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