[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



MARKUP OF: H.R. 1163, PROVE IT ACT OF 2025; H.R. 2027, RETURNING SBA TO 
MAIN STREET ACT; H.R. 2987, CAPPING EXCESSIVE AWARDING OF SBLC ENTRANTS 
(CEASE) ACT; H.R. 2931, SAVE SBA FROM SANCTUARY CITIES ACT; H.R. 2968, 
    BUSINESS OVER BALLOTS ACT; H.R. 2965, SMALL BUSINESS REGULATORY 
   REDUCTION ACT OF 2025; H.R. 2966, AMERICAN ENTREPRENEURS FIRST ACT

=======================================================================




                                HEARING

                               before the

                      COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
                             UNITED STATES
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                              HEARING HELD
                             APRIL 30, 2025
                               __________


                [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                              

            Small Business Committee Document Number 119-009
             Available via the GPO Website: www.govinfo.gov
              
                                  ------
                                 
                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
 
60-590                    WASHINGTON : 2026              
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
                       
             
             
             
             
             
             
                   HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

                    ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas, Chairman
                        PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
                        DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
                         BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas
                           JAKE ELLZEY, Texas
                         MARK ALFORD, Missouri
                         NICK LALOTA, New York
                        BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota
                          TONY WIED, Wisconsin
                      ROB BRESNAHAN, Pennsylvania
                          BRIAN JACK, Georgia
                         TROY DOWNING, Montana
             KIMBERLYN KING-HINDS, Northern Marina Islands
                         DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas
                        JIMMY PATRONIS, Florida
               NYDIA VELAZQUEZ, New York, Ranking Member
                       MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky
                       HILLARY SCHOLTEN, Michigan
                      LAMONICA MCIVER, New Jersey
                        GIL CISNEROS, California
                       KELLY MORRISON, Minnesota
                        GEORGE LATIMER, New York
                         DEREK TRAN, California
                       LATEEFAH SIMON, California
                       JOHNNY OLSZEWSKI, Maryland
                        HERB CONAWAY, New Jersey
                    MAGGIE GOODLANDER, New Hampshire

                 Lauren Holmes, Majority Staff Director
                 Melissa Jung, Minority Staff Director 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                            C O N T E N T S

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
Hon. Roger Williams..............................................     1
Hon. Nydia Velazquez.............................................     2

                                APPENDIX

Additional Material for the Record:
    H.R. 1163 - Prove It Act of 2025.............................    56
    H.R. 2027 - Returning SBA to Main Street Act.................    69
    H.R. 2987 - Capping Excessive Awarding of SBLC Entrants 
      (CEASE) Act................................................    80
    H.R. 2931 - Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act...............    82
    H.R. 2968 - Business over Ballots Act........................    88
    H.R. 2965 - Small Business Regulatory Reduction Act of 2025..    92
    H.R. 2966 - American Entrepreneurs First Act.................    95
Amendments:
    Amendment to H.R. 1163, offered by Mr. Finstad...............    98
    Amendment to H.R. 2027, offered by Mr. Alford................   112
    Amendment to H.R. 2987, offered by Mr. Bresnahan.............   122
    Amendment to H.R. 2931, offered by Mr. Finstad...............   123
    Amendment to H.R. 2968, offered by Mr. Williams..............   129
    Amendment to H.R. 2965, offered by Ms. Van Duyne.............   132
    Amendment to H.R. 2966, offered by Ms. Van Duyne.............   135
    Williams Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2968 - ``Business over 
      Ballots Act'' was AGREED TO by a voice vote................   138
    Alford Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2027 - ``Returning SBA to 
      Main Street Act'' was AGREED TO by a voice vote............   139
    Van Duyne Amendment, no. 1, H.R. 2966 - ``American 
      Entrepreneurs First Act'' was AGREED TO by a voice vote....   270
    Finstad Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2931 - ``Save SBA from 
      Sanctuary Cities Act'' was AGREED TO by a voice vote.......   140
    Bresnahan Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2987 - ``Capping 
      Excessive Awarding of SBLC Entrants (CEASE) Act'' was 
      AGREED TO by a voice vote..................................   141
    Van Duyne Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2965 - ``Small Business 
      Regulatory Reduction Act of 2025'' was AGREED TO by a voice 
      vote.......................................................   142
    Finstad Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 1163 - ``Prove It Act of 
      2025'' was AGREED TO by a voice vote.......................   143
    Conaway Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2968 - ``Business over 
      Ballots Act''..............................................   144
    Velazquez Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2968 - ``Business over 
      Ballots Act''..............................................   146
    Conaway Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2027 - ``Returning SBA to 
      Main Street Act''..........................................   147
    McIver Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2027 - ``Returning SBA to 
      Main Street Act''..........................................   150
    Morrison Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2027 - ``Returning SBA to 
      Main Street Act''..........................................   151
    McIver Amendment, no. 2, to H.R. 2027 - ``Returning SBA to 
      Main Street Act''..........................................   152
    Cisneros Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2931 - ``Save SBA from 
      Sanctuary Cities Act''.....................................   153
    Velazquez Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2931 - ``Save SBA from 
      Sanctuary Cities Act''.....................................   154
    Olszewski Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2965 - ``Small Business 
      Regulatory Reduction Act of 2025''.........................   157
    Morrison Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2965 - ``Small Business 
      Regulatory Reduction Act of 2025''.........................   158
    Goodlander Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 1163 - ``Prove It Act of 
      2025''.....................................................   159
    McGarvey Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 1163 - ``Prove It Act of 
      2025''.....................................................   160
    Velazquez Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 1163 - ``Prove It Act of 
      2025''.....................................................   162
    Olszewski Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 1163 - ``Prove It Act of 
      2025''.....................................................   165
Support Documents:
    E Vote Results...............................................   167
    ABC letter...................................................   188
    AFGE letter..................................................   189
    AFL-CIO letter...............................................   190
    ASBC letter..................................................   192
    CSS letter 1.................................................   195
    CSS letter 2.................................................   197
    HSBC Minority letter 1.......................................   199
    HSBC Minority letter 2.......................................   203
    HSBC Minority letter 3.......................................   207
    HSBC Minority letter 4.......................................   211
    HSBC Minority letter 5.......................................   216
    JCN letter...................................................   219
    NAHB letter..................................................   222
    NFIB letter..................................................   223
    NH Delegation letter.........................................   225
    NSBA letter..................................................   227
    Philips Policy Consulting letter.............................   229
    SBE Council letter 1.........................................   234
    SBE Council letter 2.........................................   236
    U.S. Chamber of Commerce letter..............................   238
    WSJ letter...................................................   241
Votes:
    Conaway Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2968 - ``Business over 
      Ballots Act'' FAILED by a recorded vote of 11 AYES to 15 
      NAYS.......................................................   249
    Velazquez Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2968 - ``Business over 
      Ballots Act'' FAILED by a recorded vote of 11 AYES to 15 
      NAYS.......................................................   250
    Final Passage to H.R. 2968, ``Business over Ballots Act'' as 
      amended was PASSED by a recorded vote of 15 AYES to 11 NAYS   251
    Conaway Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2027 - ``Returning SBA to 
      Main Street Act'' FAILED by a recorded vote of 11 AYES to 
      15 NAYS....................................................   252
    McIver Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2027 - ``Returning SBA to 
      Main Street Act'' FAILED by a recorded vote of 11 AYES to 
      15 NAYS....................................................   253
    Morrison Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2027 - ``Returning SBA to 
      Main Street Act'' FAILED by a recorded vote of 11 AYES to 
      15 NAYS....................................................   254
    McIver Amendment, no. 2, to H.R. 2027 - ``Returning SBA to 
      Main Street Act'' FAILED by a recorded vote of 11 AYES to 
      15 NAYS....................................................   255
    Final Passage to H.R. 2027, ``Returning SBA to Main Street 
      Act'' as amended was PASSED by a recorded vote of 15 AYES 
      to 11 NAYS.................................................   256
    Final Passage to H.R. 2966, ``American Entrepreneurs First 
      Act'' as amended was PASSED by a recorded vote of 15 AYES 
      to 11 NAYS.................................................   257
    Cisneros Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2931 - ``Save SBA from 
      Sanctuary Cities Act'' FAILED by a recorded vote of 11 AYES 
      to 15 NAYS.................................................   258
    Velazquez Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2931 - ``Save SBA from 
      Sanctuary Cities Act'' FAILED by a recorded vote of 11 AYES 
      to 15 NAYS.................................................   259
    Final Passage to H.R. 2931, ``Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities 
      Act'' as amended was PASSED by a recorded vote of 15 AYES 
      to 11 NAYS.................................................   260
    Final Passage to H.R. 2987, ``Capping Excessive Awarding of 
      SBLC Entrants (CEASE) Act'' as amended was PASSED by a 
      recorded vote of 15 AYES to 11 NAYS........................   261
    Olszewski Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2965 - ``Small Business 
      Regulatory Reduction Act of 2025'' FAILED by a recorded 
      vote of 11 AYES to 15 NAYS.................................   262
    Morrison Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2965 - ``Small Business 
      Regulatory Reduction Act of 2025'' FAILED by a recorded 
      vote of 11 AYES to 15 NAYS.................................   263
    Final Passage to H.R. 2965, ``Small Business Regulatory 
      Reduction Act of 2025'' as amended was PASSED by a recorded 
      vote of 15 AYES to 11 NAYS.................................   264
    Goodlander Amendment, no, 1, to H.R. 1163 - ``Prove It Act of 
      2025'' FAILED by a recorded vote of 11 AYES to 15 NAYS.....   265
    McGarvey Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 1163 - ``Prove It Act of 
      2025'' FAILED by a recorded vote of 11 AYES to 15 NAYS.....   266
    Velazquez Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 1163 - ``Prove It Act of 
      2025'' FAILED by a recorded vote of 11 AYES to 15 NAYS.....   267
    Olszewski Amendment, no, 1, to H.R. 1163 - ``Prove It Act of 
      2025'' FAILED by a recorded vote of 11 AYES to 15 NAYS.....   268
    Final Passage to H.R. 1163, ``Prove It Act of 2025'' as 
      amended was PASSED by a recorded vote of 15 AYES to 11 NAYS   269

 
MARKUP OF H.R. 1163, PROVE IT ACT OF 2025; H.R. 2027, RETURNING SBA TO 
MAIN STREET ACT; H.R. 2987, CAPPING EXCESSIVE AWARDING OF SBLC ENTRANTS 
(CEASE) ACT; H.R. 2931, SAVE SBA FROM SANCTUARY CITIES ACT; H.R. 2968, 
    BUSINESS OVER BALLOTS ACT; H.R. 2965, SMALL BUSINESS REGULATORY 
   REDUCTION ACT OF 2025; H.R. 2966, AMERICAN ENTREPRENEURS FIRST ACT

                              ----------                              

                       WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2025

                  House of Representatives,
               Committee on Small Business,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:49 a.m., in Room 
2360, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Roger Williams 
[chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Williams, Meuser, Van Duyne, 
Alford, LaLota, Finstad, Bresnahan, Schmidt, Velazquez, 
McGarvey, McIver, Cisneros, Morrison, Olszewski, Conaway, and 
Goodlander.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The committee will now come to order. A 
quorum is present and without objection, the Chair is 
authorized to declare a--a a new Chair here for minute. Here 
you go. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the committee at any time.
    Before we get into the main business today, I want to ask 
unanimous consent to waive Mr. Jimmy Patronis from the great 
state of Florida on to the committee. He will serve as a Member 
of the Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and 
Regulations, the Subcommittee on Rural Development, Energy, and 
Supply Chains, and the Subcommittee on Innovation, 
Entrepreneurship, and Workforce Development. Without objection, 
so moved.
    As required by the House rules a copy of the legislative 
measures have been made available to Members and the public at 
least 24 hours in advance, and pursuant to committee rule 13 
and House rule 11, all votes will be rolled at the end of the 
meeting.
    And like the last markup we will use electronic voting. 
Without objection, the committee will vote electronically in 
accordance with the committee rules and regulations developed 
by the Committee on Rules and House Administration.
    I now recognize myself for opening remarks. Here on this 
committee we stand up for hard-working entrepreneurs and small 
business owners. We understand that it is our job to put 
forward meaningful policy solutions that encourage growth and 
make it easier, not harder, for small businesses to grow and to 
thrive.
    In today's markup, we will consider seven bills that 
address the needs of small business owners across the country. 
These bills take steps to restore accountability and trust in 
the Small Business Administration. We have a job on this 
committee to be a voice for main street here in Washington.
    Under the Biden-Harris administration small businesses and 
endured an unprecedented regulatory assault. Those policies 
continually undermine the SBA's mission and its core functions. 
The bills in this markup correct those wrongs and support the 
Trump administration policies to ensure that the federal 
government puts American entrepreneurs first again.
    Last Congress this committee fought job-killing regulatory 
burdens that shackled small businesses. We even heard from 
small business owners that they were told by government 
officials that the goal was to drive small businesses out of 
business.
    To add insult to injury, the Biden administration removed 
the SBA lending standards to put American tax dollars at risk 
by approving loans for borrowers who were not able to repay 
them. For 4 years the Biden-Harris SBA moved the agency and its 
employees further away from its mission of serving Main Street 
America.
    The SBA began unprecedented activity like electioneering 
and approving loans for illegal immigrants. This committee and 
the Trump administration have heard small business loud and 
clear that guardrails must be put up and is what Administrator 
Loeffler has done in just a few months as SBA administrator.
    Today's bills work to ensure that no future administration 
will be able to end this kind of assault on small businesses. 
Those common sense bills are another step forward in unleashing 
small business from the government burdens to bring about the 
golden age of main street.
    As Chairman I am committed to funding or defining real 
legislative solutions to help small businesses grow and thrive. 
I would like to thank our Members for bringing these bills 
forward for consideration in today's markup. And I am 
incredibly proud to see our committee generating sound, 
responsive legislation to support Main Street America.
    With that, I yield to my friend and my distinguished 
Ranking Member from New York, Ms. Velazquez.
    Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 
welcome Mr. Patronis to the committee, and we look forward to 
working with you throughout this Congress.
    But, Mr. Chairman, before I make my statement I just have 
to put into the record the fact that there hasn't been 
presented any shred of evidence that undocumented immigrants 
have been given any loans. And if there exists any evidence, 
please bring it forward.
    And the first thing that you need to do is to get the 
administrator to come before this committee and testify about 
the many issues that we need to tackle within the Small 
Business Administration.
    Let me begin by saying that the timing and content of this 
markup is ill-conceived. We are in the midst of reconciliation 
and a vast majority of our Members cannot attend due to 
conflicts. It doesn't make sense to move controversial bills 
without giving all Members a fair opportunity to participate 
and offer amendments.
    Aside from the Member conflicts, these bills, which put 
major organizational changes into statute having been vetted 
and no oversight has been conducted.
    Committee Democrats sent five letters to Administrator 
Loeffler on some of these issues and they have all gone 
unanswered. We need the information and the administrator 
should be here testifying on the mass firings, program costs, 
relocation of district and regional offices, and new changes to 
the lending programs.
    Instead, we are getting stonewalled by the administration 
and marking up bills without hearings, briefings, or any 
vetting on some of these policies.
    Small businesses are concerned about tariffs and we should 
be working together to hold an oversight hearing on the 
administration's reckless policies that have wreaked havoc, 
chaos, and confusion across our country. And by the way, the 
GDP report released this morning indicates our economy shrank 
0.3 percent over the last 100 days.
    According to the MetLife and Chamber of Commerce Small 
Business Index, only 29 percent of small businesses feel good 
about the nation's health and 58 percent ranked inflation as 
their top concern. Let's not forget President Trump promised to 
lower inflation. Instead, he picked a fight on tariffs with 
Canada, Mexico, and other countries.
    Prices are beginning to surge and small businesses are 
paying the price. The Wall Street Journal recently reported on 
several small businesses that are on the verge of extinction 
because they cannot afford the added costs.
    And if that is not bad enough, the policy can be changed 
with a tweet causing undue uncertainty for small businesses. I 
would like to enter the Wall Street Journal article into the 
record.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. So moved.
    Ms. VELAZQUEZ. With that said, I cannot support the certain 
bills we are considering today because the process has been 
ill-conceived. I ask of the Chairman again that he demand 
Administrator Loeffler testify to explain the reorganization 
and programmatic policy changes before marking up these bills.
    Thank you and I yield back.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Does any other Member seek recognition 
for the purpose of making an opening statement? Okay. Seeing 
none, we will now move to consideration of the first bill.
    H.R. 2968
    The committee now moves into consideration of H.R. 2968, 
the Business Over Ballots Act that I introduced earlier this 
month. The clerk will report the bill.
    The CLERK. H.R. 2968, a bill to limit the authority of the 
Small Business Administration----
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection, H.R. 2968 is 
considered as read and open for amendment. I have an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute at the desk that has been 
distributed in advance. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The CLERK. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 
2968 offered by Mr. Williams----
    Chairman WILLIAMS. So moved. Without objection, the 
amendment is considered as read and the substitute will be 
considered as base text for the purpose of further amendment. I 
now recognize myself for a statement on the bill and the 
amendment.
    The SBA is many things to a small business. They can help 
with everything from facilitating business loans to helping 
veterans find a pathway to entrepreneurship. What the SBA is 
not, however, is a voter registration arm of a presidential 
reelection campaign. But that is what the Biden-Harris 
administration attempted turn the SBA into until this committee 
found out and launched an extensive investigation into the 
matter last year.
    After stonewalling us for months, I issued three subpoenas 
to the SBA resulting in a treasure trove of documents. The 
documents revealed that the Biden-Harris SBA tried to cut deals 
with swing states to encourage in electioneering, including 
with the governor and the secretary of state of Michigan. The 
SBA moved so far beyond of helping main street start businesses 
that the agency was almost unrecognizable.
    This bill makes it clear that the role of the Small 
Business Administration is to help small businesses, not 
register voters. This bill is common sense, and I hope my 
colleagues across the aisle agree that there is no room for 
electioneering at the SBA.
    I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.
    Does anyone else wish to speak on the bill and the 
amendment?
    Mr. MEUSER. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Mr. Meuser from the great state of 
Pennsylvania.
    Mr. MEUSER. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Your bill, the Business 
Over Ballots Act, would prevent the SBA from using their 
valuable taxpayer-funded resources to further the political 
campaign of presidential candidates as it occurred under the 
previous administration under Administrator Guzman.
    Not that our new administration or leadership, new 
administrator or leadership would expend valuable resources on 
such activities, but during a time when our nation's small 
business owners were struggling with suffocating inflation, 
burdensome regulations, workforce shortages, and difficulty 
accessing capital, the SBA prioritized their efforts to 
inappropriately influence the election prospects of President 
Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.
    Along with entering into a new voter registration 
memorandum of understanding with the Michigan Department of 
State, the SBA hired Jennifer Kim as an associated 
administrator in the office of field operations, if I recall 
correctly, at a salary of something like $225,000.
    Unlike many employees at the SBA, Ms. Kim specialized 
primarily in politicizing, in political organizing, 
campaigning, and registering voters. Ironically, her only 
previous experience with small business was what one would 
describe as a left wing environmentalist organization that 
campaigned for increased government regulations that very often 
were harmful to small businesses.
    Thankfully, under the leadership of Administrator Loeffler, 
we now have an SBA that is actually focused on the need of 
America's small businesses and not electioneering in swing 
districts.
    Mr. Chairman, this legislation is essential to prevent 
gross administrative malpractice and to ensure that the SBA 
focuses solely on its mission to aid, counsel, assist, and 
protect the interests of small business.
    Using agencies to campaign politically is wrong, is not 
ethical, it violates the Hatch Act, and if we do not fix this 
now permanently we perhaps could be perceived as endorsing the 
actions of the previous administration.
    I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
    Does anyone else wish to speak on the bill and the 
amendment?
    Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes. You don't have anybody?
    Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I don't think so.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. Seeing none, I would like to 
recognize the Ranking Member to speak on the bill and the 
amendment.
    Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Williams. I am opposed to 
H.R. 2968. In the last Congress, the majority launched a heavy-
handed investigation issuing multiple subpoenas of public 
servants and firing off numerous oversight letters demanding 
documents without a scope from SBA and the White House. And 
after a yearlong investigation into SBA's actions and 3 
business days before the markup we received a copy of this 
bill.
    I am curious. Why aren't we applying the same level of 
robust oversight to the administration's reorganization and 
relocation of the regional offices?
    Let's set the record straight. The bipartisan--bipartisan--
National Voter Registration Act allows states to designate 
federal agencies as voter registration agencies. That is the 
law.
    To that end, SBA and the Michigan Department of State 
signed a memorandum of understanding, or MOU, allowing the 
Michigan Department of State to create a unique URL to place on 
SBA's website to drive online voting registration. It permitted 
the Michigan Department of State to register voters at SBA 
district office outreach events in Michigan. The cost to the 
American taxpayers were minimal.
    And despite loud claims to the contrary, resources were not 
diverted from small businesses. The committee was briefed by 
SBA, information was shared, and thousands of pages of 
documents were provided. We have had multiple hearings where 
the majority's claims were thoroughly debunked.
    We have sat through two transcribed interviews of SBA 
employees and yet no evidence was uncovered to support their 
claims. It is unsettling that the majority wants to offer a 
bill to prohibit the SBA from promoting voter registration.
    The previous administrator testified that no one used the 
link to register to vote. The link is no longer on the SBA's 
website. It is a non-issue.
    This bill is purely a messaging bill designed to distract 
us from the president's intentional tanking of the economy and 
the resulting tumbling of the market. I am opposed to this 
measure, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. The gentlelady yields back. I 
thank you.
    And does anyone else wish to offer an amendment? Yes, sir? 
For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?
    Mr. CONAWAY. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. There is an amendment at the desk. 
We will briefly pause while staff distributes the amendment.
    The clerk will report the amendment.
    The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute----
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    I now recognize the Mr. Conaway, Dr. Conaway, for 5 minutes 
on the amendment.
    Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I stated, I would 
like to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute to 
H.R. 2968, the Business Over Ballots Act. I oppose H.R. 2968 
because the basis for this bill is unfounded.
    For context, in March of 2024, the SBA with the Michigan 
Department of State signed a memorandum of agreement under 
which the SBA did the following: placed a link on the Michigan 
district office website, the Michigan Department of State's 
existing online voter registration form and agreed to allow the 
Michigan Department of State staff to conduct in-person voter 
registration events.
    These actions are consistent with the National Voter 
Registration Act of 1993 wherein ``state governments may 
designate entities, including federal agencies, as voter 
registration agencies responsible for facilitating access to 
voter registration.''
    Now, who could be against that activity? It is the number 
one item or right that protects freedom here in our country.
    The House Small Business Committee Republicans launched an 
investigation alleging that activities were not within the 
statutory mission of the SBA. Ultimately, their investigations 
amounted to nothing as on September 18th Administrator Guzman 
testified before the committee that zero individuals had 
registered as a result of this link.
    In reality under the Biden administration, the SBA helped 
increase small business growth and development with more than 
20 million new small business applications being processed by 
the SBA resulting in 60 million new jobs and driving 
unemployment to historic lows.
    With the SBA's shrinking workforce the agency already has a 
limited capacity to manage their ultimate directive, which is 
to serve and advance the growth of the American small business. 
Adding the student loan portfolio under the jurisdiction of the 
SBA runs contrary to the House's projected ethos of government 
efficiency.
    H.R. 2968 is purely a messaging bill meant to distract the 
public from the actions undertaken by the Trump administration 
to decimate federal agencies like the SBA in the name of 
government efficiency while adding programs like the student 
loan portfolio, which my amendment would prohibit, would be 
consistent with the SBA's overriding mission to support and 
develop small businesses in our country.
    I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so that we 
can focus on the real issues that small businesses are facing, 
not manufactured ones. With that, I will close my statement on 
my amendment.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
    Is there any further debate on the amendment?
    Mr. Meuser from the great state of Pennsylvania.
    Mr. MEUSER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I oppose this 
amendment requesting documents and communications from the SBA 
as an exercise--oh, I am sorry. We have got the Conaway 
amendment. I began in the wrong spot, my apologies.
    The administration is looking into ways into restructuring 
the administration of federal student loans in a manner that 
would allow them to operate more efficiently and effectively. 
The SBA is a candidate to take over this responsibility.
    This amendment would prevent the administration and 
Congress from moving forward from even considering this 
proposal. Further, this amendment is not germane to the narrow 
scope of the underlying bill. I urge my colleagues to vote no.
    I yield back.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. The gentleman yields back.
    Is there any further debate on the amendment?
    Okay. I move to strike the last word. Conaway amendment No. 
182968, unfortunately, this amendment is an attempt to distract 
from the fact that the Biden administration was attempting to 
register Democratic voters in a swing state during the last 
presidential election.
    Utilizing executive branch agencies to interfere in 
elections is unacceptable, and I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this amendment.
    Is there any further debate on the amendment?
    Mr. MCGARVEY. I have got to read a statement.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. Mr. McGarvey from the great state 
of Kentucky.
    Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and our Ranking 
Member Ms. Velazquez, who is not here will make remarks on her 
behalf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Our colleagues have raised serious concerns about the 
deeply misguided proposal to transfer student loans to the SBA. 
We have requested additional information from the administrator 
on the proposal but have not received any answers on how such a 
transfer would occur and what will be required of the SBA.
    We continue to believe there will be negative consequences 
for both students and small businesses if this proposal were to 
become a reality, especially without any congressional 
oversight.
    I applaud Dr. Conaway for offering this amendment today and 
make it clear that the student loan portfolio cannot be moved 
to SBA by executive decree and urge all of colleagues to 
support it.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
    The question now occurs on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman--from Dr. Conaway.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    All right. Now, does anyone else wish to offer an 
amendment?
    Okay. A recorded vote has been requested and a roll call 
vote is ordered. Further proceedings on the amendment are 
postponed.
    Does anyone else wish to offer an amendment?
    Mr. MCGARVEY. I will offer an amendment.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. There is an amendment at the desk. 
We will briefly pause while staff distributes the amendment.
    Okay. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 2968----
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    I now recognize Mr. McGarvey from Kentucky for 5 minutes on 
the amendment.
    Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I offer this 
amendment on behalf of Ranking Member Velazquez, who has to be 
in another markup right now. Ms. Velazquez's amendment would 
require the SBA to provide the committee with information on 
the administration's deeply misguided proposal to transfer the 
student loan portfolio to the SBA.
    It is unclear to what extent the administrator was involved 
in these discussions or decisions prior to the president's 
announcement, but given the massive cost of administering and 
servicing student loans that would be imposed on the SBA 
additional congressional action and oversight is warranted.
    The committee must have this information to understand the 
impact on small businesses, the SBA and its programs, staff, 
resources, and legal authorities, as well as the student loan 
borrowers. I therefore urge all of my colleagues to support Ms. 
Velazquez's amendment.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize Ms. Van Duyne from the great state of 
Texas.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Thank you very much. Requesting documents 
and communications from the SBA is an exercise that is 
completely out of scope for this amendment, particularly for 
student loan administration that has not yet begun at the 
agency, so the bill that we have drafted here today is plain 
and simple.
    Though my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not 
believe that the SBA should be involved with administering 
student loans, I get that, but they should be focused on making 
sure that no federal agency should be involved in influencing 
elections. And I urge my colleagues to vote no on this 
amendment.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back.
    Is there further debate on the amendment? Okay. I move to 
strike the last word, and this bill is solely focused on the 
voter registration activity of the SBA, not an oversight 
exercise to gain access to internal communications at the SBA.
    The SBA lost its way under the last administration and must 
be refocused to serve America's Main Street and not register 
voters. So, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
    Is there further debate on the amendment? The question now 
occurs on the amendment offered by myself from Texas--oh, Mr. 
McGarvey, I am sorry, from Kentucky.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, no.
    In the opinion the Chair, the noes have it and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. MCGARVEY. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Velazquez would like to 
request a recorded vote.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. A recorded vote has been requested 
and a roll call vote is ordered. Further proceedings on the 
amendment are postponed.
    Does anyone else wish to offer an amendment? The question 
now occurs on the adoption of the substitute amendment offered 
to H.R. 2968 by me.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The 
amendment in the nature of the substitute H.R. 2968 is adopted.
    Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Chair?
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The question--okay. The question is now 
on favorably reporting H.R. 2968 as amended to the House.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the Chair----
    Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Chair?
    Chairman WILLIAMS. You are recognized. Yes. For what 
purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?
    Mr. ALFORD. I ask for a recorded vote, please.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. A recorded vote has been requested. A 
roll call vote is ordered, so pursuant to committee rule 13 and 
House rule 11, further proceedings on the bill are postponed.
    H.R. 2027
    The committee now moves to consideration of H.R. 2027, the 
Returning SBA to Main Street Act introduced by Representative 
Alford from the great state of Missouri.
    The clerk will report the bill.
    The CLERK. H.R. 2027, a bill to require the 
administrative----
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection, H.R. 2027 considered 
as read and open for amendment. The bill's sponsor, Mr. Alford, 
has an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk. The 
amendment has been distributed in advance and the clerk will 
report the amendment.
    The CLERK. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 
2027 offered by Mr. Alford----
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read and the substitute will be considered as 
base text for the purpose of further amendment.
    I now recognize the sponsor of the bill and the amendment, 
Mr. Alford from Missouri, for a statement.
    Mr. ALFORD. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for 
this markup session Ranking Member Velazquez.
    Look, this committee exists in Congress to champion main 
street. That is what we are all about. That is what we will 
continue to be all about under the direction of our Chairman to 
make sure that small businesses that employ about half of all 
Americans can continue to thrive.
    Our role is to help lower the barriers to creating small 
businesses and to support small businesses that already exist 
with the capital and counseling that they need to survive.
    For 4 years the SBA stepped away from that core mission. 
Under the previous administration, the SBA deliberately pulled 
back from the field their staff, they stayed home and stayed 
focused on the registering Democratic voters.
    Did everyone get that? Instead of doing their jobs they 
were more concentrated about registering Democrat voters. And 
this is why we are proud to introduce the Returning SBA to Main 
Street Act to force the SBA out of the swamp and back on main 
street.
    By relocating these workers, Mr. Chairman, into the 
communities that they serve, we can provide our nation's small 
businesses with the support they deserve and reduce wasteful 
spending on unused office space that we personally saw on our 
miniature codel over there almost 2 years ago now.
    I am proud to work with Chair Joni Ernst on this critical 
legislation to drain the swamp and ignite a new golden age for 
the backbone of our economy, America's small businesses. I 
strongly support this legislation and urge my colleagues to do 
the same.
    Let's get back to main street and back to the business of 
doing business in America, and I yield back.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back. And does 
anyone else wish to speak on the bill and the amendment? Okay. 
If none and seeing none, I would like to recognize--I am sorry. 
Okay, I have got you.
    I recognize from Kentucky.
    Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Williams, and on behalf of our 
Ranking Member Ms. Velazquez I want to say that I am opposed to 
H.R. 2027 the Returning SBA to Main Street Act. I agree that 
main street is a major, massive priority, but this bill is 
another messaging bill that attacks federal employees and will 
harm our nation's 34 million small businesses.
    The vast majority of the SBA's workforce is already in the 
field in either loan or processing centers or in the 68 
district offices and 10 regional offices. As of December 2024, 
only 12 percent of SBA's workforce was located at its 
headquarters and these employees are focused on programmatic 
matters.
    The SBA had roughly 640 employees in their district offices 
who were specifically trained to provide customer service to 
small businesses, but here is the reality. The new 
administrator is cutting the workforce by 43 percent and 
without a clear coordinated strategy.
    I am hearing that has resulted in a 20 percent reduction to 
field operations staff, but I would love to have her come and 
testify to this committee and explain the situation and the 
staffing numbers to us in person so we can better understand 
this.
    I ask my colleagues, does this bill relocate 30 percent of 
employees at headquarters to other parts of the country? Does 
it make any sense if we are left with minimal employees? How 
can we relocate employees if we have no idea what the agency 
staffing reality is and where the staff are even left in each 
office and location around the country? Put simply, it does 
not.
    It is a messaging bill designed to distract us from the 
harmful tariff policies that are fueling inflation across the 
country. In the end, small businesses will bear the brunt of 
these ill-conceived policies.
    If Republicans want more people in the field then they 
shouldn't have fired or forced people into early retirements. 
They should have invested in the employees who are specifically 
trained in customer service outreach and engagement.
    This bill also comes with a hefty price tag and does 
nothing to control government spending. The SBA signed a 20-
year lease in November 2020 and the cost of breaking the lease 
will run in the millions. And there is a cost to relocating 
employees to other parts of the country, even if the agency is 
not paying the relocation expenses.
    I would like to enter into the record a letter from the 
American Federation of Government Employees and the AFL-CIO 
stating, ``this bill will cause the loss of highly trained and 
skilled SBA employees with decades of institutional knowledge, 
training, and expertise in their local market and established 
connections to local lenders and small businesses allowing them 
to provide critical services to the American public in times of 
need.''
    Chairman WILLIAMS. So moved.
    Mr. MCGARVEY. AFGE goes on to write that ``this bill will 
limit an employee's ability to participate in union activities, 
including limiting protections under the collective bargaining 
agreement or master labor agreement and banning a private right 
of action for wrongful termination.''
    In closing, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill that 
will harm SBA employees and diminish services to America's 34 
million small businesses. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. And I will recognize myself for a 
statement. I rise in support of H.R. 2027, the Returning SBA to 
Main Street Act introduced by my friend Representative Alford 
from the great state of Missouri.
    Main Street America is filled with small businesses that 
provide all types of goods and services. From small 
manufacturers to cutting edge innovators, these entrepreneurs 
are located all over our great nation. Yet in true fashion of 
the federal bureaucracy, the agency tasked with assisting main 
street isn't located on main street, but in Washington, D.C..
    Since day one, President Trump has issued executive orders 
to streamline the government. This led Administrative Loeffler 
to take action last month. She announced that at least 30 
percent of the SBA staff are relocating to where small 
businesses are, simply on main street.
    So, by moving the SBA employees back to main street, H.R. 
2027 will ensure that the SBA is more responsive and in tune 
with small businesses across this great country. So, I urge all 
my colleagues to support this bill.
    Does anyone else wish to offer an amendment?
    Mr. CONAWAY. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. So recognized. There is an amendment at 
the desk, and we will briefly pause while staff distributes the 
amendment.
    The clerk will report the amendment.
    The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 2027 offered by Mr.----
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    I now recognize the gentlewoman--or Dr. Conaway, I am 
sorry, Doctor, for the amendment.
    Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to offer 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2027, the 
Returning SBA to Main Street Act.
    On March 21, 2025, SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler 
announced an agency-wide reorganization that includes a 43 
percent workforce reduction. Additionally, according to the 
American Federation of Government Employees, there is a large 
amount of pressure for employees to leave the voluntary 
separation via--or rather the voluntary separation incentive 
payment or a reduction in force. These reductions in force 
remain under way at the SBA.
    These actions have essentially kneecapped the SBA by 
shrinking an already understaffed workforce. H.R. 2027 would 
relocate 30 percent of SBA employees from headquarters to other 
parts of the country and is, unfortunately, another messaging 
bill that further puts strain on the federal workforce.
    This bill will ultimately hurt the 34 million small 
businesses in the United States, which are the engine of 
employment in our economy and our country.
    Moreover, this bill is not necessary because the majority 
of the workforce is currently in the field. Along with being in 
the field, the SBA is being directed to shrink their workforce. 
What we should be doing is advocating for an increase in 
resources to the SBA so they can continue to drive our economy, 
the economy in our country.
    SBA district offices need to conduct outreach, engagement, 
and customer services. That should be our goal, not to target 
federal employees in the name of government efficiency. My 
amendment would require the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office to conduct an analysis of the SBA administrator's 
reorganization plan.
    Under the bill the following would be required: the cost of 
terminating or modifying the leases on government, that is SBA, 
buildings and offices and relocation costs for federal 
employees; the effect such a plan would have on legally binding 
collective bargaining agreements; the effect of the transfers 
on SBA's performance program and services provided to small 
businesses; a description of any challenges faced with the 
relocation of the agency's workforce; a detailed and 
comprehensive estimate of the cost of these reforms; and an 
explanation as to how they will be funded.
    I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. With that, 
I yield back.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
    Is there any further debate on the amendment?
    Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Chair?
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, sir, what does the gentleman need?
    Mr. ALFORD. Debate on the amendments, sir.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. All right. I now recognize Mr. Alford 
from Missouri.
    Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Chair, this amendment creates just another 
bureaucratic hurdle that is going to create even more delays in 
the needed reforms of the Small Business Administration. A 
yearlong review process? It is only going to slow down the 
agency's ability to be responsive to small businesses, another 
year of delays for analysis is just going to hurt our small 
business owners even further.
    Instead of prioritizing main street, this amendment 
protects SBA headquarters' staff while missing the point of the 
SBA priorities, which is to serve small business owners, not 
federal employees.
    Let me repeat this. The SBA's mission is not to protect the 
federal employees. It is to protect and grow small businesses 
on main street.
    At the time when the SBA should be cutting red tape, this 
amendment adds more of it by forcing the SBA to spend more 
time, more resources, more energy, more people on duplicative 
reporting instead of delivering real results for the American 
people and America's small businesses.
    Mr. Chair, I highly recommend that we vote no on this 
amendment, and let's get this thing done and get to 
concentrating on Main Street America. That is what the 
president United States wants. That is what the administrator 
wants, Kelly Loeffler, and that is what this committee should 
be all about.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
    Is there any further debate on the amendment?
    I now recognize Mr. McGarvey from Kentucky.
    Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And on behalf of our 
Ranking Member Ms. Velazquez, I applaud Dr. Conaway for 
offering this common sense amendment that would have GAO review 
any proposal to relocate staff that is based on numbers. And 
that is what we need to do.
    So, we are here to protect main street. We are here to 
protect small businesses. We want to do things that make sense. 
It would be really helpful if the administrator would come and 
answer any of these questions here.
    But again, only 12 percent of the workforce is based out of 
SBA headquarters and arbitrarily moving some employees with no 
coordination with the administration's 43 percent workforce 
reduction does not make sense at this time.
    Instead, the GAO should review these ill-conceived plans 
for the actual impact on the small businesses that rely on the 
SBA for loans, contracting, disaster assistance, and other SBA 
programs that impact their businesses and livelihoods.
    I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, and, 
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. I move to strike the last word and let 
me say this. This amendment will cause unnecessary delay, and 
thus, I urge my colleagues to simply vote against it.
    The question now occurs on the amendment offered by 
myself--or by Mr. Conaway, I am sorry, from him.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, of the noes have it and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    A recorded vote has been requested. A roll call vote is 
ordered and further proceedings on the amendment are postponed.
    Does anyone else wish to offer an amendment?
    Ms. MCIVER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. There is an amendment at the desk. We 
will briefly pause while staff distributes the amendment. Okay. 
The clerk will report the amendment.
    The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R.----
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    And I now recognize Congresswoman McIver for 5 minutes on 
the amendment.
    Ms. MCIVER. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you to the 
Ranking Member. Today I am offering an amendment in response to 
the extraordinary instability we see at the Small Business 
Administration and the lack of communication from the SBA 
administrator has shown to Members of this committee.
    My amendment would prevent this bill from taking effect 
unless the SBA administrator appears before this committee to 
testify about her reorganization plan for the SBA.
    This week marked the first 100 days since the Trump 
administration assumed control of the SBA. Before this 
administration, the SBA helped guide millions of small 
businesses out of the chaos of COVID-19 pandemic and into an 
era of historic growth under the Biden-Harris administration.
    In just the last 100 days, we have seen a spree of firings, 
announced plans to shutter critical needed SBA offices with no 
replacements, and plans to shift the entire federal student 
loan portfolio to SBA, all of this occurring while the SBA 
continues with its plans to cut nearly half of its workforce.
    Despite these dramatic and disruptive changes, the 
administrator has yet to appear before this committee to 
explain the SBA's recent actions or present any vision for the 
agency's future. This lack of transparency is unacceptable, and 
it should be unacceptable to everyone here on this committee.
    Earlier this month, the SBA even announced an internal 
investigation targeting staff for speaking to press and 
communicating with former colleagues. This is a clear attempt 
to silence whistleblowers and conceal the full extent of the 
administrator's destructive mismanagement of SBA.
    So now we have a situation where the SBA administrator is 
not facing any meaningful oversight, which is our job, while 
the SBA tries to intimidate its own staff for speaking out 
about how the agency is being run. How can Congress legislate 
for the American people without the facts on the ground?
    Our small businesses deserve better. Congress deserves 
answers and the American people deserve an SBA that is stable, 
accountable, and focused on helping entrepreneurs, not serving 
an economically destructive political agenda or operating in 
secrecy.
    For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment. With that, I yield back.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back. And is there 
further debate on the amendment?
    Mr. FINSTAD. Mr. Chair?
    Chairman WILLIAMS. I now recognize Mr. Finstad for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. FINSTAD. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment could 
significantly delay the process of bringing SBA employees back 
to underserved areas and creates unnecessary bottlenecks. The 
requirements for testimony introduces an additional layer that 
delays face-to-face communication by the SBA to our small 
businesses.
    And, in fact, this bill, the underlying bill that we are 
talking about here today, really is all about Congress taking 
control of the direction and the shortfalls of SBA. And so with 
that being said, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this 
amendment.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
    Is there any further debate on the amendment?
    Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Chair?
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. ALFORD. Over here, sir.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. Yes sir.
    Mr. ALFORD. Look, Kelly Loeffler is not here today. We are 
here today to mark up this bill to get it out to get the SBA 
out into Main Street America.
    And I know that the Member who offered this amendment, Ms. 
McIver, was not here I believe during our last term, but I was. 
And a lot of people were here who are sitting here now who 
repeatedly asked for Administrator Guzman to come and explain 
herself as to why she was turning the SBA into an 
electioneering arm of the Democrat party?
    Now, she refused to do that. We went to see her at her 
office. She gave us a little tour as she collapsed the 
workforce into one floor to make it look like they were 
actually doing their job at the SBA, but we saw through that. 
And she finally showed up towards the end of the last term.
    Now, look, this is a bipartisan committee. We have got to 
work together to make sure the SBA is doing its job and getting 
back to the job of making things grow on main street, but we 
can't have this type of duplicitous rancor, this 
disingenuousness.
    And so, I strongly urge a no vote on this amendment. It is 
not right to try to force Kelly Loeffler to come here after 
only being in office for 100 days and a big job to do right now 
while Ms. Guzman refused to come.
    So with that, I yield back.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
    Ms. MORRISON. Mr. Chair? Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Morrison.
    Ms. MORRISON. May I respond?
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes you can.
    Ms. MORRISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield my time to 
Mrs. McIver.
    Ms. MCIVER. Thank you so much, Dr. Morrison, to my 
colleague. First of all, I don't know why it is being mentioned 
about where I was last time and last term, which I was here 
last term. But anyway, oversight is our job.
    Oversight is necessary, so saying that this amendment is 
unnecessary is, quite honestly, crazy. It is what our job is 
here in Congress. We are supposed to provide oversight and that 
is what we should be doing, so it is very necessary.
    Secondly, I don't care how long the SBA administrator has 
been on the job. That is not an excuse for the administrator 
coming before this committee to talk with us and answer 
questions so we are not assuming or guessing about what is 
happening.
    This, you know, Congress is trying to operate and without 
clear answers we are not able to legislate and do our job.
    Thirdly, yes, we want to work. We want to be in a 
bipartisan situation and work together, you know, yeah, 
bipartisan committee. We want to work together, however, we are 
not being included and none of our amendments or anything that 
we are suggesting or working with us across the aisle is not 
being considered, so that is a problem.
    So, I am happy that across the aisle my colleague 
acknowledged that we are bipartisan. Well, let's start acting 
like it. With that I yield back.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back. Is there 
further debate on the amendment? Okay.
    The gentleman is recognized from Kentucky.
    All right. Who is that? Oh, Ms. Van Duyne from the great 
state of Texas is recognized.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would 
just add that if there are questions, instead of waiting until 
our next meeting why don't they just go ahead and request them 
directly from the administrator? You have the means to be able 
to do that. Write a letter. All of our offices do that.
    So, if you have got specific questions that you want 
answered ask them from the administration. There is no need to 
uphold and wait and wait and wait and delay this action except 
to just delay it.
    So again, we submitted a lot of questions that never got 
answered from the previous administration over and over again. 
We requested a number of times the administrator to come and 
visit.
    If we had upheld having any kind of bills move through our 
committee simply waiting to have somebody come and testify that 
would have been ridiculous. So, you have got the means to be 
able to do it. Just write a letter.
    I am going to put the rest of my time to my gentle 
colleague, Mr. Alford.
    Mr. ALFORD. Thank you, Ms. Van Duyne.
    And, Mr. Chair, I just want to correct the record because I 
love this committee. I know you do, too. I think everyone on 
this committee loves this committee but we have to deal in a 
place of truth.
    I do want to correct the record. The Member from the other 
side, first my apologies for not recognizing your commitment to 
this committee last term. I sincerely apologize for that.
    But secondly, this committee and this committee staff has 
worked with the minority side to get the amendments in, but not 
only that, to offer the opportunity to put bills into this 
markup session and yet they have refused to do that.
    They do not want this to be a bipartisan markup session as 
we have had in the past, and I think that is not good for the 
American people. We need to continue down the path even though, 
look, we have a different administration now. Elections have 
consequences.
    We knew that when Biden was in office and Ms. Guzman was 
the administrator we were going to have to deal with things 
that we did not like and try to make changes as we could. I 
implore the other side to do the same now, to work with us to 
make America great again through small businesses. Let's put 
our shoulders to the plow and get this done for the American 
people.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Is there further debate on the 
amendment?
    You are recognized.
    Mr. OLSZEWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I actually was not 
planning on speaking but I just wanted to put into the record 
that we have, in fact, written a letter to the administrator. 
We have asked not only for her to attend and testify, we have 
asked specific questions of the administrator. Those letters 
have gone unanswered.
    So, I appreciate my colleague's suggestion but we have, in 
fact, done that. We have been met with absolute silence from 
the administrator. And I would just respond also that I don't 
think that as a new Member I don't think it is a good practice 
to look into the past constantly and get into a cycle of, well, 
a prior administrator didn't come so that is a reason to not do 
it now.
    I think if it was wrong then it should be wrong now. And so 
I would just offer as an olive branch that we could work 
together to say that should be the new standard going forward 
that we do get responses from administrators, Republican or 
Democrat, that they do testify. And I do look forward to 
finding ways to find more bipartisan bills in the future.
    So, I just wanted to put that on the record. I come at this 
where I share my colleague's desire to make it bipartisan, and 
I do hope we can have that open communication with the 
administrator whoever it is. So, thank you very much, 
appreciate it.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
    Is there further debate on the amendment?
    Okay. I now recognize Mr. McGarvey from the great state of 
Kentucky.
    Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, because 
our Ranking Member has to be at a markup right now I want to 
offer some thoughts on this.
    First, a few things just globally what is going on. I enjoy 
this committee because I think we do work together to make sure 
that America's small businesses are working. That is the 
backbone of our economy, not just in my congressional district 
but in every congressional district across this great country.
    As to what Mr. Olszewski said about the letters to the 
administrator, we have written letters to this administrator 
asking for this, five letters, in fact, and I would like to 
move to enter those into the record now so that everyone knows 
what we have been asking and what we have not been receiving 
from the administrator.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. So moved.
    Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to 
point out that while maybe no administration is perfect since I 
have been on this committee and when Administrator Guzman and 
the Biden administration was in charge of the SBA, she came 
here and testified in front of this committee twice a year.
    She also came to many Members' districts, including some of 
my Republican colleagues who are sitting in here today, 
including my district because she was getting involved in what 
was happening. So, I do want to point out that she did come and 
testify in front of this committee and oftentimes was asked to 
bring things with her.
    Unto this amendment I applaud Rep. McIver for offering this 
amendment and support her efforts to increase congressional 
oversight of this ill-conceived proposal. The committee has 
made repeated requests to the SBA during this administration 
and all have gone unanswered.
    We cannot conduct proper oversight if the administration 
refuses to provide basic information, and this bill is a prime 
example of how decisions should not be made without it.
    There is no strategy from the SBA on their current 
workforce changes and the majority is now imposing additional 
new, baseless workforce requirements. Both appear to be making 
decisions independent of each other and the facts that are on 
the ground.
    The SBA's workforce should be aligned with the agency's 
mission needs and the small businesses that they serve and 
support, not haphazard directives made without full and 
complete information. And I urge all of my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
    I yield back.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
    Is there any further debate on the amendment? All right.
    I will move to strike the last word. It is the majority's 
right to work with the minority and the SBA determine when and 
on what the administrator should testify on before the 
committee.
    So, I appreciate my colleagues' push for transparency with 
the administration. We can achieve this in other ways, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
    Okay. The question now occurs on the amendment offered by 
McIver.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Ms. MCIVER. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. MCIVER. Thank you. I would like to request a recorded 
vote.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. A recorded vote has been requested and a 
roll call vote is ordered so further proceedings on the 
amendment are postponed.
    Does anyone else wish to offer an amendment?
    Ms. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. All right. There is an amendment at the 
desk, and we will briefly pause while staff distributes the 
amendment.
    The clerk will report the amendment.
    The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 2027----
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    I now recognize Representative Morrison from the great 
state of Minnesota for 5 minutes on the amendment.
    Ms. MORRISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start by 
saying that while I appreciate the desire to ensure that the 
Small Business Administration is providing top notch service to 
our small businesses in their districts and regional offices 
across the country, arbitrarily relocating 30 percent of the 
employees at SBA's headquarters is not only unnecessary but it 
is also extremely disruptive to the lives of those employees.
    My amendment would exempt SBA employees who are veterans. 
As the wife of a veteran, I am deeply concerned about this 
administration's treatment of our nation's veterans. The Trump 
administration has fired more veterans than any other 
administration in history showing blatant disregard for those 
who have sacrificed so much for our country.
    Forcing SBA employees who are veterans to abruptly relocate 
would be another cruel decision that breaks our pledge to take 
care of those who have served.
    I want to end by urging my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to support this amendment and stand up for our nation's 
veterans.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back. Is there 
further debate on the amendment?
    Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Chair?
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. I now recognize Mr. Alford 
from Missouri.
    Mr. ALFORD. Thank you. Look, while we really appreciate the 
sentiment of this amendment, it is misplaced. This bill is 
designed to better serve veterans by bringing the SBA closer to 
them. That is what the SERVE Act was all about, to encourage--
to force the SBA to start doing a better job in building 
veterans into business owners. We have got to get the SBA out 
into the interior of America, into the heart of America, into 
main street to reach veterans.
    You know, at the end of World War II more than half the 
people who left the military started a small business in 
America and now it is less than 10 percent. There is a reason 
for that, and they are not getting the capital and the 
counseling that they need.
    And so while this amendment is appreciated, it is misplaced 
in the fact that the SBA is going to be more responsive and 
have face-to-face conversations with veterans who need help. 
So, veterans being relocated to help other veterans, I don't 
see a better avenue for building relationships and building 
Main Street America.
    And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. [Presiding.] Is there any further debate on 
the amendment? Okay.
    So, now I recognize Representative McGarvey from the great 
state of Kentucky for 5 minutes.
    Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate the 
work of my colleague Dr. Morrison in offering this amendment to 
prohibit the administrator from forcing veterans to uproot 
their lives or lose their jobs based on an arbitrary 
congressional directive.
    The SBA has always been a small organization that punches 
above its weight. Fulfilling the mission to assist 
entrepreneurs in starting, building, and growing their 
businesses is a difficult task. It has grown more difficult 
since this administration began indiscriminate firings and 
issuing hostile directives toward its employees.
    We do not need to make it any harder to get the right 
people into SBA jobs, yet this is what this bill will do. Dr. 
Morrison's amendment will provide some relief by exempting 
veterans from this unproductive mandate.
    Veterans bring determination, needed skills, and a sense of 
camaraderie to their work and their retention should be a 
priority for all employers, including Small Business 
Administration. I urge all of my colleagues to support Dr. 
Morrison's amendment and protect the SBA employees who have 
served.
    I yield back.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. It 
makes no sense that the agency that is tasked with servicing 
Main Street America is centrally located in Washington, D.C. 
Veterans nationwide are actively seeking SBA assistance to 
start or grow their businesses and, unfortunately, because of 
the lack of resources and staff in the field offices many of 
their needs are going unmet.
    This amendment will not only help veterans but it will also 
help small businesses across the country and thus I urge my 
colleagues to vote against it.
    All right. The question now occurs on the amendment offered 
by the Representative Morrison from Minnesota.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Ms. MORRISON. Madam Chairwoman, I request a recorded vote, 
please.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. A recorded vote has been requested and a 
roll call vote is ordered. Further proceedings on the amendment 
are postponed.
    Does anyone else offer an amendment on this?
    Ms. MCIVER. Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. There is an amendment at the desk. We will 
be briefly paused while staff distributes the amendment.
    The clerk will report the amendment.
    The CLERK. Amendment to the----
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    I now recognize Mrs. McIver from New Jersey for 5--I am 
sorry? Where is she? All right. For 5 minutes on the amendment.
    Ms. MCIVER. Thank you, Chairwoman. I would like to offer an 
amendment to this bill, one that reflects the deep concern many 
of us share about the cost, impact, and integrity of the Small 
Business Administration under its current leadership.
    This amendment would prohibit this administration--this 
amendment would prohibit this bill from taking effect until the 
SBA administrator formally determines that its implementation 
would not increase cost to the agency or the American taxpayer.
    The SBA is actively cutting nearly half of its workforce 
and engaging in other structural changes, all without a clear 
strategy or communication with all Members of this committee.
    It is entirely reasonable to require a formal cost 
determination before allowing additional measures to move 
forward. Once again, oversight.
    The SBA is already about to take on a massive new 
responsibility managing a more than $1 trillion federal student 
loan portfolio while laying off many of the hard-working SBA 
employees who helped countless small businesses through their 
loan programs in the last 4 years.
    The very idea that this agency could take on more 
responsibilities without any additional cost is ridiculous. 
This amendment is simple. It ensures that we do not add to the 
chaos by green-lighting legislation that may carry unknown or 
hidden costs. It places the burden on the administrator to 
certify that this bill would not increase expenditures.
    If the SBA cannot guarantee that, then that bill should not 
move forward. Congress must be the guardrail. We must be the 
ones to ask hard questions, demand clear answers, and protect 
the people we serve from political decisions that could harm 
our economy and our small businesses.
    Our small business community, our federal budget, and our 
democratic process deserve nothing less. I urge my colleagues 
to support this amendment.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Is there further debate on the amendment?
    Mr. ALFORD. Madam Chair?
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. I now recognize Mr. Alford from Missouri for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. ALFORD. Thank you. While I appreciate this amendment by 
Mrs. McIver, I agree we do need guardrails. We don't need 
roadblocks. This is a roadblock to the evolving nature of the 
SBA and the vision of this administration, this administrator, 
and the majority of this committee to get back on main street. 
And so, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
    Thank you and I yield back.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Is there further debate on the amendment?
    I now recognize Representative McGarvey from the great 
state of Kentucky for 5 minutes.
    Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. The last 
amendment required SBA to take into account the needs of small 
businesses when determining relocations. This amendment 
requires the SBA to consider the costs.
    Both are important considerations that appear to have been 
overlooked in the underlying bill. But those requirements are 
almost exclusively focused on pushing out the experienced staff 
who support SBA programs, not their efficacy, cost, or 
performance.
    This amendment fixes that by ensuring that the majority's 
messaging bill does not waste taxpayer dollars that would 
otherwise be used to assist entrepreneurs in starting, 
operating, and growing their businesses. I urge all of my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
    And I yield back.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. The 
SBA is capable of administering student loans and will be 
prepared whether or not their employees are in D.C. or outside 
of D.C. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
    The question now occurs on this amendment offered from 
Representative McIver from New Jersey.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Ms. MCIVER. Madam Chairwoman, I would like to request a 
recorded vote.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. A recorded vote has been requested and a 
roll call vote is ordered. Further proceedings on the amendment 
are postponed.
    Does anyone else wish to offer an amendment? The question 
now occurs on the adoption of a substitute amendment offered to 
H.R. 2027 by Mr. Alford.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2027 is 
adopted.
    The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 2027 as 
amended to the House.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and H.R. 2027 
as amended is agreed to.
    Mr. ALFORD. Madam Chair?
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. For what purpose does the gentleman seek 
recognition?
    Mr. ALFORD. I ask for a recorded vote.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. A recorded vote has been requested and a 
roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to committee rule 13 and 
House rule 11, further proceedings on the bill are postponed.
    H.R. 2966
    So, the committee now moves into consideration of H.R. 
2966, the American Entrepreneurs First Act, introduced by 
Representative Van Duyne from the great state of Texas.
    The clerk will now report the bill.
    The CLERK. H.R. 2966----
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. And without objection, H.R. 2966 is 
considered as read and open for amendment. The amendment has 
been distributed in advance, and the clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The CLERK. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 
2966----
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. And without objection, the amendment is 
considered read and the substitute will be considered as base 
text for the purposes of further amendment.
    I now recognize myself as the sponsor for 5 minutes. For 
far too long, loopholes in the SBA's application process have 
allowed federal dollars to fall into the wrong hands, often due 
to insufficient verification procedures.
    We saw the consequences of this during the pandemic when 
billions of dollars of taxpayer funds meant for American small 
businesses were lost to fraud, theft, and abuse. This bill 
closes those gaps and codifies a much-needed citizenship 
verification requirement.
    President Trump and Administrator Loeffler took a strong 
first step by requiring SBA applicants to verify their legal 
status through executive action, but we now know that executive 
orders can be reversed. So, now it is Congress' responsibility 
to act.
    This bill makes those reforms permanent, protecting the SBA 
from abuse by foreign nationals, illegal aliens, and other 
ineligible applicants. Specifically, my bill requires every SBA 
applicant to verify their date of birth and citizenship or 
immigration status, and it ensures that businesses benefiting 
from SBA loans are 100 percent owned by eligible individuals 
and explicitly excludes ownership by visa holders, DACA 
recipients, and undocumented individuals.
    These are targeted, reasonable safeguards that will reflect 
the will of the American people. I urge support for this 
legislation, and I yield back.
    Does anyone else wish to speak on the bill and the 
amendment? Seeing none----
    Mr. MCGARVEY. Madam Chair?
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. All right. I now recognize Mr. McGarvey from 
the great state of Kentucky for 5 minutes.
    Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I offer a 
statement on behalf of our Ranking Member Ms. Velazquez, who is 
in a markup herself.
    I strongly oppose H.R. 2966. Not only would this bill deny 
hard-working small business owners with the legal right to be 
in this country with the financing they need to grow and scale 
their businesses, it will create practical challenges for SBA 
lending partners that jeopardizes the operations of both the 
7(a) and 504 programs.
    H.R. 2966 is a solution in search of a problem and it seems 
to be premised on the notion that certain segments of the 
American population are receiving SBA loans they otherwise 
shouldn't.
    The bill also moves programs away from their original 
purposes and use of prudent underwriting standards to evaluate 
originations. The main purpose of the 7(a) program is to 
provide creditworthy small business borrowers that demonstrate 
an ability to repay and who cannot find credit elsewhere with 
access to loans and loan guarantees. That legal status of a 
borrower has no bearing on their creditworthiness or their 
ability to repay and should not be used as a proxy for the 
prudent underwriting determination.
    The bill also prevents U.S. majority-owned small businesses 
with minority ownership from participating in SBA lending 
program.
    One prominent SBA program lender has already expressed to 
the committee that after the SBA's recent policy implementing 
President Trump's executive order, which this bill is modeled 
after, their institution was unable to modify a loan for a U.S. 
small business owned by a husband and wife solely because one 
of the individuals in the couple was a citizen of a European 
country.
    In some ways it is ironic that the majority is marking up 
this bill now. Under the terms of this bill and the recent SBA 
policy changes, SBA lenders will need to create new compliance 
regimes to certify the status of individuals and comply with 
100 percent U.S. beneficial ownership requirements in the bill.
    Ironically, these questions and compliance procedures are 
similar to the ones Republicans across the House caucus have 
argued for years are either too complex, too costly, or too 
invasive for lenders to comply with the CFPB Section 1071 rule 
and the Corporate Transparency Act's beneficial ownership 
requirement.
    Both the Section 1701 rule and the beneficial ownership 
rule have safe harbors, remedies for good faith mistakes, and 
in some situations opportunities for applicants to decline to 
provide their information altogether. H.R. 2966 is silent on 
all of these and seems to require maximum compliance from all 
applicants at all times with no exceptions.
    The bill as written also creates practical challenges for 
program lenders and threatens future operations of both 
programs.
    For example, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibits 
creditors from discriminating against credit applicants on the 
basis of national origin, age, and other protected classes, and 
H.R. 2966 seems to make both age and national origin a 
threshold requirement in order for the borrower to qualify for 
a 7(a) or 504 loan.
    As such, some program lenders have already expressed to the 
committee that verifying a borrower's date of birth and status 
in order to comply with H.R. 2966 could expose their 
institutions to legal violations under ECOA and force them to 
pull back from SBA lending.
    Finally, concern has already been expressed that the SBA 
could sign a memorandum of understanding with DHS similar to 
the agreement that DHS recently signed with the IRS to share 
the information an individual borrower or business applicant 
has provided.
    A partnership between the SBA and DHS to share small 
business borrowers' citizenship information is without 
precedent and could weaponize the SBA and SBA program lenders 
as immigration enforcement officers threatening the safety of 
thousands of small business owners.
    For these are many additional reasons, I urge my colleagues 
to vote against the bill, and I yield back.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. I would like to now recognize Representative 
LaLota from the proud state of New York for 5 minutes.
    Mr. LALOTA. The proud and great state of New York, thank 
you, Madam Chair. My staff told me today would be a partisan 
deliberation of the Small Business Committee. I thought what 
could be so partisan about how we help main street, but I guess 
here is where we are at.
    The question is whether or not American taxpayers should 
subsidize loans to non-citizens, and it is clear the two 
parties have different opinions on that. I think that American 
taxpayers should only subsidize loans towards American 
citizens.
    And I respect my colleagues from this side of the aisle, I 
disagree with their premise that we should continue to 
subsidize loans towards non-citizens. And I think that H.R. 
2966 does exactly what we need to prevent the blatant disregard 
for our laws that we saw time and time again under the Biden-
Harris administration.
    For 4 of those years, the SBA exacerbated the migrant 
crisis by approving loans for illegal immigrants despite their 
ineligibility. That, thankfully, has come to an end under the 
leadership of President Trump and Administrator Loeffler.
    Last month the SBA found that the Biden-Harris SBA approved 
a nearly $1 million loan to a business that was 49 percent 
owned by an illegal immigrant. Thankfully, it was stopped 
before any funds could be disbursed.
    In line with President Trump's executive order, quote, 
``ending taxpayer subsidization of open borders,'' end quote, 
the American Entrepreneurs First Act codifies Administrator 
Loeffler's new SBA policy. This policy rightfully requires 
citizenship verification, just as we should have with our 
elections, of SBA assistance applications. These safeguards 
will ensure that only the American taxpayer-backed SBA loans go 
to American entrepreneurs.
    Madam Chairman, it doesn't get any more no-brainer than 
this. I urge my colleagues to vote yes, and I yield back.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. All right. Does anyone else wish to offer an 
amendment? So, the question now occurs on the amendment 
offered--no, sorry. The question now occurs on the adoption of 
the substitute amendment offered to H.R. 2966 by Representative 
Van Duyne.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The 
amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2966 is 
adopted.
    The question is now favorably reporting H.R. 2966, as 
amended, to the House.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and H.R. 
2966----
    Mr. LALOTA. Madam Chairwoman?
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Yes. For what purpose does the gentleman 
seek recognition?
    Mr. LALOTA. I request a recorded vote.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. A recorded vote has been requested and a 
roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to committee rule 13 and 
the House rule 11, further proceedings on this bill are 
postponed.
    H.R. 2931
    The committee now moves into consideration of H.R. 2931, 
the Save SBA From Sanctuary Cities Act introduced by 
Representative Finstad from the great state of Minnesota.
    The clerk will report the bill.
    The CLERK. H.R. 2931----
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Without objection, H.R. 2931 is considered 
as read and open for amendment. The bill's sponsor, Mr. 
Finstad, has an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the 
desk. The amendment has been distributed in advance.
    The clerk will report the amendment.
    The CLERK. Amendment in the nature of a substitute----
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. And without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read and the substitute will be considered as 
base text for the purposes of further amendment.
    I now recognize the sponsor of the bill and the amendment, 
Mr. Finstad, for a statement.
    Mr. FINSTAD. Thank you, Madam Chair. For years sanctuary 
jurisdictions have circumvented federal law raising serious 
public safety concerns. Moreover across the country, 
politicians have passed sanctuary jurisdiction policies that 
have encouraged waves of illegal immigrants to come into our 
nation.
    Last November the American people overwhelmingly elected 
President Trump to secure our nation's border and to make our 
communities safe. And since taking office, President Trump has 
done exactly that.
    In my home state of Minnesota the Small Business 
Administration office is currently located in the city of 
Minneapolis and is responsible for serving all of Minnesota's 
87 counties. For years Minneapolis has passed several sanctuary 
city policies and at one point even attempted to defund their 
own police department.
    My legislation, the Save SBA From Sanctuary Cities Act, 
would require the Small Business Administration to remove and 
relocate their offices that are currently located in sanctuary 
jurisdictions to better ensure resources benefit American small 
businesses and, more specifically, for communities like mine, 
rural communities.
    Small businesses and those seeking resources from our SBA 
offices across this country deserve to have access to these 
resources without the threat of violence and lawlessness that 
is being accepted as normal in our sanctuary cities across our 
country. I encourage my colleagues to support this important 
piece of legislation.
    And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Does anyone else wish to speak on the bill 
and the amendments? Seeing none, I would like to recognize the 
Ranking Member to speak on the bill and the amendment.
    Mr. McGarvey?
    Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I again offer a 
statement on behalf of Ranking Member Velazquez, who cannot be 
here because she is in a markup, opposing H.R. 2931, the 
legislation to relocate SBA's regional offices.
    On March 20th, Ms. Velazquez, along with 23 of her 
colleagues, sent a letter to Administrator Loeffler over her 
abrupt decision to relocate six of the SBA's regional offices 
and have yet to receive a response. We would like to enter that 
letter into the record.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. So moved.
    Mr. MCGARVEY. Reorganizations of this magnitude shouldn't 
take place in the dark. The Government Accountability Office, 
an independent, nonpartisan agency that examines how tax 
dollars are spent, reported that a leading practice of 
effective agency reorganizations includes the involvement of 
Congress, federal employees, and other key stakeholders. None 
of this is occurring.
    Even more troubling, my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle are shirking their oversight responsibilities. We have 
not held any hearings on this bill or the administrator's mass 
terminations for that matter. It seems our majority doesn't 
care how these staffing cuts will impact our main street 
businesses, but I do.
    Mr. Chairman, we need answers. We need to conduct oversight 
and refrain from moving partisan messaging bills. Again, I 
would ask that we have the administrator testify and explain 
these actions.
    The bottom line is that this decision to relocate the 
regional offices in areas with high concentrations of 
Democratic residents is a blatant weaponization of the SBA for 
political gain. Targeting these cities is clearly punitive, 
unjust, and counterproductive and will harm millions of small 
businesses across the country who have been suffering through 
the chaos and heavy handedness of this administration.
    This bill is another messaging bill that will cost 
taxpayers money, accomplish nothing, and is aimed at 
distracting us from the real issue at hand, the reckless chaos 
and rising costs of the president's first 100 days in office.
    We need to set aside the political theater and focus on the 
issues that matter most, lowering costs for small businesses, 
standing up to big corporations, and investing in America.
    I am opposed to this measure, and I urge my colleagues to 
vote against it. I yield back.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Thank you.
    I now recognize myself for a statement on the bill and the 
amendment. I rise in support of H.R. 2931, the Save SBA From 
Sanctuary Cities Act introduced by my good friend Brad Finstad 
from the great state of Minnesota.
    President Biden inherited what was at the time the most 
secure border in American history. However, as we know, he 
halted construction on the border wall. He paused deportations. 
He terminated the remain in Mexico program and fueled possibly 
the worst border crisis in American history.
    And meanwhile, sanctuary cities sought to shield criminals 
from federal immigration laws putting citizens, small 
businesses, and government offices at risk of violence.
    President Trump took swift action to restore the rule of 
law and make our communities safer, including by stopping the 
subsidization of areas that refuse to comply with immigration 
laws. H.R. 2931 codifies these efforts to ensure that the SBA 
officials are not put in danger due to these illegal sanctuary 
city policies.
    Quite simply, these illegal sanctuary cities must follow 
the law and put an end to this preventable violence. We must 
protect the owners and customers on main street and SBA 
personnel. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill to 
make main street safe again.
    Does anyone else wish to offer an amendment?
    Mr. CISNEROS. Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. For what purpose does the gentleman--I am 
sorry. There is an amendment at the desk. We will briefly pause 
while staff distributes the amendment.
    It has been distributed so the clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 2931----
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Cisneros, for 5 minutes on the amendment.
    Mr. CISNEROS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, but I don't get 
a great, the great state of California like everybody else? 
Thank you. Look, my amendment seeks to ensure that taxpayers 
are not only on the hook for a blatant attempt to weaponize 
SBA, as H.R. 2931 seeks to target major cities led by 
individuals who simply have differing policy views from this 
administration.
    People's livelihoods are at stake and this administration 
is playing games. Whatever vendetta prompted this legislation, 
it should not be on the taxpayers' dime. This administration 
claims to want efficiency while taking away SBA resources from 
major cities with a high concentration of millions of small 
businesses is far from efficient.
    This bill is being framed as wanting to make the moves to 
keep SBA offices and small businesses safe. Let's be honest. If 
you truly cared about small businesses you would not be 
allowing this administration to fire the workers in the field 
offices that support small businesses directly.
    You would not be trying to force the remaining staff to 
decide whether to uproot their livelihood or to quit. You would 
not be okay with those who have become experts in supporting 
small businesses to be forced out of the SBA. If you care we 
would hear from the SBA on these proposed moves and the 
administrator would come and testify.
    Supporting small businesses should not be a partisan issue. 
We have heard from hearings in this very committee on how 
targeting SBA resources in major cities will be critically 
detrimental. The SBA administrator has advocated for this bill 
in her press conferences but yet she has yet to come to this 
committee to discuss her plans or her vision for the SBA.
    This bill is nothing more than an attack on Democratic-led 
cities but it will hurt small businesses regardless of the 
party affiliation of the business owner.
    So, I hope my colleagues across the aisle will join me in 
supporting my amendment to ensure that if there is any cost 
that is too outrageously political--this is a political game. 
It cannot be moved forward to hurt taxpayers or small 
businesses.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Is there further debate on the amendment?
    I now recognize Mr. Finstad for 5 minutes.
    Mr. FINSTAD. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me state very 
clearly, no state or city is exempt from following federal law 
and by refusing to cooperate with federal immigration 
enforcement authorities sanctuary cities allow unlawful and 
criminal aliens to be released onto the streets.
    Federal taxpayers' dollars will be saved by preventing them 
from subsidizing sanctuary city policies which undermine 
federal law and increase public safety risk to their 
communities and to the very folks that the SBA is serving.
    I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment, and I 
yield back.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Does anyone else have further debate on the 
amendment?
    Ms. MCIVER. Madam Chair, I would like to yield my time to 
my colleague.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Mr. Cisneros is now recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. CISNEROS. Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, the 
responsibility of the Small Business Administration is 
supporting and helping small business. It is not the Department 
of Homeland Security. It is not the Immigration and Customs 
Service. It is not the responsibility to enforce immigration 
laws of the SBA.
    The SBA should be focused on what its task is and that is 
supporting small businesses. And to remove resources out of 
cities simply because they are led by Democratic leadership is 
inefficient and it is going to hurt businesses and it is going 
to hurt business owners regardless of their party affiliation. 
And we cannot allow that to happen.
    If this committee truly supports, and we are working in a 
bipartisan matter, we will continue to support small businesses 
no matter where they are, main street and small town America, 
rural America, and in our urban cities. That is our 
responsibility and that is what we should be focused on.
    Let Homeland Security worry about immigration. Let us worry 
about small business, and with that, I yield back.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Representative LaLota from the okay state of 
New York is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. LALOTA. Boo. Everybody boo the Chairwoman, please. A 
sanctuary city or a sanctuary state is one who overtly 
intentionally acts contrary to federal immigration law, 
specifically telling their officers, agents, and agencies do 
not cooperate with the federal government on matters of 
immigration law. Do not hand over any records. Do not share the 
information. Do not facilitate the enforcement of our federal 
immigration law. This is how we got a migrant crisis, folks.
    Not only the Biden open border that allowed 10 million plus 
folks into the country but the incentive to get to a sanctuary 
city like New York City is the reason we had a huge migrant 
crisis with this administration, and the people of the country 
want us to end.
    Part of that is removing the incentive and creating an 
opportunity for governments to reverse their policies. I come 
from New York, which to some is just an okay state, and maybe 
it is just okay because we don't in New York enforce federal 
immigration laws in the five boroughs. And that is a reason why 
so many folks not only cross the border but came to New York 
for all the free stuff, the free hotels, the free healthcare, 
and the lack of immigration enforcement in places like New 
York.
    This bill gives an opportunity for New York City 
policymakers to tell their constituents, hey, listen, I need to 
make a choice back to help the Feds enforce immigration laws 
because it is the right thing to do and because now Congress 
and the administration are exerting some leverage over us. This 
is what we need to do to force the hands of policymakers who 
continue to choose to support illegal immigration over the 
safety and security of folks.
    You want to help small business? Help the customers not be 
afraid of being robbed at gunpoint by an illegal immigrant like 
they are doing across our great country. This bill is right. It 
deserves our support. It deserves bipartisan support so that we 
can have safety and security in our great country.
    I yield.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Is there further debate on the amendment?
    So, I now recognize Representative McGarvey from the great 
state of Kentucky for 5 minutes.
    Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and I offer 
remarks on behalf of our Ranking Member Ms. Velazquez, who 
can't be here because of a markup. Thank you to the Chairwoman.
    Thank you to my colleague Mr. Cisneros for offering this 
amendment to ensure that the SBA considers the cost to the 
taxpayer when making decisions based on local immigration 
policies rather than on the needs of 34 million small 
businesses.
    Like many of the bills we are considering today, this is a 
messaging bill that will have real consequences for small 
businesses and American taxpayers. While we should not have to 
direct the SBA to consider--while we should not have to direct 
SBA to consider the cost associated with their partisan agenda, 
this amendment is necessary to ensure that they do.
    The announcement of the relocation of these offices was 
reckless and done without a plan, input from small businesses, 
or even a cost analysis.
    Mr. Cisneros' amendment is a step to protect taxpayer 
dollars and small businesses' access to the SBA services. I 
urge all of my colleagues to support it and oppose the final 
bill.
    Ms. Chairwoman, I yield back.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. So, I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. We 
must ensure that SBA personnel and their small business clients 
are not forced to work where sanctuary city policies have 
increased the threat of violence. We can't pause. We can't 
delay on this.
    We have to make sure that they are getting the safety from 
cities that are willing to actually enforce laws. And I urge 
Members to vote no on this amendment.
    The question now occurs on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from the ``at least we have good weather'' state of 
California, Mr. Cisneros.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. CISNEROS. Madam Chair, I request a recorded vote.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. A recorded vote has been requested and a 
roll call vote is ordered. Further proceedings on the amendment 
are postponed.
    Does anyone else wish to offer an amendment? Are we done?
    There is an amendment at the desk, and we will pause 
briefly while staff distributes the amendment.
    So, the clerk will report the amendment.
    The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of----
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Kentucky for 5 minutes 
on the amendment.
    Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I offer Ms. 
Velazquez's amendment because she cannot be in the room right 
now. She is at a markup.
    The SBA's announcement that they will relocate certain 
offices based on local immigration policies rather than the 
interests of small businesses should not have come as a 
surprise but it did.
    There was limited, if any, small business or stakeholder 
involvement in the decision and there appears to be no plan in 
place or analysis conducted around closing or moving offices. 
And the committee has not been provided information or held a 
hearing on this announcement.
    Again and again our requests for information have gone 
ignored and unanswered. This is simply unacceptable.
    Accordingly, we must conduct oversight through the 
legislative process. Ms. Velazquez's amendment would require 
that this information be provided to Congress prior to SBA 
implementing any rash relocation decisions with negative 
consequences for certain small businesses. I urge all of my 
colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Is there further debate on the amendment?
    I now recognize Mr. Finstad for 5 minutes.
    Mr. FINSTAD. Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment will 
unnecessarily delay the implementation of this bill. The 
threats posed by criminal illegal aliens in sanctuary cities is 
very real. As a reminder of this fact consider what has 
happened earlier this month in New York City.
    U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement arrested over 200 
criminal illegal aliens. The majority of these illegal aliens 
had criminal histories for crimes like manslaughter, rape, 
assault, drug trafficking, sex assault against minors.
    Unnecessary delays in office relocation exposes SBA 
employees and customers to the very real danger created by 
sanctuary city policies, and I urge my colleagues to vote no on 
this amendment.
    I yield back.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Is there further debate on the amendment?
    So, I now recognize myself. The reality is that across 
America radical sanctuary city policies have caused havoc in 
these communities. We have a duty to protect SBA employees' 
access to safer workplaces without delay. I urge my colleagues 
to vote on this amendment.
    The question now occurs on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman and Ranking Member Velazquez.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. MCGARVEY. I request a roll call vote.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. A recorded vote has been requested. A roll 
call vote is ordered. Further proceedings on the amendment are 
postponed.
    Does anyone else wish to offer an amendment? The question 
now occurs on the adoption of the substitute amendment offered 
to H.R. 2931 by Mr. Finstad.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion the Chair, the ayes have it. The amendment 
in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2931 is adopted.
    The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 2931, as 
amended, to the House.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and it----
    Mr. FINSTAD. Madam Chair?
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Yes.
    Mr. FINSTAD. Could I ask for recorded vote, please?
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. A recorded vote has been requested. A roll 
call vote is ordered. Pursuant to committee rule 13 and House 
rule 11, further proceedings on the bill are postponed.
    H.R. 2987
    The committee now moves to consideration of H.R. 2987, the 
CEASE Act, introduced by Representative Bresnahan from the 
great state of Pennsylvania.
    The clerk will report the bill.
    The CLERK. H.R. 2987, a bill to amend the Small Business--
--
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Without objection, H.R. 2987 is considered 
as read and open for amendment.
    The bill sponsor, Mr. Bresnahan, has an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute at the desk. The amendment has been 
distributed in advance.
    The clerk will report the amendment.
    The CLERK. Amendment in the nature of substitute----
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read and the substitute will be considered as 
base text for the purposes of further amendment.
    I now recognize the sponsor of the bill and the amendment, 
Mr. Bresnahan, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. BRESNAHAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. My bill, Capping 
Excessive Awarding of SBLC Entrants Act, or the CEASE Act, 
restores a vital piece integrity to the flagship SBA 7(a) loan 
program. The SBA is authorized to issue government-backed 7(a) 
loans through certified depository institutions like banks and 
credit unions, as well as certified non-bank lenders like 
FinTech companies.
    Unlike certified depository institutions, whose primary 
regulator is the Federal Reserve, the non-bank SBLCs are 
primarily regulated by the SBA, meaning they are not subject to 
the same regulations and requirements.
    Together, the limited number of SBLCs and prudent lending 
standards that used to be in place at the SBA were necessary 
guardrails to ensure that the 7(a) program remained zero 
subsidy, costing taxpayers zero dollars.
    The SBA had its own concerns that it did not have the 
oversight capabilities to monitor and regulate an unlimited 
number of SBLCs, yet the Biden-Harris administration sought to 
expand the number of SBLC licenses while also lowering lending 
standards and loosening underwriting criteria in the 7(a) 
program.
    Expanding SBLC licenses when the SBA itself acknowledged 
that it is unequipped to regulate additional for-profit, non-
bank lenders is problematic. That is why my legislation is so 
important to ensure that the SBA is not addressing excessive 
SBLCs that it cannot properly regulate. We cannot continue 
giving the federal government ways to abuse taxpayer dollars.
    I thank the Administrator Loeffler for taking swift action 
and returning prudent lending standards to the 7(a) program. 
She is working to ensure small businesses will continue to have 
access to this valuable resource.
    Combined with the CEASE Act, those efforts will return the 
SBA to its proper oversight capabilities and ensure that 
federally regulated lenders, such as community banks, remain a 
fundamental pillar of 7(a) lending.
    This bill was thoughtfully drafted and encompasses the 
original 14 SBLCs and two additional SBLCs licensed in 2024 
after the Biden era rule changed. No existing SBLC licenses 
would be revoked as part of this bill.
    I ask my colleagues to vote yes on this practical and 
sensible bill. Thank you and I yield back.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. I now recognize the Ranking Member to speak 
on the bill and the amendment.
    Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I want to offer 
a statement on behalf of Ms. Velazquez. H.R. 2987 places a 
statutory moratorium on the number of SBLC licenses that can be 
issued by the SBA at the currently issued number of 16.
    SBLCs are non-depository lending institutions that are 
authorized by the SBA to make 7(a) loans nationwide up to the 
programmatic cap of $5 million per small business.
    There has been bipartisan concern about the SBA's ability 
to issue additional SBLC licenses on this committee for more 
than 2 years. Ms. Velazquez first expressed concern about the 
SBA's decision to amend its regulations to lift its previous 
moratorium on the licensing of new SBLCs after the SBA made the 
announcement as part of its proposed SBLC rule in April of 
2023.
    Prior to the finalization of the SBLC rule, the SBA had 
placed a moratorium on licensing new SBLCs since 1982, as it 
believed it did not have the necessary resources to properly 
supervise any new entrants into the program.
    Although there is no cap on the number of licenses that can 
be issued under the SBLC rule, in a proposed rule the SBA 
stated that based on the oversight capacity it had at that time 
it believed it had the ability to license and supervise three 
new SBLCs.
    Given the controversy and upheaval associated with the 
SBA's decision to award an SBLC license to the FinTech company 
Funding Circle, I believe it is worth exploring the necessity 
to statutorily codify the number of SBLC licenses at the 
currently issued number of 16.
    However, the text of H.R. 2987 is silent as to the 
moratorium's applicability to currently existing community 
advantage SBLC licenses. The program began as a pilot program 
in 2011 and has been hugely successful in facilitating smaller 
dollar loans to small businesses that are new or located in an 
underserved community.
    As part of the SBLC rule in 2023, the SBA transitioned the 
CA program from its original form as a pilot to a specifically 
designated community advantage SBLC license program. CA lenders 
who continue to be interested in making loans under the program 
are required to register with the SBA as CA SBLCs. Thus far, 
143 CA lenders have registered with the SBA as CA SBLCs.
    In fiscal year 2024, the community advantage program issued 
1,118 loans valued at more than $196 million with an average 
loan size of approximately $175,700. I believe the CA program 
needs to continue to grow and lenders with an interest in 
participating in the program need to be awarded a CA SBLC 
license if they meet all the programmatic requirements for 
licensure.
    I am concerned that H.R. 2987's textual silence as to the 
SBLC moratorium's applicability to the CA SBLC program could be 
interpreted by SBA during this administration or a future 
administration as directed to the SBA to limit the number of CA 
SBLC licenses or even shut down the program altogether, a 
concern CA industry participants share and have expressed as 
well.
    The standard practice would be for outstanding questions 
associated with legislative text to be answered as part of a 
committee hearing with the SBA leadership or industry 
participants, yet no such hearing on this legislation has been 
held.
    Moreover, H.R. 2987 wasn't even introduced until last 
Thursday, providing our side of the aisle without sufficient 
time to speak with the SBA, all necessary industry partners, 
and engage in the due diligence review required to support the 
legislation.
    So while I remain concerned about the SBA's ability to 
award an unlimited number of new SBLC licenses, central 
questions regarding the legislation's text remain and therefore 
I cannot support the legislation in its current form. I urge my 
colleagues to vote no on the bill, and I yield back.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Thank you. I now recognize myself to speak 
in support of this legislation. H.R. 2987, the CEASE Act, is 
the solution to an irresponsible world change that was made by 
the Biden-Harris SBA last year, under last Congress, when it 
announced the decision to lift a 40-year moratorium on 
licensing new SBLCs to participate in flagship 7(a) programs.
    The moratorium was in place due to the SBA's own 
recognition of its limitations to prudently regulate and 
oversee non-depository lenders within a nationwide 7(a) lending 
platform.
    Both Members of the House and the Senate expressed concerns 
about the SBA's capacity to serve as the primary regulator for 
additional SBLCs, yet the Biden-Harris SBA went full steam 
ahead and even awarded an SBLC license to an entity called 
Funding Circle, which is an entity that was not prepared nor 
qualified to take on the license.
    That entity also held a central role in lobbying the Biden-
Harris administration to lift the SBLC moratorium. And while 
the Funding Circle license was surrendered before it could make 
a 7(a) loan, we cannot allow potentially negligent actors to 
participate in government-backed lending and ultimately put 
taxpayer dollars at risk.
    These decisions pointed to a fundamental failure in the 
Biden-Harris SBA's vetting of applicants for the SBLC licenses 
and further reinforced the bipartisan concerns raised about the 
SBA's limited oversight capacity.
    This common sense legislation is a step toward restoring 
the integrity of the 7(a) program and ensures responsible 
oversight for the non-federally regulated lenders that 
participate.
    I thank Representative Bresnahan for introducing this 
legislation, and I urge all Members to vote yes. I urge all of 
my colleagues to support this bill.
    Does anyone wish to offer an amendment? So, the question 
now occurs on the adoption of the substitute amendment offered 
to H.R. 2987 by Mr. Bresnahan.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion the Chair, the ayes have it. The amendment 
in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2987 is adopted.
    The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 2987, as 
amended, to the House.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and H.R. 
2987, as amended----
    Mr. BRESNAHAN. Madam Chair, I request a recorded vote.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. A recorded vote has been requested and a 
roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to committee rule 13 and 
House rule 11, further proceedings on the bill are postponed.
    H.R. 2965
    The committee now moves to consideration of H.R. 2965, the 
Small Business Regulatory Reduction Act of 2025, introduced by 
Representative Van Duyne from the great state of Texas.
    The clerk will report the bill.
    The CLERK. H.R. 2965----
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Without objection, H.R. 2965 is considered 
as read and open for the amendments. And the bill's sponsor has 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk and the 
amendment has been distributed in advance.
    The clerk will report the amendment.
    The CLERK. Amendment in the nature of----
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read and the substitute will be considered as 
base text for the purposes of further amendment.
    I now recognize myself as the sponsor of this bill and the 
amendment for a 5-minute statement. In my first year as a 
Member on this committee, we heard from a witness, and it was a 
very powerful testimony. He held up a three-ring binder. It was 
stuffed full of regulations that they were forced to comply 
with. I would be afraid to see what the binder looks like today 
after 4 years of the Biden regime.
    In the years following that hearing, I have continued to 
hear from countless small business owners in north Texas about 
the overwhelming regulatory environment that they face. From 
day one the Trump administration has worked to undo this 
regulatory onslaught that agencies have imposed on main street, 
launching bold efforts like this 10 to 1 deregulation 
initiative.
    My bill works in lockstep with President Trump's 
deregulatory agenda and it holds our federal agencies 
accountable by requiring them to display the true cost of the 
regulations imposed on small businesses.
    I hope that my colleagues from both sides of the aisle 
could agree with me when I say that the House Committee on 
Small Business is committed to prioritizing the needs of our 
nation's job creators and their employees. That starts with 
lessening the red tape that small businesses have to file in 
order to survive.
    Specifically, my bill requires the SBA to ensure that for 
each fiscal year the cost of its own rulemaking is not greater 
than zero dollars. Furthermore, it requires the SBA to publish 
a report on regulations issued by other federal agencies that 
impact small businesses.
    I urge support for this legislation, and I yield back.
    Does anyone else wish to speak on the bill and the 
amendments?
    I would like to recognize the Ranking Member to speak on 
the bill and the amendment for 5 minutes.
    Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I offer a 
statement from our Ranking Member Ms. Velazquez. I am opposed 
to H.R. 2965, the Small Business Regulatory Reduction Act of 
2025. Throughout my tenure on the committee I have worked with 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to put forth 
thoughtful bipartisan bills that will make lives easier for 
small business owners.
    Unfortunately, this bill is a messaging bill designed to 
distract the American public from the harm the Trump 
administration is inflicting on small businesses with the on 
again, off again tariff policy and the intentional tanking of 
the economy.
    This bill mandating a zero or negative regulatory budget 
for SBA may sound good on the surface, but it would have the 
practical effect of limiting the SBA from issuing any rules 
even if the benefits outweigh the costs. SBA needs to issue 
regulations to update programs, issue disaster regulations, and 
even reduce recordkeeping requirements. That is good government 
practice that the majority doesn't seem to understand.
    The majority also fails to realize that agencies may be 
able to estimate the cost of a regulation but they do not have 
hard data on the costs that are imposed. This bill would 
require the SBA to make assumptions that could turn out to be 
incorrect. There is nothing in the bill that clarifies how the 
agency is to implement a regulatory budget and is therefore 
impractical.
    Finally, the bill does not include an exception for 
national emergencies, meaning that if this bill had been 
enacted before the pandemic small businesses across the country 
might not have received PPP assistance in a timely manner, if 
they received it at all. For these reasons, I will not be able 
to lend my support to the Small Business Regulatory Reduction 
Act.
    Thank you and I yield back.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Does anyone else wish to offer an amendment?
    Mr. OLSZEWSKI. Madam Chair?
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. For what purpose does the gentleman seek 
recognition?
    Mr. OLSZEWSKI. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. There is amendment at the desk, and we will 
briefly pause while staff distributes the amendments. The 
amendment has been distributed.
    The clerk will report the amendment.
    The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the----
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    I now recognize Mr. Olszewski for 5 minutes on the 
amendment.
    Mr. OLSZEWSKI. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I am 
pleased to offer an amendment to H.R. 2965 by, as I have 
previously said in past committee hearings, I am happy to work 
together on fixing our regulatory system, but I also understand 
the challenges that small businesses face every day.
    They need to make payroll, hire talented people, brand 
their product, work towards inclusion of their workers, provide 
benefits for their employees, and market their services. As a 
former county executive and local leader, I know that poorly 
crafted regulations, whether at the federal, state, or local 
level can be burdensome for small businesses.
    That is why Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, or RFA, which requires federal agencies to work with the 
Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy to gather 
input from small business during the rulemaking process and to 
advocate for them with federal agencies, essentially leveling 
the playing field for small businesses.
    This bill mandates a zero or negative regulatory budget for 
SBA, having the practical effect of limiting the SBA from 
issuing any rules despite the benefits outweighing the costs.
    In light of that, even a coalition of sensible safeguards 
comprised of more than 200 labor, scientific research, good 
government, faith, community, health, environmental, and public 
interest groups is opposed, stating the bill is unworkable and 
inherently flawed.
    Throughout my short time in this committee I have heard 
bipartisan support surrounding both workforce development 
programs and rural small business programs, so I urge my 
colleagues to support an amendment that carves out an exemption 
for these programs because haphazardly nullifying and rolling 
back regulations won't solve the problem.
    The bill holds the potential to harm small businesses, 
consumers, and the environment. If we are going to pass the 
bill out of this committee, I hope we can at least include this 
amendment.
    Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. The Chairwoman now recognizes Ranking Member 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I support Dr. 
Olszewski's amendment, and I yield back.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. All right. I now recognize myself for 5 
minutes. The solution cannot be more government spending and 
expanded regulation. The focus should be on providing 
incentives that allow the private sector to invest in workforce 
training and development rather than relying on the government 
to create new rules and programs.
    Our goal should be to empower rural entrepreneurs with tax 
relief, regulatory elimination, and access to capital, which 
will allow them to grow their businesses and hire more workers 
without an increase in government spending or bureaucratic 
overhead.
    My bill does that. It ensures a full and accurate 
accounting for regulatory costs imposed on small businesses, 
including those in rural communities. I urge my colleagues to 
vote no on this amendment.
    Is there further debate on the amendment? So, the question 
now occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman Mr. 
Olszewski from Maryland.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. OLSZEWSKI. Yes. Madam Chair?
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. A recorded vote has been requested and a 
roll call vote is ordered. Further proceedings on the amendment 
are postponed.
    Does anyone else wish to offer an amendment?
    Ms. MORRISON. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. For what purposes does the--oh, there is an 
amendment at the desk. We will briefly pause while staff 
distributes the amendment.
    So, the clerk will report the amendment.
    The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute----
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    I now recognize Representative from Minnesota, 
Representative Morrison for 5 minutes on the amendment.
    Ms. MORRISON. Thank you, Madam Chair. My amendment is a 
simple one. It would carve out rules that benefit veterans.
    I agree that to protect our small businesses we must ensure 
that new regulations don't present unnecessary burdens to them, 
however, this rigid legislation creates an unreasonable cap 
that could prevent the enactment of regulations designed to 
benefit specific groups of people that we have a duty to look 
out for, such as veterans.
    I again urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
stand up for those who have served our country and support this 
amendment.
    Thank you Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    And I applaud Dr. Morrison for offering an amendment to 
carve out rules benefiting veterans from the regulatory budget. 
Time and again we have heard from veterans about the importance 
of the SBA's programs to their small businesses and regulatory 
enhancements are part of the process of addressing the very 
needs of veterans.
    A regulatory budget will have the practical effect of 
grinding the SBA rulemaking to halt and harm small businesses. 
I support this exception for our nation's veterans and thank 
Dr. Morrison for offering the amendment. Simply, we owe a lot 
to our nation's veterans and cannot take any chances with the 
unintended consequences a regulatory budget would have at the 
SBA.
    I yield back.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. Thank you very much.
    And I now recognize myself for 5 minutes, and I absolutely 
agree we owe a number of platitudes and thanks and benefits to 
our veterans. And one of the reasons why when I go home we have 
a number of different roundtables specifically with veterans. 
Not one veteran have I talked to, especially those who are 
interested in starting small businesses or who own small 
businesses, ask for more government regulations.
    In fact, the best way to help veteran small businesses 
thrive is now by expanding regulatory costs but by reducing 
them. So instead of adding carve-outs for regulatory costs, we 
should focus on removing the red tape, on cutting unnecessary 
regulations, and ensuring that veteran business owners can 
operate with greater flexibility at their greatest potential.
    I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
    Is there further debate on the amendment? So, the question 
now occurs on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Ms. MORRISON. Madam Chair, I would like to request a 
recorded vote.
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. A recorded vote has been requested. A roll 
call vote is ordered. Further proceedings on the amendment are 
postponed.
    Does anyone else wish to offer an amendment? Okay, nobody?
    So, the question now occurs on the adoption of the 
substitute amendment offered to H.R. 2965 by Representative Van 
Duyne.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The 
amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2965 is 
adopted.
    The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 2965 as 
amended to the House.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
    Mr. FINSTAD. Madam Chair, could I request a recorded vote?
    Ms. VAN DUYNE. A recorded vote has been requested. A roll 
call vote is ordered. Pursuant to committee rule 13 and the 
House rule 11, further proceedings on the bill are postponed.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. [Presiding.] Okay. I want to thank 
Congresswoman Van Duyne for filling in for me. Thank you very 
much.
    H.R. 1163
    The committee now moves into consideration of H.R. 1163, 
the Prove It Act of 2025 introduced by Representative Finstad 
from the great state of Minnesota.
    The clerk will report the bill.
    The CLERK. H.R. 1163, a bill to amend title 5----
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection, H.R. 1163 is 
considered as read and open for the amendment. The bill 
sponsor, Mr. Finstad, has an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute at the desk. The amendment has been distributed in 
advance.
    The clerk will report the amendment.
    The CLERK. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to 
H.R.----
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read and the substitute will be considered as 
base text for the purpose of further amendment.
    I now recognize the sponsor of the bill and the amendment, 
Mr. Finstad, for his statement on the bill and the amendment.
    Mr. FINSTAD. Thank you, Chairman Williams. Over the last 4 
years, the Biden administration added $1.8 trillion in new 
regulatory compliance costs and 356 million hours of paperwork 
to small businesses, ushering in the most burdensome regulatory 
environment in history.
    In 1980, Congress passed the Regulatory Flexibility Act to 
protect small businesses from these burdens. Unfortunately, the 
Biden administration disregarded the law in favor of pushing a 
far left agenda that burdened our small business community.
    Government red tape has made it harder and more costly for 
Americans to start a business and for many hindering their 
opportunity to achieve the American dream. For too long, D.C. 
bureaucrats have abused their regulatory power, trampling over 
the small businesses that are the backbone of our economy.
    My legislation, the Prove It Act, gives teeth to an already 
existing law, the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, agencies are required to complete 
an initial and final analysis of their regulations and certify 
that they will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    In many cases, agencies have failed to meet the standards 
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and have left small business 
owners across our country with the short end of the stick.
    The Prove It Act would require federal agencies to analyze 
both the direct and indirect costs their regulations would have 
on small entities, create a way for small businesses to 
petition their chief advocate in government to review federal 
agencies' work, and prove that they are fully compliant with 
existing laws. If an agency fails to comply with the review 
process, small businesses then would be exempt from the 
regulation in question.
    The Prove It Act would also ensure that small businesses 
can easily access pre-existing guidance documents via 
regulations.gov and give teeth to the retrospective review by 
requiring any regulation that agencies fail to perform from the 
already required tenure respective review to be nullified.
    This legislation passed the House of Representatives and 
the 118th Congress with bipartisan support and has received 
endorsement from numerous organizations, including the National 
Federation of Independent Businesses, the Associated Builders 
and Contractors, the U.S. Chamber, and Job Creators Network, 
and many other organizations that support main street 
businesses across this country.
    This common sense bill gives our hard-working American 
small business owners a larger voice in the regulatory process. 
I would like to thank all the Members of this committee and 
across Congress who in a bipartisan way have partnered with me 
on this important piece of legislation. And I urge the Members 
of this committee to vote in favor and support of the Prove It 
Act.
    And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
    And does anyone else wish to speak on the bill and the 
amendment? Okay. Seeing none, I would like to recognize the 
Ranking Member to speak on the bill and the amendment.
    Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I offer comments 
from our Ranking Member Ms. Velazquez. I am opposed to H.R. 
1163, the Prove It Act. We have held numerous hearings in this 
committee on regulations, and I think we can all agree and part 
of the role of our committee is to recognize the impact they 
have on small employers and work to find ways to balance the 
shared goal of minimizing the burdens and achieving the 
intended effects of regulations.
    We have heard from regulatory experts that agencies have 
been better about considering the impact of their rules on 
small entities since the passage of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act. The Office of Advocacy has been working diligently to 
educate and train rule-writing staff about their 
responsibilities, and they are collaborating with agencies to 
make SBREFA panels more effective and impactful.
    We have seen the fruits of their labor. The analysis 
agencies are conducting has improved significantly. In fact, 
GAO issued a report on which it found agencies were generally 
complying with the RFA. They were just in need of more 
training.
    But this bill disregards the meaningful progress that has 
already been made. Rather than building on that progress to 
better serve the interests of small employers, it threatens to 
bring our rulemaking process to a grinding halt.
    The bottom line is this bill hands large companies a 
powerful new tool to delay and weaken rules, creating 
uncertainty, stalling progress, and ultimately harming the very 
small businesses it claims to protect.
    Let me take a minute to go through the bill. First, it 
allows any group that claims to represent small businesses to 
petition advocacy to block, delay, or weaken rules that it 
doesn't like. I find it particularly troubling large 
organizations like the Chamber of Commerce could file a 
petition without never identifying the small business they 
represent.
    Even more concerning these organizations could submit 
multiple petitions on behalf of any unnamed small business 
within their network. This means a small employer that came 
into compliance with a lack of transparency in the process 
enables these organizations to back on behalf of powerful 
companies while claiming to represent small businesses, all 
without accountability.
    But most concerning is the new ability of the chief counsel 
to have broad and unchecked authority to determine that a rule 
is no longer effective if an agency fails to conduct a 
retrospective review. This means a small employer that came 
into compliance with an existing rule could see it eliminated 
and then possibly reinstated sometime in the future. This is 
counterproductive to what my colleagues state they are trying 
to achieve.
    Put simply, this bill is unworkable. If enacted, advocacy 
would need to double its staff, and no surprise, this bill 
provides zero additional resources. CBO estimates that agencies 
and advocacy will need an additional $40 million over the next 
5 years to implement this act, and that doesn't include the $17 
million it will add to the federal deficit.
    Small employers need certainty and this bill fails to 
provide it. I yield back.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
    And I now recognize myself for a statement on the bill and 
the amendment. I rise in support of H.R. 1163, the Prove It Act 
of 2025, introduced by my friend Representative Finstad from 
the great state of Minnesota.
    Last Congress' committee investigated whether the federal 
government protects small businesses when making regulations. 
Unsurprisingly, our regulatory reform act report proved that 
the agencies often skirt around laws put in place to protect 
small businesses from burdensome regulatory costs.
    This coupled with the direct attack on small business 
through the regulatory onslaught by the Biden-Harris 
administration threatened the livelihood of countless 
entrepreneurs throughout the country. H.R. 1163, the Prove It 
Act, would give small businesses the power to fight back and 
ensure that their voices are heard throughout the rulemaking 
process.
    This legislation is widely supported by small business and 
furthers President Trump's deregulation agenda, so I am proud 
to support this bill. And I hope my colleagues agree that it is 
time to reduce regulatory burdens so that small businesses can 
do what they do best, provide for their customers.
    So, does anyone else wish to offer an amendment?
    Ms. GOODLANDER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay, so approved. Is there an amendment 
at the desk? We could briefly pause and we will distribute it 
around to the rest of us here.
    The clerk will report the amendment.
    The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 1163----
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    I now recognize Ms. Goodlander for 5 minutes on the 
amendment.
    Ms. GOODLANDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a simple 
amendment, a straightforward amendment that would require any 
petitioner under the Prove It Act to actually prove that they 
are a small business. So why does this matter?
    Look, as I read this bill I am very concerned that it could 
be easily exploited by big corporations, the same big 
corporations that are about to get a big tax break. It could be 
exploited because big corporations have well-oiled lobbying 
machines that could file petitions under this act through their 
corporate lobbyists.
    So, if you care, and I believe that the Members of this 
committee do, about protecting real small businesses, the small 
businesses in our community and preventing their voices from 
being drowned out by big corporations and a sea of corporate 
lobbyists, I urge you to support this straightforward, common 
sense amendment.
    And I would just point out, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is 
offered in the same basic spirit that so many of the amendments 
have been offered this morning, that we want to make the Small 
Business Administration actually work for hard-working small 
businesses in our districts.
    To do that, though, we really need transparency. We need 
answers to basic questions that so many of us have asked. You 
know, in my home state of New Hampshire we have seen a 
reduction in the workforce of the Small Business Administration 
by nearly 50 percent. I am all about bringing the SBA back to 
main street, but that is not what is happening in the last 100 
days.
    At the same time we have seen random and unexplained 
firings on some of the most important boards that the SBA has 
created, including the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act 
Board. Two of my constituents have been summarily fired without 
any reason from boards that make the Small Business 
Administration work better for hard-working small businesses.
    You know, one of my constituents, Melissa Florio from 
Albany, New Hampshire, was appointed to a 3-year term on the 
Small Business Regulatory Fairness Board for region 1.
    She started her company, Ambix Manufacturing, a plastics 
engineering and manufacturing company during the Great 
Recession. She is hard-working. She has run a small business.
    She is serving on this board that is designed to do exactly 
what I think we all want to see, cutting red tape, making the 
SBA work better for small businesses. She was randomly fired 
without explanation.
    And I want to enter into the record, Mr. Chairman, yet 
another letter that I have sent to Administrator Loeffler 
asking for answers to basic questions.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. So moved.
    Ms. GOODLANDER. Thank you. You know, I would just say that 
in order to make the SBA work better we need transparency. It 
is what good government is all about.
    With that, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back.
    Is there further debate on the amendment?
    Mr. Finstad from Minnesota.
    Mr. FINSTAD. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In this committee room 
just in the last few weeks we have heard from small businesses 
all over this country,.
    And one of the questions that I asked a few different times 
to a few of those different small business owners is when it 
comes to the regulatory climate of this country and when it 
comes to the permitting and the legal work that their small 
businesses find themselves in anytime they are interacting 
within government, who do they go to?
    And it was told to me over and over again that these small 
businesses act as the owner, the CFO, the CEO, the janitor, the 
scheduler, the chief broom operator, and they did not have a 
stable worth of compliance officers or regulatory folks that 
can deal with some of these issues and the regulatory hoops and 
loops that our government puts on them.
    And so they do find value in groups like the NFIB and the 
Chamber and others because of that help that those groups can 
provide. So, this amendment imposes more unnecessary 
administrative burdens on petitioners, potentially deterring 
small businesses that are already stretched thin and busy and 
associations and trade groups from filing petitions on behalf 
of these small businesses.
    It also undermines the very purpose of the bill, which is 
to give small businesses a meaningful voice in the regulatory 
process. And so with that being said, I urge my colleagues to 
vote no on this amendment.
    And I yield back.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. I now recognize the Ranking Member for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As stated 
repeatedly, this committee has heard concerns that the RFA has 
become a tool for powerful companies to obstruct the regulatory 
process. Being transparent is not a regulatory burden.
    We need to come clean with the American people. The Prove 
It Act would allow large organizations representing the 
interests of small entities to challenge the agencies' 
regulatory flexibility analysis without requiring them to 
identify which small business they purport to represent or how 
those small businesses will be harmed.
    My colleague Ms. Goodlander is offering a common sense 
amendment that will bring transparency to the process. Why are 
we so afraid of transparency? It is what good government is all 
about.
    I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back.
    Is there further debate on the amendment?
    Okay. I will move to strike the last word. And this 
amendment requests petitioners to produce more information than 
necessary. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
    The question now occurs on the amendment offered by the 
gentlelady from New Hampshire.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Ms. GOODLANDER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to move for a 
recorded vote.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. A recorded vote has been 
requested. A roll call vote is ordered. Further proceedings on 
the amendment are postponed.
    Now, does anyone else wish to offer an amendment?
    Mr. MCGARVEY. I would like to offer an amendment, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman is recognized. There is an 
amendment at the desk and we will briefly pause while staff 
distributes the amendment. We are good? Okay.
    Okay. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 1163----
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    And I now recognize the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. 
McGarvey, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Prove It Act was 
a bad idea when Republicans forced it through this committee 
last Congress and it is an even worse idea today. Now, the bill 
hasn't changed. It is the same unworkable policy that would 
empower the country's biggest corporations to paralyze all 
federal rulemaking under the guise of protecting small 
businesses.
    It is the context of what else is happening today that 
makes this bill so much worse because as we sit here in the 
Small Business Committee right now other committees throughout 
the House are also meeting to mark up the disastrous Republican 
budget, a budget that will steal from working people and our 
children's futures to make the richest Americans even richer 
and the most profitable corporations continuing to get those 
profits.
    They are meeting in financial services. Next week it will 
be Energy and Commerce and Agriculture. Republicans have 
promised to make over a trillion dollars of cuts to health 
insurance and hunger programs, all to pay for tax cuts for the 
wealthiest Americans. That is why this bill is an even worse 
idea today.
    For the Republicans it is not enough to give our biggest 
corporations and wealthiest individuals a massive tax break 
instead of giving one to you. They want big business now to 
have a veto over federal policy, too.
    My amendment is simple. It creates, I am sorry. In the 
Budget Committee I offered amendments to the reconciliation 
bill to try and protect veterans from some of these most 
painful Republican cuts. Our Republican colleagues rejected 
those amendments, but I will try here, too.
    So, my amendment is simple. It creates an exemption from 
this bill for any rulemaking that an agency finds will have a 
substantial beneficial impact on veterans. So, if Republicans 
are so intent on cutting Medicaid, which 10 percent of veterans 
rely on, or ACA subsidies, which help another 5 percent of 
veterans get health care, or SNAP, which puts food on the table 
for over 1 million veterans, then we should at least protect 
them from the damage of the Prove It Act.
    I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and yield 
back.
    Mr. SCHMIDT. [Presiding.] Is there further debate on the 
amendment?
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. 
Finstad.
    Mr. FINSTAD. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment allows 
agencies to bypass the crucial checks and balances which create 
exemptions that undermine transparency and accountability. 
Removing the safeguard risks agencies bypassing important due 
diligence measures, which could lead to unintended 
consequences.
    We must ensure that all rules go through the proper due 
diligence to protect small businesses and the taxpayers of this 
country, and this amendment weakens that effort. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in voting no on this amendment.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Mr. SCHMIDT. The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Throughout our 
history American veterans have put their lives on the line in 
defense of our homeland. Each and every day they make enough 
innumerable sacrifices to serve our country. That is why I am 
strongly supporting Mr. McGarvey's amendment, which will carve 
out an exemption for rules that benefit veterans.
    It is vital that these rules are not delayed by special 
interests. We owe this much to our nation's veterans. My 
colleague Mr. McGarvey has been a tireless advocate, both on 
this committee and the Veterans Affairs Committee. His 
amendment ties together both aspects of his work, and I am 
proud to lend my voice and vote in favor of it.
    I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment. And I 
yield back.
    Mr. SCHMIDT. Is there further debate on the amendment? 
Hearing none, I move to strike the last word. The Prove It Act 
helps to ensure that small businesses have the ability to hold 
agencies accountable. We can't achieve this without the 
critical checks and balances that the base text provides. I 
urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
    The question now occurs on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kentucky.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. MCGARVEY. I ask for a recorded vote, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. SCHMIDT. A recorded vote has been requested. A roll 
call vote is ordered. Further proceedings on the amendment are 
postponed.
    Does anyone else wish to offer an amendment?
    Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. SCHMIDT. The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member.
    Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Mr. SCHMIDT. There is an amendment at the desk. We will 
briefly pause while the staff distributes the amendment.
    The clerk will report the amendment.
    The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute----
    Mr. SCHMIDT. Without objection, the amendment is considered 
as read.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member for 5 minutes on the 
amendment.
    Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment will 
strike the numerous analytical procedures in the Prove It Act 
that will enable big corporations to roll back rules and put 
small businesses on uneven ground.
    In its place, advocacy will be required to train agencies 
on how to comply with the law. The training programs have made 
a significant difference in the rule writing process and 
requiring ongoing training will only lead to more success.
    In fact, GAO found that agencies are generally complying 
with the RFA. They are just in need of more training. How could 
you be against that? How could you shortchange small businesses 
in America by not providing the training, equipping them with 
the skill that they need in order to do their job?
    The bottom line, my amendment will foster a constructive 
working relationship between advocacy and federal agencies 
rather than create an adversarial one. My amendment will also 
submit a report to Congress on the retrospective review 
requirements under Section 610.
    Small business owners invested significant resources to 
comply with the existing requirements and deregulation will 
cost them time and money. Deregulation also leads to a 
patchwork of state regulations which makes it harder for small 
businesses to comply with multiple requirements. They need 
certainty, not chaos.
    But what is known with this administration? Chaos. We got 
tariff one day, the next half an hour we got a tweet saying 
that those tariffs are off. And here we are, Members talking to 
small businesses, listening to small business and what is the 
thing that they tell you? That they need certainty and that is 
not what they are getting from this administration.
    I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield 
back.
    Mr. SCHMIDT. Is there further debate on the amendment?
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. 
Finstad.
    Mr. FINSTAD. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Biden administration 
continuously abused the regulatory process which resulted in 
delays and lack of transparency.
    And in regards to the training on the RFA, let me just 
again refresh everyone that this was established in 1980. I was 
4 years old at the time. I think we have had a lot of 
opportunities and years under our belt to become good at this, 
and clearly it is not.
    And so the committee found these regulatory failures that 
we have seen in recent history that have directly harmed small 
businesses by creating an uncertain and burdensome environment.
    This bill is a common sense solution to improve efficiency, 
and this amendment would only add more bureaucratic red tape 
that further prevents small businesses from being protected 
against unnecessary regulations. I urge my colleagues to join 
me in voting no on this amendment.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
    Mr. SCHMIDT. Is there further debate on the amendment?
    The Chair recognizes----
    Ms. VELAZQUEZ. No.
    Mr. SCHMIDT. No. Further debate on the amendment? Hearing 
none, I move to strike the last word. I would hope that we 
could all agree that saddling extra costs onto small businesses 
due to regulations should be stopped.
    Unfortunately, the Biden administration's regulatory 
assault added $1.8 trillion in business-killing costs onto 
entrepreneurs. We need to right those wrongs and this amendment 
does not help us get there. I urge my colleagues to vote no on 
this amendment.
    The question occurs on the amendment offered by the Ranking 
Member.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    Those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.
    Mr. SCHMIDT. A recorded vote has been requested. A roll 
call vote is ordered. Further proceedings on the amendment are 
postponed. Does anyone else wish to offer an amendment?
    Mr. OLSZEWSKI. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. SCHMIDT. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Maryland, Mr. Olszewski.
    Mr. OLSZEWSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have an 
amendment at the desk.
    Mr. SCHMIDT. There is an amendment at the desk. We will 
pause briefly while the staff distributes the amendment.
    The clerk will report the amendment.
    The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 1163----
    Mr. SCHMIDT. Without objection, the amendment is considered 
as read.
    I now recognize the gentleman for 5 minutes on the 
amendment.
    Mr. OLSZEWSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My 
amendment to H.R. 1163 is meant to, again, seek to provide 
relief for workforce development programs and rural small 
businesses. While the Prove It Act of 2025 is well-intentioned, 
the bill poses serious risks to our ability to govern 
effectively and respond to the pressing challenges faced by 
working Americans and small businesses alike.
    At its core, the legislation demands that federal agencies 
prove the impact of proposed regulations on small entities 
before moving forward, but let's be clear. This is not just 
about transparency or good governance.
    The bill adds layers of bureaucracy that threatens to 
paralyze the rulemaking process, particularly for rules that 
protect workers, ensure public safety, and support emerging 
sectors of our economy.
    By opening the door for well-resourced trade associations 
to challenge virtually any rule, the bill could end up 
requiring the chief counsel to review agencies' Regulatory 
Flexibility Act compliance for many of the thousands of rules 
issued each year, to say nothing of the agencies' periodic 
reviews of existing rules.
    That would do little to help small businesses but it would 
help powerful companies with money to hire well-connected 
lobbyists. CBO estimates that this bill would increase 
administrative costs for most agencies, including advocacy.
    Accordingly, CBO reported that H.R. 7198, identical 
legislation introduced in the previous Congress, would increase 
direct spending for independent agencies by $10 million, reduce 
revenues by $7 million over the 2025 to 2034 period, and 
increase spending by $35 million over the 2025 to 2029 period, 
subject to availability of appropriated funds.
    Who pays the price for these delays? The American taxpayer, 
our working families, those who we all claim to support. Small 
businesses are waiting for fair access to capital. Communities 
need investment in workforce development. Rural entrepreneurs 
are struggling to compete in today's economy.
    Again, this amendment ensures that when proposed federal 
rules are projected to have a substantial benefit on workforce 
development and rural small business they will not be 
unnecessarily delayed or burdened by procedural hurdles.
    By moving swiftly and flexibly in cases where these rules 
offer proven benefits this amendment strikes the right balance 
maintaining regulatory oversight while empowering growth and 
innovation in places that need it most.
    I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and show 
that Congress stands behind smart, targeted policies that 
strengthen our workforce and uplift rural small businesses.
    With that, Mr. Chairman I yield back.
    Mr. SCHMIDT. Is there further debate on the amendment?
    The Chair recognized the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. 
Finstad.
    Mr. FINSTAD. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment creates a 
massive loophole to the original bill to bypass key small 
business protections based on vague, self-certified claims of 
substantial beneficial effect. This amendment opens the door 
for abuse and effectively cutting the core safeguards of the 
RFA that the Prove It Act is designed to strengthen.
    I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment 
to avoid repeating the same flawed, self-certification 
practices that enabled over $200 billion in COVID-19 fraud, 
burdening taxpayers, and undermining public trust.
    Again, I ask my colleagues to join me in voting no on this 
amendment. I yield back.
    Mr. SCHMIDT. Further debate?
    The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member for 5 minutes.
    Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I get into 
my statement, I just would like to remind everyone that the 
fraud that the gentleman is talking about started with the fact 
that the administration of Donald Trump removed the guardrails 
that were put in place to prevent fraud, and most of the fraud 
that took place took place under the admin of the previous 
administration of Donald Trump.
    And here we are. Smart, well-crafted regulations add 
tremendous value to the everyday lives of our constituents.
    Dr. Olszewski's amendment would exempt regulations 
promoting workforce development and rural small businesses from 
the Prove It Act at a time when we need it most.
    I am pleased to lend my support to his efforts to ensure 
our regulatory system continues to aid our communities. I urge 
all my colleagues to support this amendment.
    Mr. SCHMIDT. Does the Ranking Member yield back?
    Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Yes, sir, I yield back.
    Mr. SCHMIDT. Is there further debate on the amendment? 
Seeing none, I move to strike the last word. Like my colleague 
mentioned, this amendment ignores the safeguards that the Prove 
It Act puts in place.
    The Prove It Act is critical to make sure small businesses 
can hold agencies accountable and stop unnecessary, costly, and 
overly burdensome regulations. I urge Members to vote no on 
this amendment.
    The question now occurs on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. OLSZEWSKI. Mr. Chairman, I would request a recorded 
vote, please.
    Mr. SCHMIDT. A recorded vote has been requested. A roll 
call vote is ordered. Further proceedings on the amendment are 
postponed.
    Does anyone else wish to offer an amendment?
    Okay, very well. The question now occurs on the adoption of 
the substitute amendment offered to H.R. 1163 by Mr. Finstad.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The 
amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1163 is 
adopted.
    The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 1163 as 
amended to the House.
    All those in favor will say aye.
    Those opposed, no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and H.R. 
1163, as amended, is agreed to.
    Mr. FINSTAD. Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair, I would ask for a 
recorded vote.
    Mr. SCHMIDT. A recorded vote has been requested. A roll 
call vote is ordered. Pursuant to committee rule 13 and House 
rule 11, further proceedings on the bill are postponed. No 
further proceedings at this time. The committee will stand in 
recess subject to the call of the Chair. Members, please return 
at 5:45 p.m. today to resume consideration of the bills on 
which roll call votes were requested and postponed. The 
committee is in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman WILLIAMS. This committee will come to order. The 
committee will resume consideration of the bills on which roll 
call votes were ordered.
    We will now move to H.R. 2968. The question is on the 
amendment offered by Dr. Conaway from the great state of New 
jersey. The clerk will open the vote.
    [The vote was taken.]
    Chairman WILLIAMS. She is really sick. Okay.
    Are there any other Members who have not voted or wish to 
change their vote?
    If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will 
report.
    The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 11 and 
the noes are 15.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The amendment is not agreed to.
    The question now is on the amendment offered by the Ranking 
Member from the great state of New York. The clerk will open 
the vote.
    [The vote was taken.]
    Chairman WILLIAMS. There we go. All right. Are there any 
other Members who have not voted or wish to change their vote?
    If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will 
report.
    The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 11 and 
the noes are 15.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The amendment is not agreed to.
    The question now is the adopting H.R. 2968 as amended and 
ordering it favorably to the House. The clerk will open the 
vote.
    [The vote was taken.]
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not 
voted or wish to change their vote?
    If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will 
report.
    The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 15 and 
the noes are 11.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The motion is agreed to and H.R. 2968 as 
amended is adopted and will be reported favorably to the House.
    Next we have H.R. 2027. The question is on the amendment 
offered by Dr. Conaway from New Jersey. The clerk will open the 
vote.
    [The vote was taken.]
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not 
voted or wish to change their vote?
    If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will 
report.
    The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 11 and 
the noes are 15.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The amendment is not agreed to.
    The next question is on the amendment offered by Mrs. 
McIver from New Jersey. The clerk will open the vote.
    [The vote was taken.]
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not 
voted or wish to change their vote?
    If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will 
report.
    The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 11 and 
the noes are 15.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The amendment is not agreed to.
    The next question is on the amendment offered by Dr. 
Morrison from Minnesota. The clerk will open the vote.
    [The vote was taken.]
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not 
voted or wish to change their vote?
    If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will 
report.
    The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 11 and 
the noes are 15.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The amendment is not agreed to.
    The next question is on the second amendment to H.R. 2027 
by Mrs. McIver from New Jersey. The clerk will open the vote.
    [The vote was taken.]
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not 
voted or wish to change their vote?
    If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will 
report.
    The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 11 and 
the noes are 15.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The amendment is not agreed to.
    The question now is on adopting H.R. 2027 as amended and 
forwarding it favorably to the House. The clerk will open the 
vote.
    [The vote was taken.]
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not 
voted or wish to change their vote?
    If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will 
report.
    The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 15 and 
the noes are 11.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The motion is agreed to and H.R. 2027 as 
amended is adopted and will be reported favorably to the House.
    The next bill is H.R. 2966. The question is now is on 
adopting H.R. 2966 as amended and ordering it favorably to the 
House. The clerk will open the vote.
    [The vote was taken.]
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not 
voted or wish to change their vote?
    If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will 
report.
    The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 15 and 
the noes are 11.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The motion is agreed to and H.R. 2966 as 
amended is adopted and will be reported favorably to the House.
    We will now move to H.R. 2931. The question is on the 
amendment offered by Mr. Cisneros from the great state of 
California. The clerk will open the vote.
    [The vote was taken.]
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Hey doctor? Are there any other Members 
besides the doctor who have not voted or wish to change their 
vote?
    If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will 
report.
    The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 11 and 
the noes are 15.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The amendment is not agreed to.
    The question is now on the amendment offered by Ms. 
Velazquez from the great state of New York. The clerk will open 
the vote.
    [The vote was taken.]
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not 
voted or wish to change their vote?
    If not, the clerk will close the vote. The clerk will 
report.
    The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 11 and 
the noes are 15.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The amendment is not agreed to.
    The question now is on adopting H.R. 2931 as amended and 
ordering it favorably to the House. The clerk will open the 
vote.
    [The vote was taken.]
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not 
voted or wish to change their vote?
    If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will 
report.
    The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 15 and 
the noes are 11.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The motion is agreed to and H.R. 2931 as 
amended is adopted and will be reported favorably to the House.
    We will now move on to H.R. 2987. The question now is 
adopting H.R. 2987 as amended and ordering it favorably to the 
House. The clerk will open the vote.
    [The vote was taken.]
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any of the Members who have 
not voted or wish to change their vote?
    If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will 
report.
    The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 15 and 
the noes are 11.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The motion is agreed to and H.R. 2987 as 
amended is adopted will be reported favorably to the House.
    We will now move to H.R. 2965, and the question is on the 
amendment offered by Dr. Olszewski from the great state of 
Maryland. The clerk will open the vote.
    [The vote was taken.]
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not 
voted or wish to change their vote?
    If not, the clerk will close the vote. The clerk will 
report.
    The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 11 and 
the noes are 15.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The amendment is not agreed to.
    The question is on the amendment offered by Dr. Morrison 
from the great state of Minnesota. The clerk will open the 
vote.
    [The vote was taken.]
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members, let me see 
here. I need to vote I guess. Okay, there we go.
    Are there any other Members who have not voted or wish to 
change their vote?
    If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will 
report.
    The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 11 and 
the noes are 15.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The amendment is not agreed to.
    The question now is on adopting H.R. 2965 as amended and 
ordering it favorably to the House. The clerk will open the 
vote.
    [The vote was taken.]
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not 
voted or wish to change their vote?
    If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will 
report.
    The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 15 and 
the noes are 11.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The motion is agreed to and H.R. 2965 as 
amended is adopted and will be adopted favorably to the House.
    Finally, we have H.R. 1163. The question is on the 
amendment offered by Ms. Goodlander of the great state of New 
Hampshire. The clerk will open the vote.
    [The vote was taken.]
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not 
voted or wish to change their vote?
    If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will 
report.
    The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 11 and 
the noes are 15.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. All right. The amendment is not agreed 
to.
    The question is now on the amendment offered by Mr. 
McGarvey from the great state of Kentucky. The clerk will open 
the vote.
    [The vote was taken.]
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not 
voted or wish to change their vote?
    If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will 
report.
    The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 11 and 
the noes are 15.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The amendment is not agreed to.
    The question is on the amendment offered by the Ranking 
Member from the great state of New York. The clerk will open 
the vote.
    [The vote was taken.]
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not 
voted or wish to change their vote?
    Representative Schmidt? Okay.
    And I will repeat. Are there any other Members who have not 
voted or wish to change their vote?
    If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will 
report.
    The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 11 and 
the noes are 15.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The amendment is not agreed to.
    The question is on the amendment offered by Dr. Olszewski 
from the great state of Maryland.
    The clerk will open the vote.
    [The vote was taken.]
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not 
voted or wish to change their vote?
    If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will 
report.
    The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 11 and 
the noes are 15.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The amendment is not agreed to.
    The question now is adopting H.R. 1163 as amended and 
ordering it favorably to the House. The clerk will open the 
vote.
    [The vote was taken.]
    Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not 
voted or wish to change their vote?
    If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will 
report.
    The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 15 and 
the noes are 11.
    Chairman WILLIAMS. The motion is agreed to and H.R. 1163 as 
amended is adopted and will be reported favorably to the House.
    Now, without objection, the committee staff is authorized 
to make technical and conforming changes and Members have 2 
business days to file additional supplemental dissenting and 
minority views.
    I want to thank all of you for being here today. This has 
gone well. If there is no further business, this concludes 
today's markup. Without objection, the committee stands 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 6:22 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
    
    
                            A P P E N D I X

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


                                 [all]