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