[House Hearing, 117 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] MARKUP OF: PROVIDING FOR RECONCILIATION PURSUANT TO S. CON. RES. 5, THE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021 ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ HEARING HELD FEBRUARY 10, 2021 __________ [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Small Business Committee Document Number 117-003 Available via the GPO Website: www.govinfo.gov __________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 44-966 WASHINGTON : 2020 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS NYDIA VELAZQUEZ, New York, Chairwoman JARED GOLDEN, Maine JASON CROW, Colorado SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas KWEISI MFUME, Maryland DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia JUDY CHU, California DWIGHT EVANS, Pennsylvania ANTONIO DELGADO, New York CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania ANDY KIM, New Jersey ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri, Ranking Member ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas JIM HAGEDORN, Minnesota PETE STAUBER, Minnesota DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania ANDREW GARBARINO, New York YOUNG KIM, California BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas BYRON DONALDS, Florida MARIA SALAZAR, Florida SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin Melissa Jung, Majority Staff Director Justin Pelletier, Majority Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel David Planning, Staff Director C O N T E N T S OPENING STATEMENTS Page Hon. Nydia Velazquez............................................. 1 Hon. Blaine Luetkemeyer.......................................... 3 APPENDIX Additional Material for the Record: S. Con. Res. 5, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2021........................................... 61 American Rental Association (ARA)............................ 131 MARKUP OF: ``PROVIDING FOR RECONCILIATION PURSUANT TO S. CON. RES. 5, THE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021'' ---------- WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2021 House of Representatives, Committee on Small Business, Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to call, at 5:06 p.m., in Room 2360, Rayburn House Office Building. Hon. Nydia Velazquez [chairwoman of the Committee] presiding. Present: Representatives Velazquez, Golden, Crow, Davids, Mfume, Phillips, Newman, Bourdeaux, Chu, Evans, Delgado, Houlahan, Kim of New Jersey, Craig, Luetkemeyer, Donalds, Fitzerald, Hagedorn, Kim of California, Meuser, Garbarino, Salazar, Stauber, and Williams. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The Committee will please come to order. A quorum is present. Pursuant to Committee Rule 13 and House Rule 11, Clause 2, the Chair announces that she may postpone further proceedings today on the question of approving the measure or matter or adopting an amendment on which a recorded vote of the yeas or nays are ordered. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. So ordered. I would like to begin by noting some important requirements. During the covered period as designated by the speaker, the Committee will operate in accordance with H.R. 965, which was incorporated into the 117th House Rules under H.R. 8. Just as we did last Congress, we will follow guidance from the Rules Committee to respect the rights of all Members to participate. Standing House and Committee rules and practice will continue to apply during hybrid proceedings as well. House regulations require Members to be visible through a video connection throughout the proceedings. Due to the nature of a markup, it is extremely important that Members follow this rule to ensure a quorum can be established and that Members' votes can be recorded by the clerk. As a reminder, Members can participate in only one proceeding at a time. If you have another Committee proceeding or meeting, please sign off and rejoin later. If a Member wishes to offer an amendment that has not been pre-filed, we may take a brief recess to allow for its uploading, printing, and distribution, then resume. We might also recess briefly to address technical issues in the event a Member cannot be recognized to speak. Finally, for those physically present in the Committee room today, we will also be following the health and safety guidelines issued by the physician. The Chair recognizes herself to make an opening statement. The Committee meets today pursuant to notice to consider the Committee print providing for reconsideration pursuant to S.Con.Res.5, the concurrent resolution on the budget for Fiscal Year 2021. As required by House rules, a copy of the measure has been made available to Members and the public at least 24 hours in advance. Today, we will be considering legislation to further help our nation's small employers power through this unprecedented crisis. In the first CARES bill, Congress enacted the Paycheck Protection Program, an economic injury disaster loan and advanced program to provide economic relief. Unfortunately, the pandemic outlasted that assistance. Over the course of the year, we have held hearings, listened to the experts, and made several improvements to the economic relief programs, mainly making it easier for small businesses to access and use the funds. And when we replenished the funds, we created set-asides for the smallest of the small businesses and those in underserved communities. Congress empowered mission-based community lenders and small banks to make sure the aid reached those that were left behind. Second draw loans were also created to target aid to the hardest hit small businesses. In recognizing that not all small businesses can take on or even access additional debt and therefore need direct cash infusion, we provided several grants to support the hardest hit businesses and industries. This Committee has heard stories from thousands of employers how this program helped them stay in operation, keep employees on payroll, and give them hope that there is light at the end of the tunnel. But nearly a year into the pandemic, millions of businesses are on the brink of collapse. In fact, more than 400,000 small businesses have already closed their doors for good. And surveys show that one in three small business owners will not survive the next few months without additional financial support. That is why today's measure to deliver more financial assistance to main street and delivering it swiftly is so critical. Today, we will consider policies that will ultimately be included in a larger, more robust stimulus package. The Committee print we are considering today will inject an additional $15 billion into the targeted EIDL Advances to help those who applied for relief in 2020 but did not receive the full amount, or in some cases nothing at all because the funds dried up. Additional supplemental advances will be targeted to businesses with extreme revenue losses in low-income areas. The measure will also top off the shuttered Venue Grant Program with $1.25 billion to meet anticipated demand in that program which will help small entertaining businesses and cultural institutions in our communities. The measure establishes a $25 billion grant program for independent restaurants that have been dealt a tremendous blow by the pandemic. We heard in Committee hearings that while the PPP was helpful in the short run, it did not meet their long-term needs. Restaurants need a long-lasting solution to make it through these cold winter months. It also expands PPP eligibility to 501(c) nonprofits with the exception of 501(c)(4) organizations and permit nonprofits with multiple locations to apply for assistance. Nonprofits like the Goodwill and YMCA have been working tirelessly throughout the pandemic to provide one meal and services to the most vulnerable. They employ 12.3 million people, the third largest workforce in the U.S. economy, but we know that they have had to lay off nearly 900,000 employees. This aid will go a long way in providing relief and enable them to continue to meet the increased demands for food, childcare, and also retain their workers. It also harmonizes PPP eligibility to include digital news agencies and put them on par with their brick and mortar colleagues. Doing so will not only save jobs but ensure access to local emergency and pandemic information that is more vital than ever. And finally, the bill will provide $1.5 billion in administrative expenses to the SBA to ensure that SBA can get the programs up and running effectively and swiftly. I am proud of the work of our Committee, and especially grateful to our Members who are dedicated public servants. The Chair now yields to the distinguished Ranking Member for an opening statement, Mr. Luetkemeyer. Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair. Our nation's small businesses are hurting. They are bearing the brunt---- Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. I think you need to unmute. Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I am sorry? Are we ready? Hello? Are we ready to go? Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. He is on, right? Now we can hear you. Yes. Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair. Our nation's small businesses are hurting. They are bearing the brunt of COVID-19. This pandemic has presented challenges unlike anything we have witnessed in the past. Despite these circumstances, our nation's job creators have tried their best to move forward. They have innovated, reinvented their offerings, and worked tirelessly to meet the needs of their customers. I praise each and every business from the main streets of my home state of Missouri, to the Chair's state of New York and beyond. It is important to note that we have data to show that if a state opens quickly in a responsible way, small businesses can safely operate in an environment that allows them to serve their customers. My state of Missouri did this back in May of 2020, and we have seen an extensive benefit that this has provided. Although our small businesses are comprised of some of the most innovative and agile employers and employees, ever- changing capacity restrictions and COVID-19 shutdown measures instituted by state and local governments have put their livelihoods and their employees in jeopardy. Instead of allowing them to meet safety measures, some of the nation's smallest businesses have been forced to turn off their lights and close their doors. In many circumstances, these states never even provided small business with a chance to survive. Due to COVID and these over-reaching shutdown measures, small businesses, entrepreneurs, and startups continue to face severe financial hardships. As a response, the Federal government responded quickly and efficiently in March of last year by setting up numerous programs such as the Paycheck Protection Program, also known as PPP. By partnering with the lenders, PPP funding was delivered quickly to small businesses. With a focus on payroll, the assistance was intended to ensure small businesses can pay their workers during these unprecedented times. Through data from the Small Business Administration, we know that this program has assisted or saved millions of small businesses and tens of millions of jobs. Until now, all COVID relief packages have been bipartisan, meaning they have been supported by both Republicans and Democrats. Understanding the magnitude of the situation, we worked across the aisle, compromised, and created solutions that worked for our nation's small businesses. However, today, we find ourselves at a Committee on Small Business markup where our side has been blocked from engaging on the proposed legislation as topics of such importance were drafted without our thoughts or our ideas. This is a shame and a disgrace. I would like to remind my colleagues on the other side that prior to COVID-19, small businesses were projecting confidence, optimism, and job creation all around. And program policies resulted in historic unemployment levels across the board by focusing on a small regulatory environment combined with lower taxes, small businesses have economic freedom and economic opportunity to innovate and expand. Unfortunately, things are now moving in the opposite direction, not only with this COVID package and the haphazard hazard discussion surrounding raising the minimum wage, but also with the recent administration action overall taken by the president. From eliminating good paying jobs with his Executive Order on the Keystone Pipeline, to refusing to police regulatory burdens, small businesses will be facing new challenges beyond COVID. Small businesses are in a precarious position. Any added mandates will be counterproductive. With that, I look forward to actually having a discussion and our first input on the proposed legislation before us today. I know Committee Republicans have valuable ideas and I hope they are seriously considered by my colleagues. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Does any Member seek recognition for making a statement at this time? Mr. Evans from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. EVANS. Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Chair for all the leadership she has provided to this Committee. She has worked tirelessly to make sure small businesses, especially minority-owned businesses, get relief during this economic crisis. Coming from Philadelphia where the poverty rate is over 24 percent, I believe small businesses are crucial to economic parity. Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Hey, I just got a call from Beth Van Duyne. Is she in the---- Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman from Pennsylvania can proceed. Mr. EVANS. COVID-19 has been devastating to many businesses, but especially to minority-owned businesses. From February to April 2020, COVID wiped out 41 percent of Black- owned businesses, 32 percent of Hispanic-owned, and 26 percent of Asian-owned businesses compared to just 17 percent of White- owned businesses. And Black business owners are not feeling optimistic. According to a recent published Federal Reserve Bank Report of New York, 73 percent of White-owned businesses were found to be healthy or stable compared to just 42 percent of Black-owned businesses. It is important to understand that what Congress has done when they passed the CARES Act in March of last year, which created temporary relief with programs such as the Paycheck Protection Program, the Economic Disaster Loan Program, PPP, which received additional funds in this bill, has been especially crucial. A small business owner in my district who employees over 50 people was able to use PPP to keep their business afloat without letting their employees go. At the end of the year, they had additional funds for emergencies. EIDL Advance created the Shuttered Venue Operators Grant Program. This package bridged until we could provide more relief. The pandemic has especially hurt the restaurant industry due to the unique structure. Restaurants are an important part of our communities and our economy, which is why I want to see them survive. Many restaurants in my district have been waiting for relief while they have continued to beg for more funds. While the most recent package will allow restaurants to get bigger PPP loans, this was not enough. I support the Restaurant Act together with my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee. The $25 billion Restaurant Act based on the Restaurant Act which will help thousands of restaurant owners, it is important to understand that that is a very important start of providing grants of $10 million to those restaurants suffering because of the pandemic. Further, an additional $15 billion funding for EIDL Advance is absolutely needed, as many businesses in my district did not receive EIDL Advances and only received a reduced amount. Small Business Development Centers, Women Business Development Centers, and other organizations provided critical guidance and assistance to small businesses. They have helped thousands of small businesses in Pennsylvania navigate SBA programs, as well assist small businesses comply to the new norm. My local Small Business Development Center at Temple University created new programs with funds in the CARES Act, the Center for Hospitality, and the Center for Digital Transformation for Small Businesses. Because of the remarkable work of these programs, I support the creation of the Community Navigator Program that will help provide $100 million in grants for such organizations and $75 million for outreach and education. Again, because of the leadership of this Committee, the Chair has shown all of us what it is to work together. She has made it very clear that small and minority businesses are a priority. That is why I am glad to see the program prioritize businesses in underserved communities. I hear far too often that small businesses in my district are struggling to get financial documents prepared. This bill provides such needed relief to small businesses. I look forward to passing it in our Committee. I thank you, Madam Chair. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. Does any Member seek recognition for making an opening statement at this time? Ms. BOURDEAUX. Madam Chairwoman? Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Will you please identify yourself and the state? Ms. BOURDEAUX. This is Carolyn Bourdeaux. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Who is seeking recognition? Ms. BOURDEAUX. Carolyn Bourdeaux. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Carolyn Bourdeaux, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. BOURDEAUX. Thank you so much. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in support of the bill before the Committee today as we work to deliver on our promise to help the American people and small businesses who are the economic drivers of our communities. This legislation targets critical assistance to the hardest hit small businesses who have been struggling for nearly a year to withstand the economic crisis caused by COVID-19. The creation of the Restaurant Revitalization Fund will help support the 1,600 restaurants located in my congressional district who are part of the economic foundation of the diverse and rich community of Georgia's 7th Congressional District. We know that the COVID-19 pandemic has devastated the restaurant industry as necessary restrictions on indoor dining have forced businesses to let employees go and many have had to permanently close their doors. In Georgia, hundreds of thousands of workers rely on restaurants and the foodservice industry to make a living, including over 35,000 restaurant workers in my district. This bill with the $25 billion allocated for restaurants through the Restaurant Revitalization Fund ensures that restaurants can sustain jobs that can be there waiting for them after we defeat the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has not affected all businesses equally. Minority-owned businesses and small mom and pop shops have been hit extremely hard by the economic effects of the pandemic, and this is why the bill provides critical assistance to businesses with 10 employees or less through $15 billion in additional funding for the targeted Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program and direct support to particularly vulnerable businesses in low-income census tracts to ensure that we take care of those who may have fallen through the cracks. Over the past year, Congress has allocated significant resources to help small businesses weather the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Much of this assistance has helped businesses keep their doors open even in the most challenging of circumstances. However, many small businesses have yet to receive help, either because they are not aware that they qualify, or they do not know how to utilize important features of these programs such as loan forgiveness. In my district, information gaps and lack of resources to adequately reach these small businesses have resulted in a disparate recovery and inequities with respect to both access to capital and loan forgiveness. As we continue to provide significant support for small businesses amid this crisis, we must ensure that no business that qualifies for aid is left behind. The Community Navigator pilot program included in this bill will provide very important resources to trusted community organizations who are on the frontlines to help educate business owners and the public on opportunities to use these lifelines. This program is a very prudent investment and important step towards ensuring that every small business, especially those owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, minority communities, women, and veterans, can access the assistance they need. Finally, I am proud to represent a district which contains a number of community theaters, including the Aurora Theater in Lawrenceville, which would benefit from the Shuttered Venue Operator Grant Program funding provided by this bill. Live music and performance venues play such a vital role in our communities and we must do all we can to ensure that these institutions are able to survive this pandemic. I thank the Committee for their hard work in producing the bill before us today, and I look forward to continuing to ensure that all small businesses have access to the resources they need to survive the COVID-19 pandemic and reopen when it is safe to do so. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. Does any Member seek recognition at this time? Ms. CHU. Yes, I do. Judy Chu. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady from California, Judy Chu, is recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. CHU. Madam Chair, I would like to thank Chairwoman Velazquez for offering today's legislation to fulfill our Committee instructions to deliver for the millions of small businesses that are still facing near-impossible circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We have a duty to ensure that they have the resources and assistance they need to survive this crisis without compromising the health of their customers, employees, and the community. That is precisely what this legislation accomplishes, and it comes at a crucial moment for our country's small businesses. New cases, hospitalizations, and deaths recently spiked almost unthinkable levels with all but one-fifth of the total deaths in this pandemic occurring over the last 6 weeks. And while our vaccination system improves every day, there is still a long way to go to defeat the virus. We know that these precarious conditions are costing small businesses. According to the Census Bureau, more small business owners reported decreasing weekly revenue at the start of this year than at any other time since last June. It is clear they need more help, and I am proud that this Committee is doing its part to deliver that assistance expeditiously. We are doing that by building on the strong foundation of support laid by Congress since we passed our first COVID Response bill in March of last year. Since those early days of the pandemic, we have heard from struggling small businesses, from community lenders, from SBA's resource partners, from SBA and Treasury leadership. Each of us have heard from countless small businesses in our own districts that have warned us to make bipartisan improvements to our relief programs. In my district, my small business owners were among the country's first to feel the impacts of the pandemic, but they could not find banks to process their PPP applications when the program first launched. Stories like theirs help Congress to establish set-aside lending authority for community financial institutions and now this legislation takes another step in the right direction by creating a new Community Navigator program to directly connect underserved businesses to COVID relief. It also expands PPP eligibility to all struggling nonprofits, and I am so pleased that this legislation includes $25 billion for new restaurant revitalization funds. Like live venues, restaurants and bars simply just cannot operate at full capacity safely, and that is through no fault of their own. The science tells us that indoor dining is an incredibly risky activity for COVID spread and this provision will allow these establishments to stay afloat without having to put their staff or customers at risk just to make ends meet. This also illustrates an important point that I hope does not get lost in the debate at this markup. This legislation is about helping small businesses, but it is also about defeating the virus. We are now reporting an average of almost 1.5 million vaccine doses administered each day and can see the light at the end of the tunnel. But to get there we all must continue to do our part to limit spread. This bill provides small businesses with the tools and assistance to do just that without closing their doors for good. I support this legislation and I yield back. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back. Does any Member seek recognition for making a statement? The first item on our agenda today is the Committee print providing for reconciliation pursuant to S.Con.Res.5, the concurrent resolution on the budget for Fiscal Year 2021. The clerk will report the bill. The CLERK. Providing for reconciliation---- Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, the first reading of the Committee print is dispensed with. Without objection, the Committee print shall be considered a thread and open for amendment at any point. The Chair now recognizes herself to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the Committee print. The clerk will report the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The CLERK. Amendment 1v2 to the Committee print---- Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. Without objection, the substitute will be considered as original text for the purposes of further amendments. So ordered. I would now like to recognize the Ranking Member for 5 minutes for a statement on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank you for thinking through some of these issues. Unfortunately, I oppose the approach you have taken. Not only has it been conducted in a manner that goes against the bipartisan tradition of this Committee, but it unwisely increases program eligibility and allocates dollars in a misguided manner. Before I get into the substance of the bill, I want to comment briefly on the long, bipartisan tradition of this Committee and the bipartisanship that has previously been the blueprint for addressing COVID relief. Historically, this Committee has worked on behalf of small businesses across the country. No matter the issue, we have found a way to come together and develop a solution that addresses the needs of the nation's innovators. Congress has approached every single COVID relief bill since the beginning of March in a bipartisan manner. Both sides compromised and agreed on the best path for America. Unfortunately, this Congress and the new administration are taking a different approach, and the resulting legislative package we have before us proves just that. Less than 2 months ago, the former president signed the December COVID Relief Bill directing $325 billion to our nation's small businesses. While the Small Busines Administration and Department of Treasury acted quickly to restart the PPP program, many of the other small business programs addressed in the bill have still not been activated by the agencies. And yet, here we are today spending another $50 billion on many of these same programs. On behalf of our nation's small businesses, entrepreneurs, and startups, let's resolve to work to ensure the reforms and enhancements that were voted on in December are launched and implemented correctly. I also have concerns that we are expanding the Paycheck Protection Program beyond the original intent of Congress by removing the critically important affiliation rules that help patrol the size of eligible entities from entering into this critical government assistance program. Additionally, our side has consistently objected to sending dollars to Planned Parenthood. This leaves the door wide open for them to receive direct funding. Quite frankly, Madam Chair, this is unacceptable. This legislative package also continues down the path of inviting fraud into government programs. Report after report from SBA's Office of Inspector General and Government Accountability Office have cited concerns with fraud. In order to move forward with many of these grant programs, we need to seriously consider oversight measures that will ensure American taxpayer dollars are protected. We are willing to work in a bipartisan manner to refine and improve many of these programs. We support assisting the hardest hit businesses, including additional targeted funding to restaurants but we must do it in a smart approach. Overall, I must oppose this amendment and the interim substitute offered by the Chair, and at this time, I would like to yield to the Vice Ranking Member of the Full Committee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Williams. Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Ranking Member. I would also like to state my opposition to the A&S in its current form. When this legislation turns away from the bipartisan nature of the previous COVID-19 bills that have come through Congress, this is purely partisan. It is a political process that is limiting the ability of Republican Members to have any input on the final product. There are already rumors that Democrats have been instructed not to vote in favor of any Republican amendment that will be offered during this markup and I hope that is not true. I think we are bigger than that. As an example of bipartisanship in the last COVID-19 relief bill, I worked for many months on the Save Our Stages legislation. This bill was widely supported on both sides of the aisle and garnered over 100 bipartisan co-sponsors while we were educating other Members of Congress about the unique needs of the live music industry. This vital piece of legislation was included in the bill that passed in December and even though it is now February, these heavily affected industries are still waiting for the SBA to administer this program. I would think instead of working to get the bipartisan programs up and running, we are now turning to other partisan priorities. I truly believe we could come together again for the American people and work on a bipartisan relief measure. Unfortunately, this bill introduces provisions such as giving Planned Parenthood access to relief funds, increasing minimum wage to $15, which I can tell you as a business owner now employing hundreds of people, that is a job killer. And other union giveaways that will force me to oppose this legislation in its current form. I think we can, I think we must do better for this nation. We need to continue implementing America First policies to help small businesses and reopen the economy so our country can flourish when the COVID-19 pandemic subsidies. I yield my time back. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields. Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I yield back to the Chair. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. We will now move to considering amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The Chair would like to note that while the amendment in the nature of a substitute to the Committee print is open for amendment at any time, for the convenience of Members and staff we will be considering amendments in the order they are listed on the roster provided to your office electronically. The Chair now recognizes herself to offer a manager's amendment. The clerk will please report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment 1v1 to the amendment---- Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. I recognize myself for 5 minutes. This manager's amendment makes technical edits to correct typographical errors and remove bracketed text or placeholders inadvertently left in the print. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to. We will now proceed to consider pre-filed amendments in the order listed in the amendment roster starting with the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Luetkemeyer. Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, are you going to have a vote on the manager's amendment first? Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. We do not need it, sir. Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay. Very good. Okay, I appreciate that. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have an amendment. It is at the desk. Is it ready to be discussed? Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has an amendment at the desk and the clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Substitute Amendment 1v1, the amendment to the Committee print offered by Mr. Luetkemeyer---- Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. The Ranking Member now is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair. We are all aware of the impact small businesses have on our economy. They propel it. They steer it. They land it. Simply put, small businesses are one of the most import segments of our economy. While I certainly appreciate your effort to bolster our small business constituency, Madam Chair, I feel that there are just too many extraneous subdivisions in the amendment in the nature of a substitute that you have offered. We have two excellent, proven, and results-oriented programs that have answered the call over the last 2 years and I believe we should bolster them instead of creating new programs. Of course, I am speaking of the Paycheck Protection, or PPP program, and the Economic Injury Disaster Loan program, or EIDL. Additionally, I would like to add that these ideas were the ones that a few center Republicans brought to President Biden at the beginning of the month. They are thinking about these ideas, and so are we. Madam Chair, under your leadership and the Biden administration, the Biden administration has given us another $50 billion to work with. We should put those funds into established programs that have proven results. My amendment would strike everything before us and simply put $40 billion into the established PPP program and $10 billion into the proven EIDL program. But also reserve $25 million for the appropriated funds for SBA's Office of Inspector General to support their efforts to conduct oversight of these programs instead of creating new grant programs. This is a demonstrated way to get these funds into the hands of the people who can use it best. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Do any other Members seek recognition? Ms. CRAIG. Madam Chair, this is Congresswoman Angie Craig, and I seek time in opposition to the Ranking Member's substitute amendment. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. CRAIG. Thank you so much, Chairwoman. Colleagues, the Ranking Member's substitute, among many troubling, proposed changes, would strike section 603 of the amendment in the nature of a substitute we are considering which deals with support for restaurants. As you all know, it has been nearly a year since the COVID- 19 pandemic forever changed American life, leaving millions of our constituents jobless and burdening countless new and unprecedented challenges. Restaurants were some of the first businesses to understand the devastating economic impact of this public health crisis and they are still feeling the effects. In April of last year alone, more than 5 million restaurant workers lost their jobs, accounting for more than 25 percent of the job losses nationwide that month. I saw beloved family- owned restaurants across my district, like Jo Jo's Rise and Wine in Burnsville and Granny Donuts in West St. Paul close their doors for good. Other restaurants have laid off staff or cut hours just to stay afloat. It is our responsibility in Congress to ensure we do not lose any more of these vital businesses or jobs that they offer in our communities. Last year, I joined many of my colleagues as a co-sponsor of the Restaurants Act legislation, and I am again supporting in the 117th Congress. And over the past year I have repeatedly joined similar efforts to deliver relief directly to our small, struggling, independent restaurants. Just a few days ago, I sent a congressional leadership letter with some of my colleagues in the Minnesota delegation, including fellow Committee Member Dean Phillips. In that letter we reiterated the urgent need for this assistance and urged negotiators to include it in the text that we are considering here today. As a result of that work and the advocacy of so many Americans, I am pleased to say that the long-overdue relief grant program for restaurants has been included in today's markup. The Restaurant Revitalization Fund has the potential to help nearly 500,000 independent restaurants, as well as their 11 million employees whose futures have been in jeopardy every single day since this public health crisis started. Restaurants are the beating heart of every single one of our communities. Let's stand up for them and reject the substitute that the Ranking Member here today, the gentleman, has sought that would strip this relief from our community's most cherished small businesses. I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Thank you, and I yield back. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back. Is there any further debate on the amendment? There is further debate on the amendment? Any other Member who would like to be recognized? I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. I share my colleague, Mr. Luetkemeyer's commitment to small businesses, but I will have to respectfully disagree with this amendment in the nature of a substitute. Over the course of the past year, we held hearings, listened to experts, and made a number of improvements to the Economic Relief program, mainly making it easier for small businesses to access and use the funds. And while the PPP and the EIDL program have helped millions of small businesses, we heard testimony just this past week that these programs were not tailored to meet the unique needs of restaurants and other hard-hit businesses. We also heard that they were not meeting the needs of the undeserved communities. Put simply, these programs are not enough. That is why we developed a comprehensive package that targeted aid to the minority small businesses in the hardest hit industry. I think it is also important to note that the Senate voted 90 to 10 expressing its bipartisan support for the bill to help restaurants. Restaurants have lost over 2.4 million jobs since the start of the pandemic, far more than any other industry. They are in crisis and the PPP is not working for them. In the second quarter of 2020, restaurants lost over $220 billion in revenue and received less than 18 percent of their losses in the PPP. For restaurants, the PPP was a 10-week solution to what is becoming a year to 18 long problem (phonetic). That is why we are providing $25 billion to establish a grant program to help restaurants. They need a long-lasting solution like grants to make it through the cold winter. It is for all those reasons that I oppose the gentleman's amendment. I ask if there is any further debate on this amendment. Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Missouri. I ask all Members attending virtually to please unmute yourselves for the roll call. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Mr. WILLIAMS. Madam Chair, I request a recorded vote. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has requested a recorded vote. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. Pursuant to Committee Rule 13 and House Rule 11, further proceedings on the amendment are postponed. We will now consider the second Luetkemeyer amendment. For what purpose does the gentleman from Missouri seek recognition? Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I have an amendment at the desk, Madam Chair. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment 2v1 to the amendment---- Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. The Ranking Member is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a simple, straightforward amendment that increases the money allocated to the Small Business Administration's Office of Inspector General by an additional $25 million. Let me just set the scene here. In the last 11 months, Congress has appropriated approximately $1 trillion in loan and loan guaranty programs for COVID relief. Over $600 billion of those dollars have been dispersed by the SBA. This level and speed of spending is extraordinary, beyond anything we have ever seen in the history of this country, and unfortunately, saw many instances of fraud and abuse. The SBA's Office of Inspector General operates at the frontlines of this war we are waging against the toll of COVID-19 on small businesses, safeguarding taxpayers' hard-earned dollars, and holding the SBA accountable for the administration of their loan programs. Already, the SBA OIG has flanked several deficiencies in SBA's implementation of the Paycheck Protection Program, and serious concerns of fraud and economic injury in the Disaster Loan Program. We must ensure that this office has the resources it needs to continue doing the enormously important work of holding the SBA accountable. This amendment does just that. Madam Chair, we have got two duties as legislators. One is to put legislation out to solve problems and improve the lives of our citizens, as well as to provide oversight over those programs that we implement. I realize that you guys have been told apparently up above what the rumor is that you cannot accept any amendment, but to not put money in the Office of the Inspector to continue to provide the oversight which we, as legislators, as part of our duty to empower them to be able to do this, to make sure these programs are administered correctly, that would not be adhering to the actual duties of our job. With that, Madam Chair, I urge for adoption of the amendment, and I yield back. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment? I will recognize myself in opposition. Ranking Member Luetkemeyer, it has been a pleasure to work with you as our Committee exercises our oversight responsibilities of the Small Business Administration. This has been an unprecedented time for the SBA with additional funding and authority put in place to address the issues facing small businesses around the country. As we are all aware, there have been some challenges and growing pains with ramping up and implementing vital programs such as PPP and EIDL. While I appreciate the desire to provide more funding and support for the SBA Office of Inspector General, at this time, increasing the authorization by an additional $25 million over what is currently in the bill will exceed the rules of this budget reconciliation process. And I just want to make sure that we included $25 million in this bill for the Office of Inspector General. With that said, I will be voting no on this amendment but stand ready to work with you and Members of this Committee to carry out our responsibility and to support the work of the SBA's Office of Inspector General. Do any other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment? Is there any other further debate? Seeing none, the none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Missouri. I ask all Members attending virtually to please unmute yourself for the roll call. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. We will now consider the Williams amendment. For what purpose does the gentleman from Texas seek recognition? Mr. WILLIAMS. I have an amendment at the desk. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment 1v1 to the amendment to the Committee print---- Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. My amendment would make Planned Parenthood and any affiliates or clinic ineligible for a loan under the Paycheck Protection Program. When COVID-19 hit the United States, it was clear that we needed to provide relief to help keep small businesses afloat. However, just because we are facing a global pandemic, we cannot disregard our core principles to protect the lives of the unborn. Like many of my colleagues, I was outraged to learn that 37 Planned Parenthood affiliates were able to obtain over $80 million through the Paycheck Protection Program. Money that is intended to assist our most vulnerable small businesses during COVID should do just that and not fund abortions. Abortions are neither essential procedures nor healthcare, and we cannot allow the country's largest abortion provider to receive a second time loan. As COVID has continued to impact all aspects of American lives, our small businesses' aid programs should prioritize the most affected industries instead of giving funds to an entity that devalues the sanctity of life. For decades, Congress has passed the Hyde Amendment to prevent taxpayer dollars from going towards abortion. This bipartisan provision ensured that half the country that is vehemently opposed to abortion would not have to worry about their taxpayer dollars going towards this horrible practice. My amendment would similarly ensure taxpayer-funded programs designed for small businesses are not being accessed by the largest abortion provider in the country. I am proud to continue fighting for the unborn and urge everyone to support my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment? Ms. CHU. Yes. This is Judy Chu. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. For what purpose does the gentlelady from California seek recognition? Ms. CHU. I would like to strike the last word. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. CHU. Madam Chair, I urge a strong no vote on this amendment. I find it very troubling that our Republican colleagues have taken their time to engage in partisan attacks on Planned Parenthood Health Centers by using a public health crisis to attack access to essential reproductive healthcare. For decades, nonprofits such as Planned Parenthood have played an integral role in the social and economic well-being of the U.S., and for that reason, the CARES Act made 501(c)(3) nonprofits eligible for PPP loans. Planned Parenthood and its workers are on the frontlines providing vital healthcare services through the pandemic. For many patients, local Planned Parenthood Health Centers are the only source of healthcare. The unfortunate reality is the pandemic has made existing barriers to care worse for many of the communities they serve. This care is needed now more than ever with STI rates soaring and increased barriers to sexual and reproductive healthcare during this public health crisis. Planned Parenthood Health Centers also create jobs that benefit cities and states spurring economic growth. Paycheck Protection Program loans have ensured that health centers can retain staff and continue to provide patients with essential time-sensitive sexual and reproductive health care during this crisis. Now, more than ever, we know the importance of a strong healthcare workforce. Let me remind you that Planned Parenthood Health Centers are located in a diverse set of communities, and in fact, 57 percent are in rural or medically-undeserved areas. This is just another Republican attack on the healthcare for Americans whose only access to reliable, safe, and cost-effective treatment is in these centers. This is not the time to play politics. It is certainly not the time to reduce access to critical healthcare. While local Planned Parenthood Health Centers are focusing on providing critical healthcare for the communities during this pandemic, anti-choice extremists are focused on attacking critical safety net providers. And in fact, according to the Johns Hopkins University, the nonprofit workforce has lost 930,000, nearly a million, compared to pre-COVID levels representing a 7.4 percent decline from its pre-pandemic levels. Planned Parenthood, like other nonprofits, such as the YMCA, Boys and Girls Club of America, United Way, and Goodwill met the requirements of the PPP program. In fact, each Planned Parenthood member organization is its own independent, not-for- profit tax-exempt organization with an independent board of directors that is the sole decisionmaker for all governance, finance, and operations of its organization. And, we see none of the same type of treatment given by Republicans for other organizations like hate groups, anti-vaccine groups, anti- abortion crisis pregnancy centers, and Trump and Kushner properties, all of which received PPP loans. It is critical that PPP be implemented in a uniform manner that does not target any entity for exclusion, especially if you are doing it for political ideology. I strongly oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote no. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back. Is there any further debate on the amendment? Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, this is Luetkemeyer from Missouri. I ask to be recognized. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I move to strike the last word. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair. I support the gentleman from Texas's amendment and urge its adoption. The conversation about who can take Paycheck Protection Program or Economic Injury and Disaster Loans has been going on for almost a year. However, this specific amendment addresses not only a conversation but a battle that we have continuously fought our Democratic colleagues for decades. It is a fight for human lives, for the unborn, and our constituencies yet to be heard. Under no circumstances should there be any loopholes present in legislation drafted by Congress that would allow Planned Parenthood from profiteering on our citizens' tax dollars. The comment was made previously that we are playing politics with this amendment. I would argue that the majority party is playing politics with this issue again knowing the passion that we have on our side for this issue against what they are trying to do. Time and time again, we have had to stop the reckless funneling of American tax dollars into the abortion-selling business. Let me be very clear. Main street businesses which have suffered throughout the pandemic deserve the support of Congress, but giant corporations that quite literally suck the life out of people do not. This amendment supports our small businesses, which provide opportunity and income to families and communities and prevents dollars from going to an organization that seeks to do just the opposite. I urge its adoption, and with that, Madam Chair, I yield back. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlemen yields back. Is there any further debate on this amendment? Let me say that I am in opposition. I claim 5 minutes in opposition to this amendment. You know, as we enter the vaccine distribution phase, Planned Parenthood affiliates have indicated that they are willing to help distribute the vaccine. And Planned Parenthood, like other nonprofits, are integral to the economic well-being of their community. They provide quality, high-paying jobs in their communities. And Planned Parenthood, like other nonprofits such as the YMCA, Boys and Girls Club of America, United Way, and Goodwill, they met the requirements of PPP program, so there is no reason why we need to discriminate against Planned Parenthood. For that reason we ask a no vote. Is there any further debate on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Texas. I ask all Members attending virtually to please unmute yourself for the roll call. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. Mr. WILLIAMS. Madam Chair, I request a recorded vote. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The amendment is not agreed to. Mr. WILLIAMS. I request a recorded vote, Madam Chair. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. A recorded vote has been requested. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to Committee Rule 13 and House Rule 11, further proceedings on the amendment are postponed. We now consider the Williams second amendment. For what purpose does the gentleman from Texas seek recognition? Mr. WILLIAMS. I have an amendment at the desk. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment 2v1 to the amendment to the Committee print offered by Mr. Williams---- Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. My amendment would direct the administrator of the SBA to make sure that previously passed relief programs within the SBA are operational and getting money to businesses in need before they take on any additional projects in this new bill. Last July, I was proud, as I said, to introduce the Save Our Stages Act to provide grants to independent music venues impacted by COVID-19. These businesses were some of the first to close their doors because of the pandemic and will be some of the last to reopen. Without Federal assistance, these cultural staples of their communities would never be able to survive the mandated government shutdowns. In the relief package we passed in December, a version of Save Our Stages, called the Shuttered Venue Operator Grant Program, was included to provide much-needed relief to music venues and other heavily affected industries. These venues were thrilled that they were finally being received and having some assistance. However, it is now February, looking at March, and this program is still not accepting applications and getting money out the door. As the businesses wait for this program to become active, they are excluded from tapping into other forms of small business relief. This is forcing businesses to decide between waiting for this program and it is tailored to their unique needs to begin accepting applications or applying for PPP to receive immediate assistance. It has now been 45 days since the program was signed into law, and it is unacceptable that these businesses still cannot apply. Instead of continuing to ask and task the SBA with more programs to manage, they must first prioritize the programs they have already been authorized by law to do. The livelihoods of small business Americans are at stake and we owe it to them to follow through on our promises. I urge everyone to support my amendment and help get the Shuttered Venue Operator Grant Program up and running. It is good for America. It means more jobs. I yield back the balance of my time. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment? Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, this is---- Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Ranking Member, for what purpose are you seeking recognition? Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I ask to be recognized. I move to strike the last word. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair. I support the gentleman from Texas's amendment and urge its adoption. Over the last year, Congress has worked in a bipartisan manner to create, administer, and oversee a multitude of new programs and initiatives designed to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. These small business, through no fault of their own, have been forced to close their doors. Or if they are lucky enough to live in certain states, allowed to operate at 50 percent, 25 percent capacity due to state or local ordinances. The bottom line is we need to reopen our country. The gentleman from Texas's amendment prioritizes the established programs that Congress has already created to respond to this pandemic as opposed to anything new that may or may not work. We have the tools in place already to solve this. This amendment prioritizes those recognized solutions to ensure small businesses have a clear lay of the land as they lead us out of these difficult times. With that, Madam Chair, I urge the adoption, and I yield back. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. I will claim time in opposition. This amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. Williams, will violate the Byrd Rule in the Senate. While I understand the concerns that SBA must publish rules and issue guidance quickly, we have to get the economic relief out to small businesses without delay. While I oppose the amendment, I assure the gentleman that I will work with you to send a letter to SBA to ensure concerns are being addressed. And with that, I yield back. Is there any further debate on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Texas. I ask all Members attending virtually to please unmute yourself for the roll call. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. We will now consider the Meuser Amendment. For what purpose does the gentleman from Pennsylvania seek recognition? Mr. MEUSER. Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment 1v1 to the amendment---- Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. MEUSER. Thank you, Madam Chair. When Congress reopened the PPP program for a second round, the intent was to tailor these funds to businesses that were most impacted by the pandemic. As the rule is currently written, businesses are eligible for a second draw of PPP if they have less than 300 employees, they have used their first PPP loan for eligible expenses and can demonstrate at least a 25 percent reduction in revenue from 2019 to 2020. To calculate the 25 percent revenue reduction, a borrower must compare gross receipts from one quarter in 2020 to the corresponding quarter of 2019. Many small businesses, however, do not follow traditional calendar quarters. Hospitality businesses, for instance, often vary from 52 to 53 weeks but do not necessarily have to end on the last day of the month causing confusion and limiting opportunities for these businesses. Additionally, the greatest loss in revenue for many of these businesses occurred in March, April, and May last year, which fall over 2 calendar quarters. So to resolve this issue, my amendment would change the parameters for PPP to allow borrowers to calculate a 25 percent reduction over a 90-day period as opposed to a calendar quarter which would allow a business to count their revenue when it was most impacted. For example, a business would calculate the start of the 90-day period on March 13, for instance, the start of the shutdown, and end it on June 12. This simple fix would allow more businesses the opportunity to be eligible for the second round of PPP funds they need and deserve. I would like to thank the work of my friend, Congressman French Hill and Ranking Member Luetkemeyer, who put in the effort to create this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you, and I yield back. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment? Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair? Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The Ranking Member---- Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Luetkemeyer from Missouri. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ.--is seeking recognition for what purpose? Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Move to strike the last word. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair. I support the gentleman from Pennsylvania's amendment and ask my colleagues to support it as well. This should be one that we should all agree on and there should be no concern. What we are doing here is over the past year I have been with countless small businesses and been on calls with them, not just the ones in my district in Missouri that I have had the privilege to speak with, but small businesses across the country. One of the most critical things that they talk about is the need for more flexibility. This is precisely what Mr. Meuser's amendment does. It provides small firms with a greater flexibility on their second draw of PPP funds. Instead of having to choose one of four rigid calendar quarter designations to demonstrate their 25 percent revenue loss, Mr. Meuser's amendment allows these firms to choose any contiguous 90-day period within 2020 to qualify. This is a common-sense fix that will help millions of small businesses qualify for the second PPP loan program. This is something I am sure you, Madam Chair, and all the Members on the other side of the aisle, you face the same question from the small businesses in your district that are wanting to qualify for PPP, constantly getting questions with regards to this 90-day period. This does exactly what they want, gives them the flexibility that I think they need to be able to qualify. I think the gentleman has got a common-sense amendment. I certainly would urge everyone to adopt the amendment. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there any further debate on the amendment? Mr. HAGEDORN. Madam Chair, it is Hagedorn. I would like to strike the last word. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. HAGEDORN. Thanks. I will be very brief. I agree with the amendment here that has been offered by Congressman Meuser and in the words of our ranking Republican, Mr. Luetkemeyer, the small businesses that we talk with just, they want flexibility. They need the flexibility. And the Committee has been very good in the past about coming up with ways to provide flexibility for our small businesses. For instance, how they were going about spending the Paycheck Protection money. In this case I think it just makes a lot of sense. And I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the author of the bill and Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thanks very much. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. And now I am going to claim my time in opposition. The amendment is problematic for a couple of reasons. Do you have a cost estimate for this amendment? Without a cost estimate, we cannot move forward on this amendment with confidence that it will not violate reconciliation instructions. While I really appreciate your efforts, we cannot lose sight of our main focus here, and that is to provide economic relief to the underserved and hardest hit communities quickly. F or that reason I oppose the amendment. Any further debate on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I ask all Members attending virtually to please unmute yourself for the roll call. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. We will now consider the Meuser second amendment. For what purpose does the gentleman from Pennsylvania seek recognition? Mr. MEUSER. Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment 2v1 to the amendment to the Committee print offered by Mr. Meuser, page 11---- Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of the amendment will be dispensed. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. MEUSER. Thank you. Prior to the pandemic, the SBA 7(a) Loan Program was SBA's most common loan program and served as a critical tool for small businesses to get access to capital. The 7(a) Loan Program helps small businesses secure loans by guaranteeing a portion of the loan, limiting fees, and lowering interest rates. This program allows small businesses who might not be able to obtain a loan through traditional sources access to the funding they need to get back on their feet. These loans serve as a bridge for small businesses and can be used to acquire business essentials like real estate property, inventory, working capital, refinancing debt, and purchasing equipment. In Fiscal Year 2019, SBA made approximately 52,000 7(a) loans totaling more than $23.17 billion. In the SBA's Easton, Pennsylvania district where many of my constituents work, in Fiscal Year 2019, more than 1,360 loans totaling more than $517 million went out to support small businesses. Currently, the maximum loan amount a business can receive from the traditional SBA 7(a) Loan Program is $5 million. My amendment would simply expand the maximum loan amount from $5 million to $6 million in just over a 1-year period. As businesses struggle to overcome the challenges of the pandemic, I believe it is important that we provide sufficient access to such capital as the businesses who need it most. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and yield the balance of my time. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment? Mr. CROW. Madam Chair, it is Jason Crow seeking time in opposition. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. CROW. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am going to start by just saying I appreciate Mr. Meuser's suggestions here and the spirit with which he offers this amendment. And I do agree that improvements need to be made to many of our SBA programs. In fact, this Committee, as you know, has a very long history of working collaboratively to find ways to improve, to get the relief to our businesses that need it the most. But the manner in which this is being done is not the manner to do it for two reasons. Number one, we have a lot of very complex needs that we are facing here with these programs. The purpose of this hearing and this bill and the process that we are going through today is to get relief as quickly as possible to those businesses that are struggling the most just to keep their doors open right now during this pandemic. We are going to go through a longer process through regular order for the rest of this session to address these longer-term fixes that are needed to the programs. But to get the need and the relief that is necessary to our businesses as quickly as possible I think is something that we can all come together and work towards. The second is just the nature of the amendment itself is to raise, to increase the maximum loan amount of the 7(a) program from $5 million to $6 million. Now, this is a fantastic program, the 7(a) program, and it is a program that all of us support. But one of the biggest challenges to this program is not necessarily the maximum loan amount but what we hear frequently is the vast majority of folks, the truly mom and pop businesses, the small business that are not applying for the maximum, that are applying for much lower amounts, they are having a hard time getting it. We need to work collaboratively to figure out how we can get that money to those smaller businesses much quicker and much more effectively. We think that is the priority, not necessarily increasing at this point in this particular process that maximum loan amount. And that is why I will oppose that amendment with a promise to work with you, Mr. Meuser, to address the spirit of your amendment in the months and years ahead, but I would encourage all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Thank you. I yield back. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there any further debate on this amendment? Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, this is the Ranking Member. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The Ranking Member is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you. I move to strike the last word. Just very quickly, I think what the gentleman is trying to do in this amendment here is to adjust the loan amount that the SBA can do in response to the situation we have. Now, you all know, those of you who have been on this Committee before, that we were always adjusting these amounts based on the need, based on inflation, based on in this situation, the COVID situation, the loans need to be bigger so the response can be bigger to be able to handle the needs of the people that we are servicing with these loans. To me, this makes common sense. We do this all the time. In response to the previous individual who said this is more long-term, this also can be very immediate, number one. And number two, there is another program within, not this particular section of the bill but the Financial Services section of the bill that deals with SSBCIs that actually is structuring the money to be going out over the next 10 years. I argued it at the last Committee hearing that I was in with that about we need to be doing it on an immediate basis, not over the next 10 years. And so now I hear we want to do it on an immediate basis in 10 years which is just the opposite of what is going on in this bill. But what Mr. Meuser is trying to do is to allow for the immediate help of needs as we see the needs of these businesses exponentially go up out here because of the COVID situation. And remember, these loans are made through banks, guaranteed, so that, you know, there is some oversight there. I am supportive of this amendment. I think it is very timely, and I think it meets a need that definitely is going to be there. If it is not already, it is going to be there very shortly. I ask the adoption of the amendment. With that, I yield back. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there any further debate on this amendment? I oppose the amendment and I will ask the Members to oppose it. This is the type of, the 7(a), the 504, all those lending programs under SBA, we will be revamping those programs for the long term. We care about the next step for a long-term economic recovery, but this is not the place. And we will welcome your input. We are going to be holding hearings, and we will deal with revamping those lending programs on another day. With that, is there any other Member who wishes to be recognized for the purpose of discussing this amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I ask all Members attending virtually to please unmute yourself for the roll call. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. We will now consider the Garbarino amendment. For what purpose does the gentleman from New York seek recognition? Mr. GARBARINO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I have an amendment at the desk. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment 1v1 to the amendment to the Committee print offered by Mr. Garbarino. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. GARBARINO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Small businesses across the country have been crippled, not just by the effects of but also the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. None has been hit harder than the restaurant industry. What was the second largest private sector employer in the country has now seen more than 110,000 restaurants close since the pandemic began 1 year ago. That is one in six of every restaurants closed in the country in the span of a year. These small, family-owned entrepreneurs need our help and assistance, and they need it now. Here on Long Island, we have seen a once vibrant and successful restaurant industry turn on its head with pubs, eateries, casual and fine dining restaurants, as well as catering halls shuttered in the wake of coronavirus shutdowns and restrictions. Employment in Nassau and Suffolk counties for foodservice and drinking establishments decreased from 98,900 in December 2019 to 68,500 in December 2020. That is a decline of 30,400 people working in the foodservice industry. In nearby New York City, known to some as the restaurant capital of the world, their restaurants are still closed for indoor dining. These restaurants have done everything asked of them to try to open and be safe, but the government keeps moving the goalpost. They need our help and they need it now, and I am happy that so many of my colleagues have spoken in favor tonight of the need to help restaurants and their support for the Restaurants Act. I also am a co-sponsor of the Restaurants Act, a bill that would inject $120 billion in restaurant relief for these struggling small businesses. I am hopeful that legislation will receive consideration by this Congress. However, until that time, I am calling on this Committee to support an amendment before you which will increase the appropriation to the Restaurant Revitalization Fund from the proposed $25 billion to $45 billion. The proposed $25 billion in assistance to the Restaurant Revitalization Fund in this Committee print is insufficient. It does not even come close to the amount of the assistance that these small businesses need to survive. I request that everyone accept this amendment. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment? For what purpose is the gentleman from Pennsylvania seeking recognition? Mr. EVANS. I want to be recognized to oppose this amendment. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has an amendment at the desk? Mr. EVANS. No. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Sorry. In opposition. Mr. EVANS. Opposition, yes. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. EVANS. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am very supportive of the Restaurant Revitalization Fund. For months I have been hearing from restaurants in my district about the need to pass the bill which will provide $120 billion for grants to restaurants. I fully support that bill. The Restaurant Revitalization is based on that bill. While it has not received full funding, it received $25 billion to start as the Small Business Committee was only able to give $50 billion to the budget. That simply is what we can do without breaking the requirement. That said, we will be happy to work with you on the future legislation to provide more funding to this critical program should a need arise. Considering this amendment would only put the Small Business Committee outside the budget requirement of this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote no against this amendment, and I thank you, Madam Chair. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment? Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, this is the Ranking Member. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is seeking recognition? Mr. LUETKEMEYER. To strike the last word. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair. The gentleman is trying to be proactive here and actually fund this program to where it probably is going to need to go if you are serious about actually helping restaurants and the way you structured this program. Quite frankly, the way you structured it is basically every restaurant out there can qualify for this grant. And it is a grant. So you are going to have everybody lining up. The testimony in this Committee today said there were half a million restaurants still out there that were operating with another 110,000 either closed up or temporarily closed up. If you just take the 500,000 restaurants and divide that into $25 billion, that is $50,000 per restaurant. And this program has got, if you read through it, the amounts are capped I think somewhere around $10 million per restaurant. That fund is going to be out of dollars by the end of the month. What the gentleman from New York is trying to do here is actually get this thing funded. If you really were serious about helping restaurants and you really want to be able to fund them at the rate we need to, that is what he is actually trying to do. So I think we are going to be back here again very shortly trying to find some more money for this program, mark my words, if you do not change the structure of it, change the qualifications of it, and do not change the amount of money in it, we will be back here. I will guarantee you. And I certainly will remind you that I made this statement. With that, I urge the adoption of the amendment, and I yield back. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment? Ms. NEWMAN. Yes, I do, Madam Chair. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Can you please---- Ms. NEWMAN. Marie Newman. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. NEWMAN. And I will not take that long. I just want to make a couple of comments. I know there has been respectfully a lot of talk about bipartisanship and the Committee is bipartisan which is great and that is my expectation, and I cannot wait to work on some of these programs that are not making their way into them. But here is what I will say, and let's just all be very real with one another that there was 8 months of ability to have bipartisanship in between the first Relief Act and the second. With that, I agree with the Ranking Member. I think he is insightful. We will be back together, and I hope there is bipartisanship then. But I just want to remind everyone that that 8 month period caused about 1,000 restaurants in my district money they could have used. I love that they are on board now, but they had 8 months to be on board. Let's remember where we all were and let's get back together after this act gets out and get them some money and prevent another 1,000 restaurants from losing their livelihood. Thank you very much, and I yield back. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back. Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment? Mr. DONALDS. Yeah, Madam Chair, I do wish to be recognized. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Who is seeking recognition, please? Mr. DONALDS. Mr. Donalds, the gentleman from Florida. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. DONALDS. Thank you, Madam Chair. My points are pretty simple. I was hearing the last remarks and obviously, I am new here. Just came in in the 117th, but one thing that has been clear to me having been in Florida's legislature last year is that this 8 months in question where a bipartisanship could have been accomplished there was no desire to negotiate from the current Speaker of the House. I think for the record it should be clear that the current speaker had an opportunity to negotiate well beyond what she chose to do in this 8 month period. And so while restaurants in my former House district and now my current congressional district that were suffering just like in the gentlelady's district, just like in just about every district for the Members of this Committee, I think the record needs to be clear that the negotiation goes both ways and the current speaker was unwilling to do so. Hopefully, that changes going forward. I yield back the rest of my time. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman---- Ms. NEWMAN. Can I make one more comment, Chairwoman? Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Who is seeking recognition, please? Ms. NEWMAN. It is Marie Newman again from Illinois. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. I am going to recognize myself and I will yield to Ms. Newman. Ms. NEWMAN. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. And I appreciate the gentleman from Florida's comments, and I am looking forward to more bipartisanship as we move forward. But again, the goalpost, I just want to be clear in what actually happened, is the goalposts were moved at every juncture. It is on the record. It is in writing. We know that the goalpost got moved by the Republican Party several times. So while I am thrilled, look, I am thrilled that every wants to be bipartisan after we get some money out to them, and I want to do more, and it sounds like you genuinely want to do more, so I am looking forward to that. But I want to be clear that that negotiation was not a negotiation, that the goalpost moved every single time that they came back to say yes. So, I just wanted that in the record as well. And I yield back and thank you very much. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Reclaiming my time, I just would like to say that I fully agree with my colleagues that restaurants, bars, and other eateries have been disproportionately impacted by the coronavirus. The second largest private employer in the country is vital to both main street and the overall economy. But let me also remind my colleagues that how many relief packages have gone through the House and we were not able to get a restaurant grant or legislation to help the restaurant industry. For the first time today we are creating a $25 billion grant program to assist restaurants across the country. So even though I recognize the importance of providing more money for the restaurants, appropriating 90 percent of the $50 billion to one industry at this time neglects the needs of other small businesses. And the Committee heard testimony last week of the struggles of a theater owner that said that the pandemic has nearly wiped out his business. The National Association of Theaters estimates that 75 percent of movie theaters will be insolvent this spring unless they receive financial aid. Those businesses deserve our support. Again, I am willing to work with my colleagues to find ways to support main street restaurants, but I must oppose this amendment. Mr. MFUME. Madam Chair? Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. For what purpose does the gentleman from Maryland seek recognition? Mr. MFUME. I move to strike the last word, Madam Chair. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. MFUME. Just a point of fact in this discussion. I appreciate the gentleman from Florida saying that he was not here last year and sort of recanting the efforts or the lack thereof of what he considered to be the speaker's attempts to find a way to reach a compromise, what was then known as the Heroes Act. We actually lost 115 days before the majority leader in the other body, the gentleman from Kentucky, bothered to meet to discuss anything at all. In fact, it was the majority leader in the other body who said that the bill was ``dead on arrival.'' Those are not my words; those are his words. And that occurred 2 days after passage. The negotiations that did start started after 115 days, and they were not really negotiation. It was more like take it or leave it. Let's just make sure that we are accurate and factual here with respect to the speaker's efforts which were clear. And let's be mindful of the fact also that the negotiation did not occur because the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky, the majority leader in the other body, said that that was dead on arrival. I am glad that we are at this point. Madam Chair, I would have been remiss though if I did not at least recant what the actual facts were regarding the time that was lost because of no negotiations. Thank you, and I yield back. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there any further debate on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from New York. I ask all Members attending virtually to please unmute yourself for the roll call. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The amendment is---- Mr. GARBARINO. Madam Chair, I request a recorded vote. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has requested a recorded vote. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to Committee Rule 13 and House Rule 11, further proceedings on the amendment are postponed. We will now consider the Garbarino second amendment. For what purpose does the gentleman from New York seek recognition? Mr. GARBARINO. Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment 2v1---- Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. GARBARINO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Our nation's small businesses are facing unprecedented economic disruption due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act created the Paycheck Protection Program and expanded the Economic Injury Disaster Loan, the EIDL program in response to the economic disruption appropriating hundreds of billions of dollars to assist small businesses affected by health and economic crisis. The PPP provides loans to help businesses keep their workforce employed during the COVID-19 crisis and the EIDL program is designed to provide economic relief to small businesses and nonprofit organizations that are experiencing a temporary loss of revenue due to unforeseen disasters and crises. I know many businesses and not-for-profits that have been saved due to these programs. This proposed amendment would prohibit the administrator of the Small Business Administration from providing any covered SBA assistance, including PPP loan, a second draw PPP loan, EIDL loan or EIDL Advance to an individual or a business concern owned or controlled by an individual who is convicted of a nonconsensual sex offense, or convicted of assaulting a police officer, or convicted of a crime of violence under Federal or state law during the 5-year period ending on the date on which the covered SBA assistance would be provided. This amendment is justified by the following statement of the SBA in addition to following other legal statutes. This is what the statement was. ``It is not in the public interest for SBA to extend financial assistance to persons who are not of good character.'' This amendment codifies that statement into law. Madam Chairwoman, I ask that the Members approve this amendment. Thank you, I yield back. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment? Well, I oppose the amendment by my colleague, Mr. Garbarino, that will exclude persons convicted of certain violent or sexual felonies or misdemeanors from obtaining PPP and EIDL funds. First and foremost, COVID-19 relief is for existing businesses and current business owners with a proven reentry track record. This amendment also violates the spirit behind the bipartisan Fair Chance Act that was signed into law last Congress. Every year, thousands of individuals return to their community seeking to rebuild their lives. In 2020, more than 41,000 incarcerated individuals were released from Federal prisons, and more than 97 percent of the nation's 151,600 Federal inmates will eventually be released. The formerly incarcerated face significant barriers to reentering the workforce, including bias against hiring individuals with criminal records, little access to education, and ineligibility for public benefits. Studies have shown that individuals released from prison who found employment were less likely to recidivate. Entrepreneurship can play a key role in helping these individuals overcome barriers to reentry and successfully transition back into the workplace and their communities. That is what we all want. That is what communities and families are aspiring, that these people that are released that have complied with everything that they have been asked to do that now are given a fighting chance. That is what it is all about, giving individuals a second chance. Therefore, those formerly incarcerated who have served their time and paid their debt to society should not continue to be penalized for past wrongs while trying to keep their small business afloat. To that end, I oppose the amendment. Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment? Mr. MFUME. Madam Chair? Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? Mr. MFUME. I move to strike the last word. And I would just---- Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. MFUME. I would offer up in support of your reservation the fact that this amendment, while it may be well-intentioned is very, very far-reaching in terms of what it does. Because it says that a person convicted of a misdemeanor is not eligible for any sort of PPP funding, which means a lot of people are left out. Some Members of this distinguished body, perhaps, and in the other body who have been convicted of or found to have been convicted of a misdemeanor at some point in their lives, it means that Members of the current administration who may have been convicted of a misdemeanor at any point in their live is no longer eligible. It means that many people who are trying to rehabilitate themselves and for whatever reason may have been found guilty of a misdemeanor, even if they are a small business owner, is not eligible under this language. Because a misdemeanor, according to the dictionary, contains a definition that is so broad--trespassing, drunkenness in a public space, petty theft, marijuana smoking. I mean, we just wipe out a whole eligible group of small business owners who are small business owners not because they once had a conviction of a misdemeanor when they were younger but because they got their lives together and have developed the ability to help create a circle of flow of income in communities by establishing a business. And are now ineligible under the language here, which I think is just too broad. Again, I understand the intent. It is the effect that I really have problems with. I would yield back and I would support your reservation, Madam Chair. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there any further debate on the amendment? Mr. STAUBER. Madam Chair? Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Who is seeking recognition, please? Mr. STAUBER. Stauber, Minnesota 8. I would like to strike the last word and yield to Congressman Garbarino, please. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. GARBARINO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Just to clarify this amendment, this does not apply to all misdemeanors. This only applies to convictions of violent misdemeanors. It does not apply to, as the previous gentleman just stated, marijuana smoking or drunkenness. Only violent crimes. Violent felonies, violent misdemeanors, sex crimes, sex assault crimes, and assaults against police officers. It is not as far-reaching as the gentleman had just suggested. It is violent misdemeanors, violent felonies, assaults against a police officer, and sexual assaults and convictions. Thank you very much, and I yield back. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Mr. MFUME. Madam Chair, if I might? Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. If there is anyone that could claim time. Mr. Evans is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. EVANS. I yield. I yield. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields. Mr. MFUME. Thank you. I thank the gentleman from Philadelphia. I will only read the words which I have reacted to, and the words say that, ``No person convicted of a felony related to a nonconsensual sexual act convicted of or a misdemeanor.'' I am reading it the way it is written. And if I am in error then I stand to be corrected. But even if I am, I think the points that you have raised with respect to the punishing aspect of this for people who are already small business owners cannot be overlooked. I yield back. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there any further debate on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from New York. I ask all Members attending please virtually to unmute yourself for the roll call. All those in favor, say aye. All opposed, say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Mr. GARBARINO. Madam Chairwoman, I request a recorded vote, please. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has requested a recorded vote. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to Committee Rule 13 and House Rule 11, further proceedings on the amendment are postponed. We will now consider the Kim amendment. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from California seek recognition? Ms. YOUNG KIM. Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the amendment at the desk. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment 1v1 to the amendment to the Committee print---- Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. YOUNG KIM. Thank you, Madam Chair. My amendment would simply repurpose $15 billion of unspent funds from the EIDL program into the new Restaurant Fund. According to the National Restaurant Association, our communities have lost at least 110,000 restaurants and over 2.5 million jobs in the industry. In my state of California, the lack of direction from the governor's office has only made matters worse for small business owners and family-owned restaurants in my community. I have the honor of representing one of the most diverse districts in the country where many family-owned restaurants have been established for many generations. For many people in my community, it is hard to see some of the long-established restaurants close permanently because of this pandemic. Just last December, Congress decided to replenish the EIDL Advance grant program with an additional $10 billion. A large portion of that EIDL has not been used for that intended purpose. I ask a simple question: why are we thinking about repurposing the unspent funds we have allocated to provide aid for businesses that really need it? I invite my colleagues to repurpose this unspent EIDL funds so that we can get much needed aid in the hands of our restaurants right away. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and let's go save our restaurants. With that, I yield back the balance of my time. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back. Do other Members wish to be recognized? For what purpose is the gentleman from Pennsylvania seeking recognition? Mr. EVANS. In opposition to the amendment. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. EVANS. While I appreciate my colleagues' effort to increase funding for the new grant program for restaurants, I am opposed to transferring money from the EIDL loan amount. Throughout Congress, we have fought so hard to ensure SBA EIDL program remains a well functional and well-funded program. At the same time, we have heard there are many industries that have been uniquely impacted by COVID-19 such as restaurants who have only been able to operate at a fraction of their 2019 revenue. I believe the best text strikes the appropriate balance between their competing interests, both strengthening the EIDL and the Advance program and establishing a Restaurant Revitalization Fund. I am also deeply convinced that this proposal will severely limit the ability of the EIDL program to continue to reach the communities it has demonstrated effectiveness in reaching--immigrant-owned businesses, women- owned businesses, minority-owned businesses, and micro businesses. Recently published data from the SBA shows the EIDL program was especially effective in reaching population states such as California, Florida, Texas, New York. California has about 12 percent of all U.S. businesses. They have received 18 percent of all EIDL loans. We cannot afford to cripple such a unique, effective program at this time. For that reason I strongly, strongly encourage to vote no on this amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back the balance of my time. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Do other Members wish to be recognized on this amendment? Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, this is the Ranking Member. I request---- Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is seeking recognition. Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I move to strike the last word. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is similar to the amendment we had a while ago when they were trying to plus up the restaurant portion of the bill. And I think my comments, I will stand by them earlier, that if you really want to get serious about trying to fund this thing to where it needs to be you have got to put some more money in it. And what the lady does with this amendment is, if you read it very carefully, it says ``unspent funds from the Economic Injury and Disaster Loan Fund.'' It does not transfer all the money from it. What it does, it takes the unspent portion of it. These are funds that are not even going to be utilized. This is a smart way to redirect funds that are unspent and make sure they are repurposed someplace where they actually are needed instead of redirecting them someplace else where somebody has another priority of some kind. I think this is a really well-intentioned amendment. I think it is very well done, and I think we need to support it. With that, I yield back the balance of my time. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment? Is there any further debate on this amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentlewoman from California. I ask all Members attending please to unmute yourself for the roll call. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Ms. YOUNG KIM. Madam Chair, may I ask for yeas and nays? Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady has requested a recorded vote. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. A roll call is ordered. Pursuant to Committee Rule 13 and the House Rule 11, further proceedings on the amendment are postponed. We will now consider the Kim second amendment. For what purpose does the gentlelady from California seek recognition? Ms. YOUNG KIM. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment 2v1 to the amendment to the Committee report offered by Mrs. Kim---- Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. YOUNG KIM. Thank you, Madam Chair. My amendment is very simple. It will require the Small Business Administration to submit a report to Congress on the waste, fraud, and abuse within the EIDL program since January 1, 2020. If Congress is ready to provide additional funding for the EIDL program, we should also gather more information on ways in which Congress can limit fraud and protect taxpayers. While the Federal government has charged many individuals for submitting fraudulent loan applications, Congress needs more information from the SBA to learn more about how our Committee can act to reduce fraud. I implore my colleagues to join the effort to protect our taxpayers' hard-earned dollars and ensure that relief is getting into the right hands. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and with that I yield back the balance of my time. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back. Do other Members wish to be recognized on this amendment? Well, I am going to recognize myself in opposition to this amendment. This amendment offered by my colleague, Mrs. Kim, will violate the Byrd Rule in the Senate. While I understand the concerns of my colleague regarding waste, fraud, and abuse in the EIDL program, this reconciliation package is unfortunately not the vehicle to address them. Therefore, I am opposed to the amendment and I urge my colleagues to oppose it as well. Is there any further debate on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentlelady from California. I ask all Members attending virtually to please unmute yourself for the roll call. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Due to votes in another Committee, the Committee stands in recess subject to the call of the Chair. [Recess] Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The Committee will come to order. The Committee will resume consideration of the amendment. We will now consider the Donalds first amendment. For what purpose does the gentleman from Florida seek recognition? Mr. DONALDS. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am out here just presenting this next amendment. Congress has allocated more than $796 billion to the PPP, and ultimately helped keep more doors open for more than 5 million small businesses. Considering the magnitude of this allocation, we saw several instances of bad behavior, by and large the program has been overwhelming successful. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. I am sorry, yes, I am sorry. I was distracted and I was also following the process here. The clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment 1v1, see Amendments to the Committee Plan offered by Mr. Donalds. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. The gentleman now is recognized for 5 minutes. Sorry for that. Mr. DONALDS. No problem. My apologies, Madam Chair. Like I was saying, Congress has already allocated more than $706 billion for the PPP program. Considering the magnitude of this allocation we have seen some issues, but by and large it has been very successful. PPP eligibility was extended to qualifying organizations under the 501(c)(3) statutes, including 501(c)(6)s, (19)s, and through administrative action, 501(c)(12)s. These nonprofits are public charities, chambers of commerce, veterans' organizations, community utility service providers, and many, many more. In many cases these organizations are anchors in the communities they serve. They serve as financial and sometimes even spiritual resources to some of our most vulnerable Americans, the local thrift stores and food banks, the community churches, the American Legion. And I would also add it has been discussed in this Committee hearing that many child care centers, those that are your mom- and-pop local child care centers who are either for-profit or 501(c) status, also qualify today for the PPP program under the current eligibility of the program. You know, I think the plan that, you know, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to expand 501(c) status to all 501(c)(3)s except for 501(c)(4)s, I think is a bridge too far. I think what the Committee should have to remember and understand is that when you bring in these frankly massive nonprofit organizations, like the Planned Parenthood, who yes, they might have employees under 500 at one location, but in mass that organization has over 16,000 employees and annual funding exceeding $1.64 billion. I think it is important for the Committee to remember not too long ago that when you had companies like Steak Shack who were trying to take advantage of PPP, it was roundly frowned upon because of the size of those organizations. And I think it is important for the Committee to recognize that we should be doing the same here, staying focused on small businesses, being focused on small organizations and nonprofit organizations like community child care centers who are nonprofit or maybe for-profit, like the nonprofits who are our American Legions and things of that nature. It is also important to recognize that the current bill language allows for digital news organizations to be a part of a PPP program. I do not think it is wise at this point that we should expand eligibility to those organizations considering that fact that even to this Committee we can all clearly understand that the bowl of our small businesses are small restaurants, are small bars, or the ones who are truly, truly in need at this time due to local regulation, quite frankly, in a lot of our municipalities. This is why I am offering this amendment. The amendment will strike the provision to expand PPP eligibility and waive SBA affiliation rules. We cannot continue to fund a politicized bailout that is masked under the guise of COVID-19 relief. It is time for state and local government to let these businesses fully reopen, to let the market do what it does best, and that allows companies to earn money, as well as nonprofits to be able to get the resources they need through market organization that does not allow the state and local governments that continuously keep them locked down. The American taxpayer and future generations are the ones who have to carry the brunt of reckless legislation, excuse me, like this unwarranted expansion. I would also like to further add in closing that it was said before, I think it was Representative Meuser's amendment, that expanding, giving more flexibility to small businesses, that there were no fiscals assigned to that. I would add that if we do not, if we adopt my amendment and do not do a massive expansion of eligibility, there is probably more than enough financial flexibility to actually adopt the Meuser amendment and to be able to help a lot of these small businesses who truly need access to capital as quickly as they can so they keep their selves afloat. That is the amendment, Madam Chair, I yield back the rest of my time. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Would further Members pleased to be recognized on the amendment? Ms. CHU. Yes, Madam Chair, this is Judy Chu and I want to move to strike the last word. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Chu, is recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. CHU. Madam Chair, I urge a strong no vote on this amendment, which will hurt certain nonprofits, such as labor unions, by excluding them from obtaining PPP loans. It would reverse something that is a great step forward in the COVID, and that is allowing all nonprofits to obtain PPP loans outside of T4s, including labor intensive nonprofit organizations with multiple organizations like local chapters of the YMCA and Goodwill. The nonprofit workforce, which is the third largest workforce in our economy, has already lost 930,000 jobs over the course of the pandemic, which is a 7.4 percent decline. But nonprofits have received far less support than other industries. In fact, we know that allowing nonprofits to participate in PPP is successful. That is why eligibility for nonprofits has only expanded since the program was created last year. Deliberately excluding certain nonprofits from PPP is not only unfair, it will be harmful to our economy by putting millions more workers at risk of unemployment. And it would deprive the countless Americans who rely on these organizations for services. By expanding PPP to all 501(c) nonprofits, 501(c)(5) labor unions will also be eligible for assistance. Millions of American workers represented by these nonprofit labor unions and their employees are facing the same economic distress as those of other organizations. But 501(c) types also include farm bureaus, cattle associations, outdoor associations, and groups that support world economy. And they will be hurt by this amendment. In December, Congress extended PPP to the 501(c)(6) nonprofits like trade associations and Chambers of Commerce that represent groups of businesses. This same treatment should be extended to the organizations that represent all groups of workers. Labor unions and their Members will play a critical role in the long-term economic recovery. This measure gives them economic security to survive the crises and continue advocating for workers. This is in light of the fact that this pandemic has been disastrous for workers. But despite since losing over 300,000 Members at the start of this crisis, the share of American workers who are Members of a union slightly rose. That is because nonunion workers have lost their jobs at a higher rate than unionized workers demonstrates the incredible importance of worker representation. And by excluding organizations like Planned Parenthood, YMCA, and Goodwill that have multiple locations, my Republican colleagues are willing to leave Americans without support for the nonprofits that provide up-to-date information as well as resources on the pandemic meant to help assistance with the depressed and isolated communities and for the millions suffering from food insecurity or childcare for the essential workers. We cannot afford to let these organizations fail. We can, however, afford to include them in this program. We cannot let partisan politics pit small businesses against workers and nonprofits. Extending PPP to all nonprofit organizations is simply the right thing to do. We cannot imperil the economic recovery for millions of Americans just because they work for nonprofit organizations that Republicans oppose on ideological grounds. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this harmful amendment. And I yield back. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back. Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment? I also want to ask my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. And I just want to say, look, when you go home to your districts, look at who are the organizations that are helping us and that are helping the communities that are suffering, are the small business, are the not-for-profits. The bottom line is that all these group create jobs and add value in our communities, and therefore need our support right now. Nonprofit organizations provide a number of crucial services that are needed more now than ever, where there is public health resources and education that provide up-to-date information on the pandemic, mental health assistance for the depressed and isolated, community food banks for the millions suffering from food insecurity, or childcare for the essential workers. This is not the time to pick winners and losers. They have been left behind in the last relief package that we passed, and it is our duty to make sure that we protect workers in America, and there is no doubt in my mind that many of these not-for-profit not only are providing an important service to our communities, but are also creating jobs. Do other Members wish to be recognized on this amendment? There being none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Florida. I ask all Members attending virtually to please unmute yourself for the roll call. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair the noes have it, the amendment is not agreed to. Mr. DONALDS. Madam Chair, I just wanted to request a recorded vote on the amendment. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has requested a recorded vote, and pursuant to previous comments, that will be rolled until the end. Pursuant to Committee rule 13 and House rule XI further proceedings on the amendment are postponed. We will now consider the Fitzgerald first amendment. For what purpose does the gentleman from Wisconsin seek recognition? Mr. FITZGERALD. As you know, Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment 1v1 to the Amendment. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. FITZGERALD. Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment is pretty simple. It just directs the administrator of the Small Business Administration to submit a report to Congress on the impact and increase in the Federal minimum wage to $15 per hour would have on small business. And you might ask why. And it is because I think this debate discussion in and around the increase in the minimum wage has not always been couched under the idea that we are in a global pandemic and what the impact might be on many, many of these small businesses that are currently hurting. There are also questions about the Byrd Rule and reconciliation whether it is appropriate for the increase in minimum wage. And then many of you may have seen that the Congressional Budget Office projected 1.4 million jobs would be lost if there was a $15 increase in the minimum wage. So, Madam Chair, it doesn't make much sense I think at this point to move forward with that provision. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Do other Members wish to be recognized on this amendment? The gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Phillips. Mr. PHILLIPS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word. While I oppose this amendment at this time, I do wish to thank my colleague from Wisconsin for offering it. In fact, like many on this Committee, I share many of his concerns. I believe deeply, very deeply, in living wages for all working Americans, and often say that consumption is the engine of our economy and money in peoples' pockets is its fuel. In fact, the small business that my family and I own already pays a $15 minimum wage. Not because the law requires it, rather because it is a principle in which we deeply believe. The fact that a single mother in America can work a 40-hour week at a $7.25 minimum wage and live below the poverty line is as appalling as it is embarrassing to our nation. Congress must address this injustice just as it must meet the moment during the worst pandemic of our lifetimes and one of the most challenging economic crises of our lifetimes. However, I am troubled that we are adding the minimum wage policy to this COVID relief package through reconciliation. In fact, I was shocked to learn how few small business owners, the very people that this Committee is entrusted with representing, how few were consulted as this legislation was being drafted. And I am willing to wager that there is not a single Member of this Committee who is not receiving communications from local business owners concerned about the implications of this policy on the very viability of their enterprises. Just days ago I heard from Ken, the owner of the original Pancake House, one of my favorite restaurants in Plymouth, Minnesota. Like so many businesses which rely on public gatherings to succeed, he is barely hanging on. His restaurant, like all restaurants, runs on thin margins even during the best of times. And Ken is deeply concerned that a $15 minimum wage will mean that he will have to cut jobs if he hopes to stay open. Now I trust that we all agree that representation begins with listening and we should afford small business owners, just like Ken, the opportunity to be heard before we proceed with the implementation of such a transformative policy. According to the CBO, the policy, as written, will likely raise wages for 27 million Americans, raise almost a million Americans out of poverty, and increase aggregate wages by over $300 billion over 10 years. All of those are outstanding outcomes. But if that is at the expense of 1.4 million lost jobs, and the likelihood of many thousands of business closures as the CBO and economists anticipate, we should investigate, we should deliberate, and we should ultimately implement a mitigating policy that addresses those unacceptable and very preventable consequences. While we cannot accept this amendment because it does not meet the Senate parliamentary requirements relative to reconciliation, I do believe it is an important issue for businesses and employees that warrants a more robust discussion and deliberation in this body. So to that end, as my first order of business as the Chair of the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee, I intend to invite American small businesses to come before our Committee to discuss the $15 minimum wage proposal, its impact on their businesses, and how we might accomplish the trifecta of livable wages, more jobs, and thriving small businesses. They are not mutually exclusive objectives in my estimation, and I believe we can accomplish it if we simply commit to working together with intention and bipartisanship. So in closing, I would like to invite my colleague from Wisconsin to join me at that hearing and to work with me following this markup in sending a letter to the GAO requesting a study on the impact of a $15 Federal minimum wage on small businesses throughout our country. And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there any further debate on the amendment? Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, the Ranking Member wishes to be recognized. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I move to strike the last word. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair. The gentleman is making a point here with regards to the minimum wage that, you know, it is a very controversial issue, it doesn't need to be in this bill, number one, probably not going to be in it, probably get kicked out when it gets to the Senate. But, you know, number one, to have the wage set at a Federal level takes away the local folks' ability to be able to set the wage. The wages are different in New York than in my hometown here of 336 people, and from state to state. I think we need to understand that an across the board blanket $15 an hour minimum wage does not really play well in different areas around the country where it actually probably makes sense in others. The NFIB filed a report just last week and in that report it said it would cost 1.6 million jobs and cost $2 trillion to our economy. In the January 26 Roll Call Magazine there is an article there. It says just one more blow. And down below it says, ``The restaurant industry, already wracked by COVIC 19, now faces a minimum wage hike.'' This is a headline in this paper. Everybody is talking about concern about restaurants and here you have it even in the Washington papers about the fact the minimum wage is a wage destroyer, it is a small business knife in the back. I am very concerned about this. I think the gentleman has done a good job with his amendment, I certainly support it, and I ask the Committee to support it was well. With that I yield back. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there any further debate on the amendment? Mr. GARBARINO. Madam Chairwoman, it is Mr. Garbarino of New York. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is seeking recognition for? To strike the last word? Mr. GARBARINO. To strike last word. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. GARBARINO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And I just want to continue. I am from New York, as I said, and the state legislature here has increased the minimum wage. We voted a couple years ago and it will be up to $15 next year. However, when it was first increased something I heard not just from small businesses but from local governments, municipalities, towns, and cities that rely on summer employment of students, both high school and college students, to work at the parks, to clean the downtowns for summer jobs, to be lifeguards at the local town beaches, and when the minimum wage was increased in New York, the town, in order to comply with that, had to raise taxes. They couldn't cut the jobs because the parks still needed to be cleaned, they still need to be maintained, the beaches still needed to be watched or they would be shut down. So instead of shutting down services, the local municipalities had to raise taxes. And those taxes, the real property taxes, were just another increase on small businesses. So small businesses are not just going to have to deal with paying their employees more, whether it is a part-time employee student or someone who comes home from college or someone who has a full-time job and they are just looking for a second job on the weekend, they also have to deal with paying higher costs like taxes. The effects on small businesses is not just increase in their salaries, but also increase in other costs. And I think that needs to be included as well. So that is why I believe this amendment should be passed. I support my colleague because there are a lot of different costs that will affect small businesses here. Thank you, and I yield back. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there any further debate on the amendment? I am going to recognize myself in opposition to this amendment. Today's minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, which equates to a little over $15,000 a year. Let me repeat that, $15,000 a year. Just a reminder, the minimum wage was last raised in 2009. Since 2010, home prices and rent have both risen over 30 percent. Minimum wage stayed the same. Since 2010, higher education has risen by nearly 40 percent, minimum wage stuck at $7.25. A gallon of milk, $2.69 in 2009 versus $4.12 in 2020. We all like a good hamburger, 3.99 in 2009 versus 5.24 in 2020. You guessed it, minimum wage is still $7.25. As it currently stands, the minimum wage cannot pay for a two-bedroom apartment anywhere in the United States. If rent can go up every year, so can the minimum wage. The real value of the minimum wage today has been eroded since 2010. And let me say this. This is also an issue where time and again Republicans prove themselves out of touch with the American people. In Florida they say that Donald Trump won last year. The minimum wage passed with nearly 61 percent of the vote. It is popular everywhere because it is the right thing to do. In fact, 20 states increased their minimum wage starting in 2021, yet during the pandemic, because those states realized from line essential workers that are keeping us safe in hospitals, cleaning our buildings, and stocking our grocery shelves, deserve a raise. Even in the Ranking Member's home state of Missouri the minimum wage was raised to 10.35. That is higher than the 2021 increase to 9.50 under the Raise the Wage Act. The states are our laboratory of democracy, then the Federal Government should follow states like Alaska, Florida, and Ohio in supporting low-income workers. With that I yield back. And if there is any further debate on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin. I ask all Members attending virtually to please unmute yourself for the roll call. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. We will now consider the Salazar amendment, first amendment. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Florida seek recognition? Ms. SALAZAR. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, Amendment Number 17. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment 1v1, City of---- Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. SALAZAR. Thank you, Madam Chairman. The amendment that I am proposing would delay payments on economic injury disaster loans that are called as EIDL provided in response to the coronavirus for 1 year. Now we want to make it 2 years. This extension will allow small businesses who are still struggling with the economic hardships of the coronavirus to further recover before beginning to pay that initial loan that was given to them a year ago. As you know, EIDL is designed to provide small businesses with operating funds until they recover from disasters. In the past this has been used after floods or hurricanes, which are all very familiar in my district, South Florida. While the effects of the disasters can be months and even years, usually the disaster itself only lasts a few days or a few hours, like a hurricane. But Hurricane COVID has been here for almost 365 days, something that is completely unusual and completely out of order. Because of this unique situation, I am proposing to extend the start of the loan repayment for 1 additional year. Just yesterday I went to Little Havana to a store where they used to sell clothes for 30 years, very well established, and they have one very big problem: COVID is still here. They are not selling, and they cannot start paying for the EIDL loan repayment. They were just notified, though, that they have to start paying that loan this April. But as you know, we are still in the pandemic. So I am sure you agree that this is not correct, and countless others, not only in South Florida, but all across the country, small businesses cannot start dishing out money to be paying for a loan that was given to them by the Federal Government. I believe that this additional flexibility provides more time for businesses like this store that I visited yesterday, to recover before they are due or they need to make their first payments. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. And I yield back the balance of my time. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back. Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment? I will recognize myself in opposition to the amendment. The amendment is problematic because it will raise costs on the program for a period of time exceeding the 10-year period. An increase in cost is a violation of the Reconciliation Rule. But this is well intended effort to ease burdens on the small businesses; this, unfortunately, is not the appropriate vehicle for it. I will, therefore, encourage my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. But I would also like to say to the gentlelady from Florida, let us keep working on ideas like this to help the small business going forward. And with that I ask---- Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair? Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Yes. Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Ranking Member asks to be recognized. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Move to strike the last word. Thank you. I want to move in support of the gentlelady's amendment. This is something I think if you look at both of our COVID package bills, the one that passed in March, the one that passed in December, there is the extension of the Troubled Debt Restructuring Rule as well as SESA Rule that allows for some forbearance. The last bill actually allows forbearance on those two things until the end of the year. So we all recognized in both packages the fact that because of this pandemic people are struggling to be able to meet their obligations and that because of this unusual nature, this is not like a situation where a hurricane comes in and blasts everything and you are going to be out of business and have hard times in backup and money because you have no business anymore. This is a situation where once the pandemic passes and we have seen this in different states where once their lockdown stops, businesses get back engaged. The customers become engaged and suddenly, the economy takes off and businesses take off. It is a matter of getting some forbearance by the regulators to the banks and credit unions and in this situation, we are talking about the EIDL loans so that they can give forbearance to the customers so they have time to work through this. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. LUETKEMEYER. This is very important because if you---- Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Yes, I would be glad to yield. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. I look forward to working with you, to hold hearings on this program, gather input from our constituents and stakeholders, and consider a change like this under regular order. But for today's purposes and on the reconciliation instructions, which we are operating under, I must urge a no vote on this amendment, but I am looking forward to working with you. And I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Yeah, reclaim my time. I look forward with you, Madam Chair, because this is an issue that you and I have talked about this a lot on our other Committee as well as now we are talking about it on this Committee. This forbearance is a really, really big deal and I think if we can't accept this amendment today, I think that Ms. Salazar certainly has a good suspension bill here that we could put together for this Committee to be able to accept because I think it is something that is desperately needed. As she indicated, you know, the first year runs out already in April here, so, we have got some folks that are still struggling that are really going to be hurt by the--and tied up by the rules that we have. So, with that I certainly ask for a vote of yes on this and a vote of support. I understand your position, but with that, I yield back. Thank you. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there any further debate on the amendment? Ms. SALAZAR. Will the gentleman yield for a few more words? Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Time expired. Time has expired unless we could get someone, another Member to ask for--strike the last word and yield to you. Mr. MEUSER. Madam Chair, I ask to strike the last word and yield to the Congresswoman. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. May I ask who is asking for time? Mr. MEUSER. I am sorry. This is Representative Dan Meuser. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Okay. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes and he is yielding time to the gentlelady from Florida. Ms. SALAZAR. Madam Chairman Velazquez, thank you very much. I just have one question. So, what are we going to say to those people that owe that loan payment April 1st? That when I was representing them in Small Business Committee, they were telling me that, well, you, Madam Chairman, you said to us that we needed to consider this at another time and because of reconciliation, most people do not understand what that means. They do know that they have to pay the loan April 1st. So I would like you to please tell me what other words that I need to use so I can go back tomorrow and tell them that it is that we are going to do this at another time. Because another time, they still owe it. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Well, the issue here is that there are instructions and this amendment will violate the Byrd rule and, therefore, we cannot do it at this time. But there are EIDL grants that are in this package. There is nothing that will prevent and that provides flexibility as to the use of that money. So, there are other options that individuals in that position could look at that could be helpful to them while we will follow regular order and consider a standalone deal. Is there any further debate on the amendment? Seeing none-- -- Ms. DAVIDS. Madam Chair? Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Oh, who is seeking recognition? Ms. DAVIDS. Davids from Kansas. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Ms. Davids is recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. DAVIDS. Thank you, Chairwoman. I will keep it brief. I just wanted to express my desire and willingness to work with the both of you on moving this forward in regular order, post reconciliation process. I yield back. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. Is there any further debate on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentlelady from Florida. I ask all Members, please unmute yourself for the roll call. All those in favor, say aye? All those opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. We will now consider the Salazar second amendment. For what purpose does the gentlelady from Florida seek recognition? Ms. SALAZAR. I have an amendment at the desk, Amendment Number 18. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment 2v1---- Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection further reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. SALAZAR. Thank you, Madam Chairman Velazquez. The amendment is simple. It adds only two words to the section about the community navigator pilot program. It specifically adds the words ``entrepreneurial counsel'' to the description of what the community navigator pilot program should do. This crucial program will provide technical and educational support to business owners who currently lack access to adequate COVID relief resources. By adding the term ``entrepreneurial counsel'' to the list of services provided by the program, we would ensure that businesses have access to more than just basic support. Entrepreneurial counsel could include any kind of counseling, assistance, or business support that helps small businesses make decisions impacting economic growth. By adding these two simple words, we are able to provide the practical skills that small businesses in our country need to grow and to thrive, not only to maintain. By adding these two simple words, this particular critical--it is particularly critical for our low-income and underserved minority communities where you and I belong to and come from, who have suffered the most, as you know and you have said it during this hearing, from the pandemic. We know that our constituents will benefit tremendously from services like entrepreneurial counseling, which is going to be a critical part of the Prosperity Center I am opening in District Number 27, an integral part of my congressional office services down here in Miami. This is the type of assistance that I would love for my constituents to have available to them, entrepreneurial counsel. I thank you for this time and I yield back my time. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back. Do other Members wish to be recognized on this amendment? Mr. CROW. Madam Chair, Jason Crow. I would like to claim time in opposition. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. CROW. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to speak briefly in opposition to the amendment. And while I appreciate my colleague, Ms. Salazar's spirit of this and I think there is definitely something that we can do to work on this through this Committee in the months and years ahead. You know, as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Innovation Entrepreneurship and Workforce Development, what I know here is that this language that would be amended comes out of Section 6004 which actually already covers the services that would be covered under the language that you are adding. So, it could be duplicative because the 6004 language, existing language, actually describes in detail the community navigator services that are included, which include outreach, education, and technical assistance. So, we already covered the issues that would be covered under the addition of your two words. That said, you know, the problem here is, again, one of implementation and what the intent of this package is. This package is trying to deliver relief rapidly and effectively to small businesses. And if were to add these two words, which, again, are already covered by existing language in the services provided under the community navigator program, it would actually make implementation harder, slow that process down, and adversely impact the very same businesses and harm then that we are trying to save. So, you know, my promise to you is to continue this conversation. I would like to talk more about what we can do to address your concerns and whether we need to expand that language in the months and years ahead. We will have some hearings where we will be able to have that discussion and call some witnesses. But with respect to this package, it would actually create some harm by slowing the process down in a way that we already have been covered. So, with that, I will again urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and I appreciate the time and, Madam Chair, I yield back. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment? Is there any further debate on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentlelady from Florida. I ask all Members to please unmute yourself for the roll call. All those in favor, say aye? All opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. We will now consider Stauber second amendment. First? Mr. STAUBER. Stauber number 2. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Number 2. For what purpose does the gentleman from Minnesota seek recognition? Mr. STAUBER. Chairwoman Velazquez, I have an amendment at the desk. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment 2v1 to the Amendment to the Committee print offered by Mr. Stauber of Minnesota. Mr. STAUBER. Your Honor---- Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Objection for the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. STAUBER. Well, thank you, Chairwoman Velazquez and Ranking Member Luetkemeyer. You know, I raise to all of you something that has really troubled me for a long time. You know, back in August of 2020, then Presidential candidate Joe Biden stated in an interview with ABC that he would in quote, ``shut it down,'' meaning shut the economy down if he believed the COVID situation called for it. As Minnesota small businesses struggle with a governor who seems hell bent on retaining control over their livelihoods by keeping his emergency powers, I am worried now that my constituents will have to deal with a President who is going to unilaterally add more Federal restrictions and mandates, ultimately, closing up mom-and-pop shops for good. We simply cannot afford the shutdowns that President Biden is threatening us with. A top-down approach has never been wise and I hardly think it is fair to subject New York City with a population of 8.4 million to the same COVID-19 restrictions as in Ely, Minnesota, with a population of 3,500. My amendment requires the SBA to issue a report on the impact on small businesses if there is a COVID-19 related Federal mandate in place that would otherwise restrict or prevent any small business from operating at normal capacity. And I urge my support of this amendment so we can understand just how devastating a Biden Federal shutdown would be on our small businesses across this nation. Madam Chair, I yield back. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment? Ms. HOULAHAN. Madam Chair, I seek recognition to claim time in opposition to the amendment. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Ms. Houlahan? Ms. HOULAHAN. Yes, ma'am. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Yes. I am sorry. I just can't see from here. Ms. HOULAHAN. No problem. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. So, the gentlelady is recognized. For what? You have an amendment at the desk? Ms. HOULAHAN. I seek actually recognition to claim time in opposition to the amendment. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Yes, the gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. HOULAHAN. I really appreciate very much Mr. Stauber and I very much thank him for his amendment. I value him personally and his commitment to bipartisan work. Unfortunately and respectfully, this amendment that he has offered would violate the Byrd rule in the Senate. The reconciliation package that we are addressing right now is not the proper vehicle for this kind of amendment right now. As a result, I am opposed to this amendment and I urge my colleagues to oppose it as well. With that being said, the issue isn't that businesses are being impacted by public safety members--measures. It is, in fact, that too many American consumers at this point don't feel safe to return to a sense of normalcy. According to one survey, 64 percent of people are not currently engaged in normal out-of-home activities at this point in time. So, in sum, we cannot lose sight of our main and immediate focus right now and this evening, which is providing economic relief to the underserved and the hardest hit communities, and providing it quickly. To accomplish that, we are limited by strict budgetary restraints in this process and at this point by the Byrd rule. And while I oppose this amendment, I assure you, Mr. Stauber, that I would love to work with you to send a letter to the SBA to ensure that your concerns are being addressed. So, I would encourage my colleagues to reject this amendment, and with that, I yield back, Madam Chair. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back. Is there any further debate on the amendment? Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam, this is Ranking Member. I asked to be recognized. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you. Strike the last word. I appreciate the gentleman's amendment here. I think this is extremely important that we understand the effect of the lockdowns, the effect of trying to mandate certain things to happen. I know that there has been this discussion of the Byrd rule several times this evening and today. And it is unfortunate because I think we are hiding behind it to a certain extent. I think we need to allow some of these things to go on and let the Senate make the decision. If they want to throw it out, that is fine, but this is good policy. This is good legislation. This is a good way to look at revenues, to see once how these actions of bureaucrats affect the revenues and the economy that we are talking about here. I think it all works together. I do not think--you know, I think we could make a good case that it goes around the Byrd rule, but I think hiding behind it as we have is very disappointing. You know, when you talk about lockdowns, we already have a lot of case studies here that shows when you take the shackles off, the economy can blossom. I can use my own state, State of Missouri, where the lockdown was taken off in mid-May. We wound up with a 5 percent increase in revenues for the year in Missouri in 2020 over 2019. We now have a 4.4 percent unemployment rate and we have 200,000 jobs that are looking for somebody to fill them. So, we can walk and chew gum at the same time and those individuals who are political leaders in their different states, as well as other cities and counties, all they have to do is look across the country or across the state next door to them and see how this can be done. And I think, what the gentleman's amendment is trying to do is point this out, that this can be done and there is certainly an effect to the lockdowns when you have one state that is locked down and their economy is still in the tank and the state next to them is open and they are going great guns. I think those are things that we need to be looking at. And, quite frankly, if again, Madam Chair and the gentle Ms. Houlahan here also indicate that they kind of like this amendment, maybe Mr. Stauber could offer this as a suspension bill very shortly here because it is just simply asking the SBA to actually do what they are supposed to be doing. So, I support the amendment and ask for its adoption, and with that, Madam Chair, I yield back. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back and I recognize myself in opposition to the amendment. In August 21, 2020, it was then candidate Joe Biden. Today, President Joe Biden is saying that he wants to see the schools in our country to reopen. But we cannot look at this issue in terms of the shutdown isolated. We all know that unless we crush the virus, people will not feel safe to go walk into a restaurant and walk into a mall. The Federal Research Chairman Powell recently testified, and I quote, ``A full economic recovery is unlikely until people are confident that it is safe to reengage in a broad range of activities and that the key to recovery is to keep the virus in check.'' So, this amendment violates the Byrd rule and for that reason, we are asking a no vote. Is there any further debate on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Minnesota. I ask all Members to please unmute yourself for the roll call. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. We will now consider the Stauber amendment. For what purpose does the gentleman from Minnesota seek recognition? Mr. STAUBER. Chairwoman Velazquez, I have an amendment at the desk. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment 1v1 to the amendment to the Committee print offered by Mr. Stauber. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Stauber is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. STAUBER. Thank you, Chairwoman Velazquez and Ranking Member Luetkemeyer. You know, as President Biden gave his inaugural address about unity, on his first day in office he made a heartless decision to take away more jobs in the middle of an economic crisis by revoking the Keystone XL pipeline permits just hours later. Now, when President revoked those permits, he not only destroyed the livelihoods of those who worked on the pipeline, but the small business community who supported them as well. Motels that hosted the workers, restaurants that fed the workers, retail stores that supplied the workers all crushed in the blink of an eye by the President's Executive Order decision. My amendment simply will require the Small Business Administration to report on the effects of revoking these permits on small businesses. My amendment will make sure under no uncertain terms the President understands the damage and devastation he has caused with his decision. And I urge support for my amendment and I ask to keep in mind the thousands of small business owners and their families who are now facing very grave and uncertain financial futures due to this Executive Order. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment? I will recognize myself for--in opposition to the amendment. So, let me say that we, as a nation, we have an abiding commitment to promote and protect our public health and the environment, to empower our workers and communities. We listen to the science; work to improve public health; and protect our environment to ensure access to clean air and water; to limit exposure to dangerous chemicals and pesticides; to hold polluters accountable, including those who disproportionately harm communities of color and low-income communities; and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support resiliency to the impacts of climate change. Following exhaustive reviews by Federal agencies, it is clear that the proposed Keystone XL pipeline does not serve the U.S. national interests and will not provide significant energy security and economic benefits. As outlined by President Biden, we must focus on prioritizing the development of a clean energy economy which will, in turn, create good jobs around the country. The United States and the world face a climate crisis. That crisis must be met with action to avoid setting the world on a dangerous, potentially catastrophic climate trajectory. We must combat the crisis with an ambitious plan to build back better, focusing on reducing harmful emissions and creating good, clean energies. In addition to the ongoing climate crisis, we are in the midst of a national pandemic that has decimated small businesses in every congressional district across the country. Today, we must act decisively and enact legislation that provides immediate economic relief to small businesses and ensure that the SBA has the capacity to address this issue. Also, this amendment violates the Byrd rule in the Senate. And with the reasons that I also explained, I am asking for the no vote. Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment? Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, this is the Ranking Member. I ask to be recognized. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. For what purpose is the gentleman seeking recognition? Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Strike the last word. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to yield some additional time to the sponsor of the amendment, Mr. Stauber from Minnesota. Mr. STAUBER. Thank you. Thank you, Ranking Member Luetkemeyer. Madam Chairwoman, I do appreciate your comments reference my amendment, but let us talk about the jobs, the good paying jobs that were removed, thousands and thousands of good paying jobs. These jobs were going to be done by our union friends under project labor agreements and Davis-Bacon prevailing wage. Over $3.8 billion was struck out of our economy because of an Executive Order. These were American jobs. These were my friends that were going to work on this. We have to retain energy independence so we do not rely on OPEC nations anymore. We have been involved in wars over energy, oil, and gas. Today, Madam Chair, or rather tonight, it is almost 30 below 0 in Northern Minnesota. We are heating our homes with natural gas and oil to stay warm and our middle class and lower class families today have energy that they can afford. The Keystone pipeline was vetted, one of the most vetted projects in America. Our neighbors and allies and good friends from the North, our Canadian friends are disappointed, extremely disappointed at this Executive Order. This pipeline meets the EPA standards and the labor standards that we set forth and that the world tries to strive for. Madam Chair, with all due respect, this line goes through small communities from 300 people to 3,000 people. The expectation and the preparedness for those workers to be in those respective communities, to help the small businesses and help their economy grow, they were looking forward to that. My amendment simply says what was the devastation? And I respectfully yield back. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there any further debate on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Minnesota. I ask all Members to please unmute yourself for the roll call. All those in favor, say aye? All those opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Mr. STAUBER. Madam Chair, I request a recorded vote. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has requested a recorded vote. Is there a sufficient second? Mr. LUETKEMEYER. [Nonverbal response] Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. There is a sufficient second. A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to Committee rule 13 and House rule XI, further proceedings on the amendment are postponed. We will now consider the Hagedorn first amendment. For what purpose does the gentleman from Minnesota seek recognition? Mr. HAGEDORN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will record the amendment. The CLERK. Amendment 1v1---- Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection further reading on the amendment will be dispensed with. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. HAGEDORN. I appreciate that, Madam Chair. I won't take the 5 minutes. My amendment does something very simple. It allows farmers and ranchers categorized as partnerships, such as LLCs, to consider gross income when applying for Paycheck Protection Program loans. You know, currently, SBA only allows agricultural partnerships to consider their net income and by opening up to gross income, more farmers and producers can receive maximum PPP loans. I have heard from all sorts of producers in Minnesota, corn growers, pork producers, soybean growers, Farm Bureau Members, sugar beet growers, it does not matter and across the country. The farmers are really in need of this. They have been through a lot in COVID. We should open this up to get them whatever kind of things that we can in order to help sustain their operations. And with that, I would ask for consideration and support for the amendment. Thank you very much. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment? Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, this is the Ranking Member. I asked to be recognized. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. For what purpose does the gentleman from Missouri seek recognition? Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Strike the last word. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you. I will be very brief. This is the last amendment we have got. We are all ready to lock the doors on all this, but I think this is an amendment that is truly something that I think you need. It is bipartisan. Everybody can get behind this. Every single farmer, if you go talk to him, this is an issue, to fix the PPP problem that they have with access to the loans because of the way that they are structured with their farming operation. And that is what this gentleman does. It is a very simple request in what he is trying to do here, to be able to fix it and it is an unforced error here. It is something that nobody realized at the time they did it. It is something that in the past we have been able to get the Treasury just to actually fix the glitch here on their own, but they haven't seen to do it yet. So, I think by us trying to do it here, it certainly sets the stage for this to get done. I think the gentleman has got a great amendment and I certainly urge its adoption. With that, I yield back. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there any further debate on the amendment? Mr. STAUBER. Madam Chair? Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Who seeks recognition? Mr. STAUBER. Madam Chair, Stauber, Minnesota 8. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is seeking recognition to speak on the amendment, to strike the last word? Mr. STAUBER. Yes, I would like to strike the last word, Madam Chair. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. STAUBER. Madam Chair, I would just like to say a few words. I would like to thank my friend and colleague, Congressman Hagedorn, for offering this important amendment. This amendment will allow for more of our farmers and ranchers to access the maximum PPP loan amount. The challenges that the farmers and ranchers face have only been exacerbated by this COVID-19 crisis. So, I am happy to support my colleague in his call for more relief for the men and women who work hard to put food on our tables. And Madam Chair, I yield back. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there any further debate on the amendment? Mr. MFUME. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. MFUME. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I will not use all the time. I think that this is a well-intentioned amendment. I have a real serious concern, however, as to whether it will ever make it to the final bill because I think it violates the germaneness rule. And because it has in it tax policy which brings about tax implications, it would probably be better taken up by the Ways and Means Committee. I think that we are moving into an area over which this Committee may not have real jurisdiction. So, it is not to question the intention of the author or the intention of the amendment. It is just the question of whether or not it will be deemed as germane and whether or not there are tax implications that this Committee cannot address because it doesn't have oversight. So, I yield back. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there any further debate on the amendment? I will recognize myself in opposition to the amendment. I share the concerns of my colleague, Mr. Hagedorn, regarding America's farmers and ranchers, and agree that they have been particularly hard hit by the pandemic and resulting shifts in markets. As you know, Congress has provided additional relief for agricultural businesses, including direct relief from USDA, and also ensured that agricultural businesses can take advantage. And by the way, I work very hard with Congressman Antonio Delgado and the former Ranking Member to allow for farmers to be able to access both the PPP loans and EIDL. We must remember that businesses can choose how they organize and register the business. Each type of business structure has certain benefits and disadvantages. With that said, we are limited by the Byrd rule. I will have to oppose the amendment at this time. Is there any further debate on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Minnesota. I ask to please unmute yourself for the roll call. All those in favor, say aye. All those oppose, no. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Mr. HAGEDORN. Madam Chair, I request a recorded vote. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has requested a recorded vote. Is there a sufficient second? Mr. LUETKEMEYER. [Nonverbal response] Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. There is a sufficient second. A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to Committee rule 13 and House ule XI. Further proceedings on the amendment are postponed. Does any Member seek recognition to offer additional amendments? Being none, the Committee stands in recess subject to the call of the Chair. [Recess] Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The Committee will come to order. The Committee will now resume consideration of the amendments on which roll call votes were requested and postponed. In agreement with the Ranking Member and without objection, the Committee will now consider end block number 1 which includes the following seven amendments on which roll call votes were requested and postponed. Williams number 1 offered by the gentleman from Texas. Garbarino number 1 offered by the gentleman from New York. Garbarino number 2 offered by the gentleman from New York. Kim number 1 offered by the gentlewoman from California. Donalds number 1 offered by the gentleman from Florida. Hagedorn number 1 offered by the gentleman from Minnesota. Stauber number 1 offered by the gentleman from Minnesota. On end block number 1, the clerk will call the roll. The CLERK. Mr. Golden? Mr. GOLDEN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes no. Mr. Crow? Mr. CROW. No. The CLERK. Mr. Crow votes no. Ms. Davids? Ms. Davids? Ms. DAVIDS. Davids votes no. The CLERK. Ms. Davids votes no. Mr. Mfume? Mr. MFUME. No. The CLERK. Mr. Mfume votes no. Mr. Phillips? Mr. PHILLIPS. No. The CLERK. Mr. Phillips votes no. Ms. Newman? Ms. NEWMAN. Newman votes no. The CLERK. Ms. Newman votes no. Ms. Bourdeaux? Ms. BOURDEAUX. Bourdeaux votes no. The CLERK. Ms. Bourdeaux votes no. Ms. Chu? Ms. CHU. Chu votes no. The CLERK. Ms. Chu votes no. Mr. Evans? Mr. EVANS. Mr. Evans votes no. The CLERK. Mr. Evans votes no. Mr. Delgado? Mr. DELGADO. Delgado votes no. The CLERK. Mr. Delgado votes no. Ms. Houlahan? Ms. HOULAHAN. Houlahan votes no. The CLERK. Ms. Houlahan votes no. Mr. Kim? Mr. KIM. No. The CLERK. Mr. Kim votes no. Ms. Craig? Ms. CRAIG. Craig votes no. The CLERK. Ms. Craig votes no. Mr. Luetkemeyer? Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Luetkemeyer votes yes. The CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer votes aye. Mr. Williams? Mr. WILLIAMS. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Williams votes aye. Mr. Hagedorn? Mr. HAGEDORN. Hagedorn votes aye. The CLERK. Mr. Hagedorn votes aye. Mr. Stauber? Mr. STAUBER. Stauber votes yes. The CLERK. Mr. Stauber votes aye. Mr. Meuser? [No response.] The CLERK. Mr. Garbarino? Mr. GARBARINO. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Garbarino votes aye. Ms. Kim? Ms. YOUNG KIM. Is that me, Young Kim? The CLERK. Yes, Ms. Young Kim. Ms. YOUNG KIM. Kim votes aye. The CLERK. Ms. Kim votes aye. Ms. Van Duyne? Ms. Van Duyne? [No response.] The CLERK. Mr. Donalds? Mr. DONALDS. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Donalds says aye. Ms. Salazar? Ms. SALAZAR. Salazar votes yes. The CLERK. Ms. Salazar votes aye. Mr. Fitzgerald? Mr. FITZGERALD. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Fitzgerald votes aye. Ms. Velazquez? Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Ms. Velazquez votes aye--or mo. The CLERK. Ms. Velazquez votes no. Mr. Meuser? [No response.] Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Is he on? The clerk will report the tally. Mr. STAUBER. Madam Chair? Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Who seeks recognition? Mr. STAUBER. Madam Chair, Stauber from Minnesota. How am I recorded? Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk? The CLERK. Mr. Stauber voted aye. Mr. STAUBER. Thank you. The CLERK. You are welcome. Madam Chairwoman, on this vote, there were 9 ayes and 14 noes. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The end block amendment is not agreed to. The question now is on Luetkemeyer number 1, a substitute to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Missouri. The clerk will call the roll. The CLERK. Mr. Golden? Mr. GOLDEN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes no. Mr. Crow? Mr. CROW. No. The CLERK. Mr. Crow votes no. Ms. Davids? Ms. DAVIDS. Davids votes no. The CLERK. Ms. Davids votes no. Mr. Mfume? Mr. MFUME. Mfume votes no. The CLERK. Mr. Mfume votes no. Mr. Phillips? Mr. PHILLIPS. No. The CLERK. Mr. Phillips votes no. Ms. Newman? Ms. NEWMAN. Newman votes no. The CLERK. Ms. Newman votes no. Ms. Bourdeaux? Ms. BOURDEAUX. Bourdeaux votes no. The CLERK. Ms. Bourdeaux votes no. Ms. Chu? Ms. CHU. Chu votes no. The CLERK. Ms. Chu votes no. Mr. Evans? Mr. EVANS. Evans votes no. The CLERK. Mr. Evans votes no. Mr. Delgado? Mr. DELGADO. Delgado votes no. The CLERK. Mr. Delgado votes no. Ms. Houlahan? Ms. HOULAHAN. Houlahan votes no. The CLERK. Ms. Houlahan votes no. Mr. Kim? Mr. KIM. No. The CLERK. Mr. Kim votes no. Ms. Craig? Ms. CRAIG. Craig votes no. The CLERK. Ms. Craig votes no. Mr. Luetkemeyer? Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Luetkemeyer aye. The CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer votes aye. Mr. Williams? Mr. WILLIAMS. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Williams says aye. Mr. Hagedorn? Mr. HAGEDORN. Hagedorn votes aye. The CLERK. Mr. Hagedorn votes aye. Mr. Stauber? Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Stauber votes yes. The CLERK. Mr. Stauber votes aye. Mr. Meuser? Mr. MEUSER. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Meuser votes aye. Mr. Garbarino? Mr. GARBARINO. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Garbarino votes aye. Ms. Kim? Ms. YOUNG KIM. Kim votes aye. The CLERK. Ms. Kim votes aye. Ms. Van Duyne? [No response.] The CLERK. How does Ms. Van Duyne vote? Ms. YOUNG KIM. Kim voted aye. The CLERK. Thank you. Mr. Donalds? Mr. DONALDS. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Donalds votes aye. Ms. Salazar? Ms. SALAZAR. Salazar votes yes. The CLERK. Ms. Salazar votes aye. Mr. Fitzgerald? Mr. FITZGERALD. Fitzgerald votes aye. The CLERK. Mr. Fitzgerald says aye. Ms. Velazquez? Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Velazquez votes no. The CLERK. Ms. Velazquez votes no. Ms. Van Duyne? [No response.] Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the tally. The CLERK. Madam Chairwoman, on this vote there were 10 ayes and 14 noes. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The amendment is not agreed to. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the amendments in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. Mr. HAGEDORN. Madam Chair, can I have a recorded vote on that, please? I call for a recorded vote. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has requested a recorded vote. Is there a sufficient second? Mr. LUETKEMEYER. [Nonverbal response] Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. There is a sufficient second. A roll call vote is ordered. The CLERK. Mr. Golden? Mr. GOLDEN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes no. Mr. Crow? Mr. CROW. No. The CLERK. Mr. Crow votes no. Ms. Davids? Ms. DAVIDS. Davids votes aye. The CLERK. Ms. Davids votes aye. Mr. Mfume? Mr. MFUME. Mfume votes aye. The CLERK. Mr. Mfume votes aye. Mr. Phillips? Mr. PHILLIPS. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Phillips votes aye. Ms. Newman? Ms. NEWMAN. Aye. The CLERK. Ms. Newman votes aye. Ms. Bourdeaux? Ms. BOURDEAUX. Bourdeaux votes aye. The CLERK. Ms. Bourdeaux votes aye. Ms. Chu? Ms. CHU. Chu votes aye. The CLERK. Ms. Chu votes aye. Mr. Evans? Mr. EVANS. Evans votes aye. The CLERK. Mr. Evans votes aye. Mr. Delgado? Mr. DELGADO. Delgado votes aye. The CLERK. Mr. Delgado votes aye. Ms. Houlahan? Ms. HOULAHAN. Houlahan votes aye. The CLERK. Ms. Houlahan votes aye. Mr. Kim? Mr. KIM. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Kim votes aye. Ms. Craig? Ms. CRAIG. Craig votes aye. The CLERK. Ms. Craig votes aye. Mr. Luetkemeyer? Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Luetkemeyer votes no. The CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer votes no. Mr. Williams? Mr. WILLIAMS. No. The CLERK. Mr. Williams says no. Mr. Hagedorn? Mr. HAGEDORN. Hagedorn votes no. The CLERK. Mr. Hagedorn votes no. Mr. Stauber? Mr. STAUBER. Stauber votes no. The CLERK. Mr. Stauber votes no. Mr. Meuser? Mr. MEUSER. No. The CLERK. Mr. Meuser votes no. Mr. Garbarino? Mr. Garbarino? Mr. GARBARINO. No. The CLERK. Mr. Garbarino votes no. Ms. Kim? Ms. YOUNG KIM. Kim votes no. The CLERK. Ms. Kim votes no. Ms. Van Duyne? [No response.] The CLERK. Mr. Donalds? Mr. DONALDS. No. The CLERK. Mr. Donalds votes no. Ms. Salazar? Ms. Salazar? Ms. SALAZAR. Yes. Salazar votes yes. The CLERK. Ms. Salazar votes aye. Mr. Fitzgerald? Mr. FITZGERALD. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Fitzgerald votes aye. Ms. Velazquez? Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Aye. Ms. Velazquez votes aye. The CLERK. Ms. Velazquez votes aye. Ms. Van Duyne? [No response.] Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Does anyone wish to change their vote? Mr. MFUME. Madam Chair, to the clerk, how am I recorded? The CLERK. Mr. Mfume voted aye. Mr. MFUME. Thank you. The CLERK. You are welcome. Mr. CROW. Madam Chair, to the clerk, how am I recorded? The CLERK. Mr. Crow voted no. Mr. CROW. I would like to change my vote to aye. The CLERK. Mr. Crow votes aye. Mr. GOLDEN. Madam Chair, how am I recorded? The CLERK. Mr. Golden voted no. Mr. GOLDEN. Change that vote to aye. The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes aye. Mr. FITZGERALD. Clerk, I need to change my vote to no. Mr. Fitzgerald. The CLERK. Mr. Fitzgerald votes no. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the tally. Mr. HAGEDORN. Madam Chair, can we report the entire--can I make a motion that we go ahead and report the entire roll as far as their vote? Because I believe one or two Members were confused on this one. Shall I make a motion that the clerk go through the roll one more time and just explain where the vote is at this time for each Member? Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will call the vote or announce the vote of each individual Member. The CLERK. Ms. Velazquez voted aye. Mr. Golden voted aye. Mr. Crow voted aye. Ms. Davids voted aye. Mr. Mfume voted aye. Mr. Phillips voted aye. Ms. Newman voted aye. Ms. Bourdeaux voted aye. Ms. Chu voted aye. Mr. Evans voted aye. Mr. Delgado voted aye. Ms. Houlahan voted aye. Mr. Kim voted aye. Ms. Craig voted aye. Mr. Luetkemeyer voted no. Mr. Williams voted no. Mr. Hagedorn voted no. Mr. Stauber voted no. Mr. Meuser voted no. Mr. Garbarino voted no. Ms. Kim voted no. Mr. Van Duyne did not vote. Mr. Donalds voted no. Ms. Salazar voted aye. Mr. Fitzgerald voted no. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Again, does anyone wish to change their vote, his or her vote? The clerk will report the tally. The CLERK. Madam Chairwoman, on this vote there were 15 ayes and 9 noes. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The ayes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. The question now occurs on the Committee print as amended. All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed, say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the Committee print as amended is agreed to. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Maryland to make a motion. Mr. MFUME. Madam Chair, I move that the Committee transmit the Committee print as amended to the House Committee on the budget with the recommendation that the Committee do passed. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Maryland. All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. Mr. HAGEDORN. Madam Chair, I request a recorded vote. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has requested a recorded vote. Is there a sufficient second? Mr. LUETKEMEYER. [Nonverbal response] Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. There is a sufficient second. A roll call vote is ordered. The clerk will call the roll. The CLERK. Mr. Golden? Mr. GOLDEN. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes aye. Mr. Crow? Mr. CROW. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Crow votes aye. Ms. Davids? Ms. DAVIDS. Davids votes aye. The CLERK. Ms. Davids votes aye. Mr. Mfume? Mr. MFUME. Mfume votes aye. The CLERK. Mr. Mfume votes aye. Mr. Phillips? Mr. PHILLIPS. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Phillips votes aye. Ms. Newman? Ms. NEWMAN. Aye. The CLERK. Ms. Newman votes aye. Ms. Bourdeaux? Ms. BOURDEAUX. Bourdeaux votes aye. The CLERK. Ms. Bourdeaux votes aye. Ms. Chu? Ms. Chu? [No response.] The CLERK. Mr. Evans? Mr. EVANS. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Evans votes aye. Mr. Delgado? Mr. DELGADO. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Delgado votes aye. Ms. Houlahan? Ms. HOULAHAN. Aye. The CLERK. Ms. Houlahan votes aye. Mr. Kim? Mr. KIM. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Kim votes aye. Ms. Craig? Ms. CRAIG. Craig votes aye. The CLERK. Ms. Craig votes no. Mr. Luetkemeyer? Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Luetkemeyer votes no. The CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer votes no. Mr. Williams? Mr. WILLIAMS. No. The CLERK. Mr. Williams says no. Mr. Hagedorn? Mr. HAGEDORN. Hagedorn votes no. The CLERK. Mr. Hagedorn votes no. Mr. Stauber? Mr. STAUBER. Stauber votes no. The CLERK. Mr. Stauber votes no. Mr. Meuser? Mr. MEUSER. No. The CLERK. Mr. Meuser votes no. Mr. Garbarino? Mr. Garbarino? [No response.] The CLERK. Ms. Kim? Ms. YOUNG KIM. Kim votes no. I swear you would not believe the---- The CLERK. Ms. Kim votes no. Ms. Van Duyne? [No response.] The CLERK. Mr. Donalds? Mr. DONALDS. No. The CLERK. Mr. Donalds votes no. Ms. Salazar? Ms. SALAZAR. Yes, votes yes. The CLERK. Ms. Salazar votes aye. Mr. Fitzgerald? Mr. FITZGERALD. Fitzgerald votes no. The CLERK. Mr. Fitzgerald says no. Ms. Velazquez? Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Ms. Velazquez votes aye. The CLERK. Ms. Velazquez votes aye. Ms. Chu? Ms. CHU. Chu votes aye. The CLERK. Ms. Chu votes aye. Mr. Garbarino? Mr. GARBARINO. No. The CLERK. Mr. Garbarino votes no. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Does anyone want to change their vote? The clerk will report the tally. The CLERK. Madam Chairwoman, on this vote there were 15 ayes and 9 noes. Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. Pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 2L, I ask that Committee Members have the right to file with the clerk of the Committee supplemental additional minority and dissenting views without objection. Also, without objection, the staff is authorized to make necessary technical and conforming changes. The meeting is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 10:26 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] [all]