[House Hearing, 119 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] MARKUP OF: H.R. 1163, PROVE IT ACT OF 2025; H.R. 2027, RETURNING SBA TO MAIN STREET ACT; H.R. 2987, CAPPING EXCESSIVE AWARDING OF SBLC ENTRANTS (CEASE) ACT; H.R. 2931, SAVE SBA FROM SANCTUARY CITIES ACT; H.R. 2968, BUSINESS OVER BALLOTS ACT; H.R. 2965, SMALL BUSINESS REGULATORY REDUCTION ACT OF 2025; H.R. 2966, AMERICAN ENTREPRENEURS FIRST ACT ======================================================================= HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ HEARING HELD APRIL 30, 2025 __________ [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Small Business Committee Document Number 119-009 Available via the GPO Website: www.govinfo.gov ------ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 60-590 WASHINGTON : 2026 HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas, Chairman PETE STAUBER, Minnesota DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas JAKE ELLZEY, Texas MARK ALFORD, Missouri NICK LALOTA, New York BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota TONY WIED, Wisconsin ROB BRESNAHAN, Pennsylvania BRIAN JACK, Georgia TROY DOWNING, Montana KIMBERLYN KING-HINDS, Northern Marina Islands DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas JIMMY PATRONIS, Florida NYDIA VELAZQUEZ, New York, Ranking Member MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky HILLARY SCHOLTEN, Michigan LAMONICA MCIVER, New Jersey GIL CISNEROS, California KELLY MORRISON, Minnesota GEORGE LATIMER, New York DEREK TRAN, California LATEEFAH SIMON, California JOHNNY OLSZEWSKI, Maryland HERB CONAWAY, New Jersey MAGGIE GOODLANDER, New Hampshire Lauren Holmes, Majority Staff Director Melissa Jung, Minority Staff Director C O N T E N T S OPENING STATEMENTS Page Hon. Roger Williams.............................................. 1 Hon. Nydia Velazquez............................................. 2 APPENDIX Additional Material for the Record: H.R. 1163 - Prove It Act of 2025............................. 56 H.R. 2027 - Returning SBA to Main Street Act................. 69 H.R. 2987 - Capping Excessive Awarding of SBLC Entrants (CEASE) Act................................................ 80 H.R. 2931 - Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act............... 82 H.R. 2968 - Business over Ballots Act........................ 88 H.R. 2965 - Small Business Regulatory Reduction Act of 2025.. 92 H.R. 2966 - American Entrepreneurs First Act................. 95 Amendments: Amendment to H.R. 1163, offered by Mr. Finstad............... 98 Amendment to H.R. 2027, offered by Mr. Alford................ 112 Amendment to H.R. 2987, offered by Mr. Bresnahan............. 122 Amendment to H.R. 2931, offered by Mr. Finstad............... 123 Amendment to H.R. 2968, offered by Mr. Williams.............. 129 Amendment to H.R. 2965, offered by Ms. Van Duyne............. 132 Amendment to H.R. 2966, offered by Ms. Van Duyne............. 135 Williams Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2968 - ``Business over Ballots Act'' was AGREED TO by a voice vote................ 138 Alford Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2027 - ``Returning SBA to Main Street Act'' was AGREED TO by a voice vote............ 139 Van Duyne Amendment, no. 1, H.R. 2966 - ``American Entrepreneurs First Act'' was AGREED TO by a voice vote.... 270 Finstad Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2931 - ``Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act'' was AGREED TO by a voice vote....... 140 Bresnahan Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2987 - ``Capping Excessive Awarding of SBLC Entrants (CEASE) Act'' was AGREED TO by a voice vote.................................. 141 Van Duyne Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2965 - ``Small Business Regulatory Reduction Act of 2025'' was AGREED TO by a voice vote....................................................... 142 Finstad Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 1163 - ``Prove It Act of 2025'' was AGREED TO by a voice vote....................... 143 Conaway Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2968 - ``Business over Ballots Act''.............................................. 144 Velazquez Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2968 - ``Business over Ballots Act''.............................................. 146 Conaway Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2027 - ``Returning SBA to Main Street Act''.......................................... 147 McIver Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2027 - ``Returning SBA to Main Street Act''.......................................... 150 Morrison Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2027 - ``Returning SBA to Main Street Act''.......................................... 151 McIver Amendment, no. 2, to H.R. 2027 - ``Returning SBA to Main Street Act''.......................................... 152 Cisneros Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2931 - ``Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act''..................................... 153 Velazquez Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2931 - ``Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act''..................................... 154 Olszewski Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2965 - ``Small Business Regulatory Reduction Act of 2025''......................... 157 Morrison Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2965 - ``Small Business Regulatory Reduction Act of 2025''......................... 158 Goodlander Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 1163 - ``Prove It Act of 2025''..................................................... 159 McGarvey Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 1163 - ``Prove It Act of 2025''..................................................... 160 Velazquez Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 1163 - ``Prove It Act of 2025''..................................................... 162 Olszewski Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 1163 - ``Prove It Act of 2025''..................................................... 165 Support Documents: E Vote Results............................................... 167 ABC letter................................................... 188 AFGE letter.................................................. 189 AFL-CIO letter............................................... 190 ASBC letter.................................................. 192 CSS letter 1................................................. 195 CSS letter 2................................................. 197 HSBC Minority letter 1....................................... 199 HSBC Minority letter 2....................................... 203 HSBC Minority letter 3....................................... 207 HSBC Minority letter 4....................................... 211 HSBC Minority letter 5....................................... 216 JCN letter................................................... 219 NAHB letter.................................................. 222 NFIB letter.................................................. 223 NH Delegation letter......................................... 225 NSBA letter.................................................. 227 Philips Policy Consulting letter............................. 229 SBE Council letter 1......................................... 234 SBE Council letter 2......................................... 236 U.S. Chamber of Commerce letter.............................. 238 WSJ letter................................................... 241 Votes: Conaway Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2968 - ``Business over Ballots Act'' FAILED by a recorded vote of 11 AYES to 15 NAYS....................................................... 249 Velazquez Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2968 - ``Business over Ballots Act'' FAILED by a recorded vote of 11 AYES to 15 NAYS....................................................... 250 Final Passage to H.R. 2968, ``Business over Ballots Act'' as amended was PASSED by a recorded vote of 15 AYES to 11 NAYS 251 Conaway Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2027 - ``Returning SBA to Main Street Act'' FAILED by a recorded vote of 11 AYES to 15 NAYS.................................................... 252 McIver Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2027 - ``Returning SBA to Main Street Act'' FAILED by a recorded vote of 11 AYES to 15 NAYS.................................................... 253 Morrison Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2027 - ``Returning SBA to Main Street Act'' FAILED by a recorded vote of 11 AYES to 15 NAYS.................................................... 254 McIver Amendment, no. 2, to H.R. 2027 - ``Returning SBA to Main Street Act'' FAILED by a recorded vote of 11 AYES to 15 NAYS.................................................... 255 Final Passage to H.R. 2027, ``Returning SBA to Main Street Act'' as amended was PASSED by a recorded vote of 15 AYES to 11 NAYS................................................. 256 Final Passage to H.R. 2966, ``American Entrepreneurs First Act'' as amended was PASSED by a recorded vote of 15 AYES to 11 NAYS................................................. 257 Cisneros Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2931 - ``Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act'' FAILED by a recorded vote of 11 AYES to 15 NAYS................................................. 258 Velazquez Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2931 - ``Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act'' FAILED by a recorded vote of 11 AYES to 15 NAYS................................................. 259 Final Passage to H.R. 2931, ``Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act'' as amended was PASSED by a recorded vote of 15 AYES to 11 NAYS................................................. 260 Final Passage to H.R. 2987, ``Capping Excessive Awarding of SBLC Entrants (CEASE) Act'' as amended was PASSED by a recorded vote of 15 AYES to 11 NAYS........................ 261 Olszewski Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2965 - ``Small Business Regulatory Reduction Act of 2025'' FAILED by a recorded vote of 11 AYES to 15 NAYS................................. 262 Morrison Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 2965 - ``Small Business Regulatory Reduction Act of 2025'' FAILED by a recorded vote of 11 AYES to 15 NAYS................................. 263 Final Passage to H.R. 2965, ``Small Business Regulatory Reduction Act of 2025'' as amended was PASSED by a recorded vote of 15 AYES to 11 NAYS................................. 264 Goodlander Amendment, no, 1, to H.R. 1163 - ``Prove It Act of 2025'' FAILED by a recorded vote of 11 AYES to 15 NAYS..... 265 McGarvey Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 1163 - ``Prove It Act of 2025'' FAILED by a recorded vote of 11 AYES to 15 NAYS..... 266 Velazquez Amendment, no. 1, to H.R. 1163 - ``Prove It Act of 2025'' FAILED by a recorded vote of 11 AYES to 15 NAYS..... 267 Olszewski Amendment, no, 1, to H.R. 1163 - ``Prove It Act of 2025'' FAILED by a recorded vote of 11 AYES to 15 NAYS..... 268 Final Passage to H.R. 1163, ``Prove It Act of 2025'' as amended was PASSED by a recorded vote of 15 AYES to 11 NAYS 269 MARKUP OF H.R. 1163, PROVE IT ACT OF 2025; H.R. 2027, RETURNING SBA TO MAIN STREET ACT; H.R. 2987, CAPPING EXCESSIVE AWARDING OF SBLC ENTRANTS (CEASE) ACT; H.R. 2931, SAVE SBA FROM SANCTUARY CITIES ACT; H.R. 2968, BUSINESS OVER BALLOTS ACT; H.R. 2965, SMALL BUSINESS REGULATORY REDUCTION ACT OF 2025; H.R. 2966, AMERICAN ENTREPRENEURS FIRST ACT ---------- WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2025 House of Representatives, Committee on Small Business, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:49 a.m., in Room 2360, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Roger Williams [chairman of the Committee] presiding. Present: Representatives Williams, Meuser, Van Duyne, Alford, LaLota, Finstad, Bresnahan, Schmidt, Velazquez, McGarvey, McIver, Cisneros, Morrison, Olszewski, Conaway, and Goodlander. Chairman WILLIAMS. The committee will now come to order. A quorum is present and without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a--a a new Chair here for minute. Here you go. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any time. Before we get into the main business today, I want to ask unanimous consent to waive Mr. Jimmy Patronis from the great state of Florida on to the committee. He will serve as a Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Regulations, the Subcommittee on Rural Development, Energy, and Supply Chains, and the Subcommittee on Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Workforce Development. Without objection, so moved. As required by the House rules a copy of the legislative measures have been made available to Members and the public at least 24 hours in advance, and pursuant to committee rule 13 and House rule 11, all votes will be rolled at the end of the meeting. And like the last markup we will use electronic voting. Without objection, the committee will vote electronically in accordance with the committee rules and regulations developed by the Committee on Rules and House Administration. I now recognize myself for opening remarks. Here on this committee we stand up for hard-working entrepreneurs and small business owners. We understand that it is our job to put forward meaningful policy solutions that encourage growth and make it easier, not harder, for small businesses to grow and to thrive. In today's markup, we will consider seven bills that address the needs of small business owners across the country. These bills take steps to restore accountability and trust in the Small Business Administration. We have a job on this committee to be a voice for main street here in Washington. Under the Biden-Harris administration small businesses and endured an unprecedented regulatory assault. Those policies continually undermine the SBA's mission and its core functions. The bills in this markup correct those wrongs and support the Trump administration policies to ensure that the federal government puts American entrepreneurs first again. Last Congress this committee fought job-killing regulatory burdens that shackled small businesses. We even heard from small business owners that they were told by government officials that the goal was to drive small businesses out of business. To add insult to injury, the Biden administration removed the SBA lending standards to put American tax dollars at risk by approving loans for borrowers who were not able to repay them. For 4 years the Biden-Harris SBA moved the agency and its employees further away from its mission of serving Main Street America. The SBA began unprecedented activity like electioneering and approving loans for illegal immigrants. This committee and the Trump administration have heard small business loud and clear that guardrails must be put up and is what Administrator Loeffler has done in just a few months as SBA administrator. Today's bills work to ensure that no future administration will be able to end this kind of assault on small businesses. Those common sense bills are another step forward in unleashing small business from the government burdens to bring about the golden age of main street. As Chairman I am committed to funding or defining real legislative solutions to help small businesses grow and thrive. I would like to thank our Members for bringing these bills forward for consideration in today's markup. And I am incredibly proud to see our committee generating sound, responsive legislation to support Main Street America. With that, I yield to my friend and my distinguished Ranking Member from New York, Ms. Velazquez. Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to welcome Mr. Patronis to the committee, and we look forward to working with you throughout this Congress. But, Mr. Chairman, before I make my statement I just have to put into the record the fact that there hasn't been presented any shred of evidence that undocumented immigrants have been given any loans. And if there exists any evidence, please bring it forward. And the first thing that you need to do is to get the administrator to come before this committee and testify about the many issues that we need to tackle within the Small Business Administration. Let me begin by saying that the timing and content of this markup is ill-conceived. We are in the midst of reconciliation and a vast majority of our Members cannot attend due to conflicts. It doesn't make sense to move controversial bills without giving all Members a fair opportunity to participate and offer amendments. Aside from the Member conflicts, these bills, which put major organizational changes into statute having been vetted and no oversight has been conducted. Committee Democrats sent five letters to Administrator Loeffler on some of these issues and they have all gone unanswered. We need the information and the administrator should be here testifying on the mass firings, program costs, relocation of district and regional offices, and new changes to the lending programs. Instead, we are getting stonewalled by the administration and marking up bills without hearings, briefings, or any vetting on some of these policies. Small businesses are concerned about tariffs and we should be working together to hold an oversight hearing on the administration's reckless policies that have wreaked havoc, chaos, and confusion across our country. And by the way, the GDP report released this morning indicates our economy shrank 0.3 percent over the last 100 days. According to the MetLife and Chamber of Commerce Small Business Index, only 29 percent of small businesses feel good about the nation's health and 58 percent ranked inflation as their top concern. Let's not forget President Trump promised to lower inflation. Instead, he picked a fight on tariffs with Canada, Mexico, and other countries. Prices are beginning to surge and small businesses are paying the price. The Wall Street Journal recently reported on several small businesses that are on the verge of extinction because they cannot afford the added costs. And if that is not bad enough, the policy can be changed with a tweet causing undue uncertainty for small businesses. I would like to enter the Wall Street Journal article into the record. Chairman WILLIAMS. So moved. Ms. VELAZQUEZ. With that said, I cannot support the certain bills we are considering today because the process has been ill-conceived. I ask of the Chairman again that he demand Administrator Loeffler testify to explain the reorganization and programmatic policy changes before marking up these bills. Thank you and I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. Does any other Member seek recognition for the purpose of making an opening statement? Okay. Seeing none, we will now move to consideration of the first bill. H.R. 2968 The committee now moves into consideration of H.R. 2968, the Business Over Ballots Act that I introduced earlier this month. The clerk will report the bill. The CLERK. H.R. 2968, a bill to limit the authority of the Small Business Administration---- Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection, H.R. 2968 is considered as read and open for amendment. I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk that has been distributed in advance. The clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2968 offered by Mr. Williams---- Chairman WILLIAMS. So moved. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read and the substitute will be considered as base text for the purpose of further amendment. I now recognize myself for a statement on the bill and the amendment. The SBA is many things to a small business. They can help with everything from facilitating business loans to helping veterans find a pathway to entrepreneurship. What the SBA is not, however, is a voter registration arm of a presidential reelection campaign. But that is what the Biden-Harris administration attempted turn the SBA into until this committee found out and launched an extensive investigation into the matter last year. After stonewalling us for months, I issued three subpoenas to the SBA resulting in a treasure trove of documents. The documents revealed that the Biden-Harris SBA tried to cut deals with swing states to encourage in electioneering, including with the governor and the secretary of state of Michigan. The SBA moved so far beyond of helping main street start businesses that the agency was almost unrecognizable. This bill makes it clear that the role of the Small Business Administration is to help small businesses, not register voters. This bill is common sense, and I hope my colleagues across the aisle agree that there is no room for electioneering at the SBA. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. Does anyone else wish to speak on the bill and the amendment? Mr. MEUSER. Mr. Chairman? Chairman WILLIAMS. Mr. Meuser from the great state of Pennsylvania. Mr. MEUSER. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Your bill, the Business Over Ballots Act, would prevent the SBA from using their valuable taxpayer-funded resources to further the political campaign of presidential candidates as it occurred under the previous administration under Administrator Guzman. Not that our new administration or leadership, new administrator or leadership would expend valuable resources on such activities, but during a time when our nation's small business owners were struggling with suffocating inflation, burdensome regulations, workforce shortages, and difficulty accessing capital, the SBA prioritized their efforts to inappropriately influence the election prospects of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. Along with entering into a new voter registration memorandum of understanding with the Michigan Department of State, the SBA hired Jennifer Kim as an associated administrator in the office of field operations, if I recall correctly, at a salary of something like $225,000. Unlike many employees at the SBA, Ms. Kim specialized primarily in politicizing, in political organizing, campaigning, and registering voters. Ironically, her only previous experience with small business was what one would describe as a left wing environmentalist organization that campaigned for increased government regulations that very often were harmful to small businesses. Thankfully, under the leadership of Administrator Loeffler, we now have an SBA that is actually focused on the need of America's small businesses and not electioneering in swing districts. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is essential to prevent gross administrative malpractice and to ensure that the SBA focuses solely on its mission to aid, counsel, assist, and protect the interests of small business. Using agencies to campaign politically is wrong, is not ethical, it violates the Hatch Act, and if we do not fix this now permanently we perhaps could be perceived as endorsing the actions of the previous administration. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back. Does anyone else wish to speak on the bill and the amendment? Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman? Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes. You don't have anybody? Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I don't think so. Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. Seeing none, I would like to recognize the Ranking Member to speak on the bill and the amendment. Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Williams. I am opposed to H.R. 2968. In the last Congress, the majority launched a heavy- handed investigation issuing multiple subpoenas of public servants and firing off numerous oversight letters demanding documents without a scope from SBA and the White House. And after a yearlong investigation into SBA's actions and 3 business days before the markup we received a copy of this bill. I am curious. Why aren't we applying the same level of robust oversight to the administration's reorganization and relocation of the regional offices? Let's set the record straight. The bipartisan--bipartisan-- National Voter Registration Act allows states to designate federal agencies as voter registration agencies. That is the law. To that end, SBA and the Michigan Department of State signed a memorandum of understanding, or MOU, allowing the Michigan Department of State to create a unique URL to place on SBA's website to drive online voting registration. It permitted the Michigan Department of State to register voters at SBA district office outreach events in Michigan. The cost to the American taxpayers were minimal. And despite loud claims to the contrary, resources were not diverted from small businesses. The committee was briefed by SBA, information was shared, and thousands of pages of documents were provided. We have had multiple hearings where the majority's claims were thoroughly debunked. We have sat through two transcribed interviews of SBA employees and yet no evidence was uncovered to support their claims. It is unsettling that the majority wants to offer a bill to prohibit the SBA from promoting voter registration. The previous administrator testified that no one used the link to register to vote. The link is no longer on the SBA's website. It is a non-issue. This bill is purely a messaging bill designed to distract us from the president's intentional tanking of the economy and the resulting tumbling of the market. I am opposed to this measure, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it. Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. The gentlelady yields back. I thank you. And does anyone else wish to offer an amendment? Yes, sir? For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? Mr. CONAWAY. I have an amendment at the desk. Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. There is an amendment at the desk. We will briefly pause while staff distributes the amendment. The clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute---- Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I now recognize the Mr. Conaway, Dr. Conaway, for 5 minutes on the amendment. Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I stated, I would like to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2968, the Business Over Ballots Act. I oppose H.R. 2968 because the basis for this bill is unfounded. For context, in March of 2024, the SBA with the Michigan Department of State signed a memorandum of agreement under which the SBA did the following: placed a link on the Michigan district office website, the Michigan Department of State's existing online voter registration form and agreed to allow the Michigan Department of State staff to conduct in-person voter registration events. These actions are consistent with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 wherein ``state governments may designate entities, including federal agencies, as voter registration agencies responsible for facilitating access to voter registration.'' Now, who could be against that activity? It is the number one item or right that protects freedom here in our country. The House Small Business Committee Republicans launched an investigation alleging that activities were not within the statutory mission of the SBA. Ultimately, their investigations amounted to nothing as on September 18th Administrator Guzman testified before the committee that zero individuals had registered as a result of this link. In reality under the Biden administration, the SBA helped increase small business growth and development with more than 20 million new small business applications being processed by the SBA resulting in 60 million new jobs and driving unemployment to historic lows. With the SBA's shrinking workforce the agency already has a limited capacity to manage their ultimate directive, which is to serve and advance the growth of the American small business. Adding the student loan portfolio under the jurisdiction of the SBA runs contrary to the House's projected ethos of government efficiency. H.R. 2968 is purely a messaging bill meant to distract the public from the actions undertaken by the Trump administration to decimate federal agencies like the SBA in the name of government efficiency while adding programs like the student loan portfolio, which my amendment would prohibit, would be consistent with the SBA's overriding mission to support and develop small businesses in our country. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so that we can focus on the real issues that small businesses are facing, not manufactured ones. With that, I will close my statement on my amendment. Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back. Is there any further debate on the amendment? Mr. Meuser from the great state of Pennsylvania. Mr. MEUSER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I oppose this amendment requesting documents and communications from the SBA as an exercise--oh, I am sorry. We have got the Conaway amendment. I began in the wrong spot, my apologies. The administration is looking into ways into restructuring the administration of federal student loans in a manner that would allow them to operate more efficiently and effectively. The SBA is a candidate to take over this responsibility. This amendment would prevent the administration and Congress from moving forward from even considering this proposal. Further, this amendment is not germane to the narrow scope of the underlying bill. I urge my colleagues to vote no. I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. The gentleman yields back. Is there any further debate on the amendment? Okay. I move to strike the last word. Conaway amendment No. 182968, unfortunately, this amendment is an attempt to distract from the fact that the Biden administration was attempting to register Democratic voters in a swing state during the last presidential election. Utilizing executive branch agencies to interfere in elections is unacceptable, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. Is there any further debate on the amendment? Mr. MCGARVEY. I have got to read a statement. Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. Mr. McGarvey from the great state of Kentucky. Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and our Ranking Member Ms. Velazquez, who is not here will make remarks on her behalf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our colleagues have raised serious concerns about the deeply misguided proposal to transfer student loans to the SBA. We have requested additional information from the administrator on the proposal but have not received any answers on how such a transfer would occur and what will be required of the SBA. We continue to believe there will be negative consequences for both students and small businesses if this proposal were to become a reality, especially without any congressional oversight. I applaud Dr. Conaway for offering this amendment today and make it clear that the student loan portfolio cannot be moved to SBA by executive decree and urge all of colleagues to support it. Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back. The question now occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman--from Dr. Conaway. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. All right. Now, does anyone else wish to offer an amendment? Okay. A recorded vote has been requested and a roll call vote is ordered. Further proceedings on the amendment are postponed. Does anyone else wish to offer an amendment? Mr. MCGARVEY. I will offer an amendment. Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. There is an amendment at the desk. We will briefly pause while staff distributes the amendment. Okay. The clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2968---- Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I now recognize Mr. McGarvey from Kentucky for 5 minutes on the amendment. Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I offer this amendment on behalf of Ranking Member Velazquez, who has to be in another markup right now. Ms. Velazquez's amendment would require the SBA to provide the committee with information on the administration's deeply misguided proposal to transfer the student loan portfolio to the SBA. It is unclear to what extent the administrator was involved in these discussions or decisions prior to the president's announcement, but given the massive cost of administering and servicing student loans that would be imposed on the SBA additional congressional action and oversight is warranted. The committee must have this information to understand the impact on small businesses, the SBA and its programs, staff, resources, and legal authorities, as well as the student loan borrowers. I therefore urge all of my colleagues to support Ms. Velazquez's amendment. Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize Ms. Van Duyne from the great state of Texas. Ms. VAN DUYNE. Thank you very much. Requesting documents and communications from the SBA is an exercise that is completely out of scope for this amendment, particularly for student loan administration that has not yet begun at the agency, so the bill that we have drafted here today is plain and simple. Though my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not believe that the SBA should be involved with administering student loans, I get that, but they should be focused on making sure that no federal agency should be involved in influencing elections. And I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back. Is there further debate on the amendment? Okay. I move to strike the last word, and this bill is solely focused on the voter registration activity of the SBA, not an oversight exercise to gain access to internal communications at the SBA. The SBA lost its way under the last administration and must be refocused to serve America's Main Street and not register voters. So, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. Is there further debate on the amendment? The question now occurs on the amendment offered by myself from Texas--oh, Mr. McGarvey, I am sorry, from Kentucky. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, no. In the opinion the Chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Mr. MCGARVEY. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Velazquez would like to request a recorded vote. Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. A recorded vote has been requested and a roll call vote is ordered. Further proceedings on the amendment are postponed. Does anyone else wish to offer an amendment? The question now occurs on the adoption of the substitute amendment offered to H.R. 2968 by me. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The amendment in the nature of the substitute H.R. 2968 is adopted. Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Chair? Chairman WILLIAMS. The question--okay. The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 2968 as amended to the House. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. In the opinion of the Chair---- Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Chair? Chairman WILLIAMS. You are recognized. Yes. For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? Mr. ALFORD. I ask for a recorded vote, please. Chairman WILLIAMS. A recorded vote has been requested. A roll call vote is ordered, so pursuant to committee rule 13 and House rule 11, further proceedings on the bill are postponed. H.R. 2027 The committee now moves to consideration of H.R. 2027, the Returning SBA to Main Street Act introduced by Representative Alford from the great state of Missouri. The clerk will report the bill. The CLERK. H.R. 2027, a bill to require the administrative---- Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection, H.R. 2027 considered as read and open for amendment. The bill's sponsor, Mr. Alford, has an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk. The amendment has been distributed in advance and the clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2027 offered by Mr. Alford---- Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read and the substitute will be considered as base text for the purpose of further amendment. I now recognize the sponsor of the bill and the amendment, Mr. Alford from Missouri, for a statement. Mr. ALFORD. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for this markup session Ranking Member Velazquez. Look, this committee exists in Congress to champion main street. That is what we are all about. That is what we will continue to be all about under the direction of our Chairman to make sure that small businesses that employ about half of all Americans can continue to thrive. Our role is to help lower the barriers to creating small businesses and to support small businesses that already exist with the capital and counseling that they need to survive. For 4 years the SBA stepped away from that core mission. Under the previous administration, the SBA deliberately pulled back from the field their staff, they stayed home and stayed focused on the registering Democratic voters. Did everyone get that? Instead of doing their jobs they were more concentrated about registering Democrat voters. And this is why we are proud to introduce the Returning SBA to Main Street Act to force the SBA out of the swamp and back on main street. By relocating these workers, Mr. Chairman, into the communities that they serve, we can provide our nation's small businesses with the support they deserve and reduce wasteful spending on unused office space that we personally saw on our miniature codel over there almost 2 years ago now. I am proud to work with Chair Joni Ernst on this critical legislation to drain the swamp and ignite a new golden age for the backbone of our economy, America's small businesses. I strongly support this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same. Let's get back to main street and back to the business of doing business in America, and I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back. And does anyone else wish to speak on the bill and the amendment? Okay. If none and seeing none, I would like to recognize--I am sorry. Okay, I have got you. I recognize from Kentucky. Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Williams, and on behalf of our Ranking Member Ms. Velazquez I want to say that I am opposed to H.R. 2027 the Returning SBA to Main Street Act. I agree that main street is a major, massive priority, but this bill is another messaging bill that attacks federal employees and will harm our nation's 34 million small businesses. The vast majority of the SBA's workforce is already in the field in either loan or processing centers or in the 68 district offices and 10 regional offices. As of December 2024, only 12 percent of SBA's workforce was located at its headquarters and these employees are focused on programmatic matters. The SBA had roughly 640 employees in their district offices who were specifically trained to provide customer service to small businesses, but here is the reality. The new administrator is cutting the workforce by 43 percent and without a clear coordinated strategy. I am hearing that has resulted in a 20 percent reduction to field operations staff, but I would love to have her come and testify to this committee and explain the situation and the staffing numbers to us in person so we can better understand this. I ask my colleagues, does this bill relocate 30 percent of employees at headquarters to other parts of the country? Does it make any sense if we are left with minimal employees? How can we relocate employees if we have no idea what the agency staffing reality is and where the staff are even left in each office and location around the country? Put simply, it does not. It is a messaging bill designed to distract us from the harmful tariff policies that are fueling inflation across the country. In the end, small businesses will bear the brunt of these ill-conceived policies. If Republicans want more people in the field then they shouldn't have fired or forced people into early retirements. They should have invested in the employees who are specifically trained in customer service outreach and engagement. This bill also comes with a hefty price tag and does nothing to control government spending. The SBA signed a 20- year lease in November 2020 and the cost of breaking the lease will run in the millions. And there is a cost to relocating employees to other parts of the country, even if the agency is not paying the relocation expenses. I would like to enter into the record a letter from the American Federation of Government Employees and the AFL-CIO stating, ``this bill will cause the loss of highly trained and skilled SBA employees with decades of institutional knowledge, training, and expertise in their local market and established connections to local lenders and small businesses allowing them to provide critical services to the American public in times of need.'' Chairman WILLIAMS. So moved. Mr. MCGARVEY. AFGE goes on to write that ``this bill will limit an employee's ability to participate in union activities, including limiting protections under the collective bargaining agreement or master labor agreement and banning a private right of action for wrongful termination.'' In closing, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill that will harm SBA employees and diminish services to America's 34 million small businesses. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. And I will recognize myself for a statement. I rise in support of H.R. 2027, the Returning SBA to Main Street Act introduced by my friend Representative Alford from the great state of Missouri. Main Street America is filled with small businesses that provide all types of goods and services. From small manufacturers to cutting edge innovators, these entrepreneurs are located all over our great nation. Yet in true fashion of the federal bureaucracy, the agency tasked with assisting main street isn't located on main street, but in Washington, D.C.. Since day one, President Trump has issued executive orders to streamline the government. This led Administrative Loeffler to take action last month. She announced that at least 30 percent of the SBA staff are relocating to where small businesses are, simply on main street. So, by moving the SBA employees back to main street, H.R. 2027 will ensure that the SBA is more responsive and in tune with small businesses across this great country. So, I urge all my colleagues to support this bill. Does anyone else wish to offer an amendment? Mr. CONAWAY. I have an amendment at the desk. Chairman WILLIAMS. So recognized. There is an amendment at the desk, and we will briefly pause while staff distributes the amendment. The clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2027 offered by Mr.---- Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I now recognize the gentlewoman--or Dr. Conaway, I am sorry, Doctor, for the amendment. Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2027, the Returning SBA to Main Street Act. On March 21, 2025, SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler announced an agency-wide reorganization that includes a 43 percent workforce reduction. Additionally, according to the American Federation of Government Employees, there is a large amount of pressure for employees to leave the voluntary separation via--or rather the voluntary separation incentive payment or a reduction in force. These reductions in force remain under way at the SBA. These actions have essentially kneecapped the SBA by shrinking an already understaffed workforce. H.R. 2027 would relocate 30 percent of SBA employees from headquarters to other parts of the country and is, unfortunately, another messaging bill that further puts strain on the federal workforce. This bill will ultimately hurt the 34 million small businesses in the United States, which are the engine of employment in our economy and our country. Moreover, this bill is not necessary because the majority of the workforce is currently in the field. Along with being in the field, the SBA is being directed to shrink their workforce. What we should be doing is advocating for an increase in resources to the SBA so they can continue to drive our economy, the economy in our country. SBA district offices need to conduct outreach, engagement, and customer services. That should be our goal, not to target federal employees in the name of government efficiency. My amendment would require the U.S. Government Accountability Office to conduct an analysis of the SBA administrator's reorganization plan. Under the bill the following would be required: the cost of terminating or modifying the leases on government, that is SBA, buildings and offices and relocation costs for federal employees; the effect such a plan would have on legally binding collective bargaining agreements; the effect of the transfers on SBA's performance program and services provided to small businesses; a description of any challenges faced with the relocation of the agency's workforce; a detailed and comprehensive estimate of the cost of these reforms; and an explanation as to how they will be funded. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. With that, I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back. Is there any further debate on the amendment? Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Chair? Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, sir, what does the gentleman need? Mr. ALFORD. Debate on the amendments, sir. Chairman WILLIAMS. All right. I now recognize Mr. Alford from Missouri. Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Chair, this amendment creates just another bureaucratic hurdle that is going to create even more delays in the needed reforms of the Small Business Administration. A yearlong review process? It is only going to slow down the agency's ability to be responsive to small businesses, another year of delays for analysis is just going to hurt our small business owners even further. Instead of prioritizing main street, this amendment protects SBA headquarters' staff while missing the point of the SBA priorities, which is to serve small business owners, not federal employees. Let me repeat this. The SBA's mission is not to protect the federal employees. It is to protect and grow small businesses on main street. At the time when the SBA should be cutting red tape, this amendment adds more of it by forcing the SBA to spend more time, more resources, more energy, more people on duplicative reporting instead of delivering real results for the American people and America's small businesses. Mr. Chair, I highly recommend that we vote no on this amendment, and let's get this thing done and get to concentrating on Main Street America. That is what the president United States wants. That is what the administrator wants, Kelly Loeffler, and that is what this committee should be all about. And with that, I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back. Is there any further debate on the amendment? I now recognize Mr. McGarvey from Kentucky. Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And on behalf of our Ranking Member Ms. Velazquez, I applaud Dr. Conaway for offering this common sense amendment that would have GAO review any proposal to relocate staff that is based on numbers. And that is what we need to do. So, we are here to protect main street. We are here to protect small businesses. We want to do things that make sense. It would be really helpful if the administrator would come and answer any of these questions here. But again, only 12 percent of the workforce is based out of SBA headquarters and arbitrarily moving some employees with no coordination with the administration's 43 percent workforce reduction does not make sense at this time. Instead, the GAO should review these ill-conceived plans for the actual impact on the small businesses that rely on the SBA for loans, contracting, disaster assistance, and other SBA programs that impact their businesses and livelihoods. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, and, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. I move to strike the last word and let me say this. This amendment will cause unnecessary delay, and thus, I urge my colleagues to simply vote against it. The question now occurs on the amendment offered by myself--or by Mr. Conaway, I am sorry, from him. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. In the opinion of the Chair, of the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. A recorded vote has been requested. A roll call vote is ordered and further proceedings on the amendment are postponed. Does anyone else wish to offer an amendment? Ms. MCIVER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Chairman WILLIAMS. There is an amendment at the desk. We will briefly pause while staff distributes the amendment. Okay. The clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.---- Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. And I now recognize Congresswoman McIver for 5 minutes on the amendment. Ms. MCIVER. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you to the Ranking Member. Today I am offering an amendment in response to the extraordinary instability we see at the Small Business Administration and the lack of communication from the SBA administrator has shown to Members of this committee. My amendment would prevent this bill from taking effect unless the SBA administrator appears before this committee to testify about her reorganization plan for the SBA. This week marked the first 100 days since the Trump administration assumed control of the SBA. Before this administration, the SBA helped guide millions of small businesses out of the chaos of COVID-19 pandemic and into an era of historic growth under the Biden-Harris administration. In just the last 100 days, we have seen a spree of firings, announced plans to shutter critical needed SBA offices with no replacements, and plans to shift the entire federal student loan portfolio to SBA, all of this occurring while the SBA continues with its plans to cut nearly half of its workforce. Despite these dramatic and disruptive changes, the administrator has yet to appear before this committee to explain the SBA's recent actions or present any vision for the agency's future. This lack of transparency is unacceptable, and it should be unacceptable to everyone here on this committee. Earlier this month, the SBA even announced an internal investigation targeting staff for speaking to press and communicating with former colleagues. This is a clear attempt to silence whistleblowers and conceal the full extent of the administrator's destructive mismanagement of SBA. So now we have a situation where the SBA administrator is not facing any meaningful oversight, which is our job, while the SBA tries to intimidate its own staff for speaking out about how the agency is being run. How can Congress legislate for the American people without the facts on the ground? Our small businesses deserve better. Congress deserves answers and the American people deserve an SBA that is stable, accountable, and focused on helping entrepreneurs, not serving an economically destructive political agenda or operating in secrecy. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. With that, I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back. And is there further debate on the amendment? Mr. FINSTAD. Mr. Chair? Chairman WILLIAMS. I now recognize Mr. Finstad for 5 minutes. Mr. FINSTAD. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment could significantly delay the process of bringing SBA employees back to underserved areas and creates unnecessary bottlenecks. The requirements for testimony introduces an additional layer that delays face-to-face communication by the SBA to our small businesses. And, in fact, this bill, the underlying bill that we are talking about here today, really is all about Congress taking control of the direction and the shortfalls of SBA. And so with that being said, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back. Is there any further debate on the amendment? Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Chair? Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. ALFORD. Over here, sir. Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. Yes sir. Mr. ALFORD. Look, Kelly Loeffler is not here today. We are here today to mark up this bill to get it out to get the SBA out into Main Street America. And I know that the Member who offered this amendment, Ms. McIver, was not here I believe during our last term, but I was. And a lot of people were here who are sitting here now who repeatedly asked for Administrator Guzman to come and explain herself as to why she was turning the SBA into an electioneering arm of the Democrat party? Now, she refused to do that. We went to see her at her office. She gave us a little tour as she collapsed the workforce into one floor to make it look like they were actually doing their job at the SBA, but we saw through that. And she finally showed up towards the end of the last term. Now, look, this is a bipartisan committee. We have got to work together to make sure the SBA is doing its job and getting back to the job of making things grow on main street, but we can't have this type of duplicitous rancor, this disingenuousness. And so, I strongly urge a no vote on this amendment. It is not right to try to force Kelly Loeffler to come here after only being in office for 100 days and a big job to do right now while Ms. Guzman refused to come. So with that, I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back. Ms. MORRISON. Mr. Chair? Mr. Chairman? Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Morrison. Ms. MORRISON. May I respond? Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes you can. Ms. MORRISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield my time to Mrs. McIver. Ms. MCIVER. Thank you so much, Dr. Morrison, to my colleague. First of all, I don't know why it is being mentioned about where I was last time and last term, which I was here last term. But anyway, oversight is our job. Oversight is necessary, so saying that this amendment is unnecessary is, quite honestly, crazy. It is what our job is here in Congress. We are supposed to provide oversight and that is what we should be doing, so it is very necessary. Secondly, I don't care how long the SBA administrator has been on the job. That is not an excuse for the administrator coming before this committee to talk with us and answer questions so we are not assuming or guessing about what is happening. This, you know, Congress is trying to operate and without clear answers we are not able to legislate and do our job. Thirdly, yes, we want to work. We want to be in a bipartisan situation and work together, you know, yeah, bipartisan committee. We want to work together, however, we are not being included and none of our amendments or anything that we are suggesting or working with us across the aisle is not being considered, so that is a problem. So, I am happy that across the aisle my colleague acknowledged that we are bipartisan. Well, let's start acting like it. With that I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back. Is there further debate on the amendment? Okay. The gentleman is recognized from Kentucky. All right. Who is that? Oh, Ms. Van Duyne from the great state of Texas is recognized. Ms. VAN DUYNE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would just add that if there are questions, instead of waiting until our next meeting why don't they just go ahead and request them directly from the administrator? You have the means to be able to do that. Write a letter. All of our offices do that. So, if you have got specific questions that you want answered ask them from the administration. There is no need to uphold and wait and wait and wait and delay this action except to just delay it. So again, we submitted a lot of questions that never got answered from the previous administration over and over again. We requested a number of times the administrator to come and visit. If we had upheld having any kind of bills move through our committee simply waiting to have somebody come and testify that would have been ridiculous. So, you have got the means to be able to do it. Just write a letter. I am going to put the rest of my time to my gentle colleague, Mr. Alford. Mr. ALFORD. Thank you, Ms. Van Duyne. And, Mr. Chair, I just want to correct the record because I love this committee. I know you do, too. I think everyone on this committee loves this committee but we have to deal in a place of truth. I do want to correct the record. The Member from the other side, first my apologies for not recognizing your commitment to this committee last term. I sincerely apologize for that. But secondly, this committee and this committee staff has worked with the minority side to get the amendments in, but not only that, to offer the opportunity to put bills into this markup session and yet they have refused to do that. They do not want this to be a bipartisan markup session as we have had in the past, and I think that is not good for the American people. We need to continue down the path even though, look, we have a different administration now. Elections have consequences. We knew that when Biden was in office and Ms. Guzman was the administrator we were going to have to deal with things that we did not like and try to make changes as we could. I implore the other side to do the same now, to work with us to make America great again through small businesses. Let's put our shoulders to the plow and get this done for the American people. And with that, I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. Is there further debate on the amendment? You are recognized. Mr. OLSZEWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I actually was not planning on speaking but I just wanted to put into the record that we have, in fact, written a letter to the administrator. We have asked not only for her to attend and testify, we have asked specific questions of the administrator. Those letters have gone unanswered. So, I appreciate my colleague's suggestion but we have, in fact, done that. We have been met with absolute silence from the administrator. And I would just respond also that I don't think that as a new Member I don't think it is a good practice to look into the past constantly and get into a cycle of, well, a prior administrator didn't come so that is a reason to not do it now. I think if it was wrong then it should be wrong now. And so I would just offer as an olive branch that we could work together to say that should be the new standard going forward that we do get responses from administrators, Republican or Democrat, that they do testify. And I do look forward to finding ways to find more bipartisan bills in the future. So, I just wanted to put that on the record. I come at this where I share my colleague's desire to make it bipartisan, and I do hope we can have that open communication with the administrator whoever it is. So, thank you very much, appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield. Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back. Is there further debate on the amendment? Okay. I now recognize Mr. McGarvey from the great state of Kentucky. Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, because our Ranking Member has to be at a markup right now I want to offer some thoughts on this. First, a few things just globally what is going on. I enjoy this committee because I think we do work together to make sure that America's small businesses are working. That is the backbone of our economy, not just in my congressional district but in every congressional district across this great country. As to what Mr. Olszewski said about the letters to the administrator, we have written letters to this administrator asking for this, five letters, in fact, and I would like to move to enter those into the record now so that everyone knows what we have been asking and what we have not been receiving from the administrator. Chairman WILLIAMS. So moved. Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to point out that while maybe no administration is perfect since I have been on this committee and when Administrator Guzman and the Biden administration was in charge of the SBA, she came here and testified in front of this committee twice a year. She also came to many Members' districts, including some of my Republican colleagues who are sitting in here today, including my district because she was getting involved in what was happening. So, I do want to point out that she did come and testify in front of this committee and oftentimes was asked to bring things with her. Unto this amendment I applaud Rep. McIver for offering this amendment and support her efforts to increase congressional oversight of this ill-conceived proposal. The committee has made repeated requests to the SBA during this administration and all have gone unanswered. We cannot conduct proper oversight if the administration refuses to provide basic information, and this bill is a prime example of how decisions should not be made without it. There is no strategy from the SBA on their current workforce changes and the majority is now imposing additional new, baseless workforce requirements. Both appear to be making decisions independent of each other and the facts that are on the ground. The SBA's workforce should be aligned with the agency's mission needs and the small businesses that they serve and support, not haphazard directives made without full and complete information. And I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back. Is there any further debate on the amendment? All right. I will move to strike the last word. It is the majority's right to work with the minority and the SBA determine when and on what the administrator should testify on before the committee. So, I appreciate my colleagues' push for transparency with the administration. We can achieve this in other ways, and I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. Okay. The question now occurs on the amendment offered by McIver. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Ms. MCIVER. Mr. Chairman? Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, ma'am. Ms. MCIVER. Thank you. I would like to request a recorded vote. Chairman WILLIAMS. A recorded vote has been requested and a roll call vote is ordered so further proceedings on the amendment are postponed. Does anyone else wish to offer an amendment? Ms. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Chairman WILLIAMS. All right. There is an amendment at the desk, and we will briefly pause while staff distributes the amendment. The clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2027---- Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I now recognize Representative Morrison from the great state of Minnesota for 5 minutes on the amendment. Ms. MORRISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start by saying that while I appreciate the desire to ensure that the Small Business Administration is providing top notch service to our small businesses in their districts and regional offices across the country, arbitrarily relocating 30 percent of the employees at SBA's headquarters is not only unnecessary but it is also extremely disruptive to the lives of those employees. My amendment would exempt SBA employees who are veterans. As the wife of a veteran, I am deeply concerned about this administration's treatment of our nation's veterans. The Trump administration has fired more veterans than any other administration in history showing blatant disregard for those who have sacrificed so much for our country. Forcing SBA employees who are veterans to abruptly relocate would be another cruel decision that breaks our pledge to take care of those who have served. I want to end by urging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment and stand up for our nation's veterans. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back. Is there further debate on the amendment? Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Chair? Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. I now recognize Mr. Alford from Missouri. Mr. ALFORD. Thank you. Look, while we really appreciate the sentiment of this amendment, it is misplaced. This bill is designed to better serve veterans by bringing the SBA closer to them. That is what the SERVE Act was all about, to encourage-- to force the SBA to start doing a better job in building veterans into business owners. We have got to get the SBA out into the interior of America, into the heart of America, into main street to reach veterans. You know, at the end of World War II more than half the people who left the military started a small business in America and now it is less than 10 percent. There is a reason for that, and they are not getting the capital and the counseling that they need. And so while this amendment is appreciated, it is misplaced in the fact that the SBA is going to be more responsive and have face-to-face conversations with veterans who need help. So, veterans being relocated to help other veterans, I don't see a better avenue for building relationships and building Main Street America. And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back. Ms. VAN DUYNE. [Presiding.] Is there any further debate on the amendment? Okay. So, now I recognize Representative McGarvey from the great state of Kentucky for 5 minutes. Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate the work of my colleague Dr. Morrison in offering this amendment to prohibit the administrator from forcing veterans to uproot their lives or lose their jobs based on an arbitrary congressional directive. The SBA has always been a small organization that punches above its weight. Fulfilling the mission to assist entrepreneurs in starting, building, and growing their businesses is a difficult task. It has grown more difficult since this administration began indiscriminate firings and issuing hostile directives toward its employees. We do not need to make it any harder to get the right people into SBA jobs, yet this is what this bill will do. Dr. Morrison's amendment will provide some relief by exempting veterans from this unproductive mandate. Veterans bring determination, needed skills, and a sense of camaraderie to their work and their retention should be a priority for all employers, including Small Business Administration. I urge all of my colleagues to support Dr. Morrison's amendment and protect the SBA employees who have served. I yield back. Ms. VAN DUYNE. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. It makes no sense that the agency that is tasked with servicing Main Street America is centrally located in Washington, D.C. Veterans nationwide are actively seeking SBA assistance to start or grow their businesses and, unfortunately, because of the lack of resources and staff in the field offices many of their needs are going unmet. This amendment will not only help veterans but it will also help small businesses across the country and thus I urge my colleagues to vote against it. All right. The question now occurs on the amendment offered by the Representative Morrison from Minnesota. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Ms. MORRISON. Madam Chairwoman, I request a recorded vote, please. Ms. VAN DUYNE. A recorded vote has been requested and a roll call vote is ordered. Further proceedings on the amendment are postponed. Does anyone else offer an amendment on this? Ms. MCIVER. Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk. Ms. VAN DUYNE. There is an amendment at the desk. We will be briefly paused while staff distributes the amendment. The clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment to the---- Ms. VAN DUYNE. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I now recognize Mrs. McIver from New Jersey for 5--I am sorry? Where is she? All right. For 5 minutes on the amendment. Ms. MCIVER. Thank you, Chairwoman. I would like to offer an amendment to this bill, one that reflects the deep concern many of us share about the cost, impact, and integrity of the Small Business Administration under its current leadership. This amendment would prohibit this administration--this amendment would prohibit this bill from taking effect until the SBA administrator formally determines that its implementation would not increase cost to the agency or the American taxpayer. The SBA is actively cutting nearly half of its workforce and engaging in other structural changes, all without a clear strategy or communication with all Members of this committee. It is entirely reasonable to require a formal cost determination before allowing additional measures to move forward. Once again, oversight. The SBA is already about to take on a massive new responsibility managing a more than $1 trillion federal student loan portfolio while laying off many of the hard-working SBA employees who helped countless small businesses through their loan programs in the last 4 years. The very idea that this agency could take on more responsibilities without any additional cost is ridiculous. This amendment is simple. It ensures that we do not add to the chaos by green-lighting legislation that may carry unknown or hidden costs. It places the burden on the administrator to certify that this bill would not increase expenditures. If the SBA cannot guarantee that, then that bill should not move forward. Congress must be the guardrail. We must be the ones to ask hard questions, demand clear answers, and protect the people we serve from political decisions that could harm our economy and our small businesses. Our small business community, our federal budget, and our democratic process deserve nothing less. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. And with that, I yield back. Is there further debate on the amendment? Mr. ALFORD. Madam Chair? Ms. VAN DUYNE. I now recognize Mr. Alford from Missouri for 5 minutes. Mr. ALFORD. Thank you. While I appreciate this amendment by Mrs. McIver, I agree we do need guardrails. We don't need roadblocks. This is a roadblock to the evolving nature of the SBA and the vision of this administration, this administrator, and the majority of this committee to get back on main street. And so, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. Thank you and I yield back. Ms. VAN DUYNE. Is there further debate on the amendment? I now recognize Representative McGarvey from the great state of Kentucky for 5 minutes. Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. The last amendment required SBA to take into account the needs of small businesses when determining relocations. This amendment requires the SBA to consider the costs. Both are important considerations that appear to have been overlooked in the underlying bill. But those requirements are almost exclusively focused on pushing out the experienced staff who support SBA programs, not their efficacy, cost, or performance. This amendment fixes that by ensuring that the majority's messaging bill does not waste taxpayer dollars that would otherwise be used to assist entrepreneurs in starting, operating, and growing their businesses. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. And I yield back. Ms. VAN DUYNE. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. The SBA is capable of administering student loans and will be prepared whether or not their employees are in D.C. or outside of D.C. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. The question now occurs on this amendment offered from Representative McIver from New Jersey. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Ms. MCIVER. Madam Chairwoman, I would like to request a recorded vote. Ms. VAN DUYNE. A recorded vote has been requested and a roll call vote is ordered. Further proceedings on the amendment are postponed. Does anyone else wish to offer an amendment? The question now occurs on the adoption of a substitute amendment offered to H.R. 2027 by Mr. Alford. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2027 is adopted. The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 2027 as amended to the House. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and H.R. 2027 as amended is agreed to. Mr. ALFORD. Madam Chair? Ms. VAN DUYNE. For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? Mr. ALFORD. I ask for a recorded vote. Ms. VAN DUYNE. A recorded vote has been requested and a roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to committee rule 13 and House rule 11, further proceedings on the bill are postponed. H.R. 2966 So, the committee now moves into consideration of H.R. 2966, the American Entrepreneurs First Act, introduced by Representative Van Duyne from the great state of Texas. The clerk will now report the bill. The CLERK. H.R. 2966---- Ms. VAN DUYNE. And without objection, H.R. 2966 is considered as read and open for amendment. The amendment has been distributed in advance, and the clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2966---- Ms. VAN DUYNE. And without objection, the amendment is considered read and the substitute will be considered as base text for the purposes of further amendment. I now recognize myself as the sponsor for 5 minutes. For far too long, loopholes in the SBA's application process have allowed federal dollars to fall into the wrong hands, often due to insufficient verification procedures. We saw the consequences of this during the pandemic when billions of dollars of taxpayer funds meant for American small businesses were lost to fraud, theft, and abuse. This bill closes those gaps and codifies a much-needed citizenship verification requirement. President Trump and Administrator Loeffler took a strong first step by requiring SBA applicants to verify their legal status through executive action, but we now know that executive orders can be reversed. So, now it is Congress' responsibility to act. This bill makes those reforms permanent, protecting the SBA from abuse by foreign nationals, illegal aliens, and other ineligible applicants. Specifically, my bill requires every SBA applicant to verify their date of birth and citizenship or immigration status, and it ensures that businesses benefiting from SBA loans are 100 percent owned by eligible individuals and explicitly excludes ownership by visa holders, DACA recipients, and undocumented individuals. These are targeted, reasonable safeguards that will reflect the will of the American people. I urge support for this legislation, and I yield back. Does anyone else wish to speak on the bill and the amendment? Seeing none---- Mr. MCGARVEY. Madam Chair? Ms. VAN DUYNE. All right. I now recognize Mr. McGarvey from the great state of Kentucky for 5 minutes. Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I offer a statement on behalf of our Ranking Member Ms. Velazquez, who is in a markup herself. I strongly oppose H.R. 2966. Not only would this bill deny hard-working small business owners with the legal right to be in this country with the financing they need to grow and scale their businesses, it will create practical challenges for SBA lending partners that jeopardizes the operations of both the 7(a) and 504 programs. H.R. 2966 is a solution in search of a problem and it seems to be premised on the notion that certain segments of the American population are receiving SBA loans they otherwise shouldn't. The bill also moves programs away from their original purposes and use of prudent underwriting standards to evaluate originations. The main purpose of the 7(a) program is to provide creditworthy small business borrowers that demonstrate an ability to repay and who cannot find credit elsewhere with access to loans and loan guarantees. That legal status of a borrower has no bearing on their creditworthiness or their ability to repay and should not be used as a proxy for the prudent underwriting determination. The bill also prevents U.S. majority-owned small businesses with minority ownership from participating in SBA lending program. One prominent SBA program lender has already expressed to the committee that after the SBA's recent policy implementing President Trump's executive order, which this bill is modeled after, their institution was unable to modify a loan for a U.S. small business owned by a husband and wife solely because one of the individuals in the couple was a citizen of a European country. In some ways it is ironic that the majority is marking up this bill now. Under the terms of this bill and the recent SBA policy changes, SBA lenders will need to create new compliance regimes to certify the status of individuals and comply with 100 percent U.S. beneficial ownership requirements in the bill. Ironically, these questions and compliance procedures are similar to the ones Republicans across the House caucus have argued for years are either too complex, too costly, or too invasive for lenders to comply with the CFPB Section 1071 rule and the Corporate Transparency Act's beneficial ownership requirement. Both the Section 1701 rule and the beneficial ownership rule have safe harbors, remedies for good faith mistakes, and in some situations opportunities for applicants to decline to provide their information altogether. H.R. 2966 is silent on all of these and seems to require maximum compliance from all applicants at all times with no exceptions. The bill as written also creates practical challenges for program lenders and threatens future operations of both programs. For example, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibits creditors from discriminating against credit applicants on the basis of national origin, age, and other protected classes, and H.R. 2966 seems to make both age and national origin a threshold requirement in order for the borrower to qualify for a 7(a) or 504 loan. As such, some program lenders have already expressed to the committee that verifying a borrower's date of birth and status in order to comply with H.R. 2966 could expose their institutions to legal violations under ECOA and force them to pull back from SBA lending. Finally, concern has already been expressed that the SBA could sign a memorandum of understanding with DHS similar to the agreement that DHS recently signed with the IRS to share the information an individual borrower or business applicant has provided. A partnership between the SBA and DHS to share small business borrowers' citizenship information is without precedent and could weaponize the SBA and SBA program lenders as immigration enforcement officers threatening the safety of thousands of small business owners. For these are many additional reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against the bill, and I yield back. Ms. VAN DUYNE. I would like to now recognize Representative LaLota from the proud state of New York for 5 minutes. Mr. LALOTA. The proud and great state of New York, thank you, Madam Chair. My staff told me today would be a partisan deliberation of the Small Business Committee. I thought what could be so partisan about how we help main street, but I guess here is where we are at. The question is whether or not American taxpayers should subsidize loans to non-citizens, and it is clear the two parties have different opinions on that. I think that American taxpayers should only subsidize loans towards American citizens. And I respect my colleagues from this side of the aisle, I disagree with their premise that we should continue to subsidize loans towards non-citizens. And I think that H.R. 2966 does exactly what we need to prevent the blatant disregard for our laws that we saw time and time again under the Biden- Harris administration. For 4 of those years, the SBA exacerbated the migrant crisis by approving loans for illegal immigrants despite their ineligibility. That, thankfully, has come to an end under the leadership of President Trump and Administrator Loeffler. Last month the SBA found that the Biden-Harris SBA approved a nearly $1 million loan to a business that was 49 percent owned by an illegal immigrant. Thankfully, it was stopped before any funds could be disbursed. In line with President Trump's executive order, quote, ``ending taxpayer subsidization of open borders,'' end quote, the American Entrepreneurs First Act codifies Administrator Loeffler's new SBA policy. This policy rightfully requires citizenship verification, just as we should have with our elections, of SBA assistance applications. These safeguards will ensure that only the American taxpayer-backed SBA loans go to American entrepreneurs. Madam Chairman, it doesn't get any more no-brainer than this. I urge my colleagues to vote yes, and I yield back. Ms. VAN DUYNE. All right. Does anyone else wish to offer an amendment? So, the question now occurs on the amendment offered--no, sorry. The question now occurs on the adoption of the substitute amendment offered to H.R. 2966 by Representative Van Duyne. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2966 is adopted. The question is now favorably reporting H.R. 2966, as amended, to the House. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and H.R. 2966---- Mr. LALOTA. Madam Chairwoman? Ms. VAN DUYNE. Yes. For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? Mr. LALOTA. I request a recorded vote. Ms. VAN DUYNE. A recorded vote has been requested and a roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to committee rule 13 and the House rule 11, further proceedings on this bill are postponed. H.R. 2931 The committee now moves into consideration of H.R. 2931, the Save SBA From Sanctuary Cities Act introduced by Representative Finstad from the great state of Minnesota. The clerk will report the bill. The CLERK. H.R. 2931---- Ms. VAN DUYNE. Without objection, H.R. 2931 is considered as read and open for amendment. The bill's sponsor, Mr. Finstad, has an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk. The amendment has been distributed in advance. The clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment in the nature of a substitute---- Ms. VAN DUYNE. And without objection, the amendment is considered as read and the substitute will be considered as base text for the purposes of further amendment. I now recognize the sponsor of the bill and the amendment, Mr. Finstad, for a statement. Mr. FINSTAD. Thank you, Madam Chair. For years sanctuary jurisdictions have circumvented federal law raising serious public safety concerns. Moreover across the country, politicians have passed sanctuary jurisdiction policies that have encouraged waves of illegal immigrants to come into our nation. Last November the American people overwhelmingly elected President Trump to secure our nation's border and to make our communities safe. And since taking office, President Trump has done exactly that. In my home state of Minnesota the Small Business Administration office is currently located in the city of Minneapolis and is responsible for serving all of Minnesota's 87 counties. For years Minneapolis has passed several sanctuary city policies and at one point even attempted to defund their own police department. My legislation, the Save SBA From Sanctuary Cities Act, would require the Small Business Administration to remove and relocate their offices that are currently located in sanctuary jurisdictions to better ensure resources benefit American small businesses and, more specifically, for communities like mine, rural communities. Small businesses and those seeking resources from our SBA offices across this country deserve to have access to these resources without the threat of violence and lawlessness that is being accepted as normal in our sanctuary cities across our country. I encourage my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back. Ms. VAN DUYNE. Does anyone else wish to speak on the bill and the amendments? Seeing none, I would like to recognize the Ranking Member to speak on the bill and the amendment. Mr. McGarvey? Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I again offer a statement on behalf of Ranking Member Velazquez, who cannot be here because she is in a markup, opposing H.R. 2931, the legislation to relocate SBA's regional offices. On March 20th, Ms. Velazquez, along with 23 of her colleagues, sent a letter to Administrator Loeffler over her abrupt decision to relocate six of the SBA's regional offices and have yet to receive a response. We would like to enter that letter into the record. Ms. VAN DUYNE. So moved. Mr. MCGARVEY. Reorganizations of this magnitude shouldn't take place in the dark. The Government Accountability Office, an independent, nonpartisan agency that examines how tax dollars are spent, reported that a leading practice of effective agency reorganizations includes the involvement of Congress, federal employees, and other key stakeholders. None of this is occurring. Even more troubling, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are shirking their oversight responsibilities. We have not held any hearings on this bill or the administrator's mass terminations for that matter. It seems our majority doesn't care how these staffing cuts will impact our main street businesses, but I do. Mr. Chairman, we need answers. We need to conduct oversight and refrain from moving partisan messaging bills. Again, I would ask that we have the administrator testify and explain these actions. The bottom line is that this decision to relocate the regional offices in areas with high concentrations of Democratic residents is a blatant weaponization of the SBA for political gain. Targeting these cities is clearly punitive, unjust, and counterproductive and will harm millions of small businesses across the country who have been suffering through the chaos and heavy handedness of this administration. This bill is another messaging bill that will cost taxpayers money, accomplish nothing, and is aimed at distracting us from the real issue at hand, the reckless chaos and rising costs of the president's first 100 days in office. We need to set aside the political theater and focus on the issues that matter most, lowering costs for small businesses, standing up to big corporations, and investing in America. I am opposed to this measure, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it. I yield back. Ms. VAN DUYNE. Thank you. I now recognize myself for a statement on the bill and the amendment. I rise in support of H.R. 2931, the Save SBA From Sanctuary Cities Act introduced by my good friend Brad Finstad from the great state of Minnesota. President Biden inherited what was at the time the most secure border in American history. However, as we know, he halted construction on the border wall. He paused deportations. He terminated the remain in Mexico program and fueled possibly the worst border crisis in American history. And meanwhile, sanctuary cities sought to shield criminals from federal immigration laws putting citizens, small businesses, and government offices at risk of violence. President Trump took swift action to restore the rule of law and make our communities safer, including by stopping the subsidization of areas that refuse to comply with immigration laws. H.R. 2931 codifies these efforts to ensure that the SBA officials are not put in danger due to these illegal sanctuary city policies. Quite simply, these illegal sanctuary cities must follow the law and put an end to this preventable violence. We must protect the owners and customers on main street and SBA personnel. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill to make main street safe again. Does anyone else wish to offer an amendment? Mr. CISNEROS. Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk. Ms. VAN DUYNE. For what purpose does the gentleman--I am sorry. There is an amendment at the desk. We will briefly pause while staff distributes the amendment. It has been distributed so the clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2931---- Ms. VAN DUYNE. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Cisneros, for 5 minutes on the amendment. Mr. CISNEROS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, but I don't get a great, the great state of California like everybody else? Thank you. Look, my amendment seeks to ensure that taxpayers are not only on the hook for a blatant attempt to weaponize SBA, as H.R. 2931 seeks to target major cities led by individuals who simply have differing policy views from this administration. People's livelihoods are at stake and this administration is playing games. Whatever vendetta prompted this legislation, it should not be on the taxpayers' dime. This administration claims to want efficiency while taking away SBA resources from major cities with a high concentration of millions of small businesses is far from efficient. This bill is being framed as wanting to make the moves to keep SBA offices and small businesses safe. Let's be honest. If you truly cared about small businesses you would not be allowing this administration to fire the workers in the field offices that support small businesses directly. You would not be trying to force the remaining staff to decide whether to uproot their livelihood or to quit. You would not be okay with those who have become experts in supporting small businesses to be forced out of the SBA. If you care we would hear from the SBA on these proposed moves and the administrator would come and testify. Supporting small businesses should not be a partisan issue. We have heard from hearings in this very committee on how targeting SBA resources in major cities will be critically detrimental. The SBA administrator has advocated for this bill in her press conferences but yet she has yet to come to this committee to discuss her plans or her vision for the SBA. This bill is nothing more than an attack on Democratic-led cities but it will hurt small businesses regardless of the party affiliation of the business owner. So, I hope my colleagues across the aisle will join me in supporting my amendment to ensure that if there is any cost that is too outrageously political--this is a political game. It cannot be moved forward to hurt taxpayers or small businesses. And with that, I yield back. Ms. VAN DUYNE. Is there further debate on the amendment? I now recognize Mr. Finstad for 5 minutes. Mr. FINSTAD. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me state very clearly, no state or city is exempt from following federal law and by refusing to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement authorities sanctuary cities allow unlawful and criminal aliens to be released onto the streets. Federal taxpayers' dollars will be saved by preventing them from subsidizing sanctuary city policies which undermine federal law and increase public safety risk to their communities and to the very folks that the SBA is serving. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment, and I yield back. Ms. VAN DUYNE. Does anyone else have further debate on the amendment? Ms. MCIVER. Madam Chair, I would like to yield my time to my colleague. Ms. VAN DUYNE. Mr. Cisneros is now recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. CISNEROS. Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, the responsibility of the Small Business Administration is supporting and helping small business. It is not the Department of Homeland Security. It is not the Immigration and Customs Service. It is not the responsibility to enforce immigration laws of the SBA. The SBA should be focused on what its task is and that is supporting small businesses. And to remove resources out of cities simply because they are led by Democratic leadership is inefficient and it is going to hurt businesses and it is going to hurt business owners regardless of their party affiliation. And we cannot allow that to happen. If this committee truly supports, and we are working in a bipartisan matter, we will continue to support small businesses no matter where they are, main street and small town America, rural America, and in our urban cities. That is our responsibility and that is what we should be focused on. Let Homeland Security worry about immigration. Let us worry about small business, and with that, I yield back. Ms. VAN DUYNE. Representative LaLota from the okay state of New York is now recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. LALOTA. Boo. Everybody boo the Chairwoman, please. A sanctuary city or a sanctuary state is one who overtly intentionally acts contrary to federal immigration law, specifically telling their officers, agents, and agencies do not cooperate with the federal government on matters of immigration law. Do not hand over any records. Do not share the information. Do not facilitate the enforcement of our federal immigration law. This is how we got a migrant crisis, folks. Not only the Biden open border that allowed 10 million plus folks into the country but the incentive to get to a sanctuary city like New York City is the reason we had a huge migrant crisis with this administration, and the people of the country want us to end. Part of that is removing the incentive and creating an opportunity for governments to reverse their policies. I come from New York, which to some is just an okay state, and maybe it is just okay because we don't in New York enforce federal immigration laws in the five boroughs. And that is a reason why so many folks not only cross the border but came to New York for all the free stuff, the free hotels, the free healthcare, and the lack of immigration enforcement in places like New York. This bill gives an opportunity for New York City policymakers to tell their constituents, hey, listen, I need to make a choice back to help the Feds enforce immigration laws because it is the right thing to do and because now Congress and the administration are exerting some leverage over us. This is what we need to do to force the hands of policymakers who continue to choose to support illegal immigration over the safety and security of folks. You want to help small business? Help the customers not be afraid of being robbed at gunpoint by an illegal immigrant like they are doing across our great country. This bill is right. It deserves our support. It deserves bipartisan support so that we can have safety and security in our great country. I yield. Ms. VAN DUYNE. Is there further debate on the amendment? So, I now recognize Representative McGarvey from the great state of Kentucky for 5 minutes. Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and I offer remarks on behalf of our Ranking Member Ms. Velazquez, who can't be here because of a markup. Thank you to the Chairwoman. Thank you to my colleague Mr. Cisneros for offering this amendment to ensure that the SBA considers the cost to the taxpayer when making decisions based on local immigration policies rather than on the needs of 34 million small businesses. Like many of the bills we are considering today, this is a messaging bill that will have real consequences for small businesses and American taxpayers. While we should not have to direct the SBA to consider--while we should not have to direct SBA to consider the cost associated with their partisan agenda, this amendment is necessary to ensure that they do. The announcement of the relocation of these offices was reckless and done without a plan, input from small businesses, or even a cost analysis. Mr. Cisneros' amendment is a step to protect taxpayer dollars and small businesses' access to the SBA services. I urge all of my colleagues to support it and oppose the final bill. Ms. Chairwoman, I yield back. Ms. VAN DUYNE. So, I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. We must ensure that SBA personnel and their small business clients are not forced to work where sanctuary city policies have increased the threat of violence. We can't pause. We can't delay on this. We have to make sure that they are getting the safety from cities that are willing to actually enforce laws. And I urge Members to vote no on this amendment. The question now occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from the ``at least we have good weather'' state of California, Mr. Cisneros. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Mr. CISNEROS. Madam Chair, I request a recorded vote. Ms. VAN DUYNE. A recorded vote has been requested and a roll call vote is ordered. Further proceedings on the amendment are postponed. Does anyone else wish to offer an amendment? Are we done? There is an amendment at the desk, and we will pause briefly while staff distributes the amendment. So, the clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of---- Ms. VAN DUYNE. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I now recognize the gentleman from Kentucky for 5 minutes on the amendment. Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I offer Ms. Velazquez's amendment because she cannot be in the room right now. She is at a markup. The SBA's announcement that they will relocate certain offices based on local immigration policies rather than the interests of small businesses should not have come as a surprise but it did. There was limited, if any, small business or stakeholder involvement in the decision and there appears to be no plan in place or analysis conducted around closing or moving offices. And the committee has not been provided information or held a hearing on this announcement. Again and again our requests for information have gone ignored and unanswered. This is simply unacceptable. Accordingly, we must conduct oversight through the legislative process. Ms. Velazquez's amendment would require that this information be provided to Congress prior to SBA implementing any rash relocation decisions with negative consequences for certain small businesses. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back. Ms. VAN DUYNE. Is there further debate on the amendment? I now recognize Mr. Finstad for 5 minutes. Mr. FINSTAD. Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment will unnecessarily delay the implementation of this bill. The threats posed by criminal illegal aliens in sanctuary cities is very real. As a reminder of this fact consider what has happened earlier this month in New York City. U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement arrested over 200 criminal illegal aliens. The majority of these illegal aliens had criminal histories for crimes like manslaughter, rape, assault, drug trafficking, sex assault against minors. Unnecessary delays in office relocation exposes SBA employees and customers to the very real danger created by sanctuary city policies, and I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. I yield back. Ms. VAN DUYNE. Is there further debate on the amendment? So, I now recognize myself. The reality is that across America radical sanctuary city policies have caused havoc in these communities. We have a duty to protect SBA employees' access to safer workplaces without delay. I urge my colleagues to vote on this amendment. The question now occurs on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman and Ranking Member Velazquez. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Mr. MCGARVEY. I request a roll call vote. Ms. VAN DUYNE. A recorded vote has been requested. A roll call vote is ordered. Further proceedings on the amendment are postponed. Does anyone else wish to offer an amendment? The question now occurs on the adoption of the substitute amendment offered to H.R. 2931 by Mr. Finstad. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. In the opinion the Chair, the ayes have it. The amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2931 is adopted. The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 2931, as amended, to the House. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and it---- Mr. FINSTAD. Madam Chair? Ms. VAN DUYNE. Yes. Mr. FINSTAD. Could I ask for recorded vote, please? Ms. VAN DUYNE. A recorded vote has been requested. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to committee rule 13 and House rule 11, further proceedings on the bill are postponed. H.R. 2987 The committee now moves to consideration of H.R. 2987, the CEASE Act, introduced by Representative Bresnahan from the great state of Pennsylvania. The clerk will report the bill. The CLERK. H.R. 2987, a bill to amend the Small Business-- -- Ms. VAN DUYNE. Without objection, H.R. 2987 is considered as read and open for amendment. The bill sponsor, Mr. Bresnahan, has an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk. The amendment has been distributed in advance. The clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment in the nature of substitute---- Ms. VAN DUYNE. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read and the substitute will be considered as base text for the purposes of further amendment. I now recognize the sponsor of the bill and the amendment, Mr. Bresnahan, for 5 minutes. Mr. BRESNAHAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. My bill, Capping Excessive Awarding of SBLC Entrants Act, or the CEASE Act, restores a vital piece integrity to the flagship SBA 7(a) loan program. The SBA is authorized to issue government-backed 7(a) loans through certified depository institutions like banks and credit unions, as well as certified non-bank lenders like FinTech companies. Unlike certified depository institutions, whose primary regulator is the Federal Reserve, the non-bank SBLCs are primarily regulated by the SBA, meaning they are not subject to the same regulations and requirements. Together, the limited number of SBLCs and prudent lending standards that used to be in place at the SBA were necessary guardrails to ensure that the 7(a) program remained zero subsidy, costing taxpayers zero dollars. The SBA had its own concerns that it did not have the oversight capabilities to monitor and regulate an unlimited number of SBLCs, yet the Biden-Harris administration sought to expand the number of SBLC licenses while also lowering lending standards and loosening underwriting criteria in the 7(a) program. Expanding SBLC licenses when the SBA itself acknowledged that it is unequipped to regulate additional for-profit, non- bank lenders is problematic. That is why my legislation is so important to ensure that the SBA is not addressing excessive SBLCs that it cannot properly regulate. We cannot continue giving the federal government ways to abuse taxpayer dollars. I thank the Administrator Loeffler for taking swift action and returning prudent lending standards to the 7(a) program. She is working to ensure small businesses will continue to have access to this valuable resource. Combined with the CEASE Act, those efforts will return the SBA to its proper oversight capabilities and ensure that federally regulated lenders, such as community banks, remain a fundamental pillar of 7(a) lending. This bill was thoughtfully drafted and encompasses the original 14 SBLCs and two additional SBLCs licensed in 2024 after the Biden era rule changed. No existing SBLC licenses would be revoked as part of this bill. I ask my colleagues to vote yes on this practical and sensible bill. Thank you and I yield back. Ms. VAN DUYNE. I now recognize the Ranking Member to speak on the bill and the amendment. Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I want to offer a statement on behalf of Ms. Velazquez. H.R. 2987 places a statutory moratorium on the number of SBLC licenses that can be issued by the SBA at the currently issued number of 16. SBLCs are non-depository lending institutions that are authorized by the SBA to make 7(a) loans nationwide up to the programmatic cap of $5 million per small business. There has been bipartisan concern about the SBA's ability to issue additional SBLC licenses on this committee for more than 2 years. Ms. Velazquez first expressed concern about the SBA's decision to amend its regulations to lift its previous moratorium on the licensing of new SBLCs after the SBA made the announcement as part of its proposed SBLC rule in April of 2023. Prior to the finalization of the SBLC rule, the SBA had placed a moratorium on licensing new SBLCs since 1982, as it believed it did not have the necessary resources to properly supervise any new entrants into the program. Although there is no cap on the number of licenses that can be issued under the SBLC rule, in a proposed rule the SBA stated that based on the oversight capacity it had at that time it believed it had the ability to license and supervise three new SBLCs. Given the controversy and upheaval associated with the SBA's decision to award an SBLC license to the FinTech company Funding Circle, I believe it is worth exploring the necessity to statutorily codify the number of SBLC licenses at the currently issued number of 16. However, the text of H.R. 2987 is silent as to the moratorium's applicability to currently existing community advantage SBLC licenses. The program began as a pilot program in 2011 and has been hugely successful in facilitating smaller dollar loans to small businesses that are new or located in an underserved community. As part of the SBLC rule in 2023, the SBA transitioned the CA program from its original form as a pilot to a specifically designated community advantage SBLC license program. CA lenders who continue to be interested in making loans under the program are required to register with the SBA as CA SBLCs. Thus far, 143 CA lenders have registered with the SBA as CA SBLCs. In fiscal year 2024, the community advantage program issued 1,118 loans valued at more than $196 million with an average loan size of approximately $175,700. I believe the CA program needs to continue to grow and lenders with an interest in participating in the program need to be awarded a CA SBLC license if they meet all the programmatic requirements for licensure. I am concerned that H.R. 2987's textual silence as to the SBLC moratorium's applicability to the CA SBLC program could be interpreted by SBA during this administration or a future administration as directed to the SBA to limit the number of CA SBLC licenses or even shut down the program altogether, a concern CA industry participants share and have expressed as well. The standard practice would be for outstanding questions associated with legislative text to be answered as part of a committee hearing with the SBA leadership or industry participants, yet no such hearing on this legislation has been held. Moreover, H.R. 2987 wasn't even introduced until last Thursday, providing our side of the aisle without sufficient time to speak with the SBA, all necessary industry partners, and engage in the due diligence review required to support the legislation. So while I remain concerned about the SBA's ability to award an unlimited number of new SBLC licenses, central questions regarding the legislation's text remain and therefore I cannot support the legislation in its current form. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the bill, and I yield back. Ms. VAN DUYNE. Thank you. I now recognize myself to speak in support of this legislation. H.R. 2987, the CEASE Act, is the solution to an irresponsible world change that was made by the Biden-Harris SBA last year, under last Congress, when it announced the decision to lift a 40-year moratorium on licensing new SBLCs to participate in flagship 7(a) programs. The moratorium was in place due to the SBA's own recognition of its limitations to prudently regulate and oversee non-depository lenders within a nationwide 7(a) lending platform. Both Members of the House and the Senate expressed concerns about the SBA's capacity to serve as the primary regulator for additional SBLCs, yet the Biden-Harris SBA went full steam ahead and even awarded an SBLC license to an entity called Funding Circle, which is an entity that was not prepared nor qualified to take on the license. That entity also held a central role in lobbying the Biden- Harris administration to lift the SBLC moratorium. And while the Funding Circle license was surrendered before it could make a 7(a) loan, we cannot allow potentially negligent actors to participate in government-backed lending and ultimately put taxpayer dollars at risk. These decisions pointed to a fundamental failure in the Biden-Harris SBA's vetting of applicants for the SBLC licenses and further reinforced the bipartisan concerns raised about the SBA's limited oversight capacity. This common sense legislation is a step toward restoring the integrity of the 7(a) program and ensures responsible oversight for the non-federally regulated lenders that participate. I thank Representative Bresnahan for introducing this legislation, and I urge all Members to vote yes. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. Does anyone wish to offer an amendment? So, the question now occurs on the adoption of the substitute amendment offered to H.R. 2987 by Mr. Bresnahan. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. In the opinion the Chair, the ayes have it. The amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2987 is adopted. The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 2987, as amended, to the House. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and H.R. 2987, as amended---- Mr. BRESNAHAN. Madam Chair, I request a recorded vote. Ms. VAN DUYNE. A recorded vote has been requested and a roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to committee rule 13 and House rule 11, further proceedings on the bill are postponed. H.R. 2965 The committee now moves to consideration of H.R. 2965, the Small Business Regulatory Reduction Act of 2025, introduced by Representative Van Duyne from the great state of Texas. The clerk will report the bill. The CLERK. H.R. 2965---- Ms. VAN DUYNE. Without objection, H.R. 2965 is considered as read and open for the amendments. And the bill's sponsor has an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk and the amendment has been distributed in advance. The clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment in the nature of---- Ms. VAN DUYNE. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read and the substitute will be considered as base text for the purposes of further amendment. I now recognize myself as the sponsor of this bill and the amendment for a 5-minute statement. In my first year as a Member on this committee, we heard from a witness, and it was a very powerful testimony. He held up a three-ring binder. It was stuffed full of regulations that they were forced to comply with. I would be afraid to see what the binder looks like today after 4 years of the Biden regime. In the years following that hearing, I have continued to hear from countless small business owners in north Texas about the overwhelming regulatory environment that they face. From day one the Trump administration has worked to undo this regulatory onslaught that agencies have imposed on main street, launching bold efforts like this 10 to 1 deregulation initiative. My bill works in lockstep with President Trump's deregulatory agenda and it holds our federal agencies accountable by requiring them to display the true cost of the regulations imposed on small businesses. I hope that my colleagues from both sides of the aisle could agree with me when I say that the House Committee on Small Business is committed to prioritizing the needs of our nation's job creators and their employees. That starts with lessening the red tape that small businesses have to file in order to survive. Specifically, my bill requires the SBA to ensure that for each fiscal year the cost of its own rulemaking is not greater than zero dollars. Furthermore, it requires the SBA to publish a report on regulations issued by other federal agencies that impact small businesses. I urge support for this legislation, and I yield back. Does anyone else wish to speak on the bill and the amendments? I would like to recognize the Ranking Member to speak on the bill and the amendment for 5 minutes. Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I offer a statement from our Ranking Member Ms. Velazquez. I am opposed to H.R. 2965, the Small Business Regulatory Reduction Act of 2025. Throughout my tenure on the committee I have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to put forth thoughtful bipartisan bills that will make lives easier for small business owners. Unfortunately, this bill is a messaging bill designed to distract the American public from the harm the Trump administration is inflicting on small businesses with the on again, off again tariff policy and the intentional tanking of the economy. This bill mandating a zero or negative regulatory budget for SBA may sound good on the surface, but it would have the practical effect of limiting the SBA from issuing any rules even if the benefits outweigh the costs. SBA needs to issue regulations to update programs, issue disaster regulations, and even reduce recordkeeping requirements. That is good government practice that the majority doesn't seem to understand. The majority also fails to realize that agencies may be able to estimate the cost of a regulation but they do not have hard data on the costs that are imposed. This bill would require the SBA to make assumptions that could turn out to be incorrect. There is nothing in the bill that clarifies how the agency is to implement a regulatory budget and is therefore impractical. Finally, the bill does not include an exception for national emergencies, meaning that if this bill had been enacted before the pandemic small businesses across the country might not have received PPP assistance in a timely manner, if they received it at all. For these reasons, I will not be able to lend my support to the Small Business Regulatory Reduction Act. Thank you and I yield back. Ms. VAN DUYNE. Does anyone else wish to offer an amendment? Mr. OLSZEWSKI. Madam Chair? Ms. VAN DUYNE. For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? Mr. OLSZEWSKI. I have an amendment at the desk. Ms. VAN DUYNE. There is amendment at the desk, and we will briefly pause while staff distributes the amendments. The amendment has been distributed. The clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the---- Ms. VAN DUYNE. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I now recognize Mr. Olszewski for 5 minutes on the amendment. Mr. OLSZEWSKI. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I am pleased to offer an amendment to H.R. 2965 by, as I have previously said in past committee hearings, I am happy to work together on fixing our regulatory system, but I also understand the challenges that small businesses face every day. They need to make payroll, hire talented people, brand their product, work towards inclusion of their workers, provide benefits for their employees, and market their services. As a former county executive and local leader, I know that poorly crafted regulations, whether at the federal, state, or local level can be burdensome for small businesses. That is why Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or RFA, which requires federal agencies to work with the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy to gather input from small business during the rulemaking process and to advocate for them with federal agencies, essentially leveling the playing field for small businesses. This bill mandates a zero or negative regulatory budget for SBA, having the practical effect of limiting the SBA from issuing any rules despite the benefits outweighing the costs. In light of that, even a coalition of sensible safeguards comprised of more than 200 labor, scientific research, good government, faith, community, health, environmental, and public interest groups is opposed, stating the bill is unworkable and inherently flawed. Throughout my short time in this committee I have heard bipartisan support surrounding both workforce development programs and rural small business programs, so I urge my colleagues to support an amendment that carves out an exemption for these programs because haphazardly nullifying and rolling back regulations won't solve the problem. The bill holds the potential to harm small businesses, consumers, and the environment. If we are going to pass the bill out of this committee, I hope we can at least include this amendment. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I yield back. Ms. VAN DUYNE. The Chairwoman now recognizes Ranking Member for 5 minutes. Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I support Dr. Olszewski's amendment, and I yield back. Ms. VAN DUYNE. All right. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. The solution cannot be more government spending and expanded regulation. The focus should be on providing incentives that allow the private sector to invest in workforce training and development rather than relying on the government to create new rules and programs. Our goal should be to empower rural entrepreneurs with tax relief, regulatory elimination, and access to capital, which will allow them to grow their businesses and hire more workers without an increase in government spending or bureaucratic overhead. My bill does that. It ensures a full and accurate accounting for regulatory costs imposed on small businesses, including those in rural communities. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. Is there further debate on the amendment? So, the question now occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman Mr. Olszewski from Maryland. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Mr. OLSZEWSKI. Yes. Madam Chair? Ms. VAN DUYNE. A recorded vote has been requested and a roll call vote is ordered. Further proceedings on the amendment are postponed. Does anyone else wish to offer an amendment? Ms. MORRISON. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. Ms. VAN DUYNE. For what purposes does the--oh, there is an amendment at the desk. We will briefly pause while staff distributes the amendment. So, the clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute---- Ms. VAN DUYNE. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I now recognize Representative from Minnesota, Representative Morrison for 5 minutes on the amendment. Ms. MORRISON. Thank you, Madam Chair. My amendment is a simple one. It would carve out rules that benefit veterans. I agree that to protect our small businesses we must ensure that new regulations don't present unnecessary burdens to them, however, this rigid legislation creates an unreasonable cap that could prevent the enactment of regulations designed to benefit specific groups of people that we have a duty to look out for, such as veterans. I again urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up for those who have served our country and support this amendment. Thank you Madam Chair. I yield back. Ms. VAN DUYNE. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member for 5 minutes. Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And I applaud Dr. Morrison for offering an amendment to carve out rules benefiting veterans from the regulatory budget. Time and again we have heard from veterans about the importance of the SBA's programs to their small businesses and regulatory enhancements are part of the process of addressing the very needs of veterans. A regulatory budget will have the practical effect of grinding the SBA rulemaking to halt and harm small businesses. I support this exception for our nation's veterans and thank Dr. Morrison for offering the amendment. Simply, we owe a lot to our nation's veterans and cannot take any chances with the unintended consequences a regulatory budget would have at the SBA. I yield back. Ms. VAN DUYNE. Thank you very much. And I now recognize myself for 5 minutes, and I absolutely agree we owe a number of platitudes and thanks and benefits to our veterans. And one of the reasons why when I go home we have a number of different roundtables specifically with veterans. Not one veteran have I talked to, especially those who are interested in starting small businesses or who own small businesses, ask for more government regulations. In fact, the best way to help veteran small businesses thrive is now by expanding regulatory costs but by reducing them. So instead of adding carve-outs for regulatory costs, we should focus on removing the red tape, on cutting unnecessary regulations, and ensuring that veteran business owners can operate with greater flexibility at their greatest potential. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. Is there further debate on the amendment? So, the question now occurs on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Minnesota. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Ms. MORRISON. Madam Chair, I would like to request a recorded vote. Ms. VAN DUYNE. A recorded vote has been requested. A roll call vote is ordered. Further proceedings on the amendment are postponed. Does anyone else wish to offer an amendment? Okay, nobody? So, the question now occurs on the adoption of the substitute amendment offered to H.R. 2965 by Representative Van Duyne. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2965 is adopted. The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 2965 as amended to the House. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. Mr. FINSTAD. Madam Chair, could I request a recorded vote? Ms. VAN DUYNE. A recorded vote has been requested. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to committee rule 13 and the House rule 11, further proceedings on the bill are postponed. Chairman WILLIAMS. [Presiding.] Okay. I want to thank Congresswoman Van Duyne for filling in for me. Thank you very much. H.R. 1163 The committee now moves into consideration of H.R. 1163, the Prove It Act of 2025 introduced by Representative Finstad from the great state of Minnesota. The clerk will report the bill. The CLERK. H.R. 1163, a bill to amend title 5---- Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection, H.R. 1163 is considered as read and open for the amendment. The bill sponsor, Mr. Finstad, has an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk. The amendment has been distributed in advance. The clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.---- Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read and the substitute will be considered as base text for the purpose of further amendment. I now recognize the sponsor of the bill and the amendment, Mr. Finstad, for his statement on the bill and the amendment. Mr. FINSTAD. Thank you, Chairman Williams. Over the last 4 years, the Biden administration added $1.8 trillion in new regulatory compliance costs and 356 million hours of paperwork to small businesses, ushering in the most burdensome regulatory environment in history. In 1980, Congress passed the Regulatory Flexibility Act to protect small businesses from these burdens. Unfortunately, the Biden administration disregarded the law in favor of pushing a far left agenda that burdened our small business community. Government red tape has made it harder and more costly for Americans to start a business and for many hindering their opportunity to achieve the American dream. For too long, D.C. bureaucrats have abused their regulatory power, trampling over the small businesses that are the backbone of our economy. My legislation, the Prove It Act, gives teeth to an already existing law, the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, agencies are required to complete an initial and final analysis of their regulations and certify that they will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. In many cases, agencies have failed to meet the standards of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and have left small business owners across our country with the short end of the stick. The Prove It Act would require federal agencies to analyze both the direct and indirect costs their regulations would have on small entities, create a way for small businesses to petition their chief advocate in government to review federal agencies' work, and prove that they are fully compliant with existing laws. If an agency fails to comply with the review process, small businesses then would be exempt from the regulation in question. The Prove It Act would also ensure that small businesses can easily access pre-existing guidance documents via regulations.gov and give teeth to the retrospective review by requiring any regulation that agencies fail to perform from the already required tenure respective review to be nullified. This legislation passed the House of Representatives and the 118th Congress with bipartisan support and has received endorsement from numerous organizations, including the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the Associated Builders and Contractors, the U.S. Chamber, and Job Creators Network, and many other organizations that support main street businesses across this country. This common sense bill gives our hard-working American small business owners a larger voice in the regulatory process. I would like to thank all the Members of this committee and across Congress who in a bipartisan way have partnered with me on this important piece of legislation. And I urge the Members of this committee to vote in favor and support of the Prove It Act. And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back. And does anyone else wish to speak on the bill and the amendment? Okay. Seeing none, I would like to recognize the Ranking Member to speak on the bill and the amendment. Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I offer comments from our Ranking Member Ms. Velazquez. I am opposed to H.R. 1163, the Prove It Act. We have held numerous hearings in this committee on regulations, and I think we can all agree and part of the role of our committee is to recognize the impact they have on small employers and work to find ways to balance the shared goal of minimizing the burdens and achieving the intended effects of regulations. We have heard from regulatory experts that agencies have been better about considering the impact of their rules on small entities since the passage of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Office of Advocacy has been working diligently to educate and train rule-writing staff about their responsibilities, and they are collaborating with agencies to make SBREFA panels more effective and impactful. We have seen the fruits of their labor. The analysis agencies are conducting has improved significantly. In fact, GAO issued a report on which it found agencies were generally complying with the RFA. They were just in need of more training. But this bill disregards the meaningful progress that has already been made. Rather than building on that progress to better serve the interests of small employers, it threatens to bring our rulemaking process to a grinding halt. The bottom line is this bill hands large companies a powerful new tool to delay and weaken rules, creating uncertainty, stalling progress, and ultimately harming the very small businesses it claims to protect. Let me take a minute to go through the bill. First, it allows any group that claims to represent small businesses to petition advocacy to block, delay, or weaken rules that it doesn't like. I find it particularly troubling large organizations like the Chamber of Commerce could file a petition without never identifying the small business they represent. Even more concerning these organizations could submit multiple petitions on behalf of any unnamed small business within their network. This means a small employer that came into compliance with a lack of transparency in the process enables these organizations to back on behalf of powerful companies while claiming to represent small businesses, all without accountability. But most concerning is the new ability of the chief counsel to have broad and unchecked authority to determine that a rule is no longer effective if an agency fails to conduct a retrospective review. This means a small employer that came into compliance with an existing rule could see it eliminated and then possibly reinstated sometime in the future. This is counterproductive to what my colleagues state they are trying to achieve. Put simply, this bill is unworkable. If enacted, advocacy would need to double its staff, and no surprise, this bill provides zero additional resources. CBO estimates that agencies and advocacy will need an additional $40 million over the next 5 years to implement this act, and that doesn't include the $17 million it will add to the federal deficit. Small employers need certainty and this bill fails to provide it. I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back. And I now recognize myself for a statement on the bill and the amendment. I rise in support of H.R. 1163, the Prove It Act of 2025, introduced by my friend Representative Finstad from the great state of Minnesota. Last Congress' committee investigated whether the federal government protects small businesses when making regulations. Unsurprisingly, our regulatory reform act report proved that the agencies often skirt around laws put in place to protect small businesses from burdensome regulatory costs. This coupled with the direct attack on small business through the regulatory onslaught by the Biden-Harris administration threatened the livelihood of countless entrepreneurs throughout the country. H.R. 1163, the Prove It Act, would give small businesses the power to fight back and ensure that their voices are heard throughout the rulemaking process. This legislation is widely supported by small business and furthers President Trump's deregulation agenda, so I am proud to support this bill. And I hope my colleagues agree that it is time to reduce regulatory burdens so that small businesses can do what they do best, provide for their customers. So, does anyone else wish to offer an amendment? Ms. GOODLANDER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay, so approved. Is there an amendment at the desk? We could briefly pause and we will distribute it around to the rest of us here. The clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1163---- Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I now recognize Ms. Goodlander for 5 minutes on the amendment. Ms. GOODLANDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a simple amendment, a straightforward amendment that would require any petitioner under the Prove It Act to actually prove that they are a small business. So why does this matter? Look, as I read this bill I am very concerned that it could be easily exploited by big corporations, the same big corporations that are about to get a big tax break. It could be exploited because big corporations have well-oiled lobbying machines that could file petitions under this act through their corporate lobbyists. So, if you care, and I believe that the Members of this committee do, about protecting real small businesses, the small businesses in our community and preventing their voices from being drowned out by big corporations and a sea of corporate lobbyists, I urge you to support this straightforward, common sense amendment. And I would just point out, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is offered in the same basic spirit that so many of the amendments have been offered this morning, that we want to make the Small Business Administration actually work for hard-working small businesses in our districts. To do that, though, we really need transparency. We need answers to basic questions that so many of us have asked. You know, in my home state of New Hampshire we have seen a reduction in the workforce of the Small Business Administration by nearly 50 percent. I am all about bringing the SBA back to main street, but that is not what is happening in the last 100 days. At the same time we have seen random and unexplained firings on some of the most important boards that the SBA has created, including the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act Board. Two of my constituents have been summarily fired without any reason from boards that make the Small Business Administration work better for hard-working small businesses. You know, one of my constituents, Melissa Florio from Albany, New Hampshire, was appointed to a 3-year term on the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Board for region 1. She started her company, Ambix Manufacturing, a plastics engineering and manufacturing company during the Great Recession. She is hard-working. She has run a small business. She is serving on this board that is designed to do exactly what I think we all want to see, cutting red tape, making the SBA work better for small businesses. She was randomly fired without explanation. And I want to enter into the record, Mr. Chairman, yet another letter that I have sent to Administrator Loeffler asking for answers to basic questions. Chairman WILLIAMS. So moved. Ms. GOODLANDER. Thank you. You know, I would just say that in order to make the SBA work better we need transparency. It is what good government is all about. With that, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back. Is there further debate on the amendment? Mr. Finstad from Minnesota. Mr. FINSTAD. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In this committee room just in the last few weeks we have heard from small businesses all over this country,. And one of the questions that I asked a few different times to a few of those different small business owners is when it comes to the regulatory climate of this country and when it comes to the permitting and the legal work that their small businesses find themselves in anytime they are interacting within government, who do they go to? And it was told to me over and over again that these small businesses act as the owner, the CFO, the CEO, the janitor, the scheduler, the chief broom operator, and they did not have a stable worth of compliance officers or regulatory folks that can deal with some of these issues and the regulatory hoops and loops that our government puts on them. And so they do find value in groups like the NFIB and the Chamber and others because of that help that those groups can provide. So, this amendment imposes more unnecessary administrative burdens on petitioners, potentially deterring small businesses that are already stretched thin and busy and associations and trade groups from filing petitions on behalf of these small businesses. It also undermines the very purpose of the bill, which is to give small businesses a meaningful voice in the regulatory process. And so with that being said, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. And I yield back. Chairman WILLIAMS. I now recognize the Ranking Member for 5 minutes. Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As stated repeatedly, this committee has heard concerns that the RFA has become a tool for powerful companies to obstruct the regulatory process. Being transparent is not a regulatory burden. We need to come clean with the American people. The Prove It Act would allow large organizations representing the interests of small entities to challenge the agencies' regulatory flexibility analysis without requiring them to identify which small business they purport to represent or how those small businesses will be harmed. My colleague Ms. Goodlander is offering a common sense amendment that will bring transparency to the process. Why are we so afraid of transparency? It is what good government is all about. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back. Is there further debate on the amendment? Okay. I will move to strike the last word. And this amendment requests petitioners to produce more information than necessary. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. The question now occurs on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from New Hampshire. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Ms. GOODLANDER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to move for a recorded vote. Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. A recorded vote has been requested. A roll call vote is ordered. Further proceedings on the amendment are postponed. Now, does anyone else wish to offer an amendment? Mr. MCGARVEY. I would like to offer an amendment, Mr. Chairman. Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman is recognized. There is an amendment at the desk and we will briefly pause while staff distributes the amendment. We are good? Okay. Okay. The clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1163---- Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. And I now recognize the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. McGarvey, for 5 minutes. Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Prove It Act was a bad idea when Republicans forced it through this committee last Congress and it is an even worse idea today. Now, the bill hasn't changed. It is the same unworkable policy that would empower the country's biggest corporations to paralyze all federal rulemaking under the guise of protecting small businesses. It is the context of what else is happening today that makes this bill so much worse because as we sit here in the Small Business Committee right now other committees throughout the House are also meeting to mark up the disastrous Republican budget, a budget that will steal from working people and our children's futures to make the richest Americans even richer and the most profitable corporations continuing to get those profits. They are meeting in financial services. Next week it will be Energy and Commerce and Agriculture. Republicans have promised to make over a trillion dollars of cuts to health insurance and hunger programs, all to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. That is why this bill is an even worse idea today. For the Republicans it is not enough to give our biggest corporations and wealthiest individuals a massive tax break instead of giving one to you. They want big business now to have a veto over federal policy, too. My amendment is simple. It creates, I am sorry. In the Budget Committee I offered amendments to the reconciliation bill to try and protect veterans from some of these most painful Republican cuts. Our Republican colleagues rejected those amendments, but I will try here, too. So, my amendment is simple. It creates an exemption from this bill for any rulemaking that an agency finds will have a substantial beneficial impact on veterans. So, if Republicans are so intent on cutting Medicaid, which 10 percent of veterans rely on, or ACA subsidies, which help another 5 percent of veterans get health care, or SNAP, which puts food on the table for over 1 million veterans, then we should at least protect them from the damage of the Prove It Act. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and yield back. Mr. SCHMIDT. [Presiding.] Is there further debate on the amendment? The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Finstad. Mr. FINSTAD. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment allows agencies to bypass the crucial checks and balances which create exemptions that undermine transparency and accountability. Removing the safeguard risks agencies bypassing important due diligence measures, which could lead to unintended consequences. We must ensure that all rules go through the proper due diligence to protect small businesses and the taxpayers of this country, and this amendment weakens that effort. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on this amendment. And with that, I yield back. Mr. SCHMIDT. The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member for 5 minutes. Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Throughout our history American veterans have put their lives on the line in defense of our homeland. Each and every day they make enough innumerable sacrifices to serve our country. That is why I am strongly supporting Mr. McGarvey's amendment, which will carve out an exemption for rules that benefit veterans. It is vital that these rules are not delayed by special interests. We owe this much to our nation's veterans. My colleague Mr. McGarvey has been a tireless advocate, both on this committee and the Veterans Affairs Committee. His amendment ties together both aspects of his work, and I am proud to lend my voice and vote in favor of it. I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment. And I yield back. Mr. SCHMIDT. Is there further debate on the amendment? Hearing none, I move to strike the last word. The Prove It Act helps to ensure that small businesses have the ability to hold agencies accountable. We can't achieve this without the critical checks and balances that the base text provides. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. The question now occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Mr. MCGARVEY. I ask for a recorded vote, Mr. Chair. Mr. SCHMIDT. A recorded vote has been requested. A roll call vote is ordered. Further proceedings on the amendment are postponed. Does anyone else wish to offer an amendment? Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman? Mr. SCHMIDT. The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member. Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I have an amendment at the desk. Mr. SCHMIDT. There is an amendment at the desk. We will briefly pause while the staff distributes the amendment. The clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute---- Mr. SCHMIDT. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I now recognize the Ranking Member for 5 minutes on the amendment. Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment will strike the numerous analytical procedures in the Prove It Act that will enable big corporations to roll back rules and put small businesses on uneven ground. In its place, advocacy will be required to train agencies on how to comply with the law. The training programs have made a significant difference in the rule writing process and requiring ongoing training will only lead to more success. In fact, GAO found that agencies are generally complying with the RFA. They are just in need of more training. How could you be against that? How could you shortchange small businesses in America by not providing the training, equipping them with the skill that they need in order to do their job? The bottom line, my amendment will foster a constructive working relationship between advocacy and federal agencies rather than create an adversarial one. My amendment will also submit a report to Congress on the retrospective review requirements under Section 610. Small business owners invested significant resources to comply with the existing requirements and deregulation will cost them time and money. Deregulation also leads to a patchwork of state regulations which makes it harder for small businesses to comply with multiple requirements. They need certainty, not chaos. But what is known with this administration? Chaos. We got tariff one day, the next half an hour we got a tweet saying that those tariffs are off. And here we are, Members talking to small businesses, listening to small business and what is the thing that they tell you? That they need certainty and that is not what they are getting from this administration. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back. Mr. SCHMIDT. Is there further debate on the amendment? The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Finstad. Mr. FINSTAD. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Biden administration continuously abused the regulatory process which resulted in delays and lack of transparency. And in regards to the training on the RFA, let me just again refresh everyone that this was established in 1980. I was 4 years old at the time. I think we have had a lot of opportunities and years under our belt to become good at this, and clearly it is not. And so the committee found these regulatory failures that we have seen in recent history that have directly harmed small businesses by creating an uncertain and burdensome environment. This bill is a common sense solution to improve efficiency, and this amendment would only add more bureaucratic red tape that further prevents small businesses from being protected against unnecessary regulations. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back. Mr. SCHMIDT. Is there further debate on the amendment? The Chair recognizes---- Ms. VELAZQUEZ. No. Mr. SCHMIDT. No. Further debate on the amendment? Hearing none, I move to strike the last word. I would hope that we could all agree that saddling extra costs onto small businesses due to regulations should be stopped. Unfortunately, the Biden administration's regulatory assault added $1.8 trillion in business-killing costs onto entrepreneurs. We need to right those wrongs and this amendment does not help us get there. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. The question occurs on the amendment offered by the Ranking Member. All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed, say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote. Mr. SCHMIDT. A recorded vote has been requested. A roll call vote is ordered. Further proceedings on the amendment are postponed. Does anyone else wish to offer an amendment? Mr. OLSZEWSKI. Mr. Chairman? Mr. SCHMIDT. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Olszewski. Mr. OLSZEWSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. Mr. SCHMIDT. There is an amendment at the desk. We will pause briefly while the staff distributes the amendment. The clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1163---- Mr. SCHMIDT. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I now recognize the gentleman for 5 minutes on the amendment. Mr. OLSZEWSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My amendment to H.R. 1163 is meant to, again, seek to provide relief for workforce development programs and rural small businesses. While the Prove It Act of 2025 is well-intentioned, the bill poses serious risks to our ability to govern effectively and respond to the pressing challenges faced by working Americans and small businesses alike. At its core, the legislation demands that federal agencies prove the impact of proposed regulations on small entities before moving forward, but let's be clear. This is not just about transparency or good governance. The bill adds layers of bureaucracy that threatens to paralyze the rulemaking process, particularly for rules that protect workers, ensure public safety, and support emerging sectors of our economy. By opening the door for well-resourced trade associations to challenge virtually any rule, the bill could end up requiring the chief counsel to review agencies' Regulatory Flexibility Act compliance for many of the thousands of rules issued each year, to say nothing of the agencies' periodic reviews of existing rules. That would do little to help small businesses but it would help powerful companies with money to hire well-connected lobbyists. CBO estimates that this bill would increase administrative costs for most agencies, including advocacy. Accordingly, CBO reported that H.R. 7198, identical legislation introduced in the previous Congress, would increase direct spending for independent agencies by $10 million, reduce revenues by $7 million over the 2025 to 2034 period, and increase spending by $35 million over the 2025 to 2029 period, subject to availability of appropriated funds. Who pays the price for these delays? The American taxpayer, our working families, those who we all claim to support. Small businesses are waiting for fair access to capital. Communities need investment in workforce development. Rural entrepreneurs are struggling to compete in today's economy. Again, this amendment ensures that when proposed federal rules are projected to have a substantial benefit on workforce development and rural small business they will not be unnecessarily delayed or burdened by procedural hurdles. By moving swiftly and flexibly in cases where these rules offer proven benefits this amendment strikes the right balance maintaining regulatory oversight while empowering growth and innovation in places that need it most. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and show that Congress stands behind smart, targeted policies that strengthen our workforce and uplift rural small businesses. With that, Mr. Chairman I yield back. Mr. SCHMIDT. Is there further debate on the amendment? The Chair recognized the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Finstad. Mr. FINSTAD. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment creates a massive loophole to the original bill to bypass key small business protections based on vague, self-certified claims of substantial beneficial effect. This amendment opens the door for abuse and effectively cutting the core safeguards of the RFA that the Prove It Act is designed to strengthen. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment to avoid repeating the same flawed, self-certification practices that enabled over $200 billion in COVID-19 fraud, burdening taxpayers, and undermining public trust. Again, I ask my colleagues to join me in voting no on this amendment. I yield back. Mr. SCHMIDT. Further debate? The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member for 5 minutes. Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I get into my statement, I just would like to remind everyone that the fraud that the gentleman is talking about started with the fact that the administration of Donald Trump removed the guardrails that were put in place to prevent fraud, and most of the fraud that took place took place under the admin of the previous administration of Donald Trump. And here we are. Smart, well-crafted regulations add tremendous value to the everyday lives of our constituents. Dr. Olszewski's amendment would exempt regulations promoting workforce development and rural small businesses from the Prove It Act at a time when we need it most. I am pleased to lend my support to his efforts to ensure our regulatory system continues to aid our communities. I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. SCHMIDT. Does the Ranking Member yield back? Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Yes, sir, I yield back. Mr. SCHMIDT. Is there further debate on the amendment? Seeing none, I move to strike the last word. Like my colleague mentioned, this amendment ignores the safeguards that the Prove It Act puts in place. The Prove It Act is critical to make sure small businesses can hold agencies accountable and stop unnecessary, costly, and overly burdensome regulations. I urge Members to vote no on this amendment. The question now occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Mr. OLSZEWSKI. Mr. Chairman, I would request a recorded vote, please. Mr. SCHMIDT. A recorded vote has been requested. A roll call vote is ordered. Further proceedings on the amendment are postponed. Does anyone else wish to offer an amendment? Okay, very well. The question now occurs on the adoption of the substitute amendment offered to H.R. 1163 by Mr. Finstad. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1163 is adopted. The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 1163 as amended to the House. All those in favor will say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and H.R. 1163, as amended, is agreed to. Mr. FINSTAD. Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair, I would ask for a recorded vote. Mr. SCHMIDT. A recorded vote has been requested. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to committee rule 13 and House rule 11, further proceedings on the bill are postponed. No further proceedings at this time. The committee will stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair. Members, please return at 5:45 p.m. today to resume consideration of the bills on which roll call votes were requested and postponed. The committee is in recess. [Recess.] Chairman WILLIAMS. This committee will come to order. The committee will resume consideration of the bills on which roll call votes were ordered. We will now move to H.R. 2968. The question is on the amendment offered by Dr. Conaway from the great state of New jersey. The clerk will open the vote. [The vote was taken.] Chairman WILLIAMS. She is really sick. Okay. Are there any other Members who have not voted or wish to change their vote? If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will report. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 11 and the noes are 15. Chairman WILLIAMS. The amendment is not agreed to. The question now is on the amendment offered by the Ranking Member from the great state of New York. The clerk will open the vote. [The vote was taken.] Chairman WILLIAMS. There we go. All right. Are there any other Members who have not voted or wish to change their vote? If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will report. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 11 and the noes are 15. Chairman WILLIAMS. The amendment is not agreed to. The question now is the adopting H.R. 2968 as amended and ordering it favorably to the House. The clerk will open the vote. [The vote was taken.] Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not voted or wish to change their vote? If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will report. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 15 and the noes are 11. Chairman WILLIAMS. The motion is agreed to and H.R. 2968 as amended is adopted and will be reported favorably to the House. Next we have H.R. 2027. The question is on the amendment offered by Dr. Conaway from New Jersey. The clerk will open the vote. [The vote was taken.] Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not voted or wish to change their vote? If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will report. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 11 and the noes are 15. Chairman WILLIAMS. The amendment is not agreed to. The next question is on the amendment offered by Mrs. McIver from New Jersey. The clerk will open the vote. [The vote was taken.] Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not voted or wish to change their vote? If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will report. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 11 and the noes are 15. Chairman WILLIAMS. The amendment is not agreed to. The next question is on the amendment offered by Dr. Morrison from Minnesota. The clerk will open the vote. [The vote was taken.] Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not voted or wish to change their vote? If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will report. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 11 and the noes are 15. Chairman WILLIAMS. The amendment is not agreed to. The next question is on the second amendment to H.R. 2027 by Mrs. McIver from New Jersey. The clerk will open the vote. [The vote was taken.] Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not voted or wish to change their vote? If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will report. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 11 and the noes are 15. Chairman WILLIAMS. The amendment is not agreed to. The question now is on adopting H.R. 2027 as amended and forwarding it favorably to the House. The clerk will open the vote. [The vote was taken.] Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not voted or wish to change their vote? If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will report. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 15 and the noes are 11. Chairman WILLIAMS. The motion is agreed to and H.R. 2027 as amended is adopted and will be reported favorably to the House. The next bill is H.R. 2966. The question is now is on adopting H.R. 2966 as amended and ordering it favorably to the House. The clerk will open the vote. [The vote was taken.] Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not voted or wish to change their vote? If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will report. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 15 and the noes are 11. Chairman WILLIAMS. The motion is agreed to and H.R. 2966 as amended is adopted and will be reported favorably to the House. We will now move to H.R. 2931. The question is on the amendment offered by Mr. Cisneros from the great state of California. The clerk will open the vote. [The vote was taken.] Chairman WILLIAMS. Hey doctor? Are there any other Members besides the doctor who have not voted or wish to change their vote? If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will report. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 11 and the noes are 15. Chairman WILLIAMS. The amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the amendment offered by Ms. Velazquez from the great state of New York. The clerk will open the vote. [The vote was taken.] Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not voted or wish to change their vote? If not, the clerk will close the vote. The clerk will report. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 11 and the noes are 15. Chairman WILLIAMS. The amendment is not agreed to. The question now is on adopting H.R. 2931 as amended and ordering it favorably to the House. The clerk will open the vote. [The vote was taken.] Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not voted or wish to change their vote? If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will report. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 15 and the noes are 11. Chairman WILLIAMS. The motion is agreed to and H.R. 2931 as amended is adopted and will be reported favorably to the House. We will now move on to H.R. 2987. The question now is adopting H.R. 2987 as amended and ordering it favorably to the House. The clerk will open the vote. [The vote was taken.] Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any of the Members who have not voted or wish to change their vote? If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will report. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 15 and the noes are 11. Chairman WILLIAMS. The motion is agreed to and H.R. 2987 as amended is adopted will be reported favorably to the House. We will now move to H.R. 2965, and the question is on the amendment offered by Dr. Olszewski from the great state of Maryland. The clerk will open the vote. [The vote was taken.] Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not voted or wish to change their vote? If not, the clerk will close the vote. The clerk will report. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 11 and the noes are 15. Chairman WILLIAMS. The amendment is not agreed to. The question is on the amendment offered by Dr. Morrison from the great state of Minnesota. The clerk will open the vote. [The vote was taken.] Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members, let me see here. I need to vote I guess. Okay, there we go. Are there any other Members who have not voted or wish to change their vote? If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will report. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 11 and the noes are 15. Chairman WILLIAMS. The amendment is not agreed to. The question now is on adopting H.R. 2965 as amended and ordering it favorably to the House. The clerk will open the vote. [The vote was taken.] Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not voted or wish to change their vote? If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will report. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 15 and the noes are 11. Chairman WILLIAMS. The motion is agreed to and H.R. 2965 as amended is adopted and will be adopted favorably to the House. Finally, we have H.R. 1163. The question is on the amendment offered by Ms. Goodlander of the great state of New Hampshire. The clerk will open the vote. [The vote was taken.] Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not voted or wish to change their vote? If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will report. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 11 and the noes are 15. Chairman WILLIAMS. All right. The amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the amendment offered by Mr. McGarvey from the great state of Kentucky. The clerk will open the vote. [The vote was taken.] Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not voted or wish to change their vote? If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will report. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 11 and the noes are 15. Chairman WILLIAMS. The amendment is not agreed to. The question is on the amendment offered by the Ranking Member from the great state of New York. The clerk will open the vote. [The vote was taken.] Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not voted or wish to change their vote? Representative Schmidt? Okay. And I will repeat. Are there any other Members who have not voted or wish to change their vote? If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will report. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 11 and the noes are 15. Chairman WILLIAMS. The amendment is not agreed to. The question is on the amendment offered by Dr. Olszewski from the great state of Maryland. The clerk will open the vote. [The vote was taken.] Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not voted or wish to change their vote? If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will report. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 11 and the noes are 15. Chairman WILLIAMS. The amendment is not agreed to. The question now is adopting H.R. 1163 as amended and ordering it favorably to the House. The clerk will open the vote. [The vote was taken.] Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have not voted or wish to change their vote? If not, the clerk will close the vote and the clerk will report. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 15 and the noes are 11. Chairman WILLIAMS. The motion is agreed to and H.R. 1163 as amended is adopted and will be reported favorably to the House. Now, without objection, the committee staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes and Members have 2 business days to file additional supplemental dissenting and minority views. I want to thank all of you for being here today. This has gone well. If there is no further business, this concludes today's markup. Without objection, the committee stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 6:22 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] [all]