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