[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                       MARKUP OF: COMMITTEE PRINT

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
                             UNITED STATES
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                              HEARING HELD
                           SEPTEMBER 9, 2021

                               __________

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                               

            Small Business Committee Document Number 117-031
             Available via the GPO Website: www.govinfo.gov
             
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
45-539                     WASHINGTON : 2021                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------             
             
             
             
                   HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

                 NYDIA VELAZQUEZ, New York, Chairwoman
                          JARED GOLDEN, Maine
                          JASON CROW, Colorado
                         SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
                         KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
                        DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
                         MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois
                       CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia
                         TROY CARTER, Louisiana
                          JUDY CHU, California
                       DWIGHT EVANS, Pennsylvania
                       ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
                     CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania
                          ANDY KIM, New Jersey
                         ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
              BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri, Ranking Member
                         ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas
                        JIM HAGEDORN, Minnesota
                        PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
                        DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
                        CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York
                       ANDREW GARBARINO, New York
                         YOUNG KIM, California
                         BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas
                         BYRON DONALDS, Florida
                         MARIA SALAZAR, Florida
                      SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin

                 Melissa Jung, Majority Staff Director
            Ellen Harrington, Majority Deputy Staff Director
                     David Planning, Staff Director
                            
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
Hon. Nydia Velazquez.............................................     1
Hon. Blaine Luetkemeyer..........................................     2

                                APPENDIX

Additional Material for the Record:
    Amendment in the nature of a substitute......................    69
    Amendment Roster.............................................   159
    Amendment by Hon. Luetkemeyer 1v1............................   160
    Amendment by Hon. Luetkemeyer 2v1............................   161
    Amendment by Hon. Hagedorn 1v1...............................   163
    Amendment by Hon. Hagedorn 2v1...............................   164
    Amendment by Hon. Stauber 1v1................................   165
    Amendment by Hon. Stauber 2v1................................   167
    Amendment by Hon. Meuser 1v1.................................   168
    Amendment by Hon. Meuser 2v1.................................   169
    Amendment by Hon. Tenney 1v1.................................   172
    Amendment by Hon. Tenney 2v1.................................   190
    Amendment by Hon. Garbarino 1v1..............................   191
    Amendment by Hon. Garbarino 2v1..............................   192
    Amendment by Hon. Young Kim 1v1..............................   196
    Amendment by Hon. Young Kim 2v1..............................   198
    Amendment by Hon. Van Duyne 1v1..............................   200
    Amendment by Hon. Van Duyne 2v1..............................   201
    Amendment by Hon. Donalds 1v1................................   202
    Amendment by Hon. Donalds 2v1................................   203
    Amendment by Hon. Fitzgerald 1v1.............................   204
    Amendment by Hon. Fitzgerald 2v1.............................   206

 
                       MARKUP OF: COMMITTEE PRINT

                              ----------                              


                      THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2021

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

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]