
be against every single thing in our amendments and every
single thing that we propose. You keep talking about
bipartisanship and you haven't been bipartisan on any single
thing yet today. If we can't find bipartisanship around this
amendment, we won't be able to find bipartisanship around
anything. This is the perfect amendment for this bill. It takes
money that is sitting there that is being, in my mind, not
being utilized correctly and we have a recognized need that
even your Members recognize. We have ignored things like the
tax problem. We have stepped up basis on inheritance. You were
going to vote down the inflationary effect on small businesses.
We were going to try to prioritize funding to make sure small
businesses get it. Yet, here is one that is even better than
all of those amendments from the standpoint this one actually
has a recognized problem that is recognized by all. We have a
solution for it and I would certainly urge all my colleagues to
support this. We are going to be watching this vote very
carefully because are you for small business or against small
business? This is a bill that will tell us a whole lot about
where you really stand, especially when it comes to the
bipartisanship. This is one you should be voting for not--my--
--
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there
any further debate on this amendment?
I recognize myself. I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment, which will undermine our efforts to provide broad
support to small businesses. As Mr. Phillips has indicated, we
will work on the restaurant industry. We understand that they
are still suffering, but it is not the only industry that is
suffering right now. We will do a more comprehensive package to
deal with it. With that, I ask my colleagues to oppose this
amendment.
The question is now on the amendment by the gentleman from
New York. I ask all Members attending virtually to please
unmute yourselves for the vote.
All those in favor of the amendment, say aye.
All those opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
The amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, we would like to have a
recorded vote on that.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has requested a
recorded vote. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to
Committee Rule 13 and House Rule XI, Clause 2, further
proceedings on the amendment are postponed.
Now, we move to consideration of amendment number 13, Young
Kim 1D1. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from California
seek recognition? The gentlelady is muted. Ms. Young Kim, you
are still muted. Ms. Young Kim, we cannot hear you. Okay.
Ms. YOUNG KIM. Can you see me now?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Yes, we can see you and we can hear
you. The gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. YOUNG KIM. Thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman. I am
surely disappointed that the Committee is considering another
reconciliation package that spends trillions of taxpayer money
without any Republican input, yet again. This 3.5 trillion
reconciliation package comes at a time when Congress should be
debating more pressing issues like the withdrawal in
Afghanistan and its aftermath and the 30-year high inflation
number.
Congress should be focusing on doing more to stand by our
millions of service members and veterans. We owe it to our
constituents and we owe it to our country. My amendment is
simple. It would direct the Interagency Task Force on Veteran
Small Business Development to conduct a study on the lack of
access to credit for veteran owned small businesses when
compared to non-veteran owned small businesses. The findings
and recommendations of this study will have to be submitted to
the Congress.
An SBA study noted a decline in the establishment of small
businesses among veterans. The study indicated that 1/4 of
veterans who served in World War II, the Korean War, the
Vietnam War Era, were more likely to be self-employed relative
to veterans serving since 2001 or Gulf War veterans. Further, a
2017 Federal Reserve Bank Small Business Credit Survey noted
veteran owned small businesses saw lower credit approval rates
when compared to non-veteran owned businesses.
We should want to find out if there is a direct connection
between the decrease of veteran entrepreneurship and the lack
of access to credit and work together to bridge that gap in
access to credit for our veterans. Millions of Americans from
across our country have served and protected our freedom, and
thousands who willfully put their lives on the line just a few
weeks ago in Afghanistan to save Americans and our allies.
We owe it to them and the rest of our service members to
make it easier for them to come home, unleash their
entrepreneur spirit, and have a chance at the American Dream
they fought to preserve. I urge my colleagues from both sides
of the aisle to support my amendment. With that, I yield back
the balance of my time.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back. Do other
Members wish to be recognized on the amendment?
I will recognize myself in opposition to the amendment. I
share the priority of my colleague, Ms. Young Kim, regarding
the challenges veterans face in accessing credit to start or
grow a small business. Our Committee has highlighted the gaps
in capital access for many underserved entrepreneurs, including
our veterans throughout the 116 and 117th Congresses. That is
why our Committee has under the regular order process, approved
legislation aimed at improving capital access for veteran
entrepreneurs including the Patriotic Employer Protection Act
authored by my colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Kim. This is an
effort our Committee can and should consider under the regular
order process.
Today, however, we are focused on proposals to boldly
invest in the small firms in our critical industries, such as
infrastructure, broadband, and childcare. Today's package
includes many investments in veterans by providing resources
for veteran-specific procurement and prioritizing capital
needs. Though I generally agree with the need to support our
veterans entrepreneurs, especially with respect to capital
access, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. With
that said, I pledge to work with my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle during the regular order process to keep exploring
ways to improve access to capital for veterans.
Is there any further debate on the amendment?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, this is Congressman
Luetkemeyer from Missouri. I move to strike the last word.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
comments there. I think that you are spot-on. Unfortunately, I
think you need to be supporting this instead of working against
it. I think it is a very good amendment that is definitely
within the purview of this Committee. The veteran small
business development folks and for us to conduct a study is
quite appropriate. I certainly urge the adoption of the
amendment of that. I yield back. Thank you.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. I am
looking forward to working with both sides of the aisle
addressing accessing capital for our veterans, but these are
long-term investments making different programs that will help
all businesses in this country.
The question is on the amendment by the gentlewoman from
California. I ask all Members attending virtually to please
unmute yourself for the vote.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
The amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, we ask for a recorded vote.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has requested a
recorded vote. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to
Committee Rule 13 and House Rule XI, Clause 2, further
proceedings on the amendment are postponed.
Now, we move to consideration of amendment number 14, Young
Kim 2V1. For what purpose does the gentlelady from California
seek recognition?
Ms. YOUNG KIM. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the
desk.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of
the amendment will be dispensed with. The gentlewoman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. YOUNG KIM. Thank you, Madam Chair. My amendment would
direct the SBA Administrator to submit a report to Congress and
testify before the Committee on the effects of crime on small
businesses in communities where local governments have decided
to cut funding or defund our law enforcement.
Since 2020, our country has been enduring the deadliest
crime wave in 2 decades. In USA Today, the July survey found
that about 2/3 of respondents believe crime is worsening in
their communities. From 2020 to 2021, portions of LA County
covered by my congressional district have seen a nearly 30
percent increase in violent crimes, and property crimes have
increased by more than 22 percent from 2020 to 2021. Given the
alarming increase in crime rates, we ought to get to the bottom
of how crime and decreasing resources for our law enforcement
impacts the ability of entrepreneurs to establish new
businesses or hire more workers.
We simply do not know enough about the correlation between
crime rates and the wellbeing of main street. I think our
country could be well served learning more about this
correlation. The primary function of government is to keep our
families and communities safe from bad actors. If we are not
doing everything possible to keeping our communities safe, we
are failing our country and our constituents. Let's not the
reconciliation process get in the way of keep our communities
and small businesses safe.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. Thank you and
I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back. Do other
Members wish to be recognized for the amendment?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, this is Congressman
Luetkemeyer from Missouri. I move to strike the last word.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman from Missouri is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I spoke on an amendment similar to this by
Mr. Stauber a while ago. So, I won't be redundant. I will just
say my remarks still stand from previous comments. I think we
need to understand the impacts of the defund the police, of the
restriction of funds to the police with regards to how it's
affecting our small businesses. I think this is an appropriate
way of going about it to get a study done to see that. With
that, I yield back the balance of my time. I urge the adoption
of the amendment and yield back to the Chairwoman.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there
any further debate on the amendment?
I will recognize myself. I oppose this amendment not
because I do not share its aims. I am opposing it because I
refuse to let this amendment hamper the resources we are
providing to small employers in every industry of this country
by investing in more and better lending options.
We can all agree the victims of crimes including small
businesses need support of their local law enforcement and
other local community institutions and services to recover and
rebuild. Yet, studies by the agency take away from critical
agency resources in training, lending, and contract assistance
that we are investing in today. For this reason, I oppose this
amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
The question is on the amendment by the gentlelady from
California. I ask all Members attending virtually to please
unmute yourselves for the vote.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
The amendment----
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Madam Chair, I ask for a recorded vote.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady has requested a
recorded vote. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to
Committee Rule 13 and House Rule XI, Clause 2, further
proceedings on the amendment are postponed.
Now we move to consideration of amendment number 15, Van
Duyne 1V1. For what purpose does the gentlelady from Texas seek
recognition?
Ms. VAN DUYNE. To introduce an amendment, Ms. Chairwoman.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady has an amendment at
the desk. The clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of
the amendment will be dispensed with. The gentlelady is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Thank you very much, Ms. Chairwoman. While
the small business community is facing many issues and
challenges right now, inflation is undoubtedly one of the
greatest concerns. Inflation is up more than 7 percent since
January. Clothing prices are up nearly 5 percent. Food prices
are up 2.5 percent. And gas prices are up 45 percent. Yet, we
are debating a bill with the most significant spending in
history, which undoubtedly will make this crisis worse.
The amendment I am putting forward has a simple, yet
important objective. Prohibiting the monstrous spending in this
bill that exasperates the inflation tax currently imposed on
working families by this Administration. I have made this point
multiple times in this Committee. We cannot continue to put
forth federal policies that actively make it harder for small
businesses to survive and succeed.
While the government and big companies are shielded from
inflation, small businesses who are the very backbone of our
communities are not. Over the last 18 months, we have added
more than $5 trillion in new spending. The bill we have marked
up today would bring that closer to $10 trillion, an
unprecedented amount. Yet, the majority seems unable to resist
leading our country down a perilous path. For that reason, I
urge my colleagues to support this amendment to protect our
small businesses from an overzealous federal government that
keeps creating policies designed to destroy them.
Feeding inflation and continuing reckless spending is never
the answer, but especially not at the expense of job creators
and working families. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back. Do other
Members wish to be recognized on the amendment?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, this is Congressman
Luetkemeyer from Missouri. I move to strike the last word.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman from Missouri is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you very much. Again, I will be
brief. I think we discussed this earlier as well. Ms. Van Duyne
takes a different approach to it. I think you can see this is
an extremely important issue to our side of the aisle from the
standpoint of inflation, you know, the inflationary effects of
this potential bill, not only on our economy, but specifically,
on small businesses that we have the purview over. We need to
take a look at that and understand that effect so we can
finetune this bill at best and--or stop it, hopefully, to be
able to make sure that this thing does not undermine the small
business community, which makes up 50 percent of the employment
base or more. This is really an important issue knowing that
what is coming is going to be vitally important for us to be
able to do our job.
I certainly support the amendment and would urge its
adoption. With that, I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there
any further debate on the amendment?
I will now recognize myself in opposition to the amendment.
I certainly agree with the notion of my colleague that
inflation can hurt small firms, forcing them to pass prices on
to consumers according to their bottom line. However, this
amendment doesn't make any determination on the impact of this
particular bill on inflation. It simply asks for the report
determining whether inflation hurts small businesses and
withholding funding if it does. It is clearly a poison pill
meant to delay the passage of this bill and slow the recovery
for small businesses around the country.
The question is on the amendment by the gentlewoman from
Texas. I ask all Members attending virtually to please unmute
yourself for the vote.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
The amendment is not agreed to.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Madam Chairwoman, I request a recorded vote.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady has requested a
recorded vote. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to
Committee Rule 13 and House Rule XI, Clause 2, further
proceedings on the amendment are postponed.
Now, we move to consider amendment number 16, Van Duyne
2V1. For what purpose does the gentlelady from Texas seek
recognition?
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Introduce an amendment, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady has an amendment at
the desk. The clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of
the amendment will be dispensed with.
The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. As the Ranking
Member of the Oversight, Investigations, and Regulations
Subcommittee, I am committed to ensuring that small business
relief goes into the right hands, including making certain that
SBA assistance goes to those who are respecting our laws. My
amendment prohibits any Small Business Administration funds
from going to individuals who have assaulted a police officer.
Additionally, this will prevent those who participate in a riot
that destroys a small business from receiving funds. Rioters
not only destroy the dreams of business owners, but also put
officers in further harm when they are sent to restore peace.
When our officers are not actively saving lives, they are
working towards making our communities a better and safer
place. Just yesterday, I sat down with law enforcement from all
over the 24th District. They shared with me that while they run
to danger and others run for safety, too little is being done
to protect the men and women who sacrifice for us. As law
enforcement commits to protecting us, it is our job and
Congress's to support them. The easiest way to do this is by
not rewarding those who actively work to hurt them.
We need to continue to show our law enforcement that we
have their back. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to
support this amendment.
The idea that was mentioned earlier that for those of us
who have worked with law enforcement, I was on the city
council. I was a mayor. I worked side by side with police
officers for over 12 years. I supported them. I sat with them.
I backed them. I worked with them on solutions. The notion that
we did not support a very partisan bill that would have created
a commission that was no more than a witch hunt has anything to
do with whether or not we work with our policy, support our
police, I think is very offensive. I would hope that our
colleagues look over that and understand that we actually do
have, you know, a reason for being here and we do support our
police. I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back. Do other
Members wish to be recognized on the amendment?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, this is Congressman
Luetkemeyer. I move to strike the last word.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman from Missouri is
recognized to strike the last word for 5 minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you very much. I think it is very
appropriate that if we are going to be allowing access to
government taxpayer funds through the SBA, that we need to make
sure that the people we are giving those dollars to are folks
who are number one, credit worthy and number two, are people
who are going to be good citizens and have shown by their
actions that they are. If they have shown by their actions that
they are not, we don't need to be in the business of supporting
those folks. I think that the gentlelady from Texas has got a
good amendment here from the standpoint of, again, policing the
actions of some of our citizens to be able to access these
funds, I think it is very appropriate. I certainly support her
efforts. With that, I urge adoption of the amendment and I
yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there
any further debate on the amendment?
I would like to recognize myself. I understand Ms. Van
Duyne's emphasis on protecting our law enforcement officers, as
well as the small businesses who suffer property damage as a
result of civil unrest. However, the rule change proposed in
this amendment is redundant and unnecessary, as SBA regulations
on ineligible businesses, 13 CFR 120.110(n), already prohibit
SBA assistance from going to businesses with an associate who
is incarcerated, on probation, on parole, or has been indicted
for a felony. Therefore, I urge a no vote on this amendment.
The question is on the amendment by the gentlewoman from
Texas. I ask all Members attending virtually to please unmute
yourselves for the vote.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
The amendment is not agreed to.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Madam Chairwoman, I request a recorded vote.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady has requested a
recorded vote. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to
Committee Rule 13 and House Rule XI, Clause 2, further
proceedings on the amendment are postponed.
We will now move to consider amendment number 17, Donalds
1V1. For what purpose does the gentleman from Florida seek
recognition?
Mr. DONALDS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of
the amendment will be dispensed with.
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DONALDS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and to the Ranking
Member for the opportunity to offer this amendment. Members,
this amendment is actually quite simple. We have been talking a
lot in this markup about not trying to impede the progress of
the $23.6 billion in funds that the Small Business Committee is
actually going to be moving. Most of it going to SBA. We don't
want to impede it. We don't want to change any of the funding.
There is no desire to add to the restaurant portion of the
funding, even though we all know that restaurants are the ones
that have been hardest hit. So, this amendment actually doesn't
touch any funding at all. This amendment is actually quite
simple.
What this amendment would allow for is for twice a year for
the next 10 years that the SBA Administrator would testify
before the Senate Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship and the House Committee on Small Business
regarding the implementation of this title and any amendments
made by the title. COVID-19 has made it abundantly clear that
the American people deserve more transparency from the SBA.
This administration and this Congress should continue to push a
vote that is continuing to push trillions of dollars out of the
pockets of hardworking taxpayers and taking it from future
generations who deserve to have an ability to hear from the
administrator that is implementing these programs--and much
more than just once per year.
I think it is important, Members, that if we are going to
be spending or authorizing $23.6 trillion--billion dollars,
excuse me. You never know around this town, trillions,
billions, it is all play money these days--$23.6 billion that
the SBA administrator should actually be able to come in front
of the people's representatives at least twice a year
considering the amount of programming that we are giving
dollars to SBA to go ahead and implement.
I think this is a solid amendment. This does not impede the
progress of the administration or SBA or even the Democrats'
ability to move this bill. This is simply just adding language
that the SBA administrator will be available to the House and
to the Senate twice a year instead of once a year so we can
have the necessary oversight on these funds for the people that
we all represent. That is the amendment and I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Do other
Members wish to be recognized on the amendment?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, this is Congressman
Luetkemeyer. I move to strike the last word.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman from Missouri is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you very much. I think this is a
very appropriate amendment looking at the continued dollars
that are being thrown at the SBA--the dollars they have
oversight over and the fact that we can't seem to get Secretary
Yellen to show up at our Committee to even talk about the PPP
Program, which is her legal obligation, which is now almost 3
or 4 months past due.
I think it is important that we are able to get these
administrators, people who have the oversight at the very top,
and are responsible for these programs to come before us to
answer our questions. We have significant questions right now,
especially with the Small Business Administration on various
programs. I think it is going to be important that we work with
them to find out what is really going on. And quite frankly, I
wouldn't mind having the Inspector General be added to this as
an amendment on amendment here to be able to have him come in
front of us 2 or 3 times a year.
I think that being said, this is an extremely important
amendment for us to be able to do our job. To be able to have
the people at the top answer and be able to provide the
oversight they were supposed to provide. With that, I urge its
adoption and I yield back my time.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there
any further debate on that? I would now like to recognize
myself.
While I appreciate my colleagues' commitment to oversight,
the committee has the authority to request the SBA
Administrator testify before the Committee at any point. In
fact, she testified before the Committee in May, just a few
short months after being sworn in as Administrator, on the
economic relief programs. With that said, requiring the SBA
Administrator to testify from the administrative expenses of
this bill takes away her focus and agency resources from the
over $15 billion in direct lending, Community Advantage, SBIC,
and directive ventures for small firms. I urge my colleagues to
vote no on this amendment.
Is there any further debate on the amendment? Seeing none,
the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Florida.
I ask all Members attending virtually to please unmute yourself
for the vote.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The
amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. DONALDS. Madam Chair, can I request a recorded vote on
the amendment?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has requested a
recorded vote. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to
Committee Rule 13 and House Rule XI, Clause 2, further
proceedings on the amendment are postponed.
Now we move to consider amendment number 18, Donalds 2V1.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Florida seek
recognition?
Mr. DONALDS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of
the amendment will be dispensed with. The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DONALDS. Thank you, Madam Chair. My amendment will
provide $2 million in grant funding for the Small Business
Development Centers, SBDCs, over the course of the fiscal year
2022 through fiscal year 2031. Providing these grants to
veteran-owned small businesses will allow them to have access
to expanded funding, financial resources, and additional
outreach opportunities. To note, my amendment doesn't call for
additional funding. It instead seeks to reallocate leftover
funding that was previously appropriated to the SBA and
converts those unused funds to various SBDC programs across the
country. Currently, there are 10 Small Business Development
Centers in the state of Florida and one SBDC that is located
within my district, specifically, at Florida Gulf Coast
University in Fort Myers.
With the recent failures that the current administration is
having, not to mention Afghanistan but so many others,
reallocating unused funds to veterans in need will emphasize
our appreciation for those who risked their lives to serve in
the United States military. We can't forget those Americans who
have fought for our country and converting this leftover
funding to provide veteran-owned small businesses with the
support, the financial counseling, and management information
they need to run a successful small business can only help
them. We must never forget Americans, especially those veterans
who fought to uphold the American dream and the prosperity of
America today. There is no better way of utilizing these unused
funds than providing grant funding for small businesses, for
Small Business Development Centers to assist veteran-owned
small businesses, and I strongly urge your support for this
amendment. I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Do other
Members wish to be recognized on the amendment? The gentlelady
from Illinois, Ms. Newman, for what purpose are you seeking
recognition?
Ms. NEWMAN. I seek recognition to strike the last word,
ma'am.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. NEWMAN. Thank you so much. I applaud Mr. Donalds'
efforts to support our veterans. I am a huge fan of employing
and supporting veteran entrepreneurs. As a reminder, we did
just that, right, in the last markup for H.R. 3469. The
Veterans Entrepreneurial Act of 2021 supports our veterans
holistically, and I am really excited about that work. It is
going to help a lot of veterans right in my district. For that
reason, I oppose the amendment offered by Congressman Donalds,
which would strike the Office of Emerging Markets and redirect
the funding for veteran-owned small business outreach.
Access to affordable capital, as we all know, is one of the
biggest challenges our small businesses face everywhere. I know
we hear that from our small businesses in all of our districts.
The COVID-19 pandemic shined a light on the stark disparities
in lending, as the initial Paycheck Protection Program funds
went predominantly to larger, better capitalized small
businesses. It took dedicated set-asides for CDFIs and other
mission-based lenders to ensure small firms in emerging markets
got fair access to program funds.
A concerted effort is needed to ensure SBA's capital access
programs reach the smallest of the small businesses, and I can
say that 100 percent in my district because I have a lot of
microbusinesses. With that said, I share my colleague's support
for SBDCs and veteran-owned small businesses, but this
amendment only provides additional funding to the SBDCs, which
may have the adverse effect of limiting outreach and engagement
to veteran-owned small businesses.
The Committee has worked since the 115th Congress to codify
for 5 years the Boots to Business Program and continue to
support and provide for America's veterans, transitioning
service members, as well as their family members, that want to
launch or grow a small business. Moreover, this bill provides
$35 million to assist small business veteran contractors. I am
happy to work with my colleagues across the aisle to continue
to improve outreach to veteran-owned small businesses, but
believe that the resources we are giving to firms in lending,
contracting, and entrepreneurial development investments in
this bill are effective mechanisms to do just that.
In closing, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Thank you, I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back. Is there
any further debate on the amendment?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, this is Congressman
Luetkemeyer. I move to strike the last word.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman from Missouri is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. All right. I want to thank the gentleman
for his excellent amendment here with regards to, again, trying
to help a group of people who we owe a great deal to, our
veterans. I think the gentleman, having been in the lending
business himself, comes from a district where there is a huge
number of veterans in his constituency, understands the issue
as well or better than anybody, and knows that this is
something that is needed, and would be very helpful to our
veterans. And with that, I certainly support this amendment,
urge its adoption, and I yield back my time.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there
any further debate on the amendment? I will recognize myself.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment since
it undermines our efforts to provide affordable capital to
small business owners. The question is on the amendment by the
gentleman from Florida. I ask all Members attending virtually
to please unmute yourself for the vote.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The
amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. DONALDS. Madam Chair, I request a recorded vote.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Madam Chair, I request a recorded vote.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has requested a
recorded vote. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to
Committee Rule 13 and House Rule XI, Clause 2, further
proceedings on the amendment are postponed.
Now we move to consider amendment number 19, Fitzgerald
1V1. For what purpose does the gentleman from Wisconsin seek
recognition?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the
desk.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of
the amendment will be dispensed with. The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment
prohibits any Small Business Administration funds from going to
individuals convicted of a felony for violent crimes, sex
crimes, and drug trafficking, or anyone charged with any type
of crime associated with terrorism or the Taliban. The
Committee Print appropriates over $100 million to various SBA
programs to provide financial counseling and business training
to formerly incarcerated individuals to help reintegrate them
back into society and develop applicable business skills. The
stipulation is that they must have served their sentence in a
minimum, low, or medium security prison to be eligible.
However, the Committee Print has no eligibility requirement
based on the actual offense committed. While most criminals
convicted of violent crimes and terrorism will serve their
sentences in maximum security prisons, those with slightly less
heinous offenses may find their way to lower-level facilities,
due to massive overcrowding or changes in state and federal
sentencing guidelines for certain nonviolent drug crimes.
We should be ensuring that the Committee is not giving
violent criminals or drug traffickers a loophole for which is
access to SBA funding. This is a commonsense language change,
and I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment, and I
would yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Do other
Members wish to be recognized on the amendment?
Mr. STAUBER. Madam Chair?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Who is seeking recognition, please?
Mr. STAUBER. Stauber from Minnesota. I would like to strike
the last word.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman from Minnesota is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. STAUBER. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you,
Congressman Fitzgerald, for offering this important amendment.
Over the last year, we have seen Members of Congress embolden
rioters in our communities, and even within the last month, we
have seen our President embolden terrorists in the Middle East
with his decision-making. Congresswoman Van Duyne offered an
amendment earlier to prevent the SBA from providing assistance
to criminals convicted of rioting. This important amendment
offered by Congressman Fitzgerald will prevent the SBA from
providing assistance to criminals convicted of any crimes
associated with the Taliban or other terrorist organizations.
The failed leadership displayed by the Democrats has created an
unprecedented crime and national security crisis across the
nation and in particular in our large cities. The very least we
can do is prevent terrorists and rioters from accessing
taxpayer dollars before the small business owners who are
struggling to make ends meet in America.
We need to prioritize these small businesses that are
struggling and ensure that no money goes to terrorists or
people that want to harm America or her citizens. Thanks again
to the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentlelady from Texas
for offering these amendments today. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there
any further debate on the amendment?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, this is Congressman
Luetkemeyer. I move to strike the last word.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman from Missouri is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I am going to be very brief. I think the
gentleman from Minnesota is the expert on these types of
actions and issues, and I think I will just reiterate his
comments. I think that this is basically fixing a loophole in
the law, something that wasn't there before. I think we need to
make sure that we keep the dollars out of the wrong people's
hands, and I think Congressman Fitzgerald's got a good
amendment here to be able to do that. With that, I urge its
adoption, and I yield back my time.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there
any further debate on the amendment? I will recognize myself in
opposition to the amendment.
I can appreciate Mr. Fitzgerald's interest in ensuring
taxpayer backed programs are preserved for law abiding
entrepreneurs. However, SBA Regulations, 13 CFR 120.110(n),
already prohibit SBA loans from going to businesses with
associates who have been indicted for any felony or crime or
moral turpitude. The rule change proposed in this amendment is
redundant and unnecessary. Therefore, I urge a no vote on this
amendment.
The question now is on the amendment by the gentleman from
Wisconsin. I ask all Members attending virtually to please
unmute yourself for the vote.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The
amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Chair, can I ask for ayes and nays?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Who is seeking recognition?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Chair, may I request the ayes and
nays on the amendment?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has requested a
recorded vote. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to
Committee Rule 13 and House Rule XI, Clause 2, further
proceedings on the amendment are postponed.
We move to consideration of amendment number 20, Fitzgerald
2V1. For what purpose does the gentleman from Wisconsin seek
recognition?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the
desk.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of
the amendment will be dispensed with. The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment
directs the Small Business Administration to study the impact
of tax increases on small businesses. Main street firms have
been hit exceptionally hard by the COVID-19 pandemic, as many
businesses were forced to close up shop in order to comply with
state and local mandated shutdowns. This was only made worse by
the higher utilization of Unemployment Insurance and the
federal stay at home bonus, leading to low job creation and a
virtual economic freeze.
When it felt like things couldn't get any worse, the Biden
Administration came in earlier this year and called for a
disastrous multitrillion-dollar spending bill to be written by
Senator Bernie Sanders, with the supposed intent of creating
jobs and revitalizing main street businesses. In announcing the
legislation, the Biden Administration, citing a Treasury
Department analysis, said the President's agenda will protect
97 percent of small businesses--business owners from income tax
increases, while delivering tax cuts to more than 3.9 million
entrepreneurs. That figure is misleading.
For starters, nearly one-quarter of small businesses are
structured as C corps and will, therefore, be subject to steep
tax increases, just as they are recovering from the pandemic.
Even worse, the vast majority of small businesses are
structured as passthroughs and will be subject to a federal tax
rate as high as 39.6 percent. Other provisions of the spending
bill, such as increasing the death tax and eliminating bonus
depreciation, would also fall upon small business owners.
Additionally, this analysis fails to take into account the
small businesses who continue to grow, their earnings, and
businesses over time. An August 2019 study in the Journal of
Monetary Economics shows that corporate taxation distorts the
``lifecycle'' of a business, making it more difficult to invest
their retained earnings and causing them to grow more slowly.
We should be focused on growing small businesses, not
hamstringing them. This amendment is simple, and it should be
an easy vote for anyone who supports small business. Let's
study the impact of tax increases on small businesses, so we
can ensure the SBA is holding the Biden Administration
accountable for their promise to protect main street. I urge my
colleagues to vote yes on this commonsense amendment, and I
yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there
any further debate on the amendment?
Ms. CHU. Madam Chair, I seek recognition and move to strike
the last word.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. CHU. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The
Small Business Administration is skilled at administering
resources and grant programs to our nation's small businesses,
but they are not tax policy experts. This would be better
assigned to the Treasury Department, with data from the
Internal Revenue Service's Small Business and Self-Employed
Division.
Second, this amendment would divert needed resources from
the Small Business Administration from its intended function,
which is to deliver much needed relief to the businesses we all
know are still suffering from the economic fallout of the
pandemic.
As the Delta variant rages across all corners of the
country, we know that our small businesses are not out of the
woods yet and preventing much needed investments that we need
in SBA in order to fulfill this amendment's purpose will leave
our small businesses high and dry.
Finally, any changes to these tax policies are within the
exclusive purview of the Ways and Means Committee. Any
amendment to constrain or eliminate funding in our Committee's
jurisdiction to make historic investments to small businesses,
following a pandemic, based on what another Committee may or
may not do, is a foolish concession of our Committee
responsibilities to help small businesses. For all these
reasons, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to
do the same. I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back. Is there
any further debate on the amendment?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, this is Congressman
Luetkemeyer, I move to strike the last word.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman from Missouri is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you very much. I think we have had a
couple amendments here, and this is another one we think is
very important to be able to understand the effects of the tax
increases in this huge monstrosity of a bill here, with regards
to the impact on small businesses and their employees and their
employers. This is--only makes common sense for the previous--
the gentlelady from California to make the comment that we
need--they are taking money away from the programs. If we don't
do it right, the programs aren't going to be effective. We have
got to structure these things correctly.
We may know the impact of the tax bills here. Yes, we are
not the committee jurisdiction with regards to the tax law,
itself, but we need to know the impact on that, so we can
understand how these rules and how these tax laws or the
changes in them are going to affect the businesses that we have
the purview over. And then we can go to the Ways and Means
people and say, hey, look, this is a really bad deal because it
is going to cause this kind of effect, or it is a really good
deal because it is going to have this kind of effect.
If we don't know that, we can't be doing our job. I think
our job is to provide the oversight. It is very, very important
that we understand that. I think it is very important that we
get to understand the effects of these tax increases.
Prior to the pandemic, we understood and we saw that the
reducing of taxes and allowing the businesses and individuals
to keep those dollars and invest in themselves was key to the
recovery we had and to the tremendous growth that we had in the
economy. This is going in the opposite direction. We anticipate
it having the opposite effect. It is going to devastate small
businesses and our economy, and it is foolish to go forward
without knowing for sure, with the proper amount of studies and
CBO scoring and all the other thinktanks out there
understanding and given this information to understand the
effects on small business and our economy as a whole.
I certainly appreciate the gentleman's amendment, urge its
adoption, and with that, I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there
any further debate on the amendment?
I will recognize myself to say that I ask my colleagues to
oppose this poison pill amendment, which tries to derail this
process today. The question is on the amendment by the
gentleman from Wisconsin. I ask all Members attending virtually
to please unmute yourself for the vote.
All those in favor, say aye.
All opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The
amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Chair? Madam Chair?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Yes?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Can I request the ayes and nays on that,
Madam Chair?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has requested a
recorded vote. The roll call is ordered. Pursuant to Committee
Rule 13 and House Rule XI, Clause 2, further proceedings on the
amendment are postponed.
Now, we move to consideration of amendment number 9, Tenney
1V1. For what purpose does the gentlelady from New York seek
recognition?
Ms. TENNEY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of
the amendment will be dispensed with. The gentlelady is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. TENNEY. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and also Ranking
Member Luetkemeyer. Over the past decades, too many of our
communities have been left behind as manufacturers have left
the United States for foreign countries, like China and Asia,
especially in my community. For generations, these
manufacturing jobs played an important role in moving Americans
up on the social ladder, providing well-paying middle-class
jobs and careers that could support families.
In the absence of these opportunities, many have been
forced to take lower-paying jobs or leave communities
altogether, like mine, where the Industrial Revolution was
actually started. Areas like the one I represent in Upstate New
York have experienced this firsthand.
To solve this economic crisis, I, therefore, call on my
colleagues to support my amendment to redirect the $9.5 billion
proposed for the unproven Venture Small Business Investment
Company facility for implementing bipartisan pro-jobs
legislation, the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act.
The current proposal in front of us today for the Small
Business Investment Company completely fails to create new
opportunities for the communities I represent in Central New
York and the southern tier. It throws billions of dollars into
an unproven program that is more focused on picking winners and
losers than creating new opportunities for those left behind,
regardless of their race, background, or beliefs. The reality
is that investment capital today is highly concentrated by
geography centered around hubs like Boston, New York City, and
San Francisco, while leaving much of the country behind. It
also tends to flow disproportionately to the tech sector rather
than more capital-intensive businesses in the manufacturing
sector, with longer profit horizons and even though these
manufacturing businesses often provide more jobs and
opportunities to ordinary Americans.
My amendment today, the American Innovation and
Manufacturing Act, the AIM Act, will address this imbalance by
providing $9.5 billion in long-term flexible debt for all
registered SBA small business investment companies to invest in
upstart manufacturing job creators. It also includes important
taxpayer protections ensuring all returns to the federal
government are committed before capital can be distributed to
private investors. Together, we can act to address the issues
impacting our working-class Americans for the sake of our
communities, particularly like mine in rural and suburban
Upstate New York. We must move beyond policies that sound good
and focus on policies that actually do good and can be
successful. I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back. For what
purpose does the gentlelady from Pennsylvania seek recognition?
Ms. HOULAHAN. Madam Chair, I ask to be recognized for 5
minutes, and I move to strike the last word.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. HOULAHAN. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for
this opportunity to speak. I really must respectfully disagree
with my colleague's amendment. The Small Business
Administration Small Business Investment Company, or SBIC
Program, provides access to low-cost, government-backed
investment capital for small businesses, strengthens local
communities, and empowers American businesses to grow and to
compete in the global economy.
The SBIC Program's fund represents approximately $30
billion in investment capital, which since 1995 has helped to
create or to sustain over 9.5 million jobs. By most metrics,
the SBIC Program is an example of successful public policy that
aligns the power of the private market with the public interest
of job creation and economic growth.
However, the SBIC Program has historically struggled with a
lack of demographic and geographic representation, both among
investors participating in the program and also in the
companies receiving these investments. As early as 2007, the
SBA identified the disparities and has testified that it had
tried to increase diversity in the program by reaching out to
venture capital firms, trade organizations, and others to
better understand why this representation in this program is so
low.
However, these challenges persist to this present day, and
in fiscal year 2020, only slightly over 5 percent of all
companies financed by SBICs were owned by underrepresented
business owners. To ensure that there is a dedicated effort to
SBA to enhance SBIC Program diversity, this section of this
bill establishes the SBIC Working Group, which will develop
recommendations for how the SBA can improve diversity among
SBIC applicants, with a focus on underserved businesses and
providing incentives for SBICs to locate in under-licensed
states and to invest in underserved businesses, especially
those owned by low-income individuals or in rural areas.
This section of this reconciliation should not be struck
and should not be replaced. This section provides $2 million to
establish a group to provide recommendations on how to increase
demographic and geographic diversity in the management and
investments of SBIC funds. A report is due to the Senate and to
the House Small Business Committees within a year of its
establishment, and at that time, the group will disband. It is
clearly long overdue for the SBA to proactively take an
initiative to improve diversities, their adversity in SBIC, and
the working group under consideration today is only a small but
important part of strengthening the support we provide our
businesses in this country.
I represent portions of Southeastern Pennsylvania,
including the historic city of Reading, once a manufacturing
and industrial giant, not just in our nation but in the world.
I am a huge supporter of the need to support our manufacturers.
I am an enormous advocate of the need for a patient capital
equity facility, as you mentioned in your bill. I very much
appreciate Ms. Tenney's AIM Act and would very much like to
work with her and my friend and colleague, Representative
Craig, on working on this proposed legislation.
I would propose that we do that together through regular
order rather than replacing the equally valuable and equally
important language that is already in this bill. I encourage my
colleagues from both sides of the aisle to support this
legislation as written, and I yield back the balance of my
time, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back. Is there
any further debate on the amendment? The gentlelady from----
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman from Missouri is
recognized.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to
reiterate my support for Ms. Tenney's amendment here. I think
it is a thoughtful amendment here from the standpoint that it
is well thought out. It is going to create a program that
actually probably will work. It has got oversight in it, which
a lot of the new programs we propose in this bill do not have.
It does not have oversight in a lot of these different bills
that are programs that are being proposed. This one does. It
specifically targets the small businesses that we should be
watching for, and be thinking about, and be supporting. I think
that the lady's got a fantastic amendment, and I would urge its
adoption, and with that, I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there
any further debate on the amendment? The gentlelady from
Minnesota is seeking recognition.
Ms. CRAIG. Yes, thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Strike the last word.
Ms. CRAIG. Thank you. I want to just take a moment to thank
my colleague, Ms. Tenney, for her support of small
manufacturers. I share her priority of creating great
manufacturing jobs right here in the United States, across our
country, and of course in each of our districts. That is
exactly what the SBIC Program does by investing in small
manufacturers and increasing the diversity of investors within
the SBIC through the Emerging Managers Program. I really do
hope to continue to work with you, Ms. Tenney, on the AIM Act,
outside of the confines of the reconciliation process, so that
we can continue to strengthen the manufacturing sector. So,
while I agree we need to support our small manufacturers, I
would just urge a no vote on this amendment to my colleagues.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back. Is there
any further debate on the amendment?
I will now recognize myself. I ask my colleagues to oppose
this amendment because, as Ms. Houlahan stated, it intends to
undermine our efforts to address the investment gaps that our
committee has observed over the years. The question now is on
the amendment by the gentlelady from New York. I ask all
Members attending virtually----
Ms. TENNEY. I request--Madam Chair, I request a recorded
vote.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Not yet.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. I ask all Members attending
virtually----
Ms. TENNEY. If she did a vote, I didn't hear her.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ.--to please unmute yourself for the
vote.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The
amendment is not agreed to.
Ms. TENNEY. Now, I request a recorded vote, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlewoman has requested a
recorded vote. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to
Committee Rule 13 and House Rule XI, Clause 2, further
proceedings on the amendment are postponed.
We move on to consideration of amendment number 10, Tenney
2V1. For what purpose does the gentlelady from New York seek
recognition?
Ms. TENNEY. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of
the amendment will be dispensed with. The gentlewoman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. TENNEY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member
Luetkemeyer. Today, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment
to redirect all funding from the New Start Entrepreneurial
Development Program for formerly incarcerated individuals. My
amendment would redirect this funding to Small Business
Development Centers, so they can expand and improve resources
for rural small businesses during what is a very difficult
time.
Throughout the pandemic, too many of our small businesses
have suffered, struggling to make payroll and keep their doors
open. Now, as they try to adjust to a new normal, they are
having to contend with historically high inflation, worker
shortages, and the possibility of higher taxes. In response to
these real concerns, my Democratic colleagues have proposed
spending $35 million on an unproven pilot program to provide
preferential microloans to former felons. I do not know if this
is a parody or if the drafters of this text thought this was a
really good policy. Regardless, it is an insult to the many
businesses and small businesses struggling in my community
today.
There are already multiple SBA resources available to
felons trying to get back on their feet, including workshops,
mentoring, and financial literacy classes. Why would we choose
to create a loan program that now gives public money
preferentially to felons over their law-abiding counterparts,
who are in desperate need of help themselves? A far better use
of this money would be to direct it towards rural small
businesses for the benefit of rural Americans, former felons
included, as many of these employers are having to navigate the
uncertainties of the PPP Loan Forgiveness and conclusion of
other emergency COVID-19 provisions. It is far more important
for us to ensure that they have the resources they need to have
some success, particularly in rural areas. Let's stop with the
misguided attempts to social engineer and work our policies and
actually help all Americans. I urge my colleagues to vote for
this amendment and respect the taxpayers in New York and
throughout the nation. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back. Do other
Members wish to be recognized on the amendment?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, this is Congressman
Luetkemeyer. I just want to make a couple small, short remarks.
I move to strike the last word.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you very much. Again, I think the
gentlelady from New York has a very thoughtful amendment here.
She is taking dollars that are thrown out there for a pilot
program, where we really probably don't need, and putting it in
a program that is already established, that actually does the
job that it is supposed to do and wants to improve that,
especially looking out for her own folks, from the rural parts
of the country. I think it is a very appropriate, very timely
amendment, and with that, I urge its adoption, and I yield
back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Do other
Members wish to be recognized on the amendment?
I will now recognize myself. I oppose the amendment offered
by Congresswoman Tenney, which will strike the New Start
Entrepreneurial Development Program for formerly incarcerated
individuals and redirect funding to SBDCs for rural outreach.
These resources will complement the Prison to Proprietorship
funding in this package by expanding the geographic reach of
services. Providing critical funding to utilize private and
nonprofit organizations to assist the formerly incarcerated and
help them succeed is vital to their successful reentry to
society and will ultimately prevent them from returning to
prison. With that said, I share my colleagues' support for
SBDCs, which provide vital counseling, training, and technical
assistance to small businesses.
In fiscal year 2021, the SBDC Program received $136 million
in annual appropriations and $192 million through the CARES
Act. In the last Congress, we passed the H.R. 4406, the Small
Business Development Center Improvement Act of 2019, which
authorized $175 million for each fiscal year from fiscal year
2020 to fiscal year 2023 for SBDCs. I am happy to work with my
colleagues across the aisle to ensure they receive the funding
they need, as we prepare to reintroduce a reauthorization of
the program.
With that said, this amendment only provides additional
funding to SBDCs, which may have the adverse effect of limiting
outreach and engagement to rural small businesses. By providing
funding and resources to the Office of Rural Affairs in today's
package, we hope to increase the outreach agencywide, which
includes SBA district offices and all their resource partners.
In closing, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
The question is on the amendment by the gentlelady from New
York. I ask all Members attending virtually to please unmute
yourself for the vote.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The
amendment is not agreed to.
Ms. TENNEY. Madam Chair, I request a recorded vote.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady has requested a
recorded vote. The roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to
Committee Rule 13 and House Rule XI, Clause 2, further
proceedings on the amendment are postponed.
Does any Member seek recognition to offer additional
amendments? Seeing none, the Committee stands in recess until
2:30. An email will be sent to Members notifying them when the
Committee will return from recess.
[Recess]
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Good afternoon. The Committee will
come to order. The Committee will now resume consideration of
the amendments on which roll call votes were requested and
postponed. There are 20 postponed recorded votes. The question
now occurs on the following amendments which will be considered
en bloc: Luetkemeyer 2v1, Hagedorn 2v1, Stauber 1v1, Stauber
2v1, Meuser 2v1, Young Kim 1v1, Donalds 1v1, Donalds 2v1,
Fitzgerald 1v1. All of these amendments previously failed by
voice vote.
The clerk will please call the roll.
The CLERK. Mr. Golden? Mr. Golden?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Golden? Please unmute yourself.
The CLERK. Mr. Golden?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. He isn't there.
The CLERK. Mr. Crow?
Mr. CROW. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Crow votes no. Ms. Davids?
Ms. DAVIDS. Davids votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Davids votes no. Mr. Mfume?
Mr. MFUME. Mr. Mfume votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Mfume votes no. Mr. Phillips?
Mr. PHILLIPS. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Phillips votes no. Ms. Newman?
Ms. NEWMAN. I vote nay.
The CLERK. Ms. Newman?
[No response.]
Ms. Bourdeaux?
Ms. BOURDEAUX. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Bourdeaux votes no. Mr. Carter?
Mr. CARTER. Carter votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Carter votes no. Ms. Chu?
Ms. CHU. Chu votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Chu votes no. Mr. Evans?
Mr. EVANS. Evans votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Evans votes no. Mr. Delgado?
[No response.]
Ms. Houlahan?
Ms. HOULAHAN. Houlahan votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Houlahan votes no. Mr. Kim?
Mr. KIM. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Kim votes no. Ms. Craig?
Ms. CRAIG. Craig votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Craig votes no. Mr. Luetkemeyer?
Mr. Luetkemeyer, you are muted.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Luetkemeyer votes yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer votes aye. Mr. Williams?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Williams votes aye. Mr. Hagedorn?
Mr. HAGEDORN. Hagedorn votes aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Hagedorn votes aye. Mr. Stauber?
Mr. STAUBER. Stauber votes yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Stauber votes aye. Mr. Meuser?
Mr. MEUSER. Meuser votes aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Meuser votes aye. Ms. Tenney?
Ms. TENNEY. Aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Tenney votes aye. Mr. Garbarino?
Mr. GARBARINO. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Garbarino votes aye. Ms. Young Kim?
Ms. YOUNG KIM. Young Kim votes aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Young Kim votes aye. Ms. Van Duyne?
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Van Duyne votes aye. Mr. Donalds?
Mr. DONALDS. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Donalds votes aye. Ms. Salazar?
Ms. SALAZAR. I vote yes. Salazar votes yes.
The CLERK. Ms. Salazar votes aye. Mr. Fitzgerald?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Fitzgerald votes aye. Ms. Velazquez?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Velazquez no.
The CLERK. Ms. Velazquez votes no. Mr. Golden?
[No response.]
Ms. Newman?
Ms. NEWMAN. Newman votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Newman votes no. Mr. Golden?
Mr. GOLDEN. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes no. Mr. Delgado?
Mr. Delgado, unmute yourself, please.
Mr. DELGADO. Delgado votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Delgado votes no.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Are there any other Members that wish
to vote? The clerk will report the tally.
The CLERK. On this vote there were 12 ayes and 15 noes.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The amendments are not agreed to.
The question now occurs on the following amendments which
will be considered en bloc: Hagedorn 1v1, Meuser 1v1, Tenney
1v1, Tenney 2v1, Garbarino 1v1, Young Kim 2v1, Van Duyne 1v1,
Van Duyne 2v1, Fitzgerald 2v1. All of these amendments
previously failed by voice vote.
The clerk will please call the roll.
The CLERK. Mr. Golden?
Mr. GOLDEN. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes no. Mr. Crow?
Mr. CROW. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Crow votes no. Ms. Davids?
Ms. DAVIDS. Davids no.
The CLERK. Ms. Davids votes no. Mr. Mfume? Mr. Mfume?
Mr. MFUME. Mr. Mfume votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Mfume votes no. Mr. Phillips?
Mr. PHILLIPS. Phillips votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Phillips votes no. Ms. Newman?
Ms. NEWMAN. Newman votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Newman votes no. Ms. Bourdeaux?
Ms. BOURDEAUX. Bourdeaux votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Bourdeaux votes no. Mr. Carter?
Mr. CARTER. Carter votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Carter votes no. Ms. Chu?
Ms. CHU. Chu votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Chu votes no. Mr. Evans?
Mr. EVANS. Evans votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Evans votes no. Mr. Delgado?
Mr. DELGADO. Delgado votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Delgado votes no. Ms. Houlahan?
Ms. HOULAHAN. Houlahan votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Houlahan votes no. Mr. Kim?
Mr. KIM. Kim votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Kim votes no. Ms. Craig?
Ms. CRAIG. Craig votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Craig votes no. Mr. Luetkemeyer?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Luetkemeyer votes aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer votes aye. Mr. Williams?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Williams votes aye. Mr. Hagedorn?
Mr. HAGEDORN. Hagedorn votes aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Hagedorn votes aye. Mr. Stauber?
Mr. STAUBER. Stauber votes aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Stauber votes aye. Mr. Meuser?
Mr. MEUSER. Meuser votes aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Meuser votes aye. Ms. Tenney?
Ms. TENNEY. Aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Tenney votes aye. Mr. Garbarino?
Mr. GARBARINO. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Garbarino votes aye. Ms. Young Kim?
Ms. YOUNG KIM. Young Kim votes aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Young Kim votes aye. Ms. Van Duyne?
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Van Duyne votes aye. Mr. Donalds?
Mr. DONALDS. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Donalds votes aye. Ms. Salazar?
Ms. SALAZAR. Salazar votes yes.
The CLERK. Ms. Salazar votes aye. Mr. Fitzgerald?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Fitzgerald votes aye. Ms. Velazquez?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Velazquez votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Velazquez votes no.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Are there any other Members that wish
to vote? The clerk will report the tally.
The CLERK. On this vote there were 12 ayes and 15 noes.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The amendments are not agreed to.
The question is now on Garbarino 2v1. The clerk will please
call the roll.
The CLERK. Mr. Golden?
Mr. GOLDEN. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes no. Mr. Crow?
Mr. CROW. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Crow votes no. Ms. Davids?
Ms. DAVIDS. Davids votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Davids votes no. Mr. Mfume?
Mr. MFUME. Mr. Mfume votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Mfume votes no. Mr. Phillips?
Mr. PHILLIPS. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Phillips votes no. Ms. Newman?
Ms. NEWMAN. Newman votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Newman votes no. Ms. Bourdeaux?
Ms. BOURDEAUX. Bourdeaux votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Bourdeaux votes no. Mr. Carter?
Mr. Carter?
[No response.]
Ms. Chu?
Ms. CHU. Chu votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Chu votes no. Mr. Evans? Mr. Evans?
[No response.]
Mr. Delgado?
Mr. DELGADO. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Delgado votes no. Ms. Houlahan?
Ms. HOULAHAN. Yes.
The CLERK. Ms. Houlahan votes aye. Mr. Kim?
Mr. KIM. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Kim votes no. Ms. Craig?
Ms. CRAIG. Craig votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Craig votes no. Mr. Luetkemeyer?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Luetkemeyer votes aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer votes aye. Mr. Williams?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Williams votes aye. Mr. Hagedorn?
Mr. HAGEDORN. Hagedorn votes aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Hagedorn votes aye. Mr. Stauber?
Mr. STAUBER. Stauber votes aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Stauber votes aye. Mr. Meuser?
Mr. MEUSER. Meuser votes aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Meuser votes aye. Ms. Tenney?
Ms. TENNEY. Aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Tenney votes aye. Mr. Garbarino?
Mr. GARBARINO. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Garbarino votes aye. Ms. Young Kim?
Ms. YOUNG KIM. Young Kim votes aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Young Kim votes aye. Ms. Van Duyne?
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Van Duyne votes aye. Mr. Donalds?
Mr. DONALDS. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Donalds votes aye. Ms. Salazar?
Ms. SALAZAR. Salazar votes yes.
The CLERK. Ms. Salazar votes aye. Mr. Fitzgerald?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Fitzgerald votes aye. Ms. Velazquez?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Velazquez votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Velazquez votes no. Mr. Carter?
Mr. CARTER. Madam Chair? I am not sure if I have voted.
The CLERK. Is that Mr. Carter?
Mr. CARTER. I am sorry. Carter votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Carter votes no. Mr. Evans?
Mr. EVANS. Evans votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Evans votes no.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Are there any other Members that wish
to vote?
The clerk will report the tally.
The CLERK. On this vote there were 12 ayes and 15 noes.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The amendment is not agreed to. The
next question is Luetkemeyer 1v1.
The clerk will please call the roll.
The CLERK. Mr. Golden?
Mr. GOLDEN. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes no. Mr. Crow?
Mr. CROW. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Crow votes no. Ms. Davids?
Ms. DAVIDS. Davids votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Davids votes no. Mr. Mfume?
Mr. MFUME. Mr. Mfume votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Mfume votes no. Mr. Phillips?
Mr. PHILLIPS. Phillips votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Phillips votes no. Ms. Newman?
Ms. NEWMAN. Newman votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Newman votes no. Ms. Bourdeaux?
Ms. BOURDEAUX. Bourdeaux votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Bourdeaux votes no. Mr. Carter?
Mr. CARTER. No. Carter votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Carter votes no. Ms. Chu?
Ms. CHU. Chu votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Chu votes no. Mr. Evans?
Mr. EVANS. Evans votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Evans votes no. Mr. Delgado?
Mr. DELGADO. Delgado votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Delgado votes no. Ms. Houlahan?
Ms. HOULAHAN. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Houlahan votes no. Mr. Kim?
Mr. KIM. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Kim votes no. Ms. Craig?
Ms. CRAIG. Craig votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Craig votes no. Mr. Luetkemeyer?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Luetkemeyer votes yes. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer votes aye. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Williams votes aye. Mr. Hagedorn?
Mr. HAGEDORN. Hagedorn votes----
The CLERK. Could you repeat that, please? Mr. Hagedorn?
Mr. HAGEDORN. Hagedorn votes aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Hagedorn votes aye. Mr. Stauber?
Mr. STAUBER. Stauber votes aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Stauber votes aye. Mr. Meuser?
Mr. MEUSER. Meuser votes aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Meuser votes aye. Ms. Tenney?
Ms. TENNEY. Aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Tenney votes aye. Mr. Garbarino?
Mr. GARBARINO. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Garbarino votes aye. Ms. Young Kim?
Ms. YOUNG KIM. Young Kim votes aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Young Kim votes aye. Ms. Van Duyne?
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Van Duyne votes aye. Mr. Donalds?
Mr. DONALDS. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Donalds votes aye. Ms. Salazar?
Ms. SALAZAR. Salazar votes aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Salazar votes aye. Mr. Fitzgerald?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Fitzgerald votes aye.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Are there any other Members that wish
to vote?
The CLERK. Ms. Velazquez?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Oh.
The CLERK. Sorry.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. I guess myself. Velazquez votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Velazquez votes no.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Are there any other Members that wish
to vote?
The clerk will report the tally.
The CLERK. On this vote there were 12 ayes and 15 noes.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The amendment is not agreed to.
The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute. A recorded vote is ordered.
The clerk will please call the roll.
The CLERK. Mr. Golden?
Mr. GOLDEN. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes aye. Mr. Crow?
Mr. CROW. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Crow votes aye. Ms. Davids?
Ms. DAVIDS. Yes. Davids votes yes.
The CLERK. Ms. Davids votes aye. Mr. Mfume?
Mr. MFUME. Mr. Mfume votes aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Mfume votes aye. Mr. Phillips?
Mr. PHILLIPS. Phillips votes aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Phillips votes aye. Ms. Newman?
Ms. NEWMAN. Newman votes aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Newman votes aye. Ms. Bourdeaux?
[No response.]
Mr. Carter?
Mr. CARTER. Carter votes aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Carter votes aye. Ms. Chu?
Ms. CHU. Chu votes aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Chu votes aye. Mr. Evans?
Mr. EVANS. Evans votes aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Evans votes aye. Mr. Delgado?
Mr. DELGADO. Delgado votes aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Delgado votes aye. Ms. Houlahan?
Ms. HOULAHAN. Aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Houlahan votes aye. Mr. Kim?
Mr. KIM. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Kim votes aye. Ms. Craig?
Ms. CRAIG. Craig votes aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Craig votes aye. Mr. Luetkemeyer?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Luetkemeyer votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer votes no. Mr. Williams?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Williams votes no. Mr. Hagedorn?
Mr. HAGEDORN. Hagedorn votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Hagedorn votes no. Mr. Stauber?
Mr. STAUBER. Stauber votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Stauber votes no. Mr. Meuser?
Mr. MEUSER. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Meuser votes no. Ms. Tenney?
Ms. TENNEY. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Tenney votes no. Mr. Garbarino?
Mr. GARBARINO. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Garbarino votes no. Ms. Young Kim?
Ms. YOUNG KIM. Young Kim votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Young Kim votes no. Ms. Van Duyne?
Ms. VAN DUYNE. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Van Duyne votes no. Mr. Donalds?
Mr. DONALDS. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Donalds votes no. Ms. Salazar?
Ms. SALAZAR. Salazar votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Salazar votes no. Mr. Fitzgerald?
Mr. FITZGERALD. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Fitzgerald votes no. Ms. Velazquez?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Velazquez votes aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Velazquez votes aye. Ms. Bourdeaux?
Ms. BOURDEAUX. Yes. Ms. Bourdeaux votes yes.
The CLERK. Ms. Bourdeaux votes aye.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the tally.
The CLERK. On this vote there were 15 ayes and 12 noes.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The questions occurs on the Committee
Print as amended.
All in favor, say aye.
All opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the
Committee Print is amended as agreed to.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Maryland to
make a motion.
Mr. MFUME. Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now
transmit the recommendations of the Committee and all
appropriate accompanying materials, including additional
supplemental, minority, or dissenting views, to the House
Committee on the Budget in order to comply with the
reconciliation directive included in section 2002 of the
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2022 as
Common Resolution 14 and consistent with section 310 of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The question is on the motion offered
by the gentleman from Maryland. A recorded vote is ordered. The
clerk will please call the roll.
The CLERK. Mr. Golden?
Mr. GOLDEN. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes aye. Mr. Crow?
Mr. CROW. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Crow votes aye. Ms. Davids?
Ms. DAVIDS. Davids votes yes.
The CLERK. Ms. Davids votes aye. Mr. Mfume?
Mr. MFUME. Mr. Mfume votes aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Mfume votes aye. Mr. Phillips?
Mr. PHILLIPS. Phillips votes aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Phillips votes aye. Ms. Newman?
Ms. NEWMAN. Newman votes aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Newman votes aye. Ms. Bourdeaux?
Ms. BOURDEAUX. Bourdeaux votes aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Bourdeaux votes aye. Mr. Carter?
Mr. CARTER. Carter votes aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Carter votes aye. Ms. Chu?
Ms. CHU. Chu votes aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Chu votes aye. Mr. Evans?
Mr. EVANS. Evans votes aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Evans votes aye. Mr. Delgado?
Mr. DELGADO. Delgado votes aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Delgado votes aye. Ms. Houlahan? Ms.
Houlahan?
Ms. HOULAHAN. Aye. Aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Houlahan votes aye. Mr. Kim?
Mr. KIM. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Kim votes aye. Ms. Craig?
Ms. CRAIG. Craig votes aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Craig votes aye. Mr. Luetkemeyer?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Luetkemeyer votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer votes no. Mr. Williams?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Williams votes no. Mr. Hagedorn?
Mr. HAGEDORN. Hagedorn votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Hagedorn votes no. Mr. Stauber?
Mr. STAUBER. Stauber votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Stauber votes no. Mr. Meuser?
Mr. MEUSER. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Meuser votes no. Ms. Tenney?
Ms. TENNEY. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Tenney votes no. Mr. Garbarino?
Mr. GARBARINO. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Garbarino votes no. Ms. Young Kim?
Ms. YOUNG KIM. Young Kim votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Young Kim votes no. Ms. Van Duyne?
Ms. VAN DUYNE. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Van Duyne votes no. Mr. Donalds?
Mr. DONALDS. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Donalds votes no. Ms. Salazar?
Ms. SALAZAR. Salazar votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Salazar votes no. Mr. Fitzgerald?
Mr. FITZGERALD. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Fitzgerald votes no. Ms. Velazquez?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Velazquez votes aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Velazquez votes aye.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Are there any other Members that wish
to vote? The clerk will report the tally.
The CLERK. On this vote there were 15 ayes and 12 noes.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The ayes have it and the motion is
agreed to.
Without objection, Committee staff is authorized to correct
punctuation, make other necessary technical corrections, and
confirming changes. Members will have 2 business days to file
additional supplemental dissenting and minority views.
Let me thank all the Members for your participation and
hard work today. Without objection, the meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:09 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]