Markup of: "Providing for Reconciliation Pursuant to S. Con. Res. 5, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2021"
Summary
The printed record of the House Committee on Small Business markup on February 10, 2021 of a Committee print providing for reconciliation pursuant to S. Con. Res. 5, the budget resolution for Fiscal Year 2021, Small Business Committee Document Number 117-003. Chairwoman Nydia Velazquez says the print adds $15 billion for targeted EIDL Advances, $1.25 billion for the Shuttered Venue Grant Program and $1.5 billion in SBA administrative expenses. She says it establishes a $25 billion grant program for independent restaurants and expands PPP eligibility to 501(c) nonprofits other than 501(c)(4) organizations. Ranking Member Blaine Luetkemeyer objects that Republicans were blocked from engaging on the legislation. The final recorded vote is 15 ayes and 9 noes, and the appendix reprints the budget resolution and material from the American Rental Association.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MARKUP OF: PROVIDING FOR RECONCILIATION
PURSUANT TO S. CON. RES. 5, THE
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
UNITED STATES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
FEBRUARY 10, 2021
__________
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Small Business Committee Document Number 117-003
Available via the GPO Website: www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
44-966 WASHINGTON : 2020
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
NYDIA VELAZQUEZ, New York, Chairwoman
JARED GOLDEN, Maine
JASON CROW, Colorado
SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois
CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia
JUDY CHU, California
DWIGHT EVANS, Pennsylvania
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania
ANDY KIM, New Jersey
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri, Ranking Member
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas
JIM HAGEDORN, Minnesota
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
ANDREW GARBARINO, New York
YOUNG KIM, California
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas
BYRON DONALDS, Florida
MARIA SALAZAR, Florida
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
Melissa Jung, Majority Staff Director
Justin Pelletier, Majority Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel
David Planning, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Hon. Nydia Velazquez............................................. 1
Hon. Blaine Luetkemeyer.......................................... 3
APPENDIX
Additional Material for the Record:
S. Con. Res. 5, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for
Fiscal Year 2021........................................... 61
American Rental Association (ARA)............................ 131
MARKUP OF: ``PROVIDING FOR RECONCILIATION PURSUANT TO S. CON. RES. 5,
THE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE
BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021''
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2021
House of Representatives,
Committee on Small Business,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 5:06 p.m., in Room
2360, Rayburn House Office Building. Hon. Nydia Velazquez
[chairwoman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Velazquez, Golden, Crow, Davids,
Mfume, Phillips, Newman, Bourdeaux, Chu, Evans, Delgado,
Houlahan, Kim of New Jersey, Craig, Luetkemeyer, Donalds,
Fitzerald, Hagedorn, Kim of California, Meuser, Garbarino,
Salazar, Stauber, and Williams.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The Committee will please come to
order. A quorum is present.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 13 and House Rule 11, Clause 2,
the Chair announces that she may postpone further proceedings
today on the question of approving the measure or matter or
adopting an amendment on which a recorded vote of the yeas or
nays are ordered.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time. So ordered.
I would like to begin by noting some important
requirements. During the covered period as designated by the
speaker, the Committee will operate in accordance with H.R.
965, which was incorporated into the 117th House Rules under
H.R. 8. Just as we did last Congress, we will follow guidance
from the Rules Committee to respect the rights of all Members
to participate. Standing House and Committee rules and practice
will continue to apply during hybrid proceedings as well. House
regulations require Members to be visible through a video
connection throughout the proceedings. Due to the nature of a
markup, it is extremely important that Members follow this rule
to ensure a quorum can be established and that Members' votes
can be recorded by the clerk.
As a reminder, Members can participate in only one
proceeding at a time. If you have another Committee proceeding
or meeting, please sign off and rejoin later.
If a Member wishes to offer an amendment that has not been
pre-filed, we may take a brief recess to allow for its
uploading, printing, and distribution, then resume. We might
also recess briefly to address technical issues in the event a
Member cannot be recognized to speak.
Finally, for those physically present in the Committee room
today, we will also be following the health and safety
guidelines issued by the physician.
The Chair recognizes herself to make an opening statement.
The Committee meets today pursuant to notice to consider
the Committee print providing for reconsideration pursuant to
S.Con.Res.5, the concurrent resolution on the budget for Fiscal
Year 2021. As required by House rules, a copy of the measure
has been made available to Members and the public at least 24
hours in advance.
Today, we will be considering legislation to further help
our nation's small employers power through this unprecedented
crisis. In the first CARES bill, Congress enacted the Paycheck
Protection Program, an economic injury disaster loan and
advanced program to provide economic relief. Unfortunately, the
pandemic outlasted that assistance. Over the course of the
year, we have held hearings, listened to the experts, and made
several improvements to the economic relief programs, mainly
making it easier for small businesses to access and use the
funds. And when we replenished the funds, we created set-asides
for the smallest of the small businesses and those in
underserved communities.
Congress empowered mission-based community lenders and
small banks to make sure the aid reached those that were left
behind. Second draw loans were also created to target aid to
the hardest hit small businesses. In recognizing that not all
small businesses can take on or even access additional debt and
therefore need direct cash infusion, we provided several grants
to support the hardest hit businesses and industries. This
Committee has heard stories from thousands of employers how
this program helped them stay in operation, keep employees on
payroll, and give them hope that there is light at the end of
the tunnel.
But nearly a year into the pandemic, millions of businesses
are on the brink of collapse. In fact, more than 400,000 small
businesses have already closed their doors for good. And
surveys show that one in three small business owners will not
survive the next few months without additional financial
support.
That is why today's measure to deliver more financial
assistance to main street and delivering it swiftly is so
critical. Today, we will consider policies that will ultimately
be included in a larger, more robust stimulus package. The
Committee print we are considering today will inject an
additional $15 billion into the targeted EIDL Advances to help
those who applied for relief in 2020 but did not receive the
full amount, or in some cases nothing at all because the funds
dried up.
Additional supplemental advances will be targeted to
businesses with extreme revenue losses in low-income areas. The
measure will also top off the shuttered Venue Grant Program
with $1.25 billion to meet anticipated demand in that program
which will help small entertaining businesses and cultural
institutions in our communities. The measure establishes a $25
billion grant program for independent restaurants that have
been dealt a tremendous blow by the pandemic. We heard in
Committee hearings that while the PPP was helpful in the short
run, it did not meet their long-term needs. Restaurants need a
long-lasting solution to make it through these cold winter
months.
It also expands PPP eligibility to 501(c) nonprofits with
the exception of 501(c)(4) organizations and permit nonprofits
with multiple locations to apply for assistance. Nonprofits
like the Goodwill and YMCA have been working tirelessly
throughout the pandemic to provide one meal and services to the
most vulnerable. They employ 12.3 million people, the third
largest workforce in the U.S. economy, but we know that they
have had to lay off nearly 900,000 employees. This aid will go
a long way in providing relief and enable them to continue to
meet the increased demands for food, childcare, and also retain
their workers. It also harmonizes PPP eligibility to include
digital news agencies and put them on par with their brick and
mortar colleagues. Doing so will not only save jobs but ensure
access to local emergency and pandemic information that is more
vital than ever.
And finally, the bill will provide $1.5 billion in
administrative expenses to the SBA to ensure that SBA can get
the programs up and running effectively and swiftly. I am proud
of the work of our Committee, and especially grateful to our
Members who are dedicated public servants.
The Chair now yields to the distinguished Ranking Member
for an opening statement, Mr. Luetkemeyer.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Our nation's small businesses are hurting. They are bearing
the brunt----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. I think you need to unmute.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I am sorry? Are we ready? Hello? Are we
ready to go?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. He is on, right? Now we can hear you.
Yes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Our nation's small businesses are hurting. They are bearing
the brunt of COVID-19. This pandemic has presented challenges
unlike anything we have witnessed in the past. Despite these
circumstances, our nation's job creators have tried their best
to move forward. They have innovated, reinvented their
offerings, and worked tirelessly to meet the needs of their
customers.
I praise each and every business from the main streets of
my home state of Missouri, to the Chair's state of New York and
beyond. It is important to note that we have data to show that
if a state opens quickly in a responsible way, small businesses
can safely operate in an environment that allows them to serve
their customers. My state of Missouri did this back in May of
2020, and we have seen an extensive benefit that this has
provided.
Although our small businesses are comprised of some of the
most innovative and agile employers and employees, ever-
changing capacity restrictions and COVID-19 shutdown measures
instituted by state and local governments have put their
livelihoods and their employees in jeopardy.
Instead of allowing them to meet safety measures, some of
the nation's smallest businesses have been forced to turn off
their lights and close their doors. In many circumstances,
these states never even provided small business with a chance
to survive. Due to COVID and these over-reaching shutdown
measures, small businesses, entrepreneurs, and startups
continue to face severe financial hardships.
As a response, the Federal government responded quickly and
efficiently in March of last year by setting up numerous
programs such as the Paycheck Protection Program, also known as
PPP. By partnering with the lenders, PPP funding was delivered
quickly to small businesses. With a focus on payroll, the
assistance was intended to ensure small businesses can pay
their workers during these unprecedented times. Through data
from the Small Business Administration, we know that this
program has assisted or saved millions of small businesses and
tens of millions of jobs.
Until now, all COVID relief packages have been bipartisan,
meaning they have been supported by both Republicans and
Democrats. Understanding the magnitude of the situation, we
worked across the aisle, compromised, and created solutions
that worked for our nation's small businesses. However, today,
we find ourselves at a Committee on Small Business markup where
our side has been blocked from engaging on the proposed
legislation as topics of such importance were drafted without
our thoughts or our ideas.
This is a shame and a disgrace. I would like to remind my
colleagues on the other side that prior to COVID-19, small
businesses were projecting confidence, optimism, and job
creation all around. And program policies resulted in historic
unemployment levels across the board by focusing on a small
regulatory environment combined with lower taxes, small
businesses have economic freedom and economic opportunity to
innovate and expand. Unfortunately, things are now moving in
the opposite direction, not only with this COVID package and
the haphazard hazard discussion surrounding raising the minimum
wage, but also with the recent administration action overall
taken by the president. From eliminating good paying jobs with
his Executive Order on the Keystone Pipeline, to refusing to
police regulatory burdens, small businesses will be facing new
challenges beyond COVID.
Small businesses are in a precarious position. Any added
mandates will be counterproductive.
With that, I look forward to actually having a discussion
and our first input on the proposed legislation before us
today. I know Committee Republicans have valuable ideas and I
hope they are seriously considered by my colleagues.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
Does any Member seek recognition for making a statement at
this time?
Mr. Evans from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EVANS. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I thank the Chair for all the leadership she has provided
to this Committee. She has worked tirelessly to make sure small
businesses, especially minority-owned businesses, get relief
during this economic crisis.
Coming from Philadelphia where the poverty rate is over 24
percent, I believe small businesses are crucial to economic
parity.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Hey, I just got a call from Beth Van
Duyne. Is she in the----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman from Pennsylvania can
proceed.
Mr. EVANS. COVID-19 has been devastating to many
businesses, but especially to minority-owned businesses. From
February to April 2020, COVID wiped out 41 percent of Black-
owned businesses, 32 percent of Hispanic-owned, and 26 percent
of Asian-owned businesses compared to just 17 percent of White-
owned businesses. And Black business owners are not feeling
optimistic.
According to a recent published Federal Reserve Bank Report
of New York, 73 percent of White-owned businesses were found to
be healthy or stable compared to just 42 percent of Black-owned
businesses.
It is important to understand that what Congress has done
when they passed the CARES Act in March of last year, which
created temporary relief with programs such as the Paycheck
Protection Program, the Economic Disaster Loan Program, PPP,
which received additional funds in this bill, has been
especially crucial.
A small business owner in my district who employees over 50
people was able to use PPP to keep their business afloat
without letting their employees go. At the end of the year,
they had additional funds for emergencies. EIDL Advance created
the Shuttered Venue Operators Grant Program. This package
bridged until we could provide more relief. The pandemic has
especially hurt the restaurant industry due to the unique
structure.
Restaurants are an important part of our communities and
our economy, which is why I want to see them survive. Many
restaurants in my district have been waiting for relief while
they have continued to beg for more funds. While the most
recent package will allow restaurants to get bigger PPP loans,
this was not enough. I support the Restaurant Act together with
my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee.
The $25 billion Restaurant Act based on the Restaurant Act
which will help thousands of restaurant owners, it is important
to understand that that is a very important start of providing
grants of $10 million to those restaurants suffering because of
the pandemic. Further, an additional $15 billion funding for
EIDL Advance is absolutely needed, as many businesses in my
district did not receive EIDL Advances and only received a
reduced amount.
Small Business Development Centers, Women Business
Development Centers, and other organizations provided critical
guidance and assistance to small businesses. They have helped
thousands of small businesses in Pennsylvania navigate SBA
programs, as well assist small businesses comply to the new
norm. My local Small Business Development Center at Temple
University created new programs with funds in the CARES Act,
the Center for Hospitality, and the Center for Digital
Transformation for Small Businesses. Because of the remarkable
work of these programs, I support the creation of the Community
Navigator Program that will help provide $100 million in grants
for such organizations and $75 million for outreach and
education.
Again, because of the leadership of this Committee, the
Chair has shown all of us what it is to work together. She has
made it very clear that small and minority businesses are a
priority. That is why I am glad to see the program prioritize
businesses in underserved communities. I hear far too often
that small businesses in my district are struggling to get
financial documents prepared. This bill provides such needed
relief to small businesses. I look forward to passing it in our
Committee.
I thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
Does any Member seek recognition for making an opening
statement at this time?
Ms. BOURDEAUX. Madam Chairwoman?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Will you please identify yourself and
the state?
Ms. BOURDEAUX. This is Carolyn Bourdeaux.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Who is seeking recognition?
Ms. BOURDEAUX. Carolyn Bourdeaux.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Carolyn Bourdeaux, you are recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. BOURDEAUX. Thank you so much.
Madam Chairwoman, I rise in support of the bill before the
Committee today as we work to deliver on our promise to help
the American people and small businesses who are the economic
drivers of our communities.
This legislation targets critical assistance to the hardest
hit small businesses who have been struggling for nearly a year
to withstand the economic crisis caused by COVID-19. The
creation of the Restaurant Revitalization Fund will help
support the 1,600 restaurants located in my congressional
district who are part of the economic foundation of the diverse
and rich community of Georgia's 7th Congressional District.
We know that the COVID-19 pandemic has devastated the
restaurant industry as necessary restrictions on indoor dining
have forced businesses to let employees go and many have had to
permanently close their doors. In Georgia, hundreds of
thousands of workers rely on restaurants and the foodservice
industry to make a living, including over 35,000 restaurant
workers in my district. This bill with the $25 billion
allocated for restaurants through the Restaurant Revitalization
Fund ensures that restaurants can sustain jobs that can be
there waiting for them after we defeat the COVID-19 pandemic.
The pandemic has not affected all businesses equally.
Minority-owned businesses and small mom and pop shops have been
hit extremely hard by the economic effects of the pandemic, and
this is why the bill provides critical assistance to businesses
with 10 employees or less through $15 billion in additional
funding for the targeted Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program
and direct support to particularly vulnerable businesses in
low-income census tracts to ensure that we take care of those
who may have fallen through the cracks.
Over the past year, Congress has allocated significant
resources to help small businesses weather the effects of the
COVID-19 pandemic. Much of this assistance has helped
businesses keep their doors open even in the most challenging
of circumstances.
However, many small businesses have yet to receive help,
either because they are not aware that they qualify, or they do
not know how to utilize important features of these programs
such as loan forgiveness. In my district, information gaps and
lack of resources to adequately reach these small businesses
have resulted in a disparate recovery and inequities with
respect to both access to capital and loan forgiveness. As we
continue to provide significant support for small businesses
amid this crisis, we must ensure that no business that
qualifies for aid is left behind. The Community Navigator pilot
program included in this bill will provide very important
resources to trusted community organizations who are on the
frontlines to help educate business owners and the public on
opportunities to use these lifelines.
This program is a very prudent investment and important
step towards ensuring that every small business, especially
those owned by socially and economically disadvantaged
individuals, minority communities, women, and veterans, can
access the assistance they need.
Finally, I am proud to represent a district which contains
a number of community theaters, including the Aurora Theater in
Lawrenceville, which would benefit from the Shuttered Venue
Operator Grant Program funding provided by this bill. Live
music and performance venues play such a vital role in our
communities and we must do all we can to ensure that these
institutions are able to survive this pandemic.
I thank the Committee for their hard work in producing the
bill before us today, and I look forward to continuing to
ensure that all small businesses have access to the resources
they need to survive the COVID-19 pandemic and reopen when it
is safe to do so.
Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. The gentlelady yields
back.
Does any Member seek recognition at this time?
Ms. CHU. Yes, I do. Judy Chu.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady from California, Judy
Chu, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. CHU. Madam Chair, I would like to thank Chairwoman
Velazquez for offering today's legislation to fulfill our
Committee instructions to deliver for the millions of small
businesses that are still facing near-impossible circumstances
due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
We have a duty to ensure that they have the resources and
assistance they need to survive this crisis without
compromising the health of their customers, employees, and the
community. That is precisely what this legislation
accomplishes, and it comes at a crucial moment for our
country's small businesses. New cases, hospitalizations, and
deaths recently spiked almost unthinkable levels with all but
one-fifth of the total deaths in this pandemic occurring over
the last 6 weeks. And while our vaccination system improves
every day, there is still a long way to go to defeat the virus.
We know that these precarious conditions are costing small
businesses. According to the Census Bureau, more small business
owners reported decreasing weekly revenue at the start of this
year than at any other time since last June. It is clear they
need more help, and I am proud that this Committee is doing its
part to deliver that assistance expeditiously.
We are doing that by building on the strong foundation of
support laid by Congress since we passed our first COVID
Response bill in March of last year. Since those early days of
the pandemic, we have heard from struggling small businesses,
from community lenders, from SBA's resource partners, from SBA
and Treasury leadership. Each of us have heard from countless
small businesses in our own districts that have warned us to
make bipartisan improvements to our relief programs.
In my district, my small business owners were among the
country's first to feel the impacts of the pandemic, but they
could not find banks to process their PPP applications when the
program first launched. Stories like theirs help Congress to
establish set-aside lending authority for community financial
institutions and now this legislation takes another step in the
right direction by creating a new Community Navigator program
to directly connect underserved businesses to COVID relief. It
also expands PPP eligibility to all struggling nonprofits, and
I am so pleased that this legislation includes $25 billion for
new restaurant revitalization funds.
Like live venues, restaurants and bars simply just cannot
operate at full capacity safely, and that is through no fault
of their own. The science tells us that indoor dining is an
incredibly risky activity for COVID spread and this provision
will allow these establishments to stay afloat without having
to put their staff or customers at risk just to make ends meet.
This also illustrates an important point that I hope does
not get lost in the debate at this markup. This legislation is
about helping small businesses, but it is also about defeating
the virus. We are now reporting an average of almost 1.5
million vaccine doses administered each day and can see the
light at the end of the tunnel. But to get there we all must
continue to do our part to limit spread. This bill provides
small businesses with the tools and assistance to do just that
without closing their doors for good.
I support this legislation and I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back.
Does any Member seek recognition for making a statement?
The first item on our agenda today is the Committee print
providing for reconciliation pursuant to S.Con.Res.5, the
concurrent resolution on the budget for Fiscal Year 2021.
The clerk will report the bill.
The CLERK. Providing for reconciliation----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, the first reading
of the Committee print is dispensed with.
Without objection, the Committee print shall be considered
a thread and open for amendment at any point.
The Chair now recognizes herself to offer an amendment in
the nature of a substitute to the Committee print.
The clerk will report the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The CLERK. Amendment 1v2 to the Committee print----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
Without objection, the substitute will be considered as
original text for the purposes of further amendments.
So ordered.
I would now like to recognize the Ranking Member for 5
minutes for a statement on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to
thank you for thinking through some of these issues.
Unfortunately, I oppose the approach you have taken. Not
only has it been conducted in a manner that goes against the
bipartisan tradition of this Committee, but it unwisely
increases program eligibility and allocates dollars in a
misguided manner.
Before I get into the substance of the bill, I want to
comment briefly on the long, bipartisan tradition of this
Committee and the bipartisanship that has previously been the
blueprint for addressing COVID relief.
Historically, this Committee has worked on behalf of small
businesses across the country. No matter the issue, we have
found a way to come together and develop a solution that
addresses the needs of the nation's innovators. Congress has
approached every single COVID relief bill since the beginning
of March in a bipartisan manner. Both sides compromised and
agreed on the best path for America.
Unfortunately, this Congress and the new administration are
taking a different approach, and the resulting legislative
package we have before us proves just that. Less than 2 months
ago, the former president signed the December COVID Relief Bill
directing $325 billion to our nation's small businesses. While
the Small Busines Administration and Department of Treasury
acted quickly to restart the PPP program, many of the other
small business programs addressed in the bill have still not
been activated by the agencies. And yet, here we are today
spending another $50 billion on many of these same programs.
On behalf of our nation's small businesses, entrepreneurs,
and startups, let's resolve to work to ensure the reforms and
enhancements that were voted on in December are launched and
implemented correctly.
I also have concerns that we are expanding the Paycheck
Protection Program beyond the original intent of Congress by
removing the critically important affiliation rules that help
patrol the size of eligible entities from entering into this
critical government assistance program.
Additionally, our side has consistently objected to sending
dollars to Planned Parenthood. This leaves the door wide open
for them to receive direct funding. Quite frankly, Madam Chair,
this is unacceptable.
This legislative package also continues down the path of
inviting fraud into government programs. Report after report
from SBA's Office of Inspector General and Government
Accountability Office have cited concerns with fraud. In order
to move forward with many of these grant programs, we need to
seriously consider oversight measures that will ensure American
taxpayer dollars are protected.
We are willing to work in a bipartisan manner to refine and
improve many of these programs. We support assisting the
hardest hit businesses, including additional targeted funding
to restaurants but we must do it in a smart approach. Overall,
I must oppose this amendment and the interim substitute offered
by the Chair, and at this time, I would like to yield to the
Vice Ranking Member of the Full Committee, the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Williams.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Ranking Member.
I would also like to state my opposition to the A&S in its
current form. When this legislation turns away from the
bipartisan nature of the previous COVID-19 bills that have come
through Congress, this is purely partisan. It is a political
process that is limiting the ability of Republican Members to
have any input on the final product. There are already rumors
that Democrats have been instructed not to vote in favor of any
Republican amendment that will be offered during this markup
and I hope that is not true. I think we are bigger than that.
As an example of bipartisanship in the last COVID-19 relief
bill, I worked for many months on the Save Our Stages
legislation. This bill was widely supported on both sides of
the aisle and garnered over 100 bipartisan co-sponsors while we
were educating other Members of Congress about the unique needs
of the live music industry.
This vital piece of legislation was included in the bill
that passed in December and even though it is now February,
these heavily affected industries are still waiting for the SBA
to administer this program.
I would think instead of working to get the bipartisan
programs up and running, we are now turning to other partisan
priorities. I truly believe we could come together again for
the American people and work on a bipartisan relief measure.
Unfortunately, this bill introduces provisions such as giving
Planned Parenthood access to relief funds, increasing minimum
wage to $15, which I can tell you as a business owner now
employing hundreds of people, that is a job killer. And other
union giveaways that will force me to oppose this legislation
in its current form.
I think we can, I think we must do better for this nation.
We need to continue implementing America First policies to help
small businesses and reopen the economy so our country can
flourish when the COVID-19 pandemic subsidies.
I yield my time back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I yield back to the Chair.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. We will now move to considering
amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The
Chair would like to note that while the amendment in the nature
of a substitute to the Committee print is open for amendment at
any time, for the convenience of Members and staff we will be
considering amendments in the order they are listed on the
roster provided to your office electronically.
The Chair now recognizes herself to offer a manager's
amendment.
The clerk will please report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment 1v1 to the amendment----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, the reading of the
amendment is dispensed with.
I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
This manager's amendment makes technical edits to correct
typographical errors and remove bracketed text or placeholders
inadvertently left in the print.
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
We will now proceed to consider pre-filed amendments in the
order listed in the amendment roster starting with the
gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Luetkemeyer.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, are you going to have a vote
on the manager's amendment first?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. We do not need it, sir.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay. Very good. Okay, I appreciate that.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I do have an amendment. It is at the desk. Is it ready to
be discussed?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has an amendment at the
desk and the clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Substitute Amendment 1v1, the amendment to the
Committee print offered by Mr. Luetkemeyer----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of
the amendment will be dispensed with.
The Ranking Member now is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair.
We are all aware of the impact small businesses have on our
economy. They propel it. They steer it. They land it. Simply
put, small businesses are one of the most import segments of
our economy. While I certainly appreciate your effort to
bolster our small business constituency, Madam Chair, I feel
that there are just too many extraneous subdivisions in the
amendment in the nature of a substitute that you have offered.
We have two excellent, proven, and results-oriented
programs that have answered the call over the last 2 years and
I believe we should bolster them instead of creating new
programs. Of course, I am speaking of the Paycheck Protection,
or PPP program, and the Economic Injury Disaster Loan program,
or EIDL. Additionally, I would like to add that these ideas
were the ones that a few center Republicans brought to
President Biden at the beginning of the month. They are
thinking about these ideas, and so are we.
Madam Chair, under your leadership and the Biden
administration, the Biden administration has given us another
$50 billion to work with. We should put those funds into
established programs that have proven results. My amendment
would strike everything before us and simply put $40 billion
into the established PPP program and $10 billion into the
proven EIDL program. But also reserve $25 million for the
appropriated funds for SBA's Office of Inspector General to
support their efforts to conduct oversight of these programs
instead of creating new grant programs. This is a demonstrated
way to get these funds into the hands of the people who can use
it best.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. And with
that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
Do any other Members seek recognition?
Ms. CRAIG. Madam Chair, this is Congresswoman Angie Craig,
and I seek time in opposition to the Ranking Member's
substitute amendment.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. CRAIG. Thank you so much, Chairwoman.
Colleagues, the Ranking Member's substitute, among many
troubling, proposed changes, would strike section 603 of the
amendment in the nature of a substitute we are considering
which deals with support for restaurants.
As you all know, it has been nearly a year since the COVID-
19 pandemic forever changed American life, leaving millions of
our constituents jobless and burdening countless new and
unprecedented challenges. Restaurants were some of the first
businesses to understand the devastating economic impact of
this public health crisis and they are still feeling the
effects.
In April of last year alone, more than 5 million restaurant
workers lost their jobs, accounting for more than 25 percent of
the job losses nationwide that month. I saw beloved family-
owned restaurants across my district, like Jo Jo's Rise and
Wine in Burnsville and Granny Donuts in West St. Paul close
their doors for good. Other restaurants have laid off staff or
cut hours just to stay afloat. It is our responsibility in
Congress to ensure we do not lose any more of these vital
businesses or jobs that they offer in our communities.
Last year, I joined many of my colleagues as a co-sponsor
of the Restaurants Act legislation, and I am again supporting
in the 117th Congress. And over the past year I have repeatedly
joined similar efforts to deliver relief directly to our small,
struggling, independent restaurants.
Just a few days ago, I sent a congressional leadership
letter with some of my colleagues in the Minnesota delegation,
including fellow Committee Member Dean Phillips. In that letter
we reiterated the urgent need for this assistance and urged
negotiators to include it in the text that we are considering
here today. As a result of that work and the advocacy of so
many Americans, I am pleased to say that the long-overdue
relief grant program for restaurants has been included in
today's markup.
The Restaurant Revitalization Fund has the potential to
help nearly 500,000 independent restaurants, as well as their
11 million employees whose futures have been in jeopardy every
single day since this public health crisis started. Restaurants
are the beating heart of every single one of our communities.
Let's stand up for them and reject the substitute that the
Ranking Member here today, the gentleman, has sought that would
strip this relief from our community's most cherished small
businesses.
I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back.
Is there any further debate on the amendment?
There is further debate on the amendment? Any other Member
who would like to be recognized?
I will recognize myself for 5 minutes.
I share my colleague, Mr. Luetkemeyer's commitment to small
businesses, but I will have to respectfully disagree with this
amendment in the nature of a substitute. Over the course of the
past year, we held hearings, listened to experts, and made a
number of improvements to the Economic Relief program, mainly
making it easier for small businesses to access and use the
funds. And while the PPP and the EIDL program have helped
millions of small businesses, we heard testimony just this past
week that these programs were not tailored to meet the unique
needs of restaurants and other hard-hit businesses.
We also heard that they were not meeting the needs of the
undeserved communities. Put simply, these programs are not
enough. That is why we developed a comprehensive package that
targeted aid to the minority small businesses in the hardest
hit industry.
I think it is also important to note that the Senate voted
90 to 10 expressing its bipartisan support for the bill to help
restaurants. Restaurants have lost over 2.4 million jobs since
the start of the pandemic, far more than any other industry.
They are in crisis and the PPP is not working for them.
In the second quarter of 2020, restaurants lost over $220
billion in revenue and received less than 18 percent of their
losses in the PPP. For restaurants, the PPP was a 10-week
solution to what is becoming a year to 18 long problem
(phonetic). That is why we are providing $25 billion to
establish a grant program to help restaurants. They need a
long-lasting solution like grants to make it through the cold
winter.
It is for all those reasons that I oppose the gentleman's
amendment.
I ask if there is any further debate on this amendment.
Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the
gentleman from Missouri.
I ask all Members attending virtually to please unmute
yourselves for the roll call.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The
amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Madam Chair, I request a recorded vote.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has requested a
recorded vote. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 13 and House Rule 11, further
proceedings on the amendment are postponed.
We will now consider the second Luetkemeyer amendment.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Missouri seek
recognition?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I have an amendment at the desk, Madam
Chair.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment 2v1 to the amendment----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of
the amendment will be dispensed with.
The Ranking Member is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair.
This is a simple, straightforward amendment that increases
the money allocated to the Small Business Administration's
Office of Inspector General by an additional $25 million.
Let me just set the scene here. In the last 11 months,
Congress has appropriated approximately $1 trillion in loan and
loan guaranty programs for COVID relief. Over $600 billion of
those dollars have been dispersed by the SBA. This level and
speed of spending is extraordinary, beyond anything we have
ever seen in the history of this country, and unfortunately,
saw many instances of fraud and abuse. The SBA's Office of
Inspector General operates at the frontlines of this war we are
waging against the toll of COVID-19 on small businesses,
safeguarding taxpayers' hard-earned dollars, and holding the
SBA accountable for the administration of their loan programs.
Already, the SBA OIG has flanked several deficiencies in SBA's
implementation of the Paycheck Protection Program, and serious
concerns of fraud and economic injury in the Disaster Loan
Program. We must ensure that this office has the resources it
needs to continue doing the enormously important work of
holding the SBA accountable. This amendment does just that.
Madam Chair, we have got two duties as legislators. One is
to put legislation out to solve problems and improve the lives
of our citizens, as well as to provide oversight over those
programs that we implement.
I realize that you guys have been told apparently up above
what the rumor is that you cannot accept any amendment, but to
not put money in the Office of the Inspector to continue to
provide the oversight which we, as legislators, as part of our
duty to empower them to be able to do this, to make sure these
programs are administered correctly, that would not be adhering
to the actual duties of our job.
With that, Madam Chair, I urge for adoption of the
amendment, and I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment?
I will recognize myself in opposition.
Ranking Member Luetkemeyer, it has been a pleasure to work
with you as our Committee exercises our oversight
responsibilities of the Small Business Administration. This has
been an unprecedented time for the SBA with additional funding
and authority put in place to address the issues facing small
businesses around the country. As we are all aware, there have
been some challenges and growing pains with ramping up and
implementing vital programs such as PPP and EIDL.
While I appreciate the desire to provide more funding and
support for the SBA Office of Inspector General, at this time,
increasing the authorization by an additional $25 million over
what is currently in the bill will exceed the rules of this
budget reconciliation process. And I just want to make sure
that we included $25 million in this bill for the Office of
Inspector General.
With that said, I will be voting no on this amendment but
stand ready to work with you and Members of this Committee to
carry out our responsibility and to support the work of the
SBA's Office of Inspector General.
Do any other Members wish to be recognized on the
amendment?
Is there any other further debate?
Seeing none, the none, the question is on the amendment by
the gentleman from Missouri.
I ask all Members attending virtually to please unmute
yourself for the roll call.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The
amendment is not agreed to.
We will now consider the Williams amendment.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Texas seek
recognition?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment 1v1 to the amendment to the Committee
print----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of
the amendment will be dispensed with.
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
My amendment would make Planned Parenthood and any
affiliates or clinic ineligible for a loan under the Paycheck
Protection Program.
When COVID-19 hit the United States, it was clear that we
needed to provide relief to help keep small businesses afloat.
However, just because we are facing a global pandemic, we
cannot disregard our core principles to protect the lives of
the unborn. Like many of my colleagues, I was outraged to learn
that 37 Planned Parenthood affiliates were able to obtain over
$80 million through the Paycheck Protection Program. Money that
is intended to assist our most vulnerable small businesses
during COVID should do just that and not fund abortions.
Abortions are neither essential procedures nor healthcare, and
we cannot allow the country's largest abortion provider to
receive a second time loan.
As COVID has continued to impact all aspects of American
lives, our small businesses' aid programs should prioritize the
most affected industries instead of giving funds to an entity
that devalues the sanctity of life.
For decades, Congress has passed the Hyde Amendment to
prevent taxpayer dollars from going towards abortion. This
bipartisan provision ensured that half the country that is
vehemently opposed to abortion would not have to worry about
their taxpayer dollars going towards this horrible practice. My
amendment would similarly ensure taxpayer-funded programs
designed for small businesses are not being accessed by the
largest abortion provider in the country. I am proud to
continue fighting for the unborn and urge everyone to support
my amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment?
Ms. CHU. Yes. This is Judy Chu.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. For what purpose does the gentlelady
from California seek recognition?
Ms. CHU. I would like to strike the last word.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. CHU. Madam Chair, I urge a strong no vote on this
amendment.
I find it very troubling that our Republican colleagues
have taken their time to engage in partisan attacks on Planned
Parenthood Health Centers by using a public health crisis to
attack access to essential reproductive healthcare. For
decades, nonprofits such as Planned Parenthood have played an
integral role in the social and economic well-being of the
U.S., and for that reason, the CARES Act made 501(c)(3)
nonprofits eligible for PPP loans.
Planned Parenthood and its workers are on the frontlines
providing vital healthcare services through the pandemic. For
many patients, local Planned Parenthood Health Centers are the
only source of healthcare. The unfortunate reality is the
pandemic has made existing barriers to care worse for many of
the communities they serve. This care is needed now more than
ever with STI rates soaring and increased barriers to sexual
and reproductive healthcare during this public health crisis.
Planned Parenthood Health Centers also create jobs that
benefit cities and states spurring economic growth. Paycheck
Protection Program loans have ensured that health centers can
retain staff and continue to provide patients with essential
time-sensitive sexual and reproductive health care during this
crisis. Now, more than ever, we know the importance of a strong
healthcare workforce.
Let me remind you that Planned Parenthood Health Centers
are located in a diverse set of communities, and in fact, 57
percent are in rural or medically-undeserved areas. This is
just another Republican attack on the healthcare for Americans
whose only access to reliable, safe, and cost-effective
treatment is in these centers. This is not the time to play
politics. It is certainly not the time to reduce access to
critical healthcare.
While local Planned Parenthood Health Centers are focusing
on providing critical healthcare for the communities during
this pandemic, anti-choice extremists are focused on attacking
critical safety net providers. And in fact, according to the
Johns Hopkins University, the nonprofit workforce has lost
930,000, nearly a million, compared to pre-COVID levels
representing a 7.4 percent decline from its pre-pandemic
levels.
Planned Parenthood, like other nonprofits, such as the
YMCA, Boys and Girls Club of America, United Way, and Goodwill
met the requirements of the PPP program. In fact, each Planned
Parenthood member organization is its own independent, not-for-
profit tax-exempt organization with an independent board of
directors that is the sole decisionmaker for all governance,
finance, and operations of its organization. And, we see none
of the same type of treatment given by Republicans for other
organizations like hate groups, anti-vaccine groups, anti-
abortion crisis pregnancy centers, and Trump and Kushner
properties, all of which received PPP loans.
It is critical that PPP be implemented in a uniform manner
that does not target any entity for exclusion, especially if
you are doing it for political ideology.
I strongly oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to
vote no.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back.
Is there any further debate on the amendment?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, this is Luetkemeyer from
Missouri. I ask to be recognized.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I move to strike the last word.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I support the gentleman from Texas's amendment and urge its
adoption. The conversation about who can take Paycheck
Protection Program or Economic Injury and Disaster Loans has
been going on for almost a year. However, this specific
amendment addresses not only a conversation but a battle that
we have continuously fought our Democratic colleagues for
decades. It is a fight for human lives, for the unborn, and our
constituencies yet to be heard. Under no circumstances should
there be any loopholes present in legislation drafted by
Congress that would allow Planned Parenthood from profiteering
on our citizens' tax dollars.
The comment was made previously that we are playing
politics with this amendment. I would argue that the majority
party is playing politics with this issue again knowing the
passion that we have on our side for this issue against what
they are trying to do. Time and time again, we have had to stop
the reckless funneling of American tax dollars into the
abortion-selling business.
Let me be very clear. Main street businesses which have
suffered throughout the pandemic deserve the support of
Congress, but giant corporations that quite literally suck the
life out of people do not. This amendment supports our small
businesses, which provide opportunity and income to families
and communities and prevents dollars from going to an
organization that seeks to do just the opposite.
I urge its adoption, and with that, Madam Chair, I yield
back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlemen yields back.
Is there any further debate on this amendment?
Let me say that I am in opposition. I claim 5 minutes in
opposition to this amendment.
You know, as we enter the vaccine distribution phase,
Planned Parenthood affiliates have indicated that they are
willing to help distribute the vaccine. And Planned Parenthood,
like other nonprofits, are integral to the economic well-being
of their community. They provide quality, high-paying jobs in
their communities. And Planned Parenthood, like other
nonprofits such as the YMCA, Boys and Girls Club of America,
United Way, and Goodwill, they met the requirements of PPP
program, so there is no reason why we need to discriminate
against Planned Parenthood. For that reason we ask a no vote.
Is there any further debate on the amendment?
Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the
gentleman from Texas.
I ask all Members attending virtually to please unmute
yourself for the roll call.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Madam Chair, I request a recorded vote.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I request a recorded vote, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. A recorded vote has been requested.
Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
A roll call vote is ordered.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 13 and House Rule 11, further
proceedings on the amendment are postponed.
We now consider the Williams second amendment.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Texas seek
recognition?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment 2v1 to the amendment to the Committee
print offered by Mr. Williams----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of
the amendment will be dispensed with.
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
My amendment would direct the administrator of the SBA to
make sure that previously passed relief programs within the SBA
are operational and getting money to businesses in need before
they take on any additional projects in this new bill.
Last July, I was proud, as I said, to introduce the Save
Our Stages Act to provide grants to independent music venues
impacted by COVID-19. These businesses were some of the first
to close their doors because of the pandemic and will be some
of the last to reopen. Without Federal assistance, these
cultural staples of their communities would never be able to
survive the mandated government shutdowns.
In the relief package we passed in December, a version of
Save Our Stages, called the Shuttered Venue Operator Grant
Program, was included to provide much-needed relief to music
venues and other heavily affected industries. These venues were
thrilled that they were finally being received and having some
assistance. However, it is now February, looking at March, and
this program is still not accepting applications and getting
money out the door.
As the businesses wait for this program to become active,
they are excluded from tapping into other forms of small
business relief. This is forcing businesses to decide between
waiting for this program and it is tailored to their unique
needs to begin accepting applications or applying for PPP to
receive immediate assistance.
It has now been 45 days since the program was signed into
law, and it is unacceptable that these businesses still cannot
apply. Instead of continuing to ask and task the SBA with more
programs to manage, they must first prioritize the programs
they have already been authorized by law to do. The livelihoods
of small business Americans are at stake and we owe it to them
to follow through on our promises. I urge everyone to support
my amendment and help get the Shuttered Venue Operator Grant
Program up and running. It is good for America. It means more
jobs.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, this is----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Ranking Member, for what purpose are
you seeking recognition?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I ask to be recognized.
I move to strike the last word.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I support the gentleman from Texas's amendment and urge its
adoption.
Over the last year, Congress has worked in a bipartisan
manner to create, administer, and oversee a multitude of new
programs and initiatives designed to respond to the COVID-19
pandemic. These small business, through no fault of their own,
have been forced to close their doors. Or if they are lucky
enough to live in certain states, allowed to operate at 50
percent, 25 percent capacity due to state or local ordinances.
The bottom line is we need to reopen our country. The gentleman
from Texas's amendment prioritizes the established programs
that Congress has already created to respond to this pandemic
as opposed to anything new that may or may not work. We have
the tools in place already to solve this. This amendment
prioritizes those recognized solutions to ensure small
businesses have a clear lay of the land as they lead us out of
these difficult times.
With that, Madam Chair, I urge the adoption, and I yield
back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
I will claim time in opposition.
This amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. Williams, will
violate the Byrd Rule in the Senate. While I understand the
concerns that SBA must publish rules and issue guidance
quickly, we have to get the economic relief out to small
businesses without delay. While I oppose the amendment, I
assure the gentleman that I will work with you to send a letter
to SBA to ensure concerns are being addressed.
And with that, I yield back.
Is there any further debate on the amendment?
Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the
gentleman from Texas.
I ask all Members attending virtually to please unmute
yourself for the roll call.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The
amendment is not agreed to.
We will now consider the Meuser Amendment.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Pennsylvania seek
recognition?
Mr. MEUSER. Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment 1v1 to the amendment----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of
the amendment will be dispensed with.
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MEUSER. Thank you, Madam Chair.
When Congress reopened the PPP program for a second round,
the intent was to tailor these funds to businesses that were
most impacted by the pandemic. As the rule is currently
written, businesses are eligible for a second draw of PPP if
they have less than 300 employees, they have used their first
PPP loan for eligible expenses and can demonstrate at least a
25 percent reduction in revenue from 2019 to 2020. To calculate
the 25 percent revenue reduction, a borrower must compare gross
receipts from one quarter in 2020 to the corresponding quarter
of 2019. Many small businesses, however, do not follow
traditional calendar quarters. Hospitality businesses, for
instance, often vary from 52 to 53 weeks but do not necessarily
have to end on the last day of the month causing confusion and
limiting opportunities for these businesses.
Additionally, the greatest loss in revenue for many of
these businesses occurred in March, April, and May last year,
which fall over 2 calendar quarters. So to resolve this issue,
my amendment would change the parameters for PPP to allow
borrowers to calculate a 25 percent reduction over a 90-day
period as opposed to a calendar quarter which would allow a
business to count their revenue when it was most impacted.
For example, a business would calculate the start of the
90-day period on March 13, for instance, the start of the
shutdown, and end it on June 12. This simple fix would allow
more businesses the opportunity to be eligible for the second
round of PPP funds they need and deserve.
I would like to thank the work of my friend, Congressman
French Hill and Ranking Member Luetkemeyer, who put in the
effort to create this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues
to support this amendment.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The Ranking Member----
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Luetkemeyer from Missouri.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ.--is seeking recognition for what
purpose?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Move to strike the last word.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I support the gentleman from Pennsylvania's amendment and
ask my colleagues to support it as well. This should be one
that we should all agree on and there should be no concern.
What we are doing here is over the past year I have been
with countless small businesses and been on calls with them,
not just the ones in my district in Missouri that I have had
the privilege to speak with, but small businesses across the
country.
One of the most critical things that they talk about is the
need for more flexibility. This is precisely what Mr. Meuser's
amendment does. It provides small firms with a greater
flexibility on their second draw of PPP funds. Instead of
having to choose one of four rigid calendar quarter
designations to demonstrate their 25 percent revenue loss, Mr.
Meuser's amendment allows these firms to choose any contiguous
90-day period within 2020 to qualify. This is a common-sense
fix that will help millions of small businesses qualify for the
second PPP loan program. This is something I am sure you, Madam
Chair, and all the Members on the other side of the aisle, you
face the same question from the small businesses in your
district that are wanting to qualify for PPP, constantly
getting questions with regards to this 90-day period. This does
exactly what they want, gives them the flexibility that I think
they need to be able to qualify. I think the gentleman has got
a common-sense amendment. I certainly would urge everyone to
adopt the amendment.
And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
Is there any further debate on the amendment?
Mr. HAGEDORN. Madam Chair, it is Hagedorn. I would like to
strike the last word.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HAGEDORN. Thanks. I will be very brief.
I agree with the amendment here that has been offered by
Congressman Meuser and in the words of our ranking Republican,
Mr. Luetkemeyer, the small businesses that we talk with just,
they want flexibility. They need the flexibility. And the
Committee has been very good in the past about coming up with
ways to provide flexibility for our small businesses. For
instance, how they were going about spending the Paycheck
Protection money. In this case I think it just makes a lot of
sense. And I would like to associate myself with the remarks of
the author of the bill and Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thanks very much.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
And now I am going to claim my time in opposition.
The amendment is problematic for a couple of reasons. Do
you have a cost estimate for this amendment? Without a cost
estimate, we cannot move forward on this amendment with
confidence that it will not violate reconciliation
instructions. While I really appreciate your efforts, we cannot
lose sight of our main focus here, and that is to provide
economic relief to the underserved and hardest hit communities
quickly. F or that reason I oppose the amendment.
Any further debate on the amendment?
Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
I ask all Members attending virtually to please unmute
yourself for the roll call.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The
amendment is not agreed to.
We will now consider the Meuser second amendment.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Pennsylvania seek
recognition?
Mr. MEUSER. Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment 2v1 to the amendment to the Committee
print offered by Mr. Meuser, page 11----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of
the amendment will be dispensed. The gentleman is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. MEUSER. Thank you.
Prior to the pandemic, the SBA 7(a) Loan Program was SBA's
most common loan program and served as a critical tool for
small businesses to get access to capital. The 7(a) Loan
Program helps small businesses secure loans by guaranteeing a
portion of the loan, limiting fees, and lowering interest
rates. This program allows small businesses who might not be
able to obtain a loan through traditional sources access to the
funding they need to get back on their feet. These loans serve
as a bridge for small businesses and can be used to acquire
business essentials like real estate property, inventory,
working capital, refinancing debt, and purchasing equipment. In
Fiscal Year 2019, SBA made approximately 52,000 7(a) loans
totaling more than $23.17 billion. In the SBA's Easton,
Pennsylvania district where many of my constituents work, in
Fiscal Year 2019, more than 1,360 loans totaling more than $517
million went out to support small businesses. Currently, the
maximum loan amount a business can receive from the traditional
SBA 7(a) Loan Program is $5 million. My amendment would simply
expand the maximum loan amount from $5 million to $6 million in
just over a 1-year period. As businesses struggle to overcome
the challenges of the pandemic, I believe it is important that
we provide sufficient access to such capital as the businesses
who need it most.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and yield
the balance of my time.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment?
Mr. CROW. Madam Chair, it is Jason Crow seeking time in
opposition.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. the gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CROW. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am going to start by just saying I appreciate Mr.
Meuser's suggestions here and the spirit with which he offers
this amendment. And I do agree that improvements need to be
made to many of our SBA programs. In fact, this Committee, as
you know, has a very long history of working collaboratively to
find ways to improve, to get the relief to our businesses that
need it the most.
But the manner in which this is being done is not the
manner to do it for two reasons. Number one, we have a lot of
very complex needs that we are facing here with these programs.
The purpose of this hearing and this bill and the process that
we are going through today is to get relief as quickly as
possible to those businesses that are struggling the most just
to keep their doors open right now during this pandemic. We are
going to go through a longer process through regular order for
the rest of this session to address these longer-term fixes
that are needed to the programs. But to get the need and the
relief that is necessary to our businesses as quickly as
possible I think is something that we can all come together and
work towards.
The second is just the nature of the amendment itself is to
raise, to increase the maximum loan amount of the 7(a) program
from $5 million to $6 million. Now, this is a fantastic
program, the 7(a) program, and it is a program that all of us
support. But one of the biggest challenges to this program is
not necessarily the maximum loan amount but what we hear
frequently is the vast majority of folks, the truly mom and pop
businesses, the small business that are not applying for the
maximum, that are applying for much lower amounts, they are
having a hard time getting it. We need to work collaboratively
to figure out how we can get that money to those smaller
businesses much quicker and much more effectively. We think
that is the priority, not necessarily increasing at this point
in this particular process that maximum loan amount. And that
is why I will oppose that amendment with a promise to work with
you, Mr. Meuser, to address the spirit of your amendment in the
months and years ahead, but I would encourage all of my
colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
Is there any further debate on this amendment?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, this is the Ranking Member.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The Ranking Member is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you. I move to strike the last word.
Just very quickly, I think what the gentleman is trying to
do in this amendment here is to adjust the loan amount that the
SBA can do in response to the situation we have. Now, you all
know, those of you who have been on this Committee before, that
we were always adjusting these amounts based on the need, based
on inflation, based on in this situation, the COVID situation,
the loans need to be bigger so the response can be bigger to be
able to handle the needs of the people that we are servicing
with these loans. To me, this makes common sense. We do this
all the time.
In response to the previous individual who said this is
more long-term, this also can be very immediate, number one.
And number two, there is another program within, not this
particular section of the bill but the Financial Services
section of the bill that deals with SSBCIs that actually is
structuring the money to be going out over the next 10 years. I
argued it at the last Committee hearing that I was in with that
about we need to be doing it on an immediate basis, not over
the next 10 years. And so now I hear we want to do it on an
immediate basis in 10 years which is just the opposite of what
is going on in this bill. But what Mr. Meuser is trying to do
is to allow for the immediate help of needs as we see the needs
of these businesses exponentially go up out here because of the
COVID situation. And remember, these loans are made through
banks, guaranteed, so that, you know, there is some oversight
there.
I am supportive of this amendment. I think it is very
timely, and I think it meets a need that definitely is going to
be there. If it is not already, it is going to be there very
shortly.
I ask the adoption of the amendment. With that, I yield
back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
Is there any further debate on this amendment?
I oppose the amendment and I will ask the Members to oppose
it.
This is the type of, the 7(a), the 504, all those lending
programs under SBA, we will be revamping those programs for the
long term. We care about the next step for a long-term economic
recovery, but this is not the place. And we will welcome your
input. We are going to be holding hearings, and we will deal
with revamping those lending programs on another day.
With that, is there any other Member who wishes to be
recognized for the purpose of discussing this amendment?
Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
I ask all Members attending virtually to please unmute
yourself for the roll call.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The
amendment is not agreed to.
We will now consider the Garbarino amendment.
For what purpose does the gentleman from New York seek
recognition?
Mr. GARBARINO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I have an
amendment at the desk.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment 1v1 to the amendment to the Committee
print offered by Mr. Garbarino.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of
the amendment will be dispensed with.
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GARBARINO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Small businesses across the country have been crippled, not
just by the effects of but also the response to the COVID-19
pandemic. None has been hit harder than the restaurant
industry. What was the second largest private sector employer
in the country has now seen more than 110,000 restaurants close
since the pandemic began 1 year ago. That is one in six of
every restaurants closed in the country in the span of a year.
These small, family-owned entrepreneurs need our help and
assistance, and they need it now.
Here on Long Island, we have seen a once vibrant and
successful restaurant industry turn on its head with pubs,
eateries, casual and fine dining restaurants, as well as
catering halls shuttered in the wake of coronavirus shutdowns
and restrictions. Employment in Nassau and Suffolk counties for
foodservice and drinking establishments decreased from 98,900
in December 2019 to 68,500 in December 2020. That is a decline
of 30,400 people working in the foodservice industry. In nearby
New York City, known to some as the restaurant capital of the
world, their restaurants are still closed for indoor dining.
These restaurants have done everything asked of them to try to
open and be safe, but the government keeps moving the goalpost.
They need our help and they need it now, and I am happy
that so many of my colleagues have spoken in favor tonight of
the need to help restaurants and their support for the
Restaurants Act. I also am a co-sponsor of the Restaurants Act,
a bill that would inject $120 billion in restaurant relief for
these struggling small businesses. I am hopeful that
legislation will receive consideration by this Congress.
However, until that time, I am calling on this Committee to
support an amendment before you which will increase the
appropriation to the Restaurant Revitalization Fund from the
proposed $25 billion to $45 billion. The proposed $25 billion
in assistance to the Restaurant Revitalization Fund in this
Committee print is insufficient. It does not even come close to
the amount of the assistance that these small businesses need
to survive.
I request that everyone accept this amendment.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment?
For what purpose is the gentleman from Pennsylvania seeking
recognition?
Mr. EVANS. I want to be recognized to oppose this
amendment.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has an amendment at the
desk?
Mr. EVANS. No.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Sorry. In opposition.
Mr. EVANS. Opposition, yes.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. EVANS. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am very supportive of the Restaurant Revitalization Fund.
For months I have been hearing from restaurants in my district
about the need to pass the bill which will provide $120 billion
for grants to restaurants. I fully support that bill. The
Restaurant Revitalization is based on that bill. While it has
not received full funding, it received $25 billion to start as
the Small Business Committee was only able to give $50 billion
to the budget. That simply is what we can do without breaking
the requirement.
That said, we will be happy to work with you on the future
legislation to provide more funding to this critical program
should a need arise. Considering this amendment would only put
the Small Business Committee outside the budget requirement of
this bill.
I urge my colleagues to vote no against this amendment, and
I thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, this is the Ranking Member.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is seeking recognition?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. To strike the last word.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The gentleman is trying to be proactive here and actually
fund this program to where it probably is going to need to go
if you are serious about actually helping restaurants and the
way you structured this program. Quite frankly, the way you
structured it is basically every restaurant out there can
qualify for this grant. And it is a grant. So you are going to
have everybody lining up. The testimony in this Committee today
said there were half a million restaurants still out there that
were operating with another 110,000 either closed up or
temporarily closed up. If you just take the 500,000 restaurants
and divide that into $25 billion, that is $50,000 per
restaurant. And this program has got, if you read through it,
the amounts are capped I think somewhere around $10 million per
restaurant. That fund is going to be out of dollars by the end
of the month. What the gentleman from New York is trying to do
here is actually get this thing funded. If you really were
serious about helping restaurants and you really want to be
able to fund them at the rate we need to, that is what he is
actually trying to do.
So I think we are going to be back here again very shortly
trying to find some more money for this program, mark my words,
if you do not change the structure of it, change the
qualifications of it, and do not change the amount of money in
it, we will be back here. I will guarantee you. And I certainly
will remind you that I made this statement.
With that, I urge the adoption of the amendment, and I
yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment?
Ms. NEWMAN. Yes, I do, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Can you please----
Ms. NEWMAN. Marie Newman.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. NEWMAN. And I will not take that long. I just want to
make a couple of comments.
I know there has been respectfully a lot of talk about
bipartisanship and the Committee is bipartisan which is great
and that is my expectation, and I cannot wait to work on some
of these programs that are not making their way into them. But
here is what I will say, and let's just all be very real with
one another that there was 8 months of ability to have
bipartisanship in between the first Relief Act and the second.
With that, I agree with the Ranking Member. I think he is
insightful. We will be back together, and I hope there is
bipartisanship then. But I just want to remind everyone that
that 8 month period caused about 1,000 restaurants in my
district money they could have used. I love that they are on
board now, but they had 8 months to be on board. Let's remember
where we all were and let's get back together after this act
gets out and get them some money and prevent another 1,000
restaurants from losing their livelihood.
Thank you very much, and I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back.
Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment?
Mr. DONALDS. Yeah, Madam Chair, I do wish to be recognized.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Who is seeking recognition, please?
Mr. DONALDS. Mr. Donalds, the gentleman from Florida.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. DONALDS. Thank you, Madam Chair.
My points are pretty simple. I was hearing the last remarks
and obviously, I am new here. Just came in in the 117th, but
one thing that has been clear to me having been in Florida's
legislature last year is that this 8 months in question where a
bipartisanship could have been accomplished there was no desire
to negotiate from the current Speaker of the House. I think for
the record it should be clear that the current speaker had an
opportunity to negotiate well beyond what she chose to do in
this 8 month period. And so while restaurants in my former
House district and now my current congressional district that
were suffering just like in the gentlelady's district, just
like in just about every district for the Members of this
Committee, I think the record needs to be clear that the
negotiation goes both ways and the current speaker was
unwilling to do so. Hopefully, that changes going forward.
I yield back the rest of my time.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman----
Ms. NEWMAN. Can I make one more comment, Chairwoman?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Who is seeking recognition, please?
Ms. NEWMAN. It is Marie Newman again from Illinois.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. I am going to recognize myself and I
will yield to Ms. Newman.
Ms. NEWMAN. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. And I
appreciate the gentleman from Florida's comments, and I am
looking forward to more bipartisanship as we move forward.
But again, the goalpost, I just want to be clear in what
actually happened, is the goalposts were moved at every
juncture. It is on the record. It is in writing. We know that
the goalpost got moved by the Republican Party several times.
So while I am thrilled, look, I am thrilled that every wants to
be bipartisan after we get some money out to them, and I want
to do more, and it sounds like you genuinely want to do more,
so I am looking forward to that. But I want to be clear that
that negotiation was not a negotiation, that the goalpost moved
every single time that they came back to say yes. So, I just
wanted that in the record as well.
And I yield back and thank you very much.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Reclaiming my time, I just would like
to say that I fully agree with my colleagues that restaurants,
bars, and other eateries have been disproportionately impacted
by the coronavirus. The second largest private employer in the
country is vital to both main street and the overall economy.
But let me also remind my colleagues that how many relief
packages have gone through the House and we were not able to
get a restaurant grant or legislation to help the restaurant
industry. For the first time today we are creating a $25
billion grant program to assist restaurants across the country.
So even though I recognize the importance of providing more
money for the restaurants, appropriating 90 percent of the $50
billion to one industry at this time neglects the needs of
other small businesses. And the Committee heard testimony last
week of the struggles of a theater owner that said that the
pandemic has nearly wiped out his business. The National
Association of Theaters estimates that 75 percent of movie
theaters will be insolvent this spring unless they receive
financial aid. Those businesses deserve our support.
Again, I am willing to work with my colleagues to find ways
to support main street restaurants, but I must oppose this
amendment.
Mr. MFUME. Madam Chair?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. For what purpose does the gentleman
from Maryland seek recognition?
Mr. MFUME. I move to strike the last word, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MFUME. Just a point of fact in this discussion. I
appreciate the gentleman from Florida saying that he was not
here last year and sort of recanting the efforts or the lack
thereof of what he considered to be the speaker's attempts to
find a way to reach a compromise, what was then known as the
Heroes Act.
We actually lost 115 days before the majority leader in the
other body, the gentleman from Kentucky, bothered to meet to
discuss anything at all. In fact, it was the majority leader in
the other body who said that the bill was ``dead on arrival.''
Those are not my words; those are his words. And that occurred
2 days after passage. The negotiations that did start started
after 115 days, and they were not really negotiation. It was
more like take it or leave it. Let's just make sure that we are
accurate and factual here with respect to the speaker's efforts
which were clear. And let's be mindful of the fact also that
the negotiation did not occur because the distinguished
gentleman from Kentucky, the majority leader in the other body,
said that that was dead on arrival. I am glad that we are at
this point. Madam Chair, I would have been remiss though if I
did not at least recant what the actual facts were regarding
the time that was lost because of no negotiations.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
Is there any further debate on the amendment?
Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the
gentleman from New York.
I ask all Members attending virtually to please unmute
yourself for the roll call.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The
amendment is----
Mr. GARBARINO. Madam Chair, I request a recorded vote.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has requested a
recorded vote.
Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second. A roll call vote is ordered.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 13 and House Rule 11, further
proceedings on the amendment are postponed.
We will now consider the Garbarino second amendment.
For what purpose does the gentleman from New York seek
recognition?
Mr. GARBARINO. Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment 2v1----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of
the amendment will be dispensed with.
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GARBARINO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Our nation's small businesses are facing unprecedented
economic disruption due to the outbreak of the COVID-19
pandemic. The CARES Act created the Paycheck Protection Program
and expanded the Economic Injury Disaster Loan, the EIDL
program in response to the economic disruption appropriating
hundreds of billions of dollars to assist small businesses
affected by health and economic crisis. The PPP provides loans
to help businesses keep their workforce employed during the
COVID-19 crisis and the EIDL program is designed to provide
economic relief to small businesses and nonprofit organizations
that are experiencing a temporary loss of revenue due to
unforeseen disasters and crises.
I know many businesses and not-for-profits that have been
saved due to these programs. This proposed amendment would
prohibit the administrator of the Small Business Administration
from providing any covered SBA assistance, including PPP loan,
a second draw PPP loan, EIDL loan or EIDL Advance to an
individual or a business concern owned or controlled by an
individual who is convicted of a nonconsensual sex offense, or
convicted of assaulting a police officer, or convicted of a
crime of violence under Federal or state law during the 5-year
period ending on the date on which the covered SBA assistance
would be provided. This amendment is justified by the following
statement of the SBA in addition to following other legal
statutes. This is what the statement was. ``It is not in the
public interest for SBA to extend financial assistance to
persons who are not of good character.'' This amendment
codifies that statement into law.
Madam Chairwoman, I ask that the Members approve this
amendment.
Thank you, I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment?
Well, I oppose the amendment by my colleague, Mr.
Garbarino, that will exclude persons convicted of certain
violent or sexual felonies or misdemeanors from obtaining PPP
and EIDL funds. First and foremost, COVID-19 relief is for
existing businesses and current business owners with a proven
reentry track record. This amendment also violates the spirit
behind the bipartisan Fair Chance Act that was signed into law
last Congress. Every year, thousands of individuals return to
their community seeking to rebuild their lives. In 2020, more
than 41,000 incarcerated individuals were released from Federal
prisons, and more than 97 percent of the nation's 151,600
Federal inmates will eventually be released. The formerly
incarcerated face significant barriers to reentering the
workforce, including bias against hiring individuals with
criminal records, little access to education, and ineligibility
for public benefits. Studies have shown that individuals
released from prison who found employment were less likely to
recidivate. Entrepreneurship can play a key role in helping
these individuals overcome barriers to reentry and successfully
transition back into the workplace and their communities. That
is what we all want. That is what communities and families are
aspiring, that these people that are released that have
complied with everything that they have been asked to do that
now are given a fighting chance. That is what it is all about,
giving individuals a second chance. Therefore, those formerly
incarcerated who have served their time and paid their debt to
society should not continue to be penalized for past wrongs
while trying to keep their small business afloat. To that end,
I oppose the amendment.
Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment?
Mr. MFUME. Madam Chair?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. For what purpose does the gentleman
seek recognition?
Mr. MFUME. I move to strike the last word. And I would
just----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MFUME. I would offer up in support of your reservation
the fact that this amendment, while it may be well-intentioned
is very, very far-reaching in terms of what it does. Because it
says that a person convicted of a misdemeanor is not eligible
for any sort of PPP funding, which means a lot of people are
left out. Some Members of this distinguished body, perhaps, and
in the other body who have been convicted of or found to have
been convicted of a misdemeanor at some point in their lives,
it means that Members of the current administration who may
have been convicted of a misdemeanor at any point in their live
is no longer eligible. It means that many people who are trying
to rehabilitate themselves and for whatever reason may have
been found guilty of a misdemeanor, even if they are a small
business owner, is not eligible under this language. Because a
misdemeanor, according to the dictionary, contains a definition
that is so broad--trespassing, drunkenness in a public space,
petty theft, marijuana smoking. I mean, we just wipe out a
whole eligible group of small business owners who are small
business owners not because they once had a conviction of a
misdemeanor when they were younger but because they got their
lives together and have developed the ability to help create a
circle of flow of income in communities by establishing a
business. And are now ineligible under the language here, which
I think is just too broad. Again, I understand the intent. It
is the effect that I really have problems with. I would yield
back and I would support your reservation, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
Is there any further debate on the amendment?
Mr. STAUBER. Madam Chair?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Who is seeking recognition, please?
Mr. STAUBER. Stauber, Minnesota 8. I would like to strike
the last word and yield to Congressman Garbarino, please.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. GARBARINO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Just to clarify this amendment, this does not apply to all
misdemeanors. This only applies to convictions of violent
misdemeanors. It does not apply to, as the previous gentleman
just stated, marijuana smoking or drunkenness. Only violent
crimes. Violent felonies, violent misdemeanors, sex crimes, sex
assault crimes, and assaults against police officers. It is not
as far-reaching as the gentleman had just suggested. It is
violent misdemeanors, violent felonies, assaults against a
police officer, and sexual assaults and convictions.
Thank you very much, and I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. MFUME. Madam Chair, if I might?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. If there is anyone that could claim
time. Mr. Evans is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EVANS. I yield. I yield.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields.
Mr. MFUME. Thank you. I thank the gentleman from
Philadelphia.
I will only read the words which I have reacted to, and the
words say that, ``No person convicted of a felony related to a
nonconsensual sexual act convicted of or a misdemeanor.'' I am
reading it the way it is written. And if I am in error then I
stand to be corrected. But even if I am, I think the points
that you have raised with respect to the punishing aspect of
this for people who are already small business owners cannot be
overlooked.
I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
Is there any further debate on the amendment?
Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the
gentleman from New York.
I ask all Members attending please virtually to unmute
yourself for the roll call.
All those in favor, say aye.
All opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The
amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. GARBARINO. Madam Chairwoman, I request a recorded vote,
please.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has requested a
recorded vote.
Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second. A roll call vote is ordered.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 13 and House Rule 11, further
proceedings on the amendment are postponed.
We will now consider the Kim amendment. For what purpose
does the gentlewoman from California seek recognition?
Ms. YOUNG KIM. Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the
amendment at the desk.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment 1v1 to the amendment to the Committee
print----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of
the amendment will be dispensed with. The gentlewoman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. YOUNG KIM. Thank you, Madam Chair.
My amendment would simply repurpose $15 billion of unspent
funds from the EIDL program into the new Restaurant Fund.
According to the National Restaurant Association, our
communities have lost at least 110,000 restaurants and over 2.5
million jobs in the industry. In my state of California, the
lack of direction from the governor's office has only made
matters worse for small business owners and family-owned
restaurants in my community.
I have the honor of representing one of the most diverse
districts in the country where many family-owned restaurants
have been established for many generations. For many people in
my community, it is hard to see some of the long-established
restaurants close permanently because of this pandemic.
Just last December, Congress decided to replenish the EIDL
Advance grant program with an additional $10 billion. A large
portion of that EIDL has not been used for that intended
purpose. I ask a simple question: why are we thinking about
repurposing the unspent funds we have allocated to provide aid
for businesses that really need it? I invite my colleagues to
repurpose this unspent EIDL funds so that we can get much
needed aid in the hands of our restaurants right away.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and let's go
save our restaurants.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back.
Do other Members wish to be recognized?
For what purpose is the gentleman from Pennsylvania seeking
recognition?
Mr. EVANS. In opposition to the amendment.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. EVANS. While I appreciate my colleagues' effort to
increase funding for the new grant program for restaurants, I
am opposed to transferring money from the EIDL loan amount.
Throughout Congress, we have fought so hard to ensure SBA EIDL
program remains a well functional and well-funded program. At
the same time, we have heard there are many industries that
have been uniquely impacted by COVID-19 such as restaurants who
have only been able to operate at a fraction of their 2019
revenue.
I believe the best text strikes the appropriate balance
between their competing interests, both strengthening the EIDL
and the Advance program and establishing a Restaurant
Revitalization Fund. I am also deeply convinced that this
proposal will severely limit the ability of the EIDL program to
continue to reach the communities it has demonstrated
effectiveness in reaching--immigrant-owned businesses, women-
owned businesses, minority-owned businesses, and micro
businesses. Recently published data from the SBA shows the EIDL
program was especially effective in reaching population states
such as California, Florida, Texas, New York. California has
about 12 percent of all U.S. businesses. They have received 18
percent of all EIDL loans. We cannot afford to cripple such a
unique, effective program at this time.
For that reason I strongly, strongly encourage to vote no
on this amendment.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
Do other Members wish to be recognized on this amendment?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, this is the Ranking Member. I
request----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is seeking recognition.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I move to strike the last word.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair.
This is similar to the amendment we had a while ago when
they were trying to plus up the restaurant portion of the bill.
And I think my comments, I will stand by them earlier, that if
you really want to get serious about trying to fund this thing
to where it needs to be you have got to put some more money in
it. And what the lady does with this amendment is, if you read
it very carefully, it says ``unspent funds from the Economic
Injury and Disaster Loan Fund.'' It does not transfer all the
money from it. What it does, it takes the unspent portion of
it. These are funds that are not even going to be utilized.
This is a smart way to redirect funds that are unspent and make
sure they are repurposed someplace where they actually are
needed instead of redirecting them someplace else where
somebody has another priority of some kind.
I think this is a really well-intentioned amendment. I
think it is very well done, and I think we need to support it.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back.
Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment?
Is there any further debate on this amendment?
Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the
gentlewoman from California.
I ask all Members attending please to unmute yourself for
the roll call.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The
amendment is not agreed to.
Ms. YOUNG KIM. Madam Chair, may I ask for yeas and nays?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady has requested a
recorded vote.
Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second. A roll call is ordered.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 13 and the House Rule 11,
further proceedings on the amendment are postponed.
We will now consider the Kim second amendment.
For what purpose does the gentlelady from California seek
recognition?
Ms. YOUNG KIM. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the
desk.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment 2v1 to the amendment to the Committee
report offered by Mrs. Kim----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of
the amendment will be dispensed with.
The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. YOUNG KIM. Thank you, Madam Chair.
My amendment is very simple. It will require the Small
Business Administration to submit a report to Congress on the
waste, fraud, and abuse within the EIDL program since January
1, 2020. If Congress is ready to provide additional funding for
the EIDL program, we should also gather more information on
ways in which Congress can limit fraud and protect taxpayers.
While the Federal government has charged many individuals for
submitting fraudulent loan applications, Congress needs more
information from the SBA to learn more about how our Committee
can act to reduce fraud.
I implore my colleagues to join the effort to protect our
taxpayers' hard-earned dollars and ensure that relief is
getting into the right hands.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and with that
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back.
Do other Members wish to be recognized on this amendment?
Well, I am going to recognize myself in opposition to this
amendment.
This amendment offered by my colleague, Mrs. Kim, will
violate the Byrd Rule in the Senate. While I understand the
concerns of my colleague regarding waste, fraud, and abuse in
the EIDL program, this reconciliation package is unfortunately
not the vehicle to address them. Therefore, I am opposed to the
amendment and I urge my colleagues to oppose it as well.
Is there any further debate on the amendment?
Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the
gentlelady from California.
I ask all Members attending virtually to please unmute
yourself for the roll call.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The
amendment is not agreed to.
Due to votes in another Committee, the Committee stands in
recess subject to the call of the Chair.
[Recess]
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The Committee will come to order. The
Committee will resume consideration of the amendment. We will
now consider the Donalds first amendment. For what purpose does
the gentleman from Florida seek recognition?
Mr. DONALDS. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am out here just
presenting this next amendment. Congress has allocated more
than $796 billion to the PPP, and ultimately helped keep more
doors open for more than 5 million small businesses.
Considering the magnitude of this allocation, we saw several
instances of bad behavior, by and large the program has been
overwhelming successful.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. I am sorry, yes, I am sorry. I was
distracted and I was also following the process here. The clerk
will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment 1v1, see Amendments to the Committee
Plan offered by Mr. Donalds.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of
the amendment will be dispensed with. The gentleman now is
recognized for 5 minutes. Sorry for that.
Mr. DONALDS. No problem. My apologies, Madam Chair. Like I
was saying, Congress has already allocated more than $706
billion for the PPP program. Considering the magnitude of this
allocation we have seen some issues, but by and large it has
been very successful. PPP eligibility was extended to
qualifying organizations under the 501(c)(3) statutes,
including 501(c)(6)s, (19)s, and through administrative action,
501(c)(12)s. These nonprofits are public charities, chambers of
commerce, veterans' organizations, community utility service
providers, and many, many more. In many cases these
organizations are anchors in the communities they serve. They
serve as financial and sometimes even spiritual resources to
some of our most vulnerable Americans, the local thrift stores
and food banks, the community churches, the American Legion.
And I would also add it has been discussed in this Committee
hearing that many child care centers, those that are your mom-
and-pop local child care centers who are either for-profit or
501(c) status, also qualify today for the PPP program under the
current eligibility of the program.
You know, I think the plan that, you know, my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle to expand 501(c) status to all
501(c)(3)s except for 501(c)(4)s, I think is a bridge too far.
I think what the Committee should have to remember and
understand is that when you bring in these frankly massive
nonprofit organizations, like the Planned Parenthood, who yes,
they might have employees under 500 at one location, but in
mass that organization has over 16,000 employees and annual
funding exceeding $1.64 billion. I think it is important for
the Committee to remember not too long ago that when you had
companies like Steak Shack who were trying to take advantage of
PPP, it was roundly frowned upon because of the size of those
organizations. And I think it is important for the Committee to
recognize that we should be doing the same here, staying
focused on small businesses, being focused on small
organizations and nonprofit organizations like community child
care centers who are nonprofit or maybe for-profit, like the
nonprofits who are our American Legions and things of that
nature.
It is also important to recognize that the current bill
language allows for digital news organizations to be a part of
a PPP program. I do not think it is wise at this point that we
should expand eligibility to those organizations considering
that fact that even to this Committee we can all clearly
understand that the bowl of our small businesses are small
restaurants, are small bars, or the ones who are truly, truly
in need at this time due to local regulation, quite frankly, in
a lot of our municipalities.
This is why I am offering this amendment. The amendment
will strike the provision to expand PPP eligibility and waive
SBA affiliation rules. We cannot continue to fund a politicized
bailout that is masked under the guise of COVID-19 relief. It
is time for state and local government to let these businesses
fully reopen, to let the market do what it does best, and that
allows companies to earn money, as well as nonprofits to be
able to get the resources they need through market organization
that does not allow the state and local governments that
continuously keep them locked down. The American taxpayer and
future generations are the ones who have to carry the brunt of
reckless legislation, excuse me, like this unwarranted
expansion.
I would also like to further add in closing that it was
said before, I think it was Representative Meuser's amendment,
that expanding, giving more flexibility to small businesses,
that there were no fiscals assigned to that. I would add that
if we do not, if we adopt my amendment and do not do a massive
expansion of eligibility, there is probably more than enough
financial flexibility to actually adopt the Meuser amendment
and to be able to help a lot of these small businesses who
truly need access to capital as quickly as they can so they
keep their selves afloat.
That is the amendment, Madam Chair, I yield back the rest
of my time.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Would
further Members pleased to be recognized on the amendment?
Ms. CHU. Yes, Madam Chair, this is Judy Chu and I want to
move to strike the last word.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady from California, Ms.
Chu, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. CHU. Madam Chair, I urge a strong no vote on this
amendment, which will hurt certain nonprofits, such as labor
unions, by excluding them from obtaining PPP loans. It would
reverse something that is a great step forward in the COVID,
and that is allowing all nonprofits to obtain PPP loans outside
of T4s, including labor intensive nonprofit organizations with
multiple organizations like local chapters of the YMCA and
Goodwill.
The nonprofit workforce, which is the third largest
workforce in our economy, has already lost 930,000 jobs over
the course of the pandemic, which is a 7.4 percent decline. But
nonprofits have received far less support than other
industries. In fact, we know that allowing nonprofits to
participate in PPP is successful. That is why eligibility for
nonprofits has only expanded since the program was created last
year. Deliberately excluding certain nonprofits from PPP is not
only unfair, it will be harmful to our economy by putting
millions more workers at risk of unemployment. And it would
deprive the countless Americans who rely on these organizations
for services.
By expanding PPP to all 501(c) nonprofits, 501(c)(5) labor
unions will also be eligible for assistance. Millions of
American workers represented by these nonprofit labor unions
and their employees are facing the same economic distress as
those of other organizations.
But 501(c) types also include farm bureaus, cattle
associations, outdoor associations, and groups that support
world economy. And they will be hurt by this amendment. In
December, Congress extended PPP to the 501(c)(6) nonprofits
like trade associations and Chambers of Commerce that represent
groups of businesses. This same treatment should be extended to
the organizations that represent all groups of workers.
Labor unions and their Members will play a critical role in
the long-term economic recovery. This measure gives them
economic security to survive the crises and continue advocating
for workers. This is in light of the fact that this pandemic
has been disastrous for workers. But despite since losing over
300,000 Members at the start of this crisis, the share of
American workers who are Members of a union slightly rose. That
is because nonunion workers have lost their jobs at a higher
rate than unionized workers demonstrates the incredible
importance of worker representation.
And by excluding organizations like Planned Parenthood,
YMCA, and Goodwill that have multiple locations, my Republican
colleagues are willing to leave Americans without support for
the nonprofits that provide up-to-date information as well as
resources on the pandemic meant to help assistance with the
depressed and isolated communities and for the millions
suffering from food insecurity or childcare for the essential
workers. We cannot afford to let these organizations fail. We
can, however, afford to include them in this program. We cannot
let partisan politics pit small businesses against workers and
nonprofits. Extending PPP to all nonprofit organizations is
simply the right thing to do. We cannot imperil the economic
recovery for millions of Americans just because they work for
nonprofit organizations that Republicans oppose on ideological
grounds.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on this harmful amendment.
And I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back. Do other
Members wish to be recognized on the amendment?
I also want to ask my colleagues to vote no on this
amendment. And I just want to say, look, when you go home to
your districts, look at who are the organizations that are
helping us and that are helping the communities that are
suffering, are the small business, are the not-for-profits. The
bottom line is that all these group create jobs and add value
in our communities, and therefore need our support right now.
Nonprofit organizations provide a number of crucial
services that are needed more now than ever, where there is
public health resources and education that provide up-to-date
information on the pandemic, mental health assistance for the
depressed and isolated, community food banks for the millions
suffering from food insecurity, or childcare for the essential
workers. This is not the time to pick winners and losers. They
have been left behind in the last relief package that we
passed, and it is our duty to make sure that we protect workers
in America, and there is no doubt in my mind that many of these
not-for-profit not only are providing an important service to
our communities, but are also creating jobs.
Do other Members wish to be recognized on this amendment?
There being none, the question is on the amendment by the
gentleman from Florida. I ask all Members attending virtually
to please unmute yourself for the roll call.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair the noes have it, the amendment
is not agreed to.
Mr. DONALDS. Madam Chair, I just wanted to request a
recorded vote on the amendment.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has requested a
recorded vote, and pursuant to previous comments, that will be
rolled until the end.
Pursuant to Committee rule 13 and House rule XI further
proceedings on the amendment are postponed.
We will now consider the Fitzgerald first amendment. For
what purpose does the gentleman from Wisconsin seek
recognition?
Mr. FITZGERALD. As you know, Chair, I have an amendment at
the desk.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment 1v1 to the Amendment.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of
the amendment will be dispensed with. The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment is
pretty simple. It just directs the administrator of the Small
Business Administration to submit a report to Congress on the
impact and increase in the Federal minimum wage to $15 per hour
would have on small business. And you might ask why. And it is
because I think this debate discussion in and around the
increase in the minimum wage has not always been couched under
the idea that we are in a global pandemic and what the impact
might be on many, many of these small businesses that are
currently hurting.
There are also questions about the Byrd Rule and
reconciliation whether it is appropriate for the increase in
minimum wage. And then many of you may have seen that the
Congressional Budget Office projected 1.4 million jobs would be
lost if there was a $15 increase in the minimum wage. So, Madam
Chair, it doesn't make much sense I think at this point to move
forward with that provision.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Do other
Members wish to be recognized on this amendment? The gentleman
from Minnesota, Mr. Phillips.
Mr. PHILLIPS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
While I oppose this amendment at this time, I do wish to thank
my colleague from Wisconsin for offering it. In fact, like many
on this Committee, I share many of his concerns. I believe
deeply, very deeply, in living wages for all working Americans,
and often say that consumption is the engine of our economy and
money in peoples' pockets is its fuel. In fact, the small
business that my family and I own already pays a $15 minimum
wage. Not because the law requires it, rather because it is a
principle in which we deeply believe. The fact that a single
mother in America can work a 40-hour week at a $7.25 minimum
wage and live below the poverty line is as appalling as it is
embarrassing to our nation. Congress must address this
injustice just as it must meet the moment during the worst
pandemic of our lifetimes and one of the most challenging
economic crises of our lifetimes.
However, I am troubled that we are adding the minimum wage
policy to this COVID relief package through reconciliation. In
fact, I was shocked to learn how few small business owners, the
very people that this Committee is entrusted with representing,
how few were consulted as this legislation was being drafted.
And I am willing to wager that there is not a single Member of
this Committee who is not receiving communications from local
business owners concerned about the implications of this policy
on the very viability of their enterprises.
Just days ago I heard from Ken, the owner of the original
Pancake House, one of my favorite restaurants in Plymouth,
Minnesota. Like so many businesses which rely on public
gatherings to succeed, he is barely hanging on. His restaurant,
like all restaurants, runs on thin margins even during the best
of times. And Ken is deeply concerned that a $15 minimum wage
will mean that he will have to cut jobs if he hopes to stay
open. Now I trust that we all agree that representation begins
with listening and we should afford small business owners, just
like Ken, the opportunity to be heard before we proceed with
the implementation of such a transformative policy.
According to the CBO, the policy, as written, will likely
raise wages for 27 million Americans, raise almost a million
Americans out of poverty, and increase aggregate wages by over
$300 billion over 10 years. All of those are outstanding
outcomes. But if that is at the expense of 1.4 million lost
jobs, and the likelihood of many thousands of business closures
as the CBO and economists anticipate, we should investigate, we
should deliberate, and we should ultimately implement a
mitigating policy that addresses those unacceptable and very
preventable consequences.
While we cannot accept this amendment because it does not
meet the Senate parliamentary requirements relative to
reconciliation, I do believe it is an important issue for
businesses and employees that warrants a more robust discussion
and deliberation in this body. So to that end, as my first
order of business as the Chair of the Oversight and
Investigation Subcommittee, I intend to invite American small
businesses to come before our Committee to discuss the $15
minimum wage proposal, its impact on their businesses, and how
we might accomplish the trifecta of livable wages, more jobs,
and thriving small businesses. They are not mutually exclusive
objectives in my estimation, and I believe we can accomplish it
if we simply commit to working together with intention and
bipartisanship.
So in closing, I would like to invite my colleague from
Wisconsin to join me at that hearing and to work with me
following this markup in sending a letter to the GAO requesting
a study on the impact of a $15 Federal minimum wage on small
businesses throughout our country. And with that, Madam Chair,
I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there
any further debate on the amendment?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, the Ranking Member wishes to
be recognized.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I move to strike the last word.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair. The gentleman is
making a point here with regards to the minimum wage that, you
know, it is a very controversial issue, it doesn't need to be
in this bill, number one, probably not going to be in it,
probably get kicked out when it gets to the Senate. But, you
know, number one, to have the wage set at a Federal level takes
away the local folks' ability to be able to set the wage. The
wages are different in New York than in my hometown here of 336
people, and from state to state. I think we need to understand
that an across the board blanket $15 an hour minimum wage does
not really play well in different areas around the country
where it actually probably makes sense in others.
The NFIB filed a report just last week and in that report
it said it would cost 1.6 million jobs and cost $2 trillion to
our economy. In the January 26 Roll Call Magazine there is an
article there. It says just one more blow. And down below it
says, ``The restaurant industry, already wracked by COVIC 19,
now faces a minimum wage hike.'' This is a headline in this
paper. Everybody is talking about concern about restaurants and
here you have it even in the Washington papers about the fact
the minimum wage is a wage destroyer, it is a small business
knife in the back. I am very concerned about this. I think the
gentleman has done a good job with his amendment, I certainly
support it, and I ask the Committee to support it was well.
With that I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there
any further debate on the amendment?
Mr. GARBARINO. Madam Chairwoman, it is Mr. Garbarino of New
York.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is seeking recognition
for? To strike the last word?
Mr. GARBARINO. To strike last word.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GARBARINO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And I just want
to continue. I am from New York, as I said, and the state
legislature here has increased the minimum wage. We voted a
couple years ago and it will be up to $15 next year. However,
when it was first increased something I heard not just from
small businesses but from local governments, municipalities,
towns, and cities that rely on summer employment of students,
both high school and college students, to work at the parks, to
clean the downtowns for summer jobs, to be lifeguards at the
local town beaches, and when the minimum wage was increased in
New York, the town, in order to comply with that, had to raise
taxes. They couldn't cut the jobs because the parks still
needed to be cleaned, they still need to be maintained, the
beaches still needed to be watched or they would be shut down.
So instead of shutting down services, the local municipalities
had to raise taxes.
And those taxes, the real property taxes, were just another
increase on small businesses. So small businesses are not just
going to have to deal with paying their employees more, whether
it is a part-time employee student or someone who comes home
from college or someone who has a full-time job and they are
just looking for a second job on the weekend, they also have to
deal with paying higher costs like taxes. The effects on small
businesses is not just increase in their salaries, but also
increase in other costs. And I think that needs to be included
as well. So that is why I believe this amendment should be
passed. I support my colleague because there are a lot of
different costs that will affect small businesses here.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there
any further debate on the amendment? I am going to recognize
myself in opposition to this amendment.
Today's minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, which equates to a
little over $15,000 a year. Let me repeat that, $15,000 a year.
Just a reminder, the minimum wage was last raised in 2009.
Since 2010, home prices and rent have both risen over 30
percent. Minimum wage stayed the same. Since 2010, higher
education has risen by nearly 40 percent, minimum wage stuck at
$7.25. A gallon of milk, $2.69 in 2009 versus $4.12 in 2020. We
all like a good hamburger, 3.99 in 2009 versus 5.24 in 2020.
You guessed it, minimum wage is still $7.25.
As it currently stands, the minimum wage cannot pay for a
two-bedroom apartment anywhere in the United States. If rent
can go up every year, so can the minimum wage. The real value
of the minimum wage today has been eroded since 2010.
And let me say this. This is also an issue where time and
again Republicans prove themselves out of touch with the
American people. In Florida they say that Donald Trump won last
year. The minimum wage passed with nearly 61 percent of the
vote. It is popular everywhere because it is the right thing to
do. In fact, 20 states increased their minimum wage starting in
2021, yet during the pandemic, because those states realized
from line essential workers that are keeping us safe in
hospitals, cleaning our buildings, and stocking our grocery
shelves, deserve a raise. Even in the Ranking Member's home
state of Missouri the minimum wage was raised to 10.35. That is
higher than the 2021 increase to 9.50 under the Raise the Wage
Act. The states are our laboratory of democracy, then the
Federal Government should follow states like Alaska, Florida,
and Ohio in supporting low-income workers.
With that I yield back. And if there is any further debate
on the amendment?
Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the
gentleman from Wisconsin. I ask all Members attending virtually
to please unmute yourself for the roll call.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair the noes have it. The amendment
is not agreed to.
We will now consider the Salazar amendment, first
amendment. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Florida
seek recognition?
Ms. SALAZAR. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk, Amendment Number 17.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment 1v1, City of----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, further reading of
the amendment will be dispensed with. The gentlewoman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. SALAZAR. Thank you, Madam Chairman. The amendment that
I am proposing would delay payments on economic injury disaster
loans that are called as EIDL provided in response to the
coronavirus for 1 year. Now we want to make it 2 years. This
extension will allow small businesses who are still struggling
with the economic hardships of the coronavirus to further
recover before beginning to pay that initial loan that was
given to them a year ago.
As you know, EIDL is designed to provide small businesses
with operating funds until they recover from disasters. In the
past this has been used after floods or hurricanes, which are
all very familiar in my district, South Florida. While the
effects of the disasters can be months and even years, usually
the disaster itself only lasts a few days or a few hours, like
a hurricane. But Hurricane COVID has been here for almost 365
days, something that is completely unusual and completely out
of order.
Because of this unique situation, I am proposing to extend
the start of the loan repayment for 1 additional year. Just
yesterday I went to Little Havana to a store where they used to
sell clothes for 30 years, very well established, and they have
one very big problem: COVID is still here. They are not
selling, and they cannot start paying for the EIDL loan
repayment. They were just notified, though, that they have to
start paying that loan this April. But as you know, we are
still in the pandemic.
So I am sure you agree that this is not correct, and
countless others, not only in South Florida, but all across the
country, small businesses cannot start dishing out money to be
paying for a loan that was given to them by the Federal
Government. I believe that this additional flexibility provides
more time for businesses like this store that I visited
yesterday, to recover before they are due or they need to make
their first payments.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. And I yield
back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back. Do other
Members wish to be recognized on the amendment? I will
recognize myself in opposition to the amendment.
The amendment is problematic because it will raise costs on
the program for a period of time exceeding the 10-year period.
An increase in cost is a violation of the Reconciliation Rule.
But this is well intended effort to ease burdens on the small
businesses; this, unfortunately, is not the appropriate vehicle
for it.
I will, therefore, encourage my colleagues to vote no on
this amendment. But I would also like to say to the gentlelady
from Florida, let us keep working on ideas like this to help
the small business going forward.
And with that I ask----
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Yes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Ranking Member asks to be recognized.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Move to strike the last word. Thank you.
I want to move in support of the gentlelady's amendment.
This is something I think if you look at both of our COVID
package bills, the one that passed in March, the one that
passed in December, there is the extension of the Troubled Debt
Restructuring Rule as well as SESA Rule that allows for some
forbearance. The last bill actually allows forbearance on those
two things until the end of the year. So we all recognized in
both packages the fact that because of this pandemic people are
struggling to be able to meet their obligations and that
because of this unusual nature, this is not like a situation
where a hurricane comes in and blasts everything and you are
going to be out of business and have hard times in backup and
money because you have no business anymore. This is a situation
where once the pandemic passes and we have seen this in
different states where once their lockdown stops, businesses
get back engaged. The customers become engaged and suddenly,
the economy takes off and businesses take off. It is a matter
of getting some forbearance by the regulators to the banks and
credit unions and in this situation, we are talking about the
EIDL loans so that they can give forbearance to the customers
so they have time to work through this.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. This is very important because if you----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Yes, I would be glad to yield.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. I look forward to working with you,
to hold hearings on this program, gather input from our
constituents and stakeholders, and consider a change like this
under regular order. But for today's purposes and on the
reconciliation instructions, which we are operating under, I
must urge a no vote on this amendment, but I am looking forward
to working with you. And I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Yeah, reclaim my time. I look forward with
you, Madam Chair, because this is an issue that you and I have
talked about this a lot on our other Committee as well as now
we are talking about it on this Committee. This forbearance is
a really, really big deal and I think if we can't accept this
amendment today, I think that Ms. Salazar certainly has a good
suspension bill here that we could put together for this
Committee to be able to accept because I think it is something
that is desperately needed. As she indicated, you know, the
first year runs out already in April here, so, we have got some
folks that are still struggling that are really going to be
hurt by the--and tied up by the rules that we have. So, with
that I certainly ask for a vote of yes on this and a vote of
support. I understand your position, but with that, I yield
back. Thank you.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there
any further debate on the amendment?
Ms. SALAZAR. Will the gentleman yield for a few more words?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Time expired. Time has expired unless
we could get someone, another Member to ask for--strike the
last word and yield to you.
Mr. MEUSER. Madam Chair, I ask to strike the last word and
yield to the Congresswoman.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. May I ask who is asking for time?
Mr. MEUSER. I am sorry. This is Representative Dan Meuser.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Okay. The gentleman is recognized for
5 minutes and he is yielding time to the gentlelady from
Florida.
Ms. SALAZAR. Madam Chairman Velazquez, thank you very much.
I just have one question. So, what are we going to say to those
people that owe that loan payment April 1st? That when I was
representing them in Small Business Committee, they were
telling me that, well, you, Madam Chairman, you said to us that
we needed to consider this at another time and because of
reconciliation, most people do not understand what that means.
They do know that they have to pay the loan April 1st.
So I would like you to please tell me what other words that
I need to use so I can go back tomorrow and tell them that it
is that we are going to do this at another time. Because
another time, they still owe it.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Well, the issue here is that there
are instructions and this amendment will violate the Byrd rule
and, therefore, we cannot do it at this time. But there are
EIDL grants that are in this package. There is nothing that
will prevent and that provides flexibility as to the use of
that money. So, there are other options that individuals in
that position could look at that could be helpful to them while
we will follow regular order and consider a standalone deal.
Is there any further debate on the amendment? Seeing none--
--
Ms. DAVIDS. Madam Chair?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Oh, who is seeking recognition?
Ms. DAVIDS. Davids from Kansas.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Ms. Davids is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. DAVIDS. Thank you, Chairwoman. I will keep it brief. I
just wanted to express my desire and willingness to work with
the both of you on moving this forward in regular order, post
reconciliation process. I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. The gentlelady yields
back. Is there any further debate on the amendment? Seeing
none, the question is on the amendment by the gentlelady from
Florida.
I ask all Members, please unmute yourself for the roll
call.
All those in favor, say aye?
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The
amendment is not agreed to.
We will now consider the Salazar second amendment. For what
purpose does the gentlelady from Florida seek recognition?
Ms. SALAZAR. I have an amendment at the desk, Amendment
Number 18.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection, the Clerk will
report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment 2v1----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection further reading of
the amendment will be dispensed with. The gentlewoman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. SALAZAR. Thank you, Madam Chairman Velazquez. The
amendment is simple. It adds only two words to the section
about the community navigator pilot program. It specifically
adds the words ``entrepreneurial counsel'' to the description
of what the community navigator pilot program should do. This
crucial program will provide technical and educational support
to business owners who currently lack access to adequate COVID
relief resources.
By adding the term ``entrepreneurial counsel'' to the list
of services provided by the program, we would ensure that
businesses have access to more than just basic support.
Entrepreneurial counsel could include any kind of counseling,
assistance, or business support that helps small businesses
make decisions impacting economic growth. By adding these two
simple words, we are able to provide the practical skills that
small businesses in our country need to grow and to thrive, not
only to maintain.
By adding these two simple words, this particular
critical--it is particularly critical for our low-income and
underserved minority communities where you and I belong to and
come from, who have suffered the most, as you know and you have
said it during this hearing, from the pandemic. We know that
our constituents will benefit tremendously from services like
entrepreneurial counseling, which is going to be a critical
part of the Prosperity Center I am opening in District Number
27, an integral part of my congressional office services down
here in Miami. This is the type of assistance that I would love
for my constituents to have available to them, entrepreneurial
counsel.
I thank you for this time and I yield back my time.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back. Do other
Members wish to be recognized on this amendment?
Mr. CROW. Madam Chair, Jason Crow. I would like to claim
time in opposition.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CROW. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to speak
briefly in opposition to the amendment. And while I appreciate
my colleague, Ms. Salazar's spirit of this and I think there is
definitely something that we can do to work on this through
this Committee in the months and years ahead. You know, as the
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Innovation Entrepreneurship and
Workforce Development, what I know here is that this language
that would be amended comes out of Section 6004 which actually
already covers the services that would be covered under the
language that you are adding. So, it could be duplicative
because the 6004 language, existing language, actually
describes in detail the community navigator services that are
included, which include outreach, education, and technical
assistance. So, we already covered the issues that would be
covered under the addition of your two words.
That said, you know, the problem here is, again, one of
implementation and what the intent of this package is. This
package is trying to deliver relief rapidly and effectively to
small businesses. And if were to add these two words, which,
again, are already covered by existing language in the services
provided under the community navigator program, it would
actually make implementation harder, slow that process down,
and adversely impact the very same businesses and harm then
that we are trying to save.
So, you know, my promise to you is to continue this
conversation. I would like to talk more about what we can do to
address your concerns and whether we need to expand that
language in the months and years ahead. We will have some
hearings where we will be able to have that discussion and call
some witnesses. But with respect to this package, it would
actually create some harm by slowing the process down in a way
that we already have been covered.
So, with that, I will again urge my colleagues to oppose
the amendment and I appreciate the time and, Madam Chair, I
yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment? Is
there any further debate on the amendment? Hearing none, the
question is on the amendment by the gentlelady from Florida.
I ask all Members to please unmute yourself for the roll
call.
All those in favor, say aye?
All opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The
amendment is not agreed to.
We will now consider Stauber second amendment. First?
Mr. STAUBER. Stauber number 2.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Number 2. For what purpose does the
gentleman from Minnesota seek recognition?
Mr. STAUBER. Chairwoman Velazquez, I have an amendment at
the desk.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment 2v1 to the Amendment to the Committee
print offered by Mr. Stauber of Minnesota.
Mr. STAUBER. Your Honor----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Objection for the reading of the
amendment will be dispensed with. The gentleman is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. STAUBER. Well, thank you, Chairwoman Velazquez and
Ranking Member Luetkemeyer. You know, I raise to all of you
something that has really troubled me for a long time. You
know, back in August of 2020, then Presidential candidate Joe
Biden stated in an interview with ABC that he would in quote,
``shut it down,'' meaning shut the economy down if he believed
the COVID situation called for it.
As Minnesota small businesses struggle with a governor who
seems hell bent on retaining control over their livelihoods by
keeping his emergency powers, I am worried now that my
constituents will have to deal with a President who is going to
unilaterally add more Federal restrictions and mandates,
ultimately, closing up mom-and-pop shops for good. We simply
cannot afford the shutdowns that President Biden is threatening
us with. A top-down approach has never been wise and I hardly
think it is fair to subject New York City with a population of
8.4 million to the same COVID-19 restrictions as in Ely,
Minnesota, with a population of 3,500.
My amendment requires the SBA to issue a report on the
impact on small businesses if there is a COVID-19 related
Federal mandate in place that would otherwise restrict or
prevent any small business from operating at normal capacity.
And I urge my support of this amendment so we can understand
just how devastating a Biden Federal shutdown would be on our
small businesses across this nation. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Do other
Members wish to be recognized on the amendment?
Ms. HOULAHAN. Madam Chair, I seek recognition to claim time
in opposition to the amendment.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Ms. Houlahan?
Ms. HOULAHAN. Yes, ma'am.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Yes. I am sorry. I just can't see
from here.
Ms. HOULAHAN. No problem.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. So, the gentlelady is recognized. For
what? You have an amendment at the desk?
Ms. HOULAHAN. I seek actually recognition to claim time in
opposition to the amendment.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Yes, the gentlelady is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. HOULAHAN. I really appreciate very much Mr. Stauber and
I very much thank him for his amendment. I value him personally
and his commitment to bipartisan work. Unfortunately and
respectfully, this amendment that he has offered would violate
the Byrd rule in the Senate. The reconciliation package that we
are addressing right now is not the proper vehicle for this
kind of amendment right now.
As a result, I am opposed to this amendment and I urge my
colleagues to oppose it as well.
With that being said, the issue isn't that businesses are
being impacted by public safety members--measures. It is, in
fact, that too many American consumers at this point don't feel
safe to return to a sense of normalcy.
According to one survey, 64 percent of people are not
currently engaged in normal out-of-home activities at this
point in time.
So, in sum, we cannot lose sight of our main and immediate
focus right now and this evening, which is providing economic
relief to the underserved and the hardest hit communities, and
providing it quickly. To accomplish that, we are limited by
strict budgetary restraints in this process and at this point
by the Byrd rule.
And while I oppose this amendment, I assure you, Mr.
Stauber, that I would love to work with you to send a letter to
the SBA to ensure that your concerns are being addressed. So, I
would encourage my colleagues to reject this amendment, and
with that, I yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentlelady yields back. Is there
any further debate on the amendment?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam, this is Ranking Member. I asked to
be recognized.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you. Strike the last word. I
appreciate the gentleman's amendment here. I think this is
extremely important that we understand the effect of the
lockdowns, the effect of trying to mandate certain things to
happen. I know that there has been this discussion of the Byrd
rule several times this evening and today. And it is
unfortunate because I think we are hiding behind it to a
certain extent.
I think we need to allow some of these things to go on and
let the Senate make the decision. If they want to throw it out,
that is fine, but this is good policy. This is good
legislation. This is a good way to look at revenues, to see
once how these actions of bureaucrats affect the revenues and
the economy that we are talking about here. I think it all
works together. I do not think--you know, I think we could make
a good case that it goes around the Byrd rule, but I think
hiding behind it as we have is very disappointing. You know,
when you talk about lockdowns, we already have a lot of case
studies here that shows when you take the shackles off, the
economy can blossom.
I can use my own state, State of Missouri, where the
lockdown was taken off in mid-May. We wound up with a 5 percent
increase in revenues for the year in Missouri in 2020 over
2019. We now have a 4.4 percent unemployment rate and we have
200,000 jobs that are looking for somebody to fill them. So, we
can walk and chew gum at the same time and those individuals
who are political leaders in their different states, as well as
other cities and counties, all they have to do is look across
the country or across the state next door to them and see how
this can be done.
And I think, what the gentleman's amendment is trying to do
is point this out, that this can be done and there is certainly
an effect to the lockdowns when you have one state that is
locked down and their economy is still in the tank and the
state next to them is open and they are going great guns. I
think those are things that we need to be looking at. And,
quite frankly, if again, Madam Chair and the gentle Ms.
Houlahan here also indicate that they kind of like this
amendment, maybe Mr. Stauber could offer this as a suspension
bill very shortly here because it is just simply asking the SBA
to actually do what they are supposed to be doing. So, I
support the amendment and ask for its adoption, and with that,
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back and I
recognize myself in opposition to the amendment.
In August 21, 2020, it was then candidate Joe Biden. Today,
President Joe Biden is saying that he wants to see the schools
in our country to reopen. But we cannot look at this issue in
terms of the shutdown isolated. We all know that unless we
crush the virus, people will not feel safe to go walk into a
restaurant and walk into a mall.
The Federal Research Chairman Powell recently testified,
and I quote, ``A full economic recovery is unlikely until
people are confident that it is safe to reengage in a broad
range of activities and that the key to recovery is to keep the
virus in check.''
So, this amendment violates the Byrd rule and for that
reason, we are asking a no vote.
Is there any further debate on the amendment?
Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the
gentleman from Minnesota. I ask all Members to please unmute
yourself for the roll call.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The
amendment is not agreed to.
We will now consider the Stauber amendment. For what
purpose does the gentleman from Minnesota seek recognition?
Mr. STAUBER. Chairwoman Velazquez, I have an amendment at
the desk.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment 1v1 to the amendment to the Committee
print offered by Mr. Stauber.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Stauber is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. STAUBER. Thank you, Chairwoman Velazquez and Ranking
Member Luetkemeyer. You know, as President Biden gave his
inaugural address about unity, on his first day in office he
made a heartless decision to take away more jobs in the middle
of an economic crisis by revoking the Keystone XL pipeline
permits just hours later. Now, when President revoked those
permits, he not only destroyed the livelihoods of those who
worked on the pipeline, but the small business community who
supported them as well. Motels that hosted the workers,
restaurants that fed the workers, retail stores that supplied
the workers all crushed in the blink of an eye by the
President's Executive Order decision.
My amendment simply will require the Small Business
Administration to report on the effects of revoking these
permits on small businesses. My amendment will make sure under
no uncertain terms the President understands the damage and
devastation he has caused with his decision.
And I urge support for my amendment and I ask to keep in
mind the thousands of small business owners and their families
who are now facing very grave and uncertain financial futures
due to this Executive Order. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I
yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Do other
Members wish to be recognized on the amendment? I will
recognize myself for--in opposition to the amendment.
So, let me say that we, as a nation, we have an abiding
commitment to promote and protect our public health and the
environment, to empower our workers and communities. We listen
to the science; work to improve public health; and protect our
environment to ensure access to clean air and water; to limit
exposure to dangerous chemicals and pesticides; to hold
polluters accountable, including those who disproportionately
harm communities of color and low-income communities; and to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support resiliency to the
impacts of climate change.
Following exhaustive reviews by Federal agencies, it is
clear that the proposed Keystone XL pipeline does not serve the
U.S. national interests and will not provide significant energy
security and economic benefits.
As outlined by President Biden, we must focus on
prioritizing the development of a clean energy economy which
will, in turn, create good jobs around the country. The United
States and the world face a climate crisis. That crisis must be
met with action to avoid setting the world on a dangerous,
potentially catastrophic climate trajectory.
We must combat the crisis with an ambitious plan to build
back better, focusing on reducing harmful emissions and
creating good, clean energies. In addition to the ongoing
climate crisis, we are in the midst of a national pandemic that
has decimated small businesses in every congressional district
across the country. Today, we must act decisively and enact
legislation that provides immediate economic relief to small
businesses and ensure that the SBA has the capacity to address
this issue.
Also, this amendment violates the Byrd rule in the Senate.
And with the reasons that I also explained, I am asking for the
no vote.
Do other Members wish to be recognized on the amendment?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, this is the Ranking Member. I
ask to be recognized.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. For what purpose is the gentleman
seeking recognition?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Strike the last word.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to
yield some additional time to the sponsor of the amendment, Mr.
Stauber from Minnesota.
Mr. STAUBER. Thank you. Thank you, Ranking Member
Luetkemeyer. Madam Chairwoman, I do appreciate your comments
reference my amendment, but let us talk about the jobs, the
good paying jobs that were removed, thousands and thousands of
good paying jobs. These jobs were going to be done by our union
friends under project labor agreements and Davis-Bacon
prevailing wage. Over $3.8 billion was struck out of our
economy because of an Executive Order. These were American
jobs. These were my friends that were going to work on this. We
have to retain energy independence so we do not rely on OPEC
nations anymore. We have been involved in wars over energy,
oil, and gas.
Today, Madam Chair, or rather tonight, it is almost 30
below 0 in Northern Minnesota. We are heating our homes with
natural gas and oil to stay warm and our middle class and lower
class families today have energy that they can afford. The
Keystone pipeline was vetted, one of the most vetted projects
in America. Our neighbors and allies and good friends from the
North, our Canadian friends are disappointed, extremely
disappointed at this Executive Order.
This pipeline meets the EPA standards and the labor
standards that we set forth and that the world tries to strive
for. Madam Chair, with all due respect, this line goes through
small communities from 300 people to 3,000 people. The
expectation and the preparedness for those workers to be in
those respective communities, to help the small businesses and
help their economy grow, they were looking forward to that.
My amendment simply says what was the devastation? And I
respectfully yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there
any further debate on the amendment?
Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the
gentleman from Minnesota.
I ask all Members to please unmute yourself for the roll
call.
All those in favor, say aye?
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The
amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. STAUBER. Madam Chair, I request a recorded vote.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has requested a
recorded vote. Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. [Nonverbal response]
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. There is a sufficient second. A roll
call vote is ordered pursuant to Committee rule 13 and House
rule XI, further proceedings on the amendment are postponed.
We will now consider the Hagedorn first amendment. For what
purpose does the gentleman from Minnesota seek recognition?
Mr. HAGEDORN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will record the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment 1v1----
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Without objection further reading on
the amendment will be dispensed with. The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HAGEDORN. I appreciate that, Madam Chair. I won't take
the 5 minutes.
My amendment does something very simple. It allows farmers
and ranchers categorized as partnerships, such as LLCs, to
consider gross income when applying for Paycheck Protection
Program loans. You know, currently, SBA only allows
agricultural partnerships to consider their net income and by
opening up to gross income, more farmers and producers can
receive maximum PPP loans. I have heard from all sorts of
producers in Minnesota, corn growers, pork producers, soybean
growers, Farm Bureau Members, sugar beet growers, it does not
matter and across the country. The farmers are really in need
of this. They have been through a lot in COVID. We should open
this up to get them whatever kind of things that we can in
order to help sustain their operations.
And with that, I would ask for consideration and support
for the amendment. Thank you very much.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Do other
Members wish to be recognized on the amendment?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Madam Chair, this is the Ranking Member. I
asked to be recognized.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. For what purpose does the gentleman
from Missouri seek recognition?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Strike the last word.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you. I will be very brief. This is
the last amendment we have got. We are all ready to lock the
doors on all this, but I think this is an amendment that is
truly something that I think you need. It is bipartisan.
Everybody can get behind this.
Every single farmer, if you go talk to him, this is an
issue, to fix the PPP problem that they have with access to the
loans because of the way that they are structured with their
farming operation. And that is what this gentleman does. It is
a very simple request in what he is trying to do here, to be
able to fix it and it is an unforced error here. It is
something that nobody realized at the time they did it. It is
something that in the past we have been able to get the
Treasury just to actually fix the glitch here on their own, but
they haven't seen to do it yet. So, I think by us trying to do
it here, it certainly sets the stage for this to get done. I
think the gentleman has got a great amendment and I certainly
urge its adoption. With that, I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there
any further debate on the amendment?
Mr. STAUBER. Madam Chair?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. STAUBER. Madam Chair, Stauber, Minnesota 8.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is seeking recognition
to speak on the amendment, to strike the last word?
Mr. STAUBER. Yes, I would like to strike the last word,
Madam Chair.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. STAUBER. Madam Chair, I would just like to say a few
words. I would like to thank my friend and colleague,
Congressman Hagedorn, for offering this important amendment.
This amendment will allow for more of our farmers and ranchers
to access the maximum PPP loan amount. The challenges that the
farmers and ranchers face have only been exacerbated by this
COVID-19 crisis. So, I am happy to support my colleague in his
call for more relief for the men and women who work hard to put
food on our tables. And Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there
any further debate on the amendment?
Mr. MFUME. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MFUME. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I will not use all
the time. I think that this is a well-intentioned amendment. I
have a real serious concern, however, as to whether it will
ever make it to the final bill because I think it violates the
germaneness rule. And because it has in it tax policy which
brings about tax implications, it would probably be better
taken up by the Ways and Means Committee. I think that we are
moving into an area over which this Committee may not have real
jurisdiction.
So, it is not to question the intention of the author or
the intention of the amendment. It is just the question of
whether or not it will be deemed as germane and whether or not
there are tax implications that this Committee cannot address
because it doesn't have oversight. So, I yield back.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman yields back. Is there
any further debate on the amendment? I will recognize myself in
opposition to the amendment.
I share the concerns of my colleague, Mr. Hagedorn,
regarding America's farmers and ranchers, and agree that they
have been particularly hard hit by the pandemic and resulting
shifts in markets. As you know, Congress has provided
additional relief for agricultural businesses, including direct
relief from USDA, and also ensured that agricultural businesses
can take advantage. And by the way, I work very hard with
Congressman Antonio Delgado and the former Ranking Member to
allow for farmers to be able to access both the PPP loans and
EIDL.
We must remember that businesses can choose how they
organize and register the business. Each type of business
structure has certain benefits and disadvantages. With that
said, we are limited by the Byrd rule. I will have to oppose
the amendment at this time.
Is there any further debate on the amendment?
Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the
gentleman from Minnesota.
I ask to please unmute yourself for the roll call.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those oppose, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The
amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. HAGEDORN. Madam Chair, I request a recorded vote.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has requested a
recorded vote. Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. [Nonverbal response]
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. There is a sufficient second. A roll
call vote is ordered pursuant to Committee rule 13 and House
ule XI. Further proceedings on the amendment are postponed.
Does any Member seek recognition to offer additional
amendments? Being none, the Committee stands in recess subject
to the call of the Chair.
[Recess]
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The Committee will come to order.
The Committee will now resume consideration of the
amendments on which roll call votes were requested and
postponed. In agreement with the Ranking Member and without
objection, the Committee will now consider end block number 1
which includes the following seven amendments on which roll
call votes were requested and postponed.
Williams number 1 offered by the gentleman from Texas.
Garbarino number 1 offered by the gentleman from New York.
Garbarino number 2 offered by the gentleman from New York. Kim
number 1 offered by the gentlewoman from California. Donalds
number 1 offered by the gentleman from Florida. Hagedorn number
1 offered by the gentleman from Minnesota. Stauber number 1
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota. On end block number 1,
the clerk will call the roll.
The CLERK. Mr. Golden?
Mr. GOLDEN. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes no. Mr. Crow?
Mr. CROW. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Crow votes no. Ms. Davids? Ms. Davids?
Ms. DAVIDS. Davids votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Davids votes no. Mr. Mfume?
Mr. MFUME. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Mfume votes no. Mr. Phillips?
Mr. PHILLIPS. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Phillips votes no. Ms. Newman?
Ms. NEWMAN. Newman votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Newman votes no. Ms. Bourdeaux?
Ms. BOURDEAUX. Bourdeaux votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Bourdeaux votes no. Ms. Chu?
Ms. CHU. Chu votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Chu votes no. Mr. Evans?
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Evans votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Evans votes no. Mr. Delgado?
Mr. DELGADO. Delgado votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Delgado votes no. Ms. Houlahan?
Ms. HOULAHAN. Houlahan votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Houlahan votes no. Mr. Kim?
Mr. KIM. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Kim votes no. Ms. Craig?
Ms. CRAIG. Craig votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Craig votes no. Mr. Luetkemeyer?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Luetkemeyer votes yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer votes aye. Mr. Williams?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Williams votes aye. Mr. Hagedorn?
Mr. HAGEDORN. Hagedorn votes aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Hagedorn votes aye. Mr. Stauber?
Mr. STAUBER. Stauber votes yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Stauber votes aye. Mr. Meuser?
[No response.]
The CLERK. Mr. Garbarino?
Mr. GARBARINO. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Garbarino votes aye. Ms. Kim?
Ms. YOUNG KIM. Is that me, Young Kim?
The CLERK. Yes, Ms. Young Kim.
Ms. YOUNG KIM. Kim votes aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Kim votes aye. Ms. Van Duyne? Ms. Van Duyne?
[No response.]
The CLERK. Mr. Donalds?
Mr. DONALDS. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Donalds says aye. Ms. Salazar?
Ms. SALAZAR. Salazar votes yes.
The CLERK. Ms. Salazar votes aye. Mr. Fitzgerald?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Fitzgerald votes aye. Ms. Velazquez?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Ms. Velazquez votes aye--or mo.
The CLERK. Ms. Velazquez votes no. Mr. Meuser?
[No response.]
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Is he on? The clerk will report the
tally.
Mr. STAUBER. Madam Chair?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. STAUBER. Madam Chair, Stauber from Minnesota. How am I
recorded?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk?
The CLERK. Mr. Stauber voted aye.
Mr. STAUBER. Thank you.
The CLERK. You are welcome. Madam Chairwoman, on this vote,
there were 9 ayes and 14 noes.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The end block amendment is not agreed
to.
The question now is on Luetkemeyer number 1, a substitute
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the
gentleman from Missouri. The clerk will call the roll.
The CLERK. Mr. Golden?
Mr. GOLDEN. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes no. Mr. Crow?
Mr. CROW. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Crow votes no. Ms. Davids?
Ms. DAVIDS. Davids votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Davids votes no. Mr. Mfume?
Mr. MFUME. Mfume votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Mfume votes no. Mr. Phillips?
Mr. PHILLIPS. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Phillips votes no. Ms. Newman?
Ms. NEWMAN. Newman votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Newman votes no. Ms. Bourdeaux?
Ms. BOURDEAUX. Bourdeaux votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Bourdeaux votes no. Ms. Chu?
Ms. CHU. Chu votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Chu votes no. Mr. Evans?
Mr. EVANS. Evans votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Evans votes no. Mr. Delgado?
Mr. DELGADO. Delgado votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Delgado votes no. Ms. Houlahan?
Ms. HOULAHAN. Houlahan votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Houlahan votes no. Mr. Kim?
Mr. KIM. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Kim votes no. Ms. Craig?
Ms. CRAIG. Craig votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Craig votes no. Mr. Luetkemeyer?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Luetkemeyer aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer votes aye. Mr. Williams?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Williams says aye. Mr. Hagedorn?
Mr. HAGEDORN. Hagedorn votes aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Hagedorn votes aye. Mr. Stauber?
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Stauber votes yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Stauber votes aye. Mr. Meuser?
Mr. MEUSER. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Meuser votes aye. Mr. Garbarino?
Mr. GARBARINO. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Garbarino votes aye. Ms. Kim?
Ms. YOUNG KIM. Kim votes aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Kim votes aye. Ms. Van Duyne?
[No response.]
The CLERK. How does Ms. Van Duyne vote?
Ms. YOUNG KIM. Kim voted aye.
The CLERK. Thank you. Mr. Donalds?
Mr. DONALDS. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Donalds votes aye. Ms. Salazar?
Ms. SALAZAR. Salazar votes yes.
The CLERK. Ms. Salazar votes aye. Mr. Fitzgerald?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Fitzgerald votes aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Fitzgerald says aye. Ms. Velazquez?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Velazquez votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Velazquez votes no. Ms. Van Duyne?
[No response.]
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the tally.
The CLERK. Madam Chairwoman, on this vote there were 10
ayes and 14 noes.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The amendment is not agreed to.
The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
All those in favor, say aye.
Those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the
amendments in the nature of a substitute is agreed to.
Mr. HAGEDORN. Madam Chair, can I have a recorded vote on
that, please? I call for a recorded vote.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has requested a
recorded vote. Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. [Nonverbal response]
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. There is a sufficient second. A roll
call vote is ordered.
The CLERK. Mr. Golden?
Mr. GOLDEN. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes no. Mr. Crow?
Mr. CROW. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Crow votes no. Ms. Davids?
Ms. DAVIDS. Davids votes aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Davids votes aye. Mr. Mfume?
Mr. MFUME. Mfume votes aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Mfume votes aye. Mr. Phillips?
Mr. PHILLIPS. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Phillips votes aye. Ms. Newman?
Ms. NEWMAN. Aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Newman votes aye. Ms. Bourdeaux?
Ms. BOURDEAUX. Bourdeaux votes aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Bourdeaux votes aye. Ms. Chu?
Ms. CHU. Chu votes aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Chu votes aye. Mr. Evans?
Mr. EVANS. Evans votes aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Evans votes aye. Mr. Delgado?
Mr. DELGADO. Delgado votes aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Delgado votes aye. Ms. Houlahan?
Ms. HOULAHAN. Houlahan votes aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Houlahan votes aye. Mr. Kim?
Mr. KIM. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Kim votes aye. Ms. Craig?
Ms. CRAIG. Craig votes aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Craig votes aye. Mr. Luetkemeyer?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Luetkemeyer votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer votes no. Mr. Williams?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Williams says no. Mr. Hagedorn?
Mr. HAGEDORN. Hagedorn votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Hagedorn votes no. Mr. Stauber?
Mr. STAUBER. Stauber votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Stauber votes no. Mr. Meuser?
Mr. MEUSER. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Meuser votes no. Mr. Garbarino? Mr.
Garbarino?
Mr. GARBARINO. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Garbarino votes no. Ms. Kim?
Ms. YOUNG KIM. Kim votes no.
The CLERK. Ms. Kim votes no. Ms. Van Duyne?
[No response.]
The CLERK. Mr. Donalds?
Mr. DONALDS. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Donalds votes no. Ms. Salazar? Ms. Salazar?
Ms. SALAZAR. Yes. Salazar votes yes.
The CLERK. Ms. Salazar votes aye. Mr. Fitzgerald?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Fitzgerald votes aye. Ms. Velazquez?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Aye. Ms. Velazquez votes aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Velazquez votes aye. Ms. Van Duyne?
[No response.]
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Does anyone wish to change their
vote?
Mr. MFUME. Madam Chair, to the clerk, how am I recorded?
The CLERK. Mr. Mfume voted aye.
Mr. MFUME. Thank you.
The CLERK. You are welcome.
Mr. CROW. Madam Chair, to the clerk, how am I recorded?
The CLERK. Mr. Crow voted no.
Mr. CROW. I would like to change my vote to aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Crow votes aye.
Mr. GOLDEN. Madam Chair, how am I recorded?
The CLERK. Mr. Golden voted no.
Mr. GOLDEN. Change that vote to aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes aye.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Clerk, I need to change my vote to no. Mr.
Fitzgerald.
The CLERK. Mr. Fitzgerald votes no.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will report the tally.
Mr. HAGEDORN. Madam Chair, can we report the entire--can I
make a motion that we go ahead and report the entire roll as
far as their vote? Because I believe one or two Members were
confused on this one. Shall I make a motion that the clerk go
through the roll one more time and just explain where the vote
is at this time for each Member?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The clerk will call the vote or
announce the vote of each individual Member.
The CLERK. Ms. Velazquez voted aye. Mr. Golden voted aye.
Mr. Crow voted aye. Ms. Davids voted aye. Mr. Mfume voted aye.
Mr. Phillips voted aye. Ms. Newman voted aye. Ms. Bourdeaux
voted aye. Ms. Chu voted aye. Mr. Evans voted aye. Mr. Delgado
voted aye. Ms. Houlahan voted aye. Mr. Kim voted aye. Ms. Craig
voted aye. Mr. Luetkemeyer voted no. Mr. Williams voted no. Mr.
Hagedorn voted no. Mr. Stauber voted no. Mr. Meuser voted no.
Mr. Garbarino voted no. Ms. Kim voted no. Mr. Van Duyne did not
vote. Mr. Donalds voted no. Ms. Salazar voted aye. Mr.
Fitzgerald voted no.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Again, does anyone wish to change
their vote, his or her vote?
The clerk will report the tally.
The CLERK. Madam Chairwoman, on this vote there were 15
ayes and 9 noes.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The ayes have it and the amendment in
the nature of a substitute is agreed to.
The question now occurs on the Committee print as amended.
All those in favor, say aye.
Those opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the
Committee print as amended is agreed to.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Maryland to
make a motion.
Mr. MFUME. Madam Chair, I move that the Committee transmit
the Committee print as amended to the House Committee on the
budget with the recommendation that the Committee do passed.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The question is on the motion offered
by the gentleman from Maryland.
All those in favor, say aye.
Those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the
motion is agreed to.
Mr. HAGEDORN. Madam Chair, I request a recorded vote.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The gentleman has requested a
recorded vote. Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. [Nonverbal response]
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. There is a sufficient second. A roll
call vote is ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The CLERK. Mr. Golden?
Mr. GOLDEN. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes aye. Mr. Crow?
Mr. CROW. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Crow votes aye. Ms. Davids?
Ms. DAVIDS. Davids votes aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Davids votes aye. Mr. Mfume?
Mr. MFUME. Mfume votes aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Mfume votes aye. Mr. Phillips?
Mr. PHILLIPS. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Phillips votes aye. Ms. Newman?
Ms. NEWMAN. Aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Newman votes aye. Ms. Bourdeaux?
Ms. BOURDEAUX. Bourdeaux votes aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Bourdeaux votes aye. Ms. Chu? Ms. Chu?
[No response.]
The CLERK. Mr. Evans?
Mr. EVANS. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Evans votes aye. Mr. Delgado?
Mr. DELGADO. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Delgado votes aye. Ms. Houlahan?
Ms. HOULAHAN. Aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Houlahan votes aye. Mr. Kim?
Mr. KIM. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Kim votes aye. Ms. Craig?
Ms. CRAIG. Craig votes aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Craig votes no. Mr. Luetkemeyer?
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Luetkemeyer votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer votes no. Mr. Williams?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Williams says no. Mr. Hagedorn?
Mr. HAGEDORN. Hagedorn votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Hagedorn votes no. Mr. Stauber?
Mr. STAUBER. Stauber votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Stauber votes no. Mr. Meuser?
Mr. MEUSER. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Meuser votes no. Mr. Garbarino? Mr.
Garbarino?
[No response.]
The CLERK. Ms. Kim?
Ms. YOUNG KIM. Kim votes no. I swear you would not believe
the----
The CLERK. Ms. Kim votes no. Ms. Van Duyne?
[No response.]
The CLERK. Mr. Donalds?
Mr. DONALDS. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Donalds votes no. Ms. Salazar?
Ms. SALAZAR. Yes, votes yes.
The CLERK. Ms. Salazar votes aye. Mr. Fitzgerald?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Fitzgerald votes no.
The CLERK. Mr. Fitzgerald says no. Ms. Velazquez?
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Ms. Velazquez votes aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Velazquez votes aye. Ms. Chu?
Ms. CHU. Chu votes aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Chu votes aye. Mr. Garbarino?
Mr. GARBARINO. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Garbarino votes no.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. Does anyone want to change their
vote? The clerk will report the tally.
The CLERK. Madam Chairwoman, on this vote there were 15
ayes and 9 noes.
Chairwoman VELAZQUEZ. The ayes have it and the motion is
agreed to.
Pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 2L, I ask that Committee
Members have the right to file with the clerk of the Committee
supplemental additional minority and dissenting views without
objection. Also, without objection, the staff is authorized to
make necessary technical and conforming changes. The meeting is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:26 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]
File and source
- File
- CHRG-117hhrg44966.txt
- Size
- 178,863 bytes
- SHA-256
- 96404c9ab2558acd1b4585d81a9131dcadce671c352ec06355dcc5c9435ca868
- Our copy
- CHRG-117hhrg44966.txt
- Original
- No public link identified.