[House Hearing, 118 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] MARKUP OF: H.R. 8033, THE REGULATORY TRANSPARENCY FOR SMALL BUSINESSES ACT; H.R. 9031, THE ASSURANCE FOR SMALL BUSINESS ACT OF 2024; H.R. 9032, THE ENHANCED REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ASSESSMENT ACT; H.R. 9030, THE AGENDA CLARITY ACT; H.R. 9085, THE REGULATORY REVIEW IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2024; H.R. 9033, THE LET AMERICAN BUSINESSES BE ON RECORD (LABOR) ACT; H.R. 7198, THE PROVE IT ACT OF 2024 ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ HEARING HELD SEPTEMBER 10, 2024 __________ [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Small Business Committee Document Number 118-058 Available via the GPO Website: www.govinfo.gov __________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 57-369 WASHINGTON : 2024 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas, Chairman BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri PETE STAUBER, Minnesota DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas MARIA SALAZAR, Florida TRACEY MANN, Kansas JAKE ELLZEY, Texas MARC MOLINARO, New York MARK ALFORD, Missouri ELI CRANE, Arizona AARON BEAN, Florida WESLEY HUNT, Texas NICK LALOTA, New York CELESTE MALOY, Utah NYDIA VELAZQUEZ, New York, Ranking Member JARED GOLDEN, Maine DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ, Washington SHRI THANEDAR, Michigan MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky HILLARY SCHOLTEN, Michigan JUDY CHU, California SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire Ben Johnson, Majority Staff Director Melissa Jung, Minority Staff Director C O N T E N T S OPENING STATEMENTS Page Hon. Roger Williams.............................................. 1 Hon. Nydia Velazquez............................................. 2 APPENDIX Additional Material for the Record: H.R. 8033.................................................... 47 H.R. 9031.................................................... 50 H.R. 9032.................................................... 52 H.R. 9030.................................................... 58 H.R. 9085.................................................... 61 H.R. 9033.................................................... 64 H.R. 7198.................................................... 66 Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 9030 offered by Mr. Thanedar............................................ 79 Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 9030 offered by Ms. Chu................................................. 81 Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 9085 offered by Ms. Davids of Kansas.................................... 83 Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 7198 offered by Ms. Velazquez........................................... 85 Minority Views H.R. 8033, the ``Regulatory Transparency for Small Businesses Act''..................................... 88 Minority Views H.R. 9031, the ``Assurance for Small Business Act of 2024''.............................................. 90 Minority Views H.R. 9032, the ``Enhanced Regulatory Flexibility Assessment Act''............................... 91 Minority Views H.R. 9030, the ``Regulatory Agenda Clarity Act''...................................................... 93 Minority Views H.R. 9085, the ``Regulatory Review Improvement Act''...................................................... 95 Minority Views H.R. 9033, the ``Let American Businesses be On Record Act of 2024'' or ``LABOR Act of 2024''.............. 97 Minority Views H.R. 7198, the ``Prove It Act of 2024''....... 98 ABC (Associated Builders and Contractors).................... 100 ACT/The App Association...................................... 102 AFL-CIO Legislative Alert.................................... 104 American Sustainable Business Council........................ 107 Hon. Blaine Luetkemeyer Statement for the Record............. 109 Coalition for Sensible Safeguards Letter Number 1............ 111 Coalition for Sensible Safeguards Letter Number 2............ 115 Freedom Fighters............................................. 118 Joint Trades Letter.......................................... 121 Public Citizen............................................... 124 Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council Letter............. 126 South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce............ 127 MARKUP OF: H.R. 8033, THE REGULATORY TRANSPARENCY FOR SMALL BUSINESSES ACT; H.R. 9031, THE ASSURANCE FOR SMALL BUSINESS ACT OF 2024; H.R. 9032, THE ENHANCED REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ASSESSMENT ACT; H.R. 9030, THE AGENDA CLARITY ACT; H.R. 9085, THE REGULATORY REVIEW IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2024; H.R. 9033, THE LET AMERICAN BUSINESSES BE ON RECORD (LABOR) ACT; H.R. 7198, THE PROVE IT ACT OF 2024 ---------- TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2024 House of Representatives, Committee on Small Business, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:52 a.m., in Room 2360, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Roger Williams [chairman of the Committee] presiding. Present: Representatives Williams, Stauber, Meuser, Van Duyne, Salazar, Mann, Ellzey, Molinaro, Alford, Crane, Bean, LaLota, Maloy, Velazquez, Golden, Phillips, Landsman, McGarvey, Gluesenkamp Perez, Scholten, Thanedar, Chu, Davids, and Pappas. Chairman WILLIAMS. The committee will now come to order and a quorum is present. Without objection the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any time. As required by the House rules a copy of legislative measures have been made available to Members and the public at least 24 hours in advance. Pursuant to Committee Rule 13 and House Rule 11, all votes will be rolled to the end of this meeting. Good morning, and welcome to today's markup where we will be discussing 7 bills that highlight our nation's small businesses and the burdensome regulations imposed on them by this Administration. I am going to be speaking on each of the bills we bring up today in much greater detail, so I will keep these remarks very brief. To put it bluntly, Main Street America has been crippled by the over $1.68 trillion in new costs imposed by new regulations during President Biden's time in office. My colleagues and I on this committee have the privilege of being main street's voice in Washington and began investigating how these staggering numbers are possible. We sent letters to federal agencies and questioned how they were adhering to the laws on the books that are supposed to insulate small businesses from the most damaging regulations coming out of Washington, D.C. The markup we are having today is a result of the information that we gained through our investigation and the various hearings we have had on the impacts of these actions throughout this Congress. These bills are intended to prevent this type of harmful regulatory regime from being implemented by the future administrations. By requiring government agencies to assess and limit the direct and indirect costs of their rules and regulations, federal agencies are forced to consider the interests of small businesses. Main Street America cannot afford more red tape, nor can they afford more--spend any more valuable time on compliance. They need a regulatory environment they can survive in so they can continue to fuel our nation's economy, and that is exactly what these bills seek to give them. I would like to thank our Members for bringing these bills forward for consideration in today's markup. Every piece of legislation we are going to look at today is the product of hearings and investigations we have conducted. Here on this committee, we know it is our job to put forward meaningful policy solutions that will help and not harm our nation's job creators. They are already dealing with enough thanks to the current economic landscape. We must continue the fight for Main Street America, and these pieces of legislation are a great step in the right direction. I am extremely proud to see how our committee is generating sound and responsible legislation that will free up our nation's small businesses to focus on their core operations. The policy solutions we plan to markup here today have received statements of support from 50 stakeholders including the American Farm Bureau, who is the voice of 5.9 million farmers across the country, to the National Federation of Independent Business, who represents 325,000 small businesses. They recognize these bills are not duplicative and are vital for small businesses to survive in the harsh regulatory environment brought by the Biden-Harris Administration. I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter this letter into the record. And without objection it is so order. So, with that, I look forward to today's markup, and I yield to the distinguished Ranking Member from New York, Ms. Velazquez. Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Part of our role as Members of the Small Business Committee is to recognize the impact regulations have on small businesses and work to find ways to balance the shared goal of minimizing the burdens and achieving the intended effects of regulations. Throughout committee hearings, we have heard that agencies have been better about considering the impact of their rules on small entities since the passage of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. To that end, the Office of Advocacy has been working diligently to educate and train rule-writing staff about their responsibilities. We have seen the fruits of their labor, the analysis agencies are conducting has improved significantly. Agencies are responsive to Advocacy's letters and have made meaningful changes to the rules to minimize the burden on small businesses. In fact, Advocacy's efforts resulted in more than $90 million in estimated regulatory costs for small businesses in fiscal year 2023 alone. Contrary to what we will hear today, the process is working, and federal regulations can and do benefit our economy. Let me share some examples. Regulations that protect our air and waters boost small businesses in the outdoor recreational industry, accounting for $564 billion of our GDP in 2022. Regulations to combat climate change protect small businesses that do not have the resources to recover from a climate disaster. With smart, well-crafted regulations we can grow our economy, protect the health and safety of Americans, and limit the burden on small businesses. Moreover, smart, well-crafted regulations have the potential to unleash innovation. Small businesses all across the nation have found new opportunities to invest cost- effective and efficient solutions to pressing policy problems as a result of a regulatory change. And regulations help to level the playing field for small businesses, enabling them to better compete against anti- competitive big business practices. Unfortunately, we will hear talking points that the Biden Administration unleashed a regulatory onslaught on small businesses across the country or that agencies do not take into consideration the best interests of small business when making rules. Let us take it for what it is, political themes for partisan gains. Let us look at the facts. The Biden Administration proposed rules to improve the lives of Americans. One rule would make it easier to cancel subscriptions and speak to customer service agents directly, freeing small business owners of the hassle of being placed on hold or endless automated instruction will save them time and money. Unfortunately, the bills we are considering today will grind the regulatory process to a halt and harm the health, safety, and welfare of Americans and small businesses. These bills adds numerous procedural and analytical requirements that will complicate rulemaking and redirect limited agency resources, without improving the process. Put simply it is paralysis by analysis. These bills also mandate overly extensive information about regulatory impacts that would not only burden the agencies, but also the small businesses that will have to provide information. These bills reflect many of the major antiregulatory themes included in Project 2025, a radical plan to gut environmental, health, and safety protections. Even Larry Hogan, the former Republican Governor of Maryland has said there is no clearer threat to American values than Project 2025. To that end, I cannot support these bills, and plan to support amendments to make much-needed improvements. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady yields back and does any other Member seek recognition for the purpose of making an opening statement? Okay. Seeing none, we will now move to the consideration of the first bill. The first bill we will mark up is H.R. 8033, the Regulatory Transparency for Small Business Act introduced by Representative Luetkemeyer. I now recognize Mr. Mann, from the great State of Kansas, for an opening statement on the bill. H.R. 8033 Mr. MANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I get started, Mr. Luetkemeyer, the sponsor of this bill isn't able to be here today. I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter his statement into the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My district of Big First District of Kansas is home to more than 20,000 small businesses and more than 80 percent of employees in the district are employed by small businesses. The Biden-Harris Administration's burdensome and overreaching regulations on America's small business owners has wreaked havoc on small business throughout the Big First and across the country. Less than a century ago the laws of the United States could fit into a single book but today bureaucrats have filled enough volumes to fill up this entire dais with the Federal Register of government regulations sitting at more than 90,000 pages. Between ramped inflation and high interest rates, a disrupted supply chain and burdensome federal regulations our small businesses are struggling. The last thing they need are more rules from Washington, D.C. that make it harder for them to make an honest living and serve their community as well. Unfortunately, President Biden and Vice President Harris have done just that, issuing more than 817 rules that have cost small business owners more than $482 billion and millions of hours of paperwork. Our bill, this bill, the Regulatory Transparency for Small Business Act forces federal agencies to identify the approximate number of small business that will be affected by the proposed regulation, the cost associated with this implementation, and to provide the data the agencies use to make their determinations. We need more transparency. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back. Are there any other Members who wish to be recognized for a statement on the bill? Okay. If there are no other Members who wish to be recognized, I would like to recognize the Ranking Member to speak on the bill. Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under current law agencies are required to certify whether a rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and submit their certification and factual basis in the Federal Register. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they are concerned that agencies are improperly certifying the rules and that it negatively impacts small businesses. However, the facts prove otherwise. If a certification is inadequate the courts will overturn it. Agencies recognize this and understand information must be meaningful to withstand a legal challenge. If there is a disagreement over the certification, the Office of Advocacy can send a comment letter to an agency expressing concerns. And for the most part, this process works. For example, EPA proposed a rule that will impose a one- time requirement to electronically report data related to asbestos. Advocacy sent a letter to EPA stating the agency improperly certified the rule under the RFA. When EPA published the final rule in July 2023, it provided an exemption to business with an annual sales threshold of $500,000 or less in any calendar year from 2019 to 2022, which saved $144 million for small businesses. Despite the mechanism in place to hold agencies accountable today's bill requires agencies to identify the approximate number of small entities affected by the regulation. The next goal and the cost per entity, that might sound good at first. But it is not that simple. As drafted H.R. 8033 imposes a cost estimate for every proposed rule. Under current law only economically significant rules are required to have a cost benefit analysis. Let me put this requirement into perspective. The Coast Guard has issued thousands of rules to declare temporary safety zones for sport races, firework shows, and other public events. Why would we vote to require the agency to conduct a cost estimate for thousands of rules that will not impact small businesses? It is a waste of taxpayer resources. To add insult to injury the information required by the bill is frequently unavailable to agencies at the proposed rule stage. That is why we have a notice and comment period which allows the public to weigh in and provide rule writers with information necessary to make informed choices. Because this bill makes the rule making process far more burdensome, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady yields back. I now recognize myself to speak in support of this legislation. H.R. 8033, the Regulatory and Transparency for Small Business Act will require agencies to show their work when determining whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. When agencies are drafting proposed rules they must determine whether the rule will have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. If it does then the agency must complete an analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act or RFA. If it does not the agency merely must justify that it does not. Certifying saves the agency the headache of doing an analysis so often times despite the true impact of a rule an agency will improperly certify that the rule will not have a significant impact despite evidence to the contrary. H.R. 8033 will require agencies to show their work when certifying that a bill will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities to ensure that a proper certification is done. They are already required to do this type of an analysis, so as long as the agencies are following the law this should not be much additional work. I thank the Vice-Chairman of this committee, Mr. Luetkemeyer, for his hard work on this legislation, which will address one of the largest gaps in the RFA process. If there is no further discussion the committee now moves to consideration of H.R. 8033. The clerk will report. The CLERK. H.R. 8033, to amend Title 5---- Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection the first reading of the bill is suspended with and without objection the bill is considered as read and open for amendment. Do any Members seeks recognition for the purpose of offering an amendment? Okay. If seeing none, the question is now in the adoption of H.R. 8033. In favorably reporting to the House. All those in favor say aye. Mr. MANN. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote. Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. A Member was okay, and for purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? Mr. MANN. Oh I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. To request a recorded vote. Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. A recorded vote has been requested and a roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to Committee Rule 13, and House Rule 11, further proceedings on the bill are postponed. H.R. 9032 The next bill we will markup is H.R. 9032, the Enhanced Regulatory Flexibility Assessment Act introduced by the Representative Maloy. I know recognize the bill's sponsor, Ms. Maloy for an opening statement. Ms. MALOY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is kind of uncomfortable for me to find myself in the position of advocating for more analysis or more red tape. I am usually talking about how we need less bureaucracy and agencies need to have less power to hold things up but the reason this is important is because the Regulatory Flexibility Act is supposed to provide some accountability and transparency. The problem with the regulatory administrative state is that agencies and bureaucrats are making decisions that have the force of law without accountability or transparency. So Congress passed the Regulatory Flexibility Act to increase transparency and help agencies make better decisions but it included some squishy language that isn't accomplishing the goals that Congress was trying to accomplish so the Enhanced Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to answer questions like, why is an agency considering this action, what objectives and legal basis exist for this rule and estimate of the number of small entities that are impacted, whether access to credit will be impact, whether some entities will be more impacted than others. And agencies are required to actually respond to comments and concerns, give a detailed statement that includes an economic assessment, quantifiable description of the rules impact or a descriptive statement of why that isn't possible. And so that is the kind of agency action that benefits main street businesses and helps keep Americans freer and the government more accountable and that is why I urge my colleagues to support the Enhanced Regulatory Flexibility Act and I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady yields back. And are there any other Members who wish to be recognized for a statement on the bill? Okay. If there are none, other Members to be recognized. I would like to recognize the Ranking Member to speak on the bill. Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill adds a number of procedural and analytical requirements to the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis. The addition of an estimate of the total impact of the ERFA will require agencies to look not just at the rule but look at it in the context of all rules as well as the past, present, and future costs. Agencies have never been required to complete this analysis, so the information is not even available. Moreover, an estimate of the total impact will also require an economic assessment justifying certification for ERFA. This is just another attempt by the majority to require agencies to add a cost estimate for every proposed rule which has never been required because it was prohibited and nonsensical. The bill provides no resources for agencies to conduct this detail analysis. Moreover, agencies are required to make sure benefits of the rules outweighed the costs and this bill will ignore health and safety benefits. Americans want clean air, safe food, and consumer protections, and small business want a level playing field. They don't want these safeguards rolled back for big businesses all under the guise of protecting small businesses. The addition of this very detailed ERFA Act requirements make it easier to overturn a rule through the courts and would deter the implementation of rules that benefits that small businesses without improving the rule making process. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill which is just another page out of the Project 2025 playbook. I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady yields back. And I now recognize myself to speak in support of this legislation. H.R. 9032, the Enhanced Regulatory Flexibility Assessment Act addresses a key issue within the RFA by requiring agencies to be more detailed and precise with their analysis. As currently written the RFA includes flexible language such as where feasible and to the extent possible. H.R. 9032, strengthens this language and requires agencies to provide more descriptive and concrete details when conducting an RFA analysis. This committee has recently and consistently heard how woefully inadequate agencies' analysis of their own regulations are. This legislation aims to strengthen that review and ensure that if an agency expects main street to comply they are doing their best to understand the impacts it will have. This bill closes a loophole that has been taken advantage of to force more expensive regulations on our nation's job creators. I thank Ms. Maloy for her work on this legislation. I urge a yes vote and if there's no further discussion the committee now moves to consideration of H.R. 9032. The clerk will report. The CLERK. H.R. 9032, to amend chapter---- Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection the first reading of the bill is suspended with and without objection or the bill is considered as read and open for amendment. Does any Member seek recognition for the purpose of offering an amendment? Seeing none, the question is now in the adoption of H.R. 9032 in favor of reporting it---- Ms. MALOY. Mr. Chairman? Chairman WILLIAMS.--to the house. All those in favor say aye? Ms. MALOY. Mr. Chairman? Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, ma'am? Ms. MALOY. I request a record vote. Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. A recorded vote has been requested. And a roll call vote is ordered, now pursuant to---- Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman? Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, ma'am? Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Are you planning to call for a yes and no? You vote yes. We vote no. Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. We missed that. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. In the opinion of--okay. All right. Seeing the--yeah, right here. The question is now adoption of H.R. 9032 favorably reporting to the House. All those in favor say aye? All those opposed say no? Okay. In the opinion of the Chairs, the ayes have it. And H.R. 9032 is agreed to and ordered in favor to the House. Sorry? Okay. A recorded vote has been requested. A roll call vote is order and pursuant to Committee Rule 13, and House Rule 11, further proceedings on the bill are postponed. H.R. 9030 Consideration of H.R. 9030, the next bill the Regulatory Agenda Clarity Act introduced by Representative Alford. I now recognize the bill's sponsor, Mr. Alford from Missouri for an opening statement. Mr. ALFORD. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Velazquez for holding this important markup today. You know, this committee exists and we say it time after time after time, but it's the truth, it's to champion main street to ensure that small business that employ about half of all Americans can continue to thrive. And I want to make one thing perfectly clear, with all due respect this has nothing to do with Project 2025. These bills today are for project Main Street America. And we need to start telling the truth about that. Our role is to help lower the barriers. Yes, establish guard rails but not road blocks that stand in the way of small businesses in America and to support the ones that already exist. A major impediment to small business is the plethora of rules agencies finalize each and every year that our small businesses are forced to comply with. In 2023 alone Mr. Chairman, federal agencies collectively finalized $129.2 billion in net regulatory costs. These rules created 60.5 million new hours of paperwork each year for Americans. It's almost as bad as putting furniture together from Ikea from the instructions they have if you've ever done that. Small business owners are already straining under the weak Biden-Harris economy and skyrocketing inflation and do not have time to read hundreds and hundreds of pages of new regulations they are required to comply with. To help these American's Mr. Chairman I am proud to have introduced the Regulatory Agenda Clarity Act, a bill that would require federal agencies to publish their regulatory agendas in plain, simple language in the Federal Register. How can anyone be opposed to that? Additionally, agencies would be required to include the North American Classification System, codes of small entities that would be impacted by any proposed rule making. So, thank you, Chairman Williams for including this legislation in our markup today and I hope that all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will agree that simple, clear language is a way to ensure prosperity for our small businesses which is why we are here on this committee. Thank you and I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who wish to be recognized for a statement on the bill? Okay. If there are no other Members who wish to be recognized, I'd like to recognize the Ranking Member to speak on the bill. Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's interesting to hear the other side. Almost two months ago it was referred to the Biden Administration. All of a sudden today is Biden- Harris. But we welcome that. Currently a regulatory flexibility agenda is required to be published in the Federal Register twice a year along with a list of rules that have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. There are a number of requirements including a summary of each rule under consideration, the objective, and the legal basis for issuing a rule and schedule for completing action on proposed rule. Despite these requirements the majority doesn't believe agencies are taking their responsibility seriously. Instead, they want each agency along with Advocacy to publish a plain language summary on its website and provide a brief description of the sector by the NAICS code. The good news is most of this information is already provided on regulations.gov and most agency publish this information or a link to regulations.gov on their websites. Requiring Advocacy to duplicate the work of agencies is duplicative and provides no additional value. Furthermore, agencies do not always know every NAICS code of every sector affected by the rule. That is what the rule making process is designed to do, get feedback on proposed regulations. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady yields back. I now recognize myself to speak in support of this legislation. I want to thank Mr. Alford for sponsoring H.R. 9030, the Regulatory Agenda Clarity Act, which will help streamline the regulatory information agencies post in their annual regulatory agenda. This bill will require agencies to post their regulatory agenda to their own websites along with NAICS codes of the primary impacted industries and a plain language summary of the proposed regulation. Main street should not have to search far and wide in order to know what regulations are coming in their direction requiring agencies to post their agendas on their own website will be a good step in ensuring that job creators can adequately prepare for new requirements that may be imposed upon them. Agencies are already supposed to know how many and what type of businesses are being affected by these rules. So as long as the agencies are properly following the law, this bill should not impose much of a burden. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation. If there is no further discussion the committee now moves to consideration of H.R. 9030. The clerk will report. The CLERK. H.R. 9030, to amend Chapter 6---- Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with and without objection the bill is considered as read and open for amendment. Do any Members seek recognition for the purpose of offering an amendment? Mr. THANEDAR. Mr. Chair, I would like to propose an Amendment to 9030. Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. What amendment. I would ask the Clerk to designate the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9030---- Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The Member is recognized to explain their amendment. Mr. THANEDAR. Thank you, Chairman. I would like to offer an amendment to the nature of a substitution to H.R. 9030, the Regulatory Agenda Clarity Act as currently constructed. This bill would only impose unnecessary and duplicative requirements that would complicate the process and redirect limited agency resources without improving regulatory outcomes. A brief description and summary of the rule is already posted on regulations.gov. And some agencies currently post this information on their websites requiring Advocacy to post the information on its website is redundant and provides no additional value to small businesses. It is also important to note that the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda is a comprehensive collection of rules the agencies are considering and working on. Agencies do not always move forward with every rule requiring more detailed information at this preplanning stage like the NAICS code may lead agencies to exclude rules from the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda unless they are certain to move forward with the rule making process. This legislation currently does not provide additional value to small businesses. Instead, it only burdens them and critical federal agencies with additional regulations that do nothing to help. My amendment will help achieve the majority's goal from this legislation by ensuring that the information that is currently posted on regulations.gov will be posted on agencies websites within 5 days of the publication of the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda and that this description is written in easy-to-understand terms. Having experienced the challenges of running a small business I recognize the urgent need to provide a clear, concise, and accessible information to our nation's small business owners. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment to make these critical regulations more understandable for small business owners and all across America. I thank Chairman Williams and Ranking Member Velazquez for their time and I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back and does anyone else wish to be recognized for---- Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Chair, I seek recognition for a rebuttal. Chairman WILLIAMS. I now recognize Representative Alford from Missouri for 5 minutes. Mr. ALFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to start out by saying one thing, I will be more than happy to link Kamala Harris to the overburdensome, over regulation America that is stifling small businesses. This amendment undermined the intent of this legislation by removing the requirement for agencies to include the NAICS codes in their annual regulatory agenda and the requirements for the Office of Advocacy to also post agencies regulatory agendas. These requirements are not burdensome. There is part of this committee that is more concerned about the burden put on agencies than the burden put on our small businesses. We should be looking out for the small businesses. This change would be immensely beneficial for small businesses, which may be looking for a better understanding of the regulations and the framework that they are required to work under. Agencies should be doing everything in their power to make sure that small businesses can comply with a regulation as easily as possible. Perhaps if workers at the Small Business Administration were at their desks actually working down the street here they wouldn't be so concerned about what they need to be doing and these added clarifications that we are proposing here today. This bill makes incremental commonsense changes that will help small business owners. I urge opposition to this amendment and I yield back, Mr. Chair. Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back. Does anyone else wish to be recognized for a statement on this amendment? Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman? Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, ma'am? Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I rise to support the amendment being offered by Mr. Thanedar, and it makes commonsense improvements to the bill and what you are accomplishing here today is setting up all these agencies to fail. You are adding duplicative efforts that are already in the law and yet you don't provide one single penny for them to do their job. It just doesn't make sense. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back. And does anyone else wish to be recognized for a statement on this amendment? Seeing none I now recognize myself for a statement on this amendment. This amendment would gut the purpose of this bill, which simply to ask federal agencies to provide enough detail about rule making so small businesses know what applies to them. I urge opposition and I yield back. And I urge all my colleagues to oppose this amendment. The question is now on the amendment H.R. 9030 offered by Representative Thanedar. All those in favor say aye? All those opposed say no? In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have it. Or the nos have it and, in the opinion of the Chair the nos have it. Mr. THANEDAR. Mr. Chair? Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes. Mr. THANEDAR. I ask for a recorded vote. Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. There has been a recorded vote asked for and is being requested. A roll call vote is ordered, pursuant to Committee Rule 13, and House Rule 11, further proceedings on the bill are postponed. Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I agree with you, the ayes have it. Chairman WILLIAMS. Does anyone else wish to offer an amendment? Ms. CHU. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady's recognized. There is an amendment at the desk. The clerk with designate the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9030 offered by Ms. Chu. Chairman WILLIAMS. The reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The Member is recognized to explain their amendment. Ms. CHU. Mr. Chair, I oppose H.R. 9030, as written because it is duplicative of current law and does not pose a clear benefit to the small businesses we intend to serve. Under existing law federal agencies are already required to list the rules it expects to publish in their regulatory flexibility agendas that would have a significant economic impact on small entities. Adding an extra requirement for the Office of Advocacy to also post the summaries on its website is not only redundant but incredibly burdensome to an agency that can't afford it spread its already thin resources even thinner. What is more, requiring agencies to post even more details for every rule that is considering not necessarily even publishing is equally as burdensome and restrictive. This requirement is clearly intended to undermine the SBA's ability to issue regulations by putting up new administrative burdens designed to discourage the agency from pursuing new rulemaking. And by the way I take exception to the comment made earlier on the other side that all SB employees are lazy and doing nothing. But these gross stereotypes are all throughout Project 2025 and this regulation is part of a playbook to bring the regulatory process to a screeching halt. Of course, we want to ensure that agency rulemaking helps small business but this bill is not the right way to accomplish this. Instead, agencies should be engaging with small entities to ensure that the rules it is considering are effective and beneficial. My amendment would strike the language in the underlying bill and instead replace it with language that would require agencies to conduct comprehensive outreach to small businesses when developing the regulatory flexibility agendas. Specifically, this would include community-based outreach, outreach to organizations that work with small entities, agencies field offices and the use of alternative platform and media for engaging with small entities. These requirements are similar to the provisions included in the Biden-Harris Administration's executive order to modernize regulatory review. And by the way, I have experienced SBA employees in my district and I think they are very, very hard working and have a deep desire to help small businesses. Rather than implement policies that would unnecessarily burden agencies with requirements that don't even pose a clear benefit to small businesses we would be directing our focus to incorporating the perspectives and feedback of small entities from the get-go, about agency rules that may affect them. I urge support for any amendment and yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady yields back. Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Chair, I seek recognition for rebuttal. Chairman WILLIAMS. All right. Then I recognize Representative Alford from Missouri for 5 minutes. Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Chair, thank you so much. Just to be clear, Mr. Chair and you can go back and check the record for yourself, I did not say SBA workers were lazy and doing nothing. That has never been my contention. I think their focus is wrong in many areas. Instead of focusing on making it easier for businesses to do business in America, they are out registering Democrat voters in Michigan. This amendment is another unserious attempt to shield agencies from having to do their job an consider small businesses in every step of the rulemaking process. Representative Chu's amendment would remove any requirement for the agency to explain in plain, simple language what their regulation will do as well as remove any requirement to include NAICS codes to help small businesses identify which regulations they have to comply with. It is not that difficult. To speak in plain words myself this amendment would completely gut this bill and simply tell the agencies to do whatever you want to do. This amendment does nothing to address the problems at hand and I urge this committee to oppose this amendment and let us get on helping businesses build their businesses in America and not contribute to the closing of small businesses which is the fabric of America. Thank you and I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back. Does anyone else wish to be recognized for a statement on this amendment? Okay. If no, this amendment---- Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman? Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, ma'am, you are recognized. Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Alford wants agencies to provide a description by NAICS code of each sector that may be affected for every rule even if the rule may never come to fruition. It is busy work and a far better solution is to get ANC, to get out of out of the Capitol Beltway, to connect directly with small businesses and learn how rules may impact them. That is why I strongly support Ms. Chu's amendment which will ensure agency outreach and engagement to small businesses as this happening at the earliest stage of the rulemaking process. This amendment will go a long way to where helping agencies craft meaningful regulations to protect our health and safety but not unduly burden small businesses. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady yields back. Does anyone else wish to be recognized for a statement on this amendment? All right. Seeing none I now recognize myself for a statement on this amendment. This amendment also guts the purpose of this bill by directing agencies to do something already within their purview, urge opposition, I urge all my colleagues to oppose the amendment, meant to oppose this amendment. Now the question is now on the amendment H.R. 9030 offered by Representative Chu. All those in favor say aye? All those opposed say no? In the opinion of the Chair the no's have it. Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman? Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady's recognized. Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I would like to request a roll call. Chairman WILLIAMS. All right. A recorded vote has been requested and a roll call vote is ordered pursuant to Committee Rule 13, and House Rule 11, further proceedings on the bill are postponed. And does anyone else have a wish to offer an amendment? Seeing none the question now in the adoption of H.R. 9030 and favorably reporting it to the House. All those in favor say aye? All those opposed say no? In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have it. H.R. 9030 is agreed to and ordered favorably to the House. Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Chair? Chairman WILLIAMS. Seek recognition? Mr. ALFORD. I request a recorded vote. Chairman WILLIAMS. A recorded vote has been requested and a roll call vote is ordered pursuant to Committee Rule 13, and House Rule 11, further proceedings on the bill are postponed. H.R. 9085 The next bill we have we will markup is H.R. 9085, the Regulatory Review Improvement Act of 2024 introduced by Representative Meuser. I now recognize the bill's sponsor Mr. Meuser for an opening statement. Mr. MEUSER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My legislation H.R. 9085, the Regulatory Review Improvement Act of 2024, is a step towards enhancing transparency, accountability and efficiency in how federal agencies review the rules and regulations that impact our small businesses. As it stands agencies are required to review their rules ever 10 years, however the current system allows these reviews to be delayed year after year up to five times without any clear explanation as to why. This creates an environment where burdensome regulations issued by federal agencies can persist indefinitely with little to no scrutiny. This bill introduces several important requirements. First it mandates that during each 10-year review agencies must consider public feedback through a comment period. This ensures that small businesses, entrepreneurs, and stakeholders are able to share how these regulations have impacted them and forces the agency to listen to the stakeholder. Second agencies will be required to conduct both a qualitative and quantitative analysis looking at the actual cause, compliance burdens and a paperwork hours required since the rule was implemented. This is crucial for understanding the real world impact these regulations have had on small businesses and communities, current economic analyses employed by CFPB, SEC, and the Fed other injuries are woefully inadequate. And finally, this bill demands action requiring agencies to determine whether these rules should remain on the books. We want to streamline the regulatory environment not have it grow and stifle innovation. So, since the Biden-Harris Administration took office three and a half years ago, federal rulemakings have added $1.68 trillion in costs and increased annual paperwork by 324 million hours. Small businesses simply do not have the ability to hire, you know, extensive legal teams and lawyers and accountants to navigate the complexities forced on them by these federal agencies. H.R. 9085 seeks to reduce that burden by ensuring federal agencies are actively reviewing and streamlining regulations. I ask my colleagues to support the passage of this commonsense reform. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back. Are there any other Members who wish to be recognized for a statement on the bill? Okay. If there are no other Members who wish to be recognized, I would like to recognize the Ranking Member to speak on the bill. Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Throughout the years the issue of retrospective review has been a bipartisan issue and one which Democrats and Republicans could work together to remove unnecessary regulations from the book. In fact, President Obama issued executive orders to reaffirm the need for agencies to carry out their reviews. More than 800 reviews were completed with 70 notable regulatory provisions removed from the books, resulting in $37 billion in savings from paperwork reductions during his tenure in office. With that said we have held a number of regulatory hearings and this issue has never come up, nor have we invited any agencies to hear feedback on this particular issue. Legislation should not operate in vacuum, nor should we ignore regular order. We need good data to legislate. We need to know which agencies are delaying, the retrospective reviews for how long and why. Instead, we just pulled this bill out of thin air and require agencies to delay their review for no more than one year. What happens, I just ask my colleagues here, what would happen in the event of a national emergency, like COVID-19? Would we have agencies delay getting the economic aid out of the door to small businesses and focus instead of retrospective reviews? I think not. And if you sit here, there and claim otherwise, I assure you this was not brought up once during negotiations because there was a need for agencies to be nimble. I have tried to no avail to reach a compromise with the majority to first determine the scope of the problem and ask agencies to make recommendations to Congress. Unfortunately, that effort wasn't particularly fruitful. Therefore, I will have no choice but to oppose this bill. I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady yields back and I now recognize myself to speak in support of this legislation. H.R. 9085, the Regulatory Review Improvement Act of 2024 makes important changes to the agencies period review of rules. Agencies required to review their rules once they have been in effect for 10 years and determine whether they should be continued or rescinded. Currently agencies have the opinion to delay the review of the rules for a year up to five times without giving a reason for doing so. H.R. 9085 would allow agencies to spin their review for only a year, one at a time and then require them to give a rationale for why they were unable to complete their review within the time frame allotted. This bill will force agencies to review what regulations are already on the books and determine if they are still fulfilling their intended purpose. Further when considering the review our agencies will be required to offer a comment period for stakeholders to weigh in on the rules impact over the past 10 years. It is important that we continue to elevate small businesses voices throughout the rule making process including if past rules are necessary. I want to thank Mr. Meuser for his work on H.R. 9085, and I look forward to supporting it. If there is no further discussion the committee now moves to consideration of H.R. 9085. The clerk will report. Mr. MEUSER. Mr. Chairman. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman? Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, sir? Mr. MEUSER. May I make a remark? Chairman WILLIAMS. So move? Mr. MEUSER. Mr. Chairman, I think we all agree or at least on this side of the aisle that bureaucrats need bright lines, not guidelines. We are in a stage of our federal government where the burdens of big government are not neutral. They are very problematic particularly for small business. We must--this bill provides urgency, a requirement for the bureaucrats to do their job in a timely manner and too many, too many small businesses feel that they are pushing against the ocean. So, such this amendment guts the entirety of a bill that will have such an impact in reducing regulatory burdens and the onslaught from particularly this administration needs to be, needs to be dealt with. And this bill helps do that and it supports Main Street American needs. I yield back. Ms. DAVIDS. Mr. Chairman? Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman? May I ask, make a parliamentary inquiry? Here. So, the gentleman is granted five more minutes to speak on an amendment that has not been offered yet and so we need some clarifications here. Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Is she going to be given the opportunity to go up? Ms. DAVIDS. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Chairman WILLIAMS. All right. Do any Members seek recognition for the purpose of offering an amendment? Ms. DAVIDS. Mr. Chairman? Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, ma'am? Ms. DAVIDS. I have an amendment at the desk. Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. There is an amendment at the desk and the Clerk will designate the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9085---- Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The Member is recognized to explain their amendment. Ms. DAVIDS. Thank you, Chairman. We certainly have an obligation to ensure that small businesses across the country are helped and not hurt by regulatory guardrails. A key part of that is making sure that agencies regularly review their rules and see what is working and what is not. These reviews help agencies understand how small businesses would have been impacted by regulations and what rules are both overlapping or duplicative. A mouthful. These can lead to, these reviews can lead to cutting government waste and lead to cutting regulations that burden entrepreneurs unnecessarily and to make sure that agencies are complying with that standard, Congress needs more data on how to successfully do retrospective reviews and how those have gone. And at the same time, we shouldn't be hindering agencies' ability to conduct those reviews. You know, we can, we can make sure we are not hindering agencies' abilities to conduct those reviews at the same time that we are making sure that we are not hurting small businesses by adding uncertainty to the regulatory process. Therefore, my amendment would ensure that when agencies ask for a delay in reviewing their rules that they give the public a reason why. It also would mandate that agencies report to our committee each year on whether they are actually meeting their review requirements, how they are conducting their reviews and any legislative recommendations to improve the review process. My amendment does all of this without hampering the flexibility that agencies need to ensure that these reviews are done correctly and I would urge and request all my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment to improve this piece of legislation and increase congressional oversight. I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady yields back. And does anyone else wish to be recognized for a statement on this amendment? Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Chair? Chairman WILLIAMS. I now recognize Representative Stauber from Minnesota for 5 minutes. Mr. STAUBER. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I want to yield my time to Representative Meuser from Pennsylvania. Mr. MEUSER. I thank my colleague and my apologies for jumping ahead. I am just anxious about the idea of trying to improve the regulatory situation for our small businesses versus attempts to minimize or even gut them. We must accept the fact that our bureaucracies have gotten far too burdensome. Every small business will tell you that. Spend some time on main street and we know that. We need to do what we can do to require the bureaucracies, the agencies to listen to their stakeholders and provide information and handle regulatory burdens that they are deemed to remove or consider in a timely manner. That is all my bill does. It requires a sense of urgency, a time frame to do their job and create assessments and to provide information so small business can weigh in on why it is so burdensome. So therefore, I greatly oppose any amendment to minimize my bill and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back. Does anyone else wish to be recognized for a statement on this amendment? Okay. Seeing none, I now recognize myself for a statement on this---- Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman? Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, ma'am. Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Yes, I would like to---- Chairman WILLIAMS. Recognized. Ms. VELAZQUEZ.--comment on the amendment. Chairman WILLIAMS. All right. Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, let me applaud Ms. Davids for her thoughtful amendment which will require agencies to report to Congress every two years on their efforts to conduct these reviews and include recommendations to make the 610-review process work better. I do not understand why asking the agencies to report back to Congress every two years will minimize or undermine the baseline bill. I support the amendment being offered by Ms. Davids and I urge my colleagues to as well. I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. Back. Does anyone else wish to be recognized for a statement on this amendment? Seeing none, I now recognize myself for a statement on the amendment. This amendment guts the entirety of a bill that will have concrete impact on reducing burdens on small businesses and replace it with a, with a report bill. We have seen some of the outrageous regulatory numbers coming from this administration. Replacing this bill with a study is not what main street needs. I urge my colleagues to oppose and I yield back. I urge all my colleagues to oppose this amendment. The question is now in the amendment of H.R. 9085 offered by Representative Davids. All those in favor say aye? All those opposed---- Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Yes, aye. I am sorry. Chairman WILLIAMS. We are even now. All right. Here we go. All those in favor say aye? All those opposed say no? In the opinion of the Chair the no's have it. And the amendment is now---- Ms. DAVIDS. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, ma'am, so recognized. Ms. DAVIDS. I request a recorded vote. Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. A recorded vote has been requested and a roll call vote is order. Pursuant to Committee Rule 13, and Rule 11, House Rule 11, further proceedings on the bill are postponed. Mr. MEUSER. Mr. Chairman? Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, recognized. Does anyone else wish to have, offer an amendment? Okay. Seeing none the question is now in the adoption of H.R. 9085 in favor of reporting it to the House. All those in favor say aye? All those opposed say no? Ms. DAVIDS. In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have it. Mr. MEUSER. Mr. Chairman? Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, so moved? Mr. MEUSER. I request the ayes and nays to be recorded. Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. A recorded vote has been requested and a roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to Committee Rule 13, and House Rule 11, further proceedings on the bill are postponed. H.R. 9031 The next bill we will mark up is H.R. 9031, the Assurance of Small Business Act of 2024 introduced by Representative Stauber. I now recognize the bill's sponsor, Mr. Stauber from the great State of Minnesota for an opening statement. Mr. STAUBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise today to speak in favor of my bill, H.R. 9031 the Assurance for Small Business Act of 2024. This year we have held many hearings examining the regulatory burdens placed on American small businesses by the Biden-Harris Administration. Across 17 different agencies the rulemaking process has grown out of control and Main Street America has paid the price. Over 700 regulations that have been added to the Federal Register since the Biden-Harris Administration took office, costing nearly $440 billion and adding more than 236 million paperwork hours to our small businesses and family farms. We have an existing system in place that helps prevent burdensome regulation. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to take into consideration whether the proposed regulation causes a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. However individual agencies use various definitions of ``significant economic impact'' and ``substantial number of small entities'' when considering a rule's affect. While one size fits all definitions often cause more harm than good agencies are creating definitions that benefit their causes rather than protect the small businesses. And with every agency using their own unique analysis to determine what qualifies as significant economic impact it makes oversight extremely difficult. My bill the Assurance for Small Business Act of 2024 addresses this concern. This bill will require each agency to submit to Congress their definitions used and a comprehensive list of factors the agency considers when conducting RFA analysis. This will allow Congress to keep proper oversight of agencies and hold them accountable to the intent of the FRA. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation as it will help ensure that the federal government does not further hinder the growth of American small businesses. Mr. Chair, thank you and I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back. Are there any other Members who wish to be recognized for a statement on the bill? If there are no other Members who wish to be recognized I would like to recognize the Ranking Member to speak on the bill. Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not in the habit of opposing bills that call on agencies to report to Congress. In fact, a good data leads to good policy decisions. However, I cannot in good conscious support this bill which amounts to nothing but busy work for agencies with leader to no value for policymakers or small businesses. The RFA does not define the terms significant economic impact and substantial number of small entities. The Office of Advocacy has said these terms should not be measured in absolute terms the Office has developed guidance for agencies to follow. Despite this the first requirement of H.R. 9031, would require every rule writing agency to review every single rule going all the way back to 1980 and report on how the agency define these terms. We already know that the application of these terms has varied. And there is a legitimate reason why 5 URNs in an industry of more than 1,000 regulated entities is not the same as 5 URNs in an industry of 20 regulated entities. Looking back over of a period of nearly 45 years as this report will do is a waste of resources. If my colleagues want to see the current guidelines for these terms I respectfully suggest they look on agencies' websites. Even more troubling is the second requirement of the bill which would have agencies report on a comprehensive list of factors including the threshold analysis, the initial regulatory threshold analysis, and the final regulatory threshold analysis for each and every rule going all the way back to the passage of the build in 1980. The scope is overly broad and I am not quite sure what would be gained from this type of report given the lack of analysis. Finally, it requires agencies to report to Congress in 90 days, which a sort time frame to compile broad based requests for data going back to the 1980s. I suspect this is a messaging bill and therefore oppose it because it lacks substance, scope, and requirements for solid analysis. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady yields back. And I now recognize myself to speak in support of this legislation. H.R. 9031, the Assurance for Small Business Act will require rulemaking agencies to issue a report to Congress on how they define a significant economic impact on a sustainable number of small entities. There is no one size fits all definition of significant economic impact on substantial numbers of small entities. However, it seems agencies will use this to their advantage and use varying definitions to fit their own narratives by reporting to Congress agency-wide definitions of a significant economic impact and a substantial number of small entities, it will be easier to hold them to their own standards. This bill will help our committee perform better oversight as we examine agencies that we are following the law and are truly taking the interest of small business into account during the rulemaking process. I thank Mr. Stauber for introducing this commonsense piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it. If there is no further discussion the committee now moves to consideration of H.R. 9031. The clerk will report. The CLERK. H.R. 9031, to require---- Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection, the first reading of this bill is dispensed with--and without objection this bill is considered as read and open for amendment. Do any Members seek recognition for the purpose of offering amendment? Okay. If no, seeing none the question is now on the adoption of H.R. 9031 favorably reporting to the House. All those in favor say aye? All those opposed say no? In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have it. H.R. 9031 is agreed to and ordered favorably to the House. Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote. Chairman WILLIAMS. A recorded vote has been requested and a roll call vote is ordered now pursuant to Committee Rule 13, and House Rule 11, further proceedings on the bill are postponed. H.R. 9033 The next bill we will markup is H.R. 9033, the Let Americans Businesses be On Record Act introduced by Representative Bean. I now recognize the bill's sponsor, Mr. Bean from the great State of Florida for an opening statement. Mr. BEAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. A very good morning to you and good morning small business committee. It is good to see everybody back. Let us review. If you have been paying attention to what happens in small business, we have had dozens and dozens of witnesses that run small business from all over America sit at that table right there and they have come to tell us what is it like running a small business in America right now. And guess what they have told us? I will review it with you. They have told us these are the challenges, the top four challenges, skilled labor, taxes, inflation, and regulation. One of the questions that I always ask, have you ever seen this bad? Have you ever seen regulations this bad? And they say, the majority, not all but the vast majority, no, we have never seen it this bad. So, during the break, I don't know what you did during the break. We went to work. The Bean team partnered with the Clay County Chamber of Commerce and we did a roundtable. We did a listening session and thanks to the Chamber of Commerce, Clay County Chamber of Congress invited dozens of businesses. We did a listening sessions at the Orange Park Townhall. Thank you City of Orange Park for letting us have the townhall to invite businesses to come in and tell us what they are worried about. What are their challenges running small businesses in Northeast Florida? Guess what? Same thing, skilled labor, taxes, inflation, and regulation. Far too often small business owners have to pay thousands of dollars, they have to hire attorneys that can speak swamp speak. They can--have to challenge up with all the crazy town things that happens in this town. And often government will issues these rules and regulation without even listening to main street. What will the impact be? We don't know. We just going to do it. Today Members of this committee we have an opportunity to change that. I am proud Mr. Chairman with your leadership and your guidance, I am proud to present this bill, Let Americans Businesses be On Record Act, or you can call it the LABOR Act, how about that? The LABOR Act expands small business regulatory enforcement fairness act panels to the Department of Labor. The Department of Labor. You see right now, Mr. Chairman, everybody knows this that has been paying attention, other agencies, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, OSHA, Occupational Safety & Health Administration, they are required before they publish these crazy rules listening to main street. They have to have these panels where people get to have input of how this rule will affect them. Now Mr. Chairman your leadership and the hearings that you have held, we have held dozens, we all know the culprit in issuing rules without having hearings with--that is harming main street is the Department of Labor. For some reason they are exempt from having these panels. So today the LABOR Act will change that. We will ask this body and this bill should it pass we will ask the Department of Labor before you do any rules what does main street think about it? How will it, how will it impact? So that is what we are doing. That is what the bill does. And I say to my colleagues across the aisle, this is one, this is one that we can all agree on. Can't we all agree? Can't we agree that before we enact any type of rules or regulations on the backbone America because that is what small business is, it is the backbone of America. We want them healthy because when small business is health, America is healthy, is healthy. They are struggling right now. So let us do that before we put any more obstacles, any more things in their way let us hear how will this affect them? So, with that I ask everybody to join me in pushing this bill, the LABOR Act and let us get it done. I yield back Mr. Chairman? Chairman WILLIAMS. Gentleman yields back. Are there any other Members who wish to recognized for a statement on the bill? Okay. If no other Members wish to be recognized I would like to recognize the Ranking Member to speak on the bill? Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the RFA, three agencies are required to hold and brief of panels when they RFA is triggered. The Occupational Safety & Health Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This legislation we expanded to the entire Department of Labor. The paper--the purpose of these panels is to give small businesses a greater opportunity to provide input into the development of regulations. I agree with my colleagues that small business participation in the rulemaking process is vitally important. However, I disagree with this approach. So briefing panels take time and cost money and this bill provides no funding to the DOL for the extra work. The current process to convene is to brief a panel at OSHA takes from four to eight months. It requires 120 days of formal work with the Office of Advocacy and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OIRA to identify small businesses to serve, hosting the panel, and writing a final report. And prior to this interagency work OSHA needs time to develop the detailed information and substantial analysis just to host a panel. OSHA currently dedicates a full salary to a number of technical staff including economists and lawyers for 6 to 12 months to carry out each panel. That is a significant undertaking and substantial resources are needed to convene a panel. Again, and not surprising, this bill does not include any funds to pay for the additional work. And the bill to fund the Department of Labor in fiscal year 2025 slashes funding for the agency by 22 percent. At the end of the day today's bill is another messaging bill that is unworkable. It asks agencies to do more and more with less and less. Even the Office of Advocacy does not support expanding this requirement to all agencies within the Department of Labor, expanding SBREFA to more agencies than needed will strain agency resources and potentially delay final rule implementation, which is unfortunately a goal of extremely radical Project 2025 playbook. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady yields back and now recognize myself to speak in support. Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman? Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, recognized. I now recognize Representative Crane. Mr. CRANE. I would like to yield some time to Mr. Bean. Mr. BEAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Crane. And Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. And to our friends on the other side of the aisle, you have just described oh, the regulation that will be put on the Department of Labor of all the things they will have to comply with. Welcome to the world of small business. This is what a small business has to deal with all the time of these wacky rules that no one ever considers what happens on main street. So, with that that is the irony of the speech---- Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Would the gentleman yield for one question? Mr. BEAN.--that we can't--with that I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back. Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Show me the money. Chairman WILLIAMS. I think the time is still is Mr. Crane's, remainder of your time. The gentleman yields back. Are there any other Members who wish to be recognized for a statement on the bill? Mr. BEAN. Mr. Chair? Chairman WILLIAMS. I now recognize Representative Stauber from Minnesota for 5 minutes. Mr. STAUBER. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wholeheartedly support this initiative by Representative Bean from Florida. What he just described is what we have seen for the last two years almost on this committee every single small business man and woman that we have had at the hearing have talked about the rules and regulations, how devastating they are. As he spoke about going throughout his district and talking to small business as we all do, it is the rules and regulations, it is one rule here, one rule there that cost that small business a lot of money over time. And it is just getting, the bureaucracy is getting bigger and bigger and bigger. It is just, it is just one rule and then another rule and then another rule. These small businesses can't afford a rule department just to, just to keep up with these federal bureaucracies that are putting on them. I have owned a small business for 31 years. The rules and regulations must stop. We have heard it from the experts that we have had at the hearing. And this is exactly what Representative Bean is talking about. And I am thankful he brought it up and I look forward to supporting legislation. Mr. Chair, I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. Yields back. Are there any other Members who wish to be recognized for a statement on the bill? Okay. Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, ma'am? Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Can I ask the author of the bill a question, please, an inquiry? Chairman WILLIAMS. You may. Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Have you spoken or reached to the Office of the Advocacy on this bill? Mr. BEAN. Thank you very much for the question. I have not but I have spoken to small business---- Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Yes. Mr. BEAN.--and that is who this really affects. We need to listen---- Ms. VELAZQUEZ. But do you know that the Office of Advocacy that is the office that advocates on behalf of small business is opposed to this legislation? Mr. BEAN. But a main street is in support of this legislation and those are my constituents and that was the hearing that we did in Orange Park, Florida. Regulation is strangling small business. So let us let the Department of Labor listen before they just publish a willy nilly rule, let us let them listen to main street of how this will actually affect the bottom-line business that is, that is crippling main street across America. Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. You answered my question. Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady yields back. Are there any other Members who wish to be recognized for a statement on the bill? All right. I now recognize myself to speak in support of this legislation. H.R. 9033, the LABOR Act will take an important step in holding one of the federal government's worse regulator offenders accountable. This committee conducted a thorough investigation into the rulemaking process and found the Department of Labor is one of the worst offenders of the Regulatory Flexibility Act's requirements. Their rules often fail to accurately account for their impacts on small entities. The small business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act requires the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Occupational Safety & Health Administration with-in the Department of Labor to convene a panel of stakeholders for feedback on a rule that is going to have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Given the DOL's record it seems only fitting that they too are required to conduct these panels. Now it is better to get a regulation right than to move quickly and force it on the backs of small business owners before the agency can even understand the repercussions. I want to thank Mr. Bean for his work on this legislation and urge my colleagues to vote yes. So, if there is no further discussion the committee now moves to consideration of H.R. 9033. The clerk will report. The CLERK. H.R. 9033, to amend Title 5---- Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and without objection the bill is considered as read and open for amendment. Do any Members seek recognition for the purpose of offering an amendment? Seeing none the question is now the adoption of H.S. 9033 in favor of reporting to the House. All those in favor say aye? Those opposed say no? In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have it. H.R.--yes, sir. Mr. BEAN. May I request a recorded vote? Chairman WILLIAMS. A recorded vote has been requested and a roll call vote is ordered pursuant to Committee Rule 13, and House Rule 11, further proceedings on the bill are postponed. H.R. 7198 The next bill we will markup is H.R. 7198, the Prove It Act of 2024 introduced by Representative Finstad. Are there any Members who wish to be recognized for a statement? Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Chair? Chairman WILLIAMS. Now recognize Representative Stauber from Minnesota for 5 minutes. Mr. STAUBER. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise today in support of my colleague's bill H.R. 7198. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. They are the innovators, job creators, and driving force behind economic growth. In Minnesota small business account for over 99 percent of all businesses and employ over half the workforce. It is no exaggeration to say that the success of our economy is tied to the success of our small businesses. We have heard numerous times this Congress that the Biden-Harris Administration lacks concern for small businesses. Time and time again they have pummeled small business owners with costly rules and regulations with little or no regard. Tools exist to stop administrations from overregulating. But these tools must work for even the smallest of entities. We must provide easier pathways for small businesses to hold agencies accountable especially under this Biden-Harris Administration. That is why I am proud to co- sponsor my Minnesota's colleague's, Representative Finstad's bill, H.R. 7198. By allowing small businesses to directly challenge an agency's ``certification'' and requiring agencies to be fully transparent about how regulations will impact the small business community, H.R. 7198 will take power away from unelected bureaucrats and rightfully return it to small business owners. And I want to repeat that. H.R. 7198 will take power away from the unelected bureaucrats and rightfully return it to the small business owners. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation as it will give small businesses a greater say in the regulatory process, which will only strengthen America's economic backbone. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back. Are there any other Members who wish to be recognized for a statement on the bill? If there are no further Members who wish to be recognized, I would like to recognize the Ranking Member to speak on the bill. Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congress passed the IFA in 1980 out of concern that uniformed regulations disproportionally burden small firms. It requires agency to consider the ramifications federal rules have on small businesses and give the Office of Advocacy the authority to monitor agencies' compliance with the law. It is important to note that the RFA does not seek preferential treatment for small entities. Nor does it require agencies to adopt the least burdensome rules. It mainly seeks to identify barriers to small businesses competitiveness and to help level the playing field. Concerns have been raised that the RFA has become a tool for large businesses to obstruct the regulatory process. Unfortunately, the Prove It Act wouldn't solve the problem but rather exaggerate it and give a big corporations a hammer to wield against rules and harm the businesses the law is designed to assist. First this bill creates an unworkable quasi judicial process within the Office of Advocacy for reviewing agencies certifications. It would allow any group, any group that claims to represent small businesses like Amazon for instance to petition Advocacy to block rules that they do not like. It does nothing to prevent or limit duplicate petitions which further bogs down the Office of Advocacy with numerous meetings and additional reviews. Second, it requires agencies to take into consideration the indirect effects of the rules in their regulatory flexibility analysis. Indirect costs are difficult to estimate. Agencies do not have the information available to them nor do they have control over minimizing them. And if Advocacy finds that an agency failed to conduct a required review of a rule they could announce that the rule has ceased to exist. Agencies will then have to review the rule before it could be reinstated. Small businesses need certainty and this provision would cause undue confusion requiring business owners to come into compliance with a rule only to remove it from the books and then reinstate it again isn't the safeguard I think this legislation was trying to achieve. I am afraid this bill will open the door for well-resourced trade associations and corporations to challenge any rule they oppose, possibly requiring Advocacy to review agencies' RFAs compliance for thousands of rules issued each year. Why are we granting Advocacy, which has not had a Senate confirmed chief counsel since 2017 a vast amount of new authority. If enacted the Office will need to double its staff and no surprise this bill provides no new funding for the additional work. So, believe me, small businesses when the other side claims that they are here to advocate for you, ask them, where is the money for the agencies to do their job. This bill will do little to help small businesses but it will certainly help powerful companies with the money to roll back rules that protect our health, safety, and the environment. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady yields back. I now recognize myself to speak in support of this legislation. H.R. 7198, the Prove It Act of 2024 is an important bipartisan piece of legislation which will help ensure that agencies comply with intent of existing law and will give small business owners the ability to petition their government when they see does not accurately account for a rule's impact. Small businesses do not have the resource to hire compliance officers, lawyers, or lobbyists to ensure that they understand and have their voices heard when the requirements are coming out across the federal government. Too often agencies issue one size fits all rule would make it challenging for small entities to comply or even keep track of. The Prove It Act will help agencies ensure that they comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act and take into account small entities as they craft their, as it crafts regulations. The bill does three main things. First the bill allows small businesses to petition the government when an agency does not accurately account for the impact of a given rule. Under the Prove It Act, small businesses and stakeholders will be able to go to the SBA's Office of Advocacy if they believe an agency has immediately-- improperly certified that a regulation will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Second, it requires agencies to consider indirect costs when conducting a regulatory flexibility analysis. Currently agencies must only consider agencies directly regulated and impacted by a regulation they issue. We have heard time and time again, however, that this is not even close to the whole story. The downstream impacts of regulation are often just as if not more costly than direct costs. In order to truly understand how impactful a regulation is we must take into account all of the factors. And third, it requires agencies to publish follow-up guidance rules to the rules on regulations.gov. This piece of the Prove It Act is very similar to the Post It Act, sponsored by Mr. Molinaro which passed this committee unanimously and passed the House on suspension. The Prove It Act takes important steps in ensuring that agencies comply with the intent of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and considers small entities in the rulemaking process. And I urge my colleagues to support the legislation and yield back. And if there is no further discussion the committee now moves to consideration of H.R. 7198. The clerk will report. The CLERK. H.R. 7198, to amend Title 5---- Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection the first reading of the bill is suspended with and without objection the bill is considered as read and open for amendment. Do any Members seek recognition for the purpose of offering an amendment? Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman. Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, ma'am? Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I have an amendment at the desk. Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. So, moved. Okay. There is an amendment at the desk. And the Clerk will designate the amendment. The CLERK. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7198---- Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the Member is recognized to explain their amendment. Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment will strike the numerous analytical procedures in the Prove It Act that will enable big corporations to roll back rules and put small businesses on uneven ground. In its place my amendment requires the Office of Advocacy to train agencies on how to comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Key personnel at every rule writing agency will be required to undergo Regulatory Flexibility Act training every four years. We have heard from Advocacy that when agencies have a better understanding of the Regulatory Flexibility Act it leads to more meaningful consideration of small business throughout the rulemaking process. Advocacy has been working diligently to train staff and we have seen the fruits of their labor year after year. Agency analysis is improving. This amendment will ensure that the Office is reaching all agencies once every four years. Similar to the amendment offered by Ms. Davids to an earlier bill, my amendment will require agencies to submit a report to Congress under which respective review requirements under Section 610. The bottom line, small firms do not what to deal with the chaos that will result from the enactment of the Prove It Act. Most small businesses oppose deregulation. Business owners invested significant resources to comply with existing requirements and deregulation will cost them time and money. Deregulation also leads to a patchwork of state regulations that make it harder for small businesses to comply with multiple requirements. They need certainty. Finally federal regulations help to level the playing field and allow small firms to better compete against Goliaths in industry. I urge all Members to support my amendment and oppose the Prove It Act. I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady yields back. Does anyone else wish to be recognized for a statement on this amendment? Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Chair? Chairman WILLIAMS. Recognize Representative Stauber from the great State of Minnesota for 5 minutes. Mr. STAUBER. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in strong opposition to the esteem Ranking Member's amendment. In fact, over 50 organizations representing small businesses from a wide range of industries have written in support of H.R. 7198. They recognize that this legislation is vital to reducing regulatory burdens and ensuring agencies consider the needs of small businesses when implementing new rules. It is both unrelated to the core of H.R. 7198 and is a distraction from the real issues that small businesses across the country face. Again, the Ranking Member, Mr. Chair, has talked about the Office of Advocacy several times that agency has been mentioned. I would submit that the folks that we asked to come to the hearings and testify the ones that we have asked, not one has, not one small business has said, yeah, we need more rules and regulations. Not one. This administration, Mr. Chair, has put in over 700 regulations punishing American small businesses. The rules and regulations that are put on small businesses have been devasting. They come here on a, on a weekly basis and tell us. If we say they are the engine of our economies, allow them to thrive and survive and be prosperous in our small town and large town America. These 700 regulations have placed over $440 billion, that is with a B, over $440 billion on the small businesses of America. Again, not one has, not one small business owner that has come to a hearing has said, we need more rules and regulations from these three letter agencies by these unelected bureaucrats. Not one. We need to start listening to our small businesses, those men and women who want to be entrepreneurs that are out on Main Street America trying to make it. These punishing, these punitive rules and regulations have to stop and the Office of Advocacy obviously is not being as good as they should. Seven hundred rules and regulations and I will just say, submit to you, Mr. Chair, these legislations are good for small businesses. And if it means that the three letter agencies, the unelected bureaucrats in the three letter agencies, Mr. Chair, some of them have never owned a small business, Mr. Chair, if it means that they have to change their ways and stop the punishment of small businesses, well I am all for it. American small businesses are the engines of our economy, they are the entrepreneurs and they make America move and grow and become prosperous. And this committee and some Members on this committee don't seem to understand that. And I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back. Does anyone else wish to be recognized for a statement on this amendment? Seeing none, I now recognize myself for a statement on this amendment. Half of this amendment is the exact same as the one debated ten minutes ago and the other half changes the intent of the underlying bill. The Prove It Act has been a number 1 asked for small business groups around the country as we discuss regulation reform. And as we have already mentioned it brings small business' voices to the forefront when the agencies recklessly approve regulations without doing what is required in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. And if we want to truly help Main Street America we should oppose this amendment and support the underlying bill. So, I urge all my colleagues to oppose this amendment. The Prove It Act makes important steps ensuring that agencies comply with the intent of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and consider small entities in the rulemaking process and I urge my colleagues to support the legislation and I yield back. No if there is no further discussion the committee now moves into consideration of H.R. 7198, and the Clerk will report. Okay. All right. The question is now on the amendment to H.R. 7198, offered by Ranking Member Velazquez. All those in favor say aye? All those opposed say no? No. In the opinion of the Chair the no's have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Chairman? Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, ma'am. Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I would like to request a roll call. Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. A recorded vote has been requested and a roll call vote is ordered pursuant to Committee Rule 13, and House Rule 11, further proceedings on the bill are postponed. And does anyone else wish to offer an amendment? Okay. Seeing none the question is now in the adoption of H.R. 7198 favorably reporting to the House. All those in favor say aye? All those opposed say no? In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and H.R. 7198 is agreed to and ordered favorably to the House. All right. I request a recorded vote and a roll call vote is ordered by me pursuant to Committee Rule 13, and House Rule 11, further proceedings on the bill are postponed. All right. Now when we--the committee will now stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair. We will reconvene around 2 o'clock after the first period of votes on the floor. Adjourned. [Recess.] Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. The committee will now come to order. The committee will now resume consideration of the bills on which roll call votes were requested and postponed. We will start with H.R. 8033. The question now is adopting H.R. 8033 and ordering it favorably reported to the house. The clerk will call the roll. The CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer? [No response.] Mr. Stauber? Mr. STAUBER. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Stauber votes aye. Mr. Meuser? Mr. MEUSER. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Meuser votes aye. Ms. Van Duyne? Ms. VAN DUYNE. Aye. The CLERK. Ms. Van Duyne votes aye. Ms. Salazar? Ms. SALAZAR. Aye. The CLERK. Ms. Salazar votes aye. Mr. Mann? [No response.] Mr. Ellzey? Mr. ELLZEY. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Ellzey votes aye. Mr. Molinaro? Mr. MOLINARO. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Molinaro votes aye. Mr. Alford? Mr. ALFORD. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Alford votes aye. Mr. Crane? Mr. CRANE. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Crane votes aye. Mr. Bean? Mr. BEAN. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Bean votes aye. Mr. Hunt? [No response.] Mr. LaLota? Mr. LALOTA. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. LaLota votes aye. Ms. Maloy? Ms. MALOY. Aye. The CLERK. Ms. Maloy votes aye. Mr. Golden? Mr. GOLDEN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes no. Mr. Phillips? Mr. PHILLIPS. No. The CLERK. Mr. Phillips votes no. Mr. Landsman? Mr. LANDSMAN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Landsman votes no. Mr. McGarvey? Mr. MCGARVEY. No. The CLERK. Mr. McGarvey votes no. Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez? Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. No. The CLERK. Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez votes no. Ms. Scholten? Ms. SCHOLTEN. No. The CLERK. Ms. Scholten votes no. Mr. Thanedar? Mr. THANEDAR. No. The CLERK. Mr. Thanedar votes no. Ms. Chu? Ms. CHU. No. The CLERK. Ms. Chu votes no. Ms. Davids? Ms. DAVIDS. No. The CLERK. Ms. Davids votes no. Mr. Pappas? Mr. PAPPAS. No. The CLERK. Mr. Pappas votes no. Ranking Member Velazquez? Ms. VELAZQUEZ. No. The CLERK. Ranking Member Velazquez votes no. Chairman Williams? Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes. The CLERK. Chairman Williams votes aye. Mr. Mann? Mr. MANN. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Mann votes aye. Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. Are there any other Members who have not voted or wish to change their vote? All right. Seeing none, the clerk will report. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman on that vote 13 ayes, 11 nays, and zero present. Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. The motion agreed to and H.R. 8033 is adopted and will be favored--reported favorably to the House The question now is in adopting H.R. 9032, and ordering it favorably reported to the House. The clerk will call the roll. The CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer? [No response.] Mr. Stauber? Mr. STAUBER. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Stauber votes aye. Mr. Meuser? Mr. MEUSER. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Meuser votes aye. Ms. Van Duyne? Ms. VAN DUYNE. Aye. The CLERK. Ms. Van Duyne votes aye. Ms. Salazar? Ms. SALAZAR. Aye. The CLERK. Ms. Salazar votes aye. Mr. Mann? Mr. MANN. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Mann votes aye. Mr. Ellzey? Mr. ELLZEY. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Ellzey votes aye. Mr. Molinaro? Mr. MOLINARO. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Molinaro votes aye. Mr. Alford? Mr. ALFORD. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Alford votes aye. Mr. Crane? Mr. CRANE. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Crane votes aye. Mr. Bean? Mr. BEAN. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Bean votes aye. Mr. Hunt? [No response.] Mr. LaLota? Mr. LALOTA. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. LaLota votes aye. Ms. Maloy? Ms. MALOY. Aye. The CLERK. Ms. Maloy votes aye. Mr. Golden? Mr. GOLDEN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes no. Mr. Phillips? Mr. PHILLIPS. No. The CLERK. Mr. Phillips votes no. Mr. Landsman? Mr. LANDSMAN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Landsman votes no. Mr. McGarvey? Mr. MCGARVEY. No. The CLERK. Mr. McGarvey votes no. Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez? Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. No. The CLERK. Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez votes no. Ms. Scholten? Ms. SCHOLTEN. No. The CLERK. Ms. Scholten votes no. Mr. Thanedar? Mr. THANEDAR. No. The CLERK. Mr. Thanedar votes no. Ms. Chu? Ms. CHU. No. The CLERK. Ms. Chu votes no. Ms. Davids? Ms. DAVIDS. No. The CLERK. Ms. Davids votes no. Mr. Pappas? Mr. PAPPAS. No. The CLERK. Mr. Pappas votes no. Ranking Member Velazquez? Ms. VELAZQUEZ. No. The CLERK. Ranking Member Velazquez votes no. Chairman WILLIAMS. I need to vote. The CLERK. Sorry about that, sir. Chairman WILLIAMS. Unless you don't want me to. The CLERK. Chairman Williams? Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes. The CLERK. Chairman Williams votes aye. Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who wish-- who have not voted or wish to change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will report. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman on that vote 13 ayes, 11 nays, and zero present. Chairman WILLIAMS. The motion agreed to and H.R. 9031 is adopted and will be reported favorably to the House We will now be voting on the amendment offered to H.R. 9030, offered by Mr. Thanedar. The clerk will call the roll. The CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer? [No response.] Mr. Stauber? Mr. STAUBER. No. The CLERK. Mr. Stauber votes no. Mr. Meuser? Mr. MEUSER. No. The CLERK. Mr. Meuser votes no. Ms. Van Duyne? Ms. VAN DUYNE. No. The CLERK. Ms. Van Duyne votes no. Ms. Salazar? Ms. SALAZAR. No. The CLERK. Ms. Salazar votes no. Mr. Mann? Mr. MANN. No The CLERK. Mr. Mann votes no. Mr. Ellzey? Mr. ELLZEY. No. The CLERK. Mr. Ellzey votes no. Mr. Molinaro? Mr. MOLINARO. No. The CLERK. Mr. Molinaro votes no. Mr. Alford? Mr. ALFORD. No. The CLERK. Mr. Alford votes no Mr. Crane? Mr. CRANE. No. The CLERK. Mr. Crane votes no. Mr. Bean? Mr. BEAN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Bean votes no. Mr. Hunt? [No response.] Mr. LaLota? Mr. LALOTA. No. The CLERK. Mr. LaLota votes no. Ms. Maloy? Ms. MALOY. No. The CLERK. Ms. Maloy votes no. Mr. Golden? Mr. GOLDEN. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes aye. Mr. Phillips? Mr. PHILLIPS. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Phillips votes aye. Mr. Landsman? Mr. LANDSMAN. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Landsman votes aye. Mr. McGarvey? Mr. MCGARVEY. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. McGarvey votes aye. Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez? Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. Aye. The CLERK. Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez votes aye. Ms. Scholten? Ms. SCHOLTEN. Aye. The CLERK. Ms. Scholten votes aye. Mr. Thanedar? Mr. THANEDAR. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Thanedar votes aye. Ms. Chu? Ms. CHU. Aye. The CLERK. Ms. Chu votes aye. Ms. Davids? Ms. DAVIDS. Aye. The CLERK. Ms. Davids votes aye. Mr. Pappas? Mr. PAPPAS. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Pappas votes aye. Ranking Member Velazquez? Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Aye. The CLERK. Ranking Member Velazquez votes aye. Chairman Williams? Chairman WILLIAMS. No. The CLERK. Chairman Williams votes no. Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not voted or wish to change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will report. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman on that vote 11 ayes, 13 nays, and zero present. Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. The amendment is not adopted. We will now be voting on amendment offer to H.R. 9030, offered by Ms. Chu. The clerk will call the roll. The CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer? [No response.] Mr. Stauber? Mr. STAUBER. No. The CLERK. Mr. Stauber votes no. Mr. Meuser? Mr. MEUSER. No. The CLERK. Mr. Meuser votes no. Ms. Van Duyne? Ms. VAN DUYNE. No. The CLERK. Ms. Van Duyne votes no. Ms. Salazar? Ms. SALAZAR. No. The CLERK. Ms. Salazar votes no. Mr. Mann? Mr. MANN. No The CLERK. Mr. Mann votes no. Mr. Ellzey? Mr. ELLZEY. No. The CLERK. Mr. Ellzey votes no. Mr. Molinaro? Mr. MOLINARO. No. The CLERK. Mr. Molinaro votes no. Mr. Alford? Mr. ALFORD. No. The CLERK. Mr. Alford votes no Mr. Crane? Mr. CRANE. No. The CLERK. Mr. Crane votes no. Mr. Bean? Mr. BEAN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Bean votes no. Mr. Hunt? [No response.] Mr. LaLota? Mr. LALOTA. No. The CLERK. Mr. LaLota votes no. Ms. Maloy? Ms. MALOY. No. The CLERK. Ms. Maloy votes no. Mr. Golden? Mr. GOLDEN. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes yes. Mr. Phillips? Mr. PHILLIPS. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Phillips votes yes. Mr. Landsman? Mr. LANDSMAN. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Landsman votes yes. Mr. McGarvey? Mr. MCGARVEY. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. McGarvey votes yes. Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez? Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. Yes. The CLERK. Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez votes yes. Ms. Scholten? Ms. SCHOLTEN. Yes. The CLERK. Ms. Scholten votes yes. Mr. Thanedar? Mr. THANEDAR. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Thanedar votes yes. Ms. Chu? Ms. CHU. Yes. The CLERK. Ms. Chu votes yes. Ms. Davids? Ms. DAVIDS. Yes. The CLERK. Ms. Davids votes yes. Mr. Pappas? Mr. PAPPAS. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Pappas votes yes. Ranking Member Velazquez? Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Yes. The CLERK. Ranking Member Velazquez votes yes. Chairman Williams? Chairman WILLIAMS. No. The CLERK. Chairman Williams votes no. Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. Are there any other Members who have not voted or wish to change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will report. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman on that vote 11 ayes, 13 nays, and zero present. Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. The amendment is not adopted. The question now is on adopting H.R. 9030 and ordering it favorably reported to the house. The clerk will call the roll. The CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer? [No response.] Mr. Stauber? Mr. STAUBER. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Stauber votes yes. Mr. Meuser? Mr. MEUSER. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Meuser votes yes. Ms. Van Duyne? Ms. VAN DUYNE. Yes. The CLERK. Ms. Van Duyne votes yes. Ms. Salazar? Ms. SALAZAR. Yes. The CLERK. Ms. Salazar votes yes. Mr. Mann? Mr. MANN. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Mann votes yes. Mr. Ellzey? Mr. ELLZEY. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Ellzey votes yes. Mr. Molinaro? Mr. MOLINARO. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Molinaro votes yes. Mr. Alford? Mr. ALFORD. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Alford votes yes. Mr. Crane? Mr. CRANE. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Crane votes yes. Mr. Bean? Mr. BEAN. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Bean votes yes. Mr. Hunt? [No response.] Mr. LaLota? Mr. LALOTA. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. LaLota votes yes. Ms. Maloy? Ms. MALOY. Yes. The CLERK. Ms. Maloy votes yes. Mr. Golden? Mr. GOLDEN. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes yes. Mr. Phillips? Mr. PHILLIPS. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Phillips votes yes. Mr. Landsman? Mr. LANDSMAN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Landsman votes no. Mr. McGarvey? Mr. MCGARVEY. No. The CLERK. Mr. McGarvey votes no. Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez? Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. Yes. The CLERK. Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez votes yes. Ms. Scholten? Ms. SCHOLTEN. No. The CLERK. Ms. Scholten votes no. Mr. Thanedar? Mr. THANEDAR. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Thanedar votes yes. Ms. Chu? Ms. CHU. No. The CLERK. Ms. Chu votes no. Ms. Davids? Ms. DAVIDS. No. The CLERK. Ms. Davids votes no. Mr. Pappas? Mr. PAPPAS. Yes The CLERK. Mr. Pappas votes yes. Ranking Member Velazquez? Ms. VELAZQUEZ. No. The CLERK. Ranking Member Velazquez votes no. Chairman Williams? Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes. The CLERK. Chairman Williams votes yes. Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not voted or wish to change their vote? Mr. THANEDAR. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded? Chairman WILLIAMS. Thanedar? The CLERK. Mr. Thanedar is recorded as yes. Mr. THANEDAR. Could that be made no? Thank you. The CLERK. Mr. Thanedar votes no. Chairman WILLIAMS. Any others want to change their vote? Okay. Seeing none, the clerk will report. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman on that vote 17 ayes, 7 nays, and zero present. Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. The motion agreed to and H.R. 9030 is adopted and will be reported favorably to the House. We will now be voting on an amendment offered to H.R. 9085, offered by Ms. Davids. The clerk will call the roll. The CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer? [No response.] Mr. Stauber? Mr. STAUBER. No. The CLERK. Mr. Stauber votes no. Mr. Meuser? Mr. MEUSER. No. The CLERK. Mr. Meuser votes no. Ms. Van Duyne? Ms. VAN DUYNE. No. The CLERK. Ms. Van Duyne votes no. Ms. Salazar? Ms. SALAZAR. No. The CLERK. Ms. Salazar votes no. Mr. Mann? Mr. MANN. No The CLERK. Mr. Mann votes no. Mr. Ellzey? Mr. ELLZEY. No. The CLERK. Mr. Ellzey votes no. Mr. Molinaro? Mr. MOLINARO. No. The CLERK. Mr. Molinaro votes no. Mr. Alford? Mr. ALFORD. No. The CLERK. Mr. Alford votes no Mr. Crane? Mr. CRANE. No. The CLERK. Mr. Crane votes no. Mr. Bean? Mr. BEAN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Bean votes no. Mr. Hunt? [No response.] Mr. LaLota? Mr. LALOTA. No. The CLERK. Mr. LaLota votes no. Ms. Maloy? Ms. MALOY. No. The CLERK. Ms. Maloy votes no. Mr. Golden? Mr. GOLDEN. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes yes. Mr. Phillips? Mr. PHILLIPS. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Phillips votes yes. Mr. Landsman? Mr. LANDSMAN. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Landsman votes yes. Mr. McGarvey? Mr. MCGARVEY. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. McGarvey votes yes. Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez? Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. Yes. The CLERK. Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez votes yes. Ms. Scholten? Ms. SCHOLTEN. Yes. The CLERK. Ms. Scholten votes yes. Mr. Thanedar? Mr. THANEDAR. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Thanedar votes Yes. Ms. Chu? Ms. CHU. Yes. The CLERK. Ms. Chu votes yes. Ms. Davids? Ms. DAVIDS. Yes. The CLERK. Ms. Davids votes yes. Mr. Pappas? Mr. PAPPAS. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Pappas votes yes. Ranking Member Velazquez? Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Yes. The CLERK. Ranking Member Velazquez votes yes. Chairman Williams? Chairman WILLIAMS. No. The CLERK. Chairman Williams votes no. Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not voted or wish to change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will report. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman on that vote 11 yeses, 13 nos, and zero present. Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. The amendment is not adopted. The question now is on adopting H.R. 9085 and ordering it favorably reported to the House. The clerk will call the roll. The CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer? [No response.] Mr. Stauber? Mr. STAUBER. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Stauber votes yes. Mr. Meuser? Mr. MEUSER. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Meuser votes yes. Ms. Van Duyne? Ms. VAN DUYNE. Yes. The CLERK. Ms. Van Duyne votes yes. Ms. Salazar? Ms. SALAZAR. Yes. The CLERK. Ms. Salazar votes yes. Mr. Mann? Mr. MANN. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Mann votes yes. Mr. Ellzey? Mr. ELLZEY. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Ellzey votes yes. Mr. Molinaro? Mr. MOLINARO. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Molinaro votes yes. Mr. Alford? Mr. ALFORD. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Alford votes yes. Mr. Crane? Mr. CRANE. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Crane votes yes. Mr. Bean? Mr. BEAN. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Bean votes yes. Mr. Hunt? [No response.] Mr. LaLota? Mr. LALOTA. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. LaLota votes yes. Ms. Maloy? Ms. MALOY. Yes. The CLERK. Ms. Maloy votes yes. Mr. Golden? Mr. GOLDEN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes no. Mr. Phillips? Mr. PHILLIPS. No. The CLERK. Mr. Phillips votes no. Mr. Landsman? Mr. LANDSMAN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Landsman votes no. Mr. McGarvey? Mr. MCGARVEY. No. The CLERK. Mr. McGarvey votes no. Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez? Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. No. The CLERK. Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez votes no. Ms. Scholten? Ms. SCHOLTEN. No. The CLERK. Ms. Scholten votes no. Mr. Thanedar? Mr. THANEDAR. No. The CLERK. Mr. Thanedar votes no. Ms. Chu? Ms. CHU. No. The CLERK. Ms. Chu votes no. Ms. Davids? Ms. DAVIDS. No. The CLERK. Ms. Davids votes no. Mr. Pappas? Mr. PAPPAS. No. The CLERK. Mr. Pappas votes no. Ranking Member Velazquez? Ms. VELAZQUEZ. No. The CLERK. Ranking Member Velazquez votes no. Chairman Williams? Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes. The CLERK. Chairman Williams votes yes. Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not voted or wish to change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will report. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman on that vote 13 ayes, 11 nays, and zero present. Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. The motion agreed to and H.R. 9085 is adopted and will be reported favorably to the House. The question now is adopting H.R. 9033 and ordering it favorably reported to the House. The clerk will call the roll. The CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer? [No response.] Mr. Stauber? Mr. STAUBER. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Stauber votes aye. Mr. Meuser? Mr. MEUSER. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Meuser votes aye. Ms. Van Duyne? Ms. VAN DUYNE. Yes. The CLERK. Ms. Van Duyne votes yes. Ms. Salazar? Ms. SALAZAR. Yes. The CLERK. Ms. Salazar votes yes. Mr. Mann? Mr. MANN. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Mann votes yes. Mr. Ellzey? Mr. ELLZEY. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Ellzey votes yes. Mr. Molinaro? Mr. MOLINARO. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Molinaro votes yes. Mr. Alford? Mr. ALFORD. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Alford votes yes. Mr. Crane? Mr. CRANE. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Crane votes yes. Mr. Bean? Mr. BEAN. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Bean votes yes. Mr. Hunt? [No response.] Mr. LaLota? Mr. LALOTA. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. LaLota votes yes. Ms. Maloy? Ms. MALOY. Yes. The CLERK. Ms. Maloy votes yes. Mr. Golden? Mr. GOLDEN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes no. Mr. Phillips? Mr. PHILLIPS. No. The CLERK. Mr. Phillips votes no. Mr. Landsman? Mr. LANDSMAN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Landsman votes no. Mr. McGarvey? Mr. MCGARVEY. No. The CLERK. Mr. McGarvey votes no. Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez? Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. No. The CLERK. Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez votes no. Ms. Scholten? Ms. SCHOLTEN. No. The CLERK. Ms. Scholten votes no. Mr. Thanedar? Mr. THANEDAR. No. The CLERK. Mr. Thanedar votes no. Ms. Chu? Ms. CHU. No. The CLERK. Ms. Chu votes no. Ms. Davids? Ms. DAVIDS. No. The CLERK. Ms. Davids votes no. Mr. Pappas? Mr. PAPPAS. No. The CLERK. Mr. Pappas votes no. Ranking Member Velazquez? Ms. VELAZQUEZ. No. The CLERK. Ranking Member Velazquez votes no. Chairman Williams? Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes. The CLERK. Chairman Williams votes yes. Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not voted or wish to change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will report. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman on that vote 13 ayes, 11 nays, and zero present. Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. The motion is agreed to and H.R. 9033 is adopted and will be reported favorably to the House. We will now be voting on an amendment offered to H.R. 7198, offered by Ms. Velazquez. The clerk will call the roll. The CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer? [No response.] Mr. Stauber? Mr. STAUBER. No. The CLERK. Mr. Stauber votes no. Mr. Meuser? Mr. MEUSER. No. The CLERK. Mr. Meuser votes no. Ms. Van Duyne? Ms. VAN DUYNE. No. The CLERK. Ms. Van Duyne votes no. Ms. Salazar? Ms. SALAZAR. No. The CLERK. Ms. Salazar votes no. Mr. Mann? Mr. MANN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Mann votes no. Mr. Ellzey? Mr. ELLZEY. No. The CLERK. Mr. Ellzey votes no. Mr. Molinaro? Mr. MOLINARO. No. The CLERK. Mr. Molinaro votes no. Mr. Alford? Mr. ALFORD. No. The CLERK. Mr. Alford votes no. Mr. Crane? Mr. CRANE. No. The CLERK. Mr. Crane votes no. Mr. Bean? Mr. BEAN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Bean votes no. Mr. Hunt? [No response.] Mr. LaLota? Mr. LALOTA. No. The CLERK. Mr. LaLota votes no. Ms. Maloy? Ms. MALOY. No. The CLERK. Ms. Maloy votes no. Mr. Golden? Mr. GOLDEN. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes yes. Mr. Phillips? Mr. PHILLIPS. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Phillips votes yes. Mr. Landsman? Mr. LANDSMAN. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Landsman votes yes. Mr. McGarvey? Mr. MCGARVEY. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. McGarvey votes yes. Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez? Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. Yes. The CLERK. Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez votes yes. Ms. Scholten? Ms. SCHOLTEN. Yes. The CLERK. Ms. Scholten votes yes. Mr. Thanedar? Mr. THANEDAR. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Thanedar votes yes. Ms. Chu? Ms. CHU. Yes. The CLERK. Ms. Chu votes yes. Ms. Davids? Ms. DAVIDS. Yes. The CLERK. Ms. Davids votes yes. Mr. Pappas? Mr. PAPPAS. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Pappas votes yes. Ranking Member Velazquez? Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Yes. The CLERK. Ranking Member Velazquez votes yes. Chairman Williams? Chairman WILLIAMS. No. The CLERK. Chairman Williams votes no. Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not voted or wish to change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will report. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman on that vote 11 ayes, 13 nays, and zero present. Chairman WILLIAMS. The amendment is not adopted. The question now is in adopting H.R. 7198 and ordering it favorably reported to the House. The clerk will call the roll. The CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer? [No response.] Mr. Stauber? Mr. STAUBER. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Stauber votes yes. Mr. Meuser? Mr. MEUSER. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Meuser votes yes. Ms. Van Duyne? Ms. VAN DUYNE. Yes. The CLERK. Ms. Van Duyne votes yes. Ms. Salazar? Ms. SALAZAR. Yes. The CLERK. Ms. Salazar votes yes. Mr. Mann? Mr. MANN. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Mann votes yes. Mr. Ellzey? Mr. ELLZEY. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Ellzey votes yes. Mr. Molinaro? Mr. MOLINARO. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Molinaro votes yes. Mr. Alford? Mr. ALFORD. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Alford votes yes. Mr. Crane? Mr. CRANE. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Crane votes yes. Mr. Bean? Mr. BEAN. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Bean votes yes. Mr. Hunt? [No response.] Mr. LaLota? Mr. LALOTA. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. LaLota votes yes. Ms. Maloy? Ms. MALOY. Yes. The CLERK. Ms. Maloy votes yes. Mr. Golden? Mr. GOLDEN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes no. Mr. Phillips? Mr. PHILLIPS. No. The CLERK. Mr. Phillips votes no. Mr. Landsman? Mr. LANDSMAN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Landsman votes no. Mr. McGarvey? Mr. MCGARVEY. No. The CLERK. Mr. McGarvey votes no. Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez? Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. No. The CLERK. Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez votes no. Ms. Scholten? Ms. SCHOLTEN. No. The CLERK. Ms. Scholten votes no. Mr. Thanedar? Mr. THANEDAR. No. The CLERK. Mr. Thanedar votes no. Ms. Chu? Ms. CHU. No. The CLERK. Ms. Chu votes no. Ms. Davids? Ms. DAVIDS. No. The CLERK. Ms. Davids votes no. Mr. Pappas? Mr. PAPPAS. No. The CLERK. Mr. Pappas votes no. Ranking Member Velazquez? Ms. VELAZQUEZ. No. The CLERK. Ranking Member Velazquez votes no. Chairman Williams? Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes. The CLERK. Chairman Williams votes yes. Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not voted or wish to change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will report. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman on that vote 13 ayes, 11 nays and zero present. Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. The motion is agreed to and H.R. 7198 is adopted and will be reported favorably to the House. Without objection committee staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes and Members have two business days to file additional supplemental dissenting and minority views. Thank you all for being here today. If there is no further business, this concludes today's markup. Without objection the committee stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 2:52 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] [all]