Markup of H.R. 8033, H.R. 9031 and Other Bills (House Small Business Committee hearing, September 10, 2024)
Summary
Transcript of the September 10, 2024 House Small Business Committee markup, Small Business Committee Document Number 118-058, of seven regulatory bills. They include H.R. 8033, the Regulatory Transparency for Small Businesses Act, H.R. 9031, the Assurance for Small Business Act of 2024, H.R. 9033, the LABOR Act, and H.R. 7198, the PROVE IT Act of 2024. Chairman Roger Williams and Ranking Member Nydia Velázquez opened, and minority members offered substitutes to H.R. 9030, H.R. 9085 and H.R. 7198. The last vote shown adopted H.R. 7198 by 13 ayes to 11 nays, with Velázquez voting no, and the committee adjourned at 2:52 p.m.
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
Cite this document
“Markup of H.R. 8033, H.R. 9031 and Other Bills (House Small Business Committee hearing, September 10, 2024).”
Original at www.govinfo.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/markup-of-h-r-8033-h-r-9031-and-other-bills-house-small-business-commi-974dab70d9/
, SHA-256 776343303959ac2a96acca8c76d28b54a4cd239f37358e772e3c08829080e910.Full text
MARKUP OF: H.R. 8033, THE REGULATORY TRANS-
PARENCY FOR SMALL BUSINESSES ACT; H.R.
9031, THE ASSURANCE FOR SMALL BUSINESS
ACT OF 2024; H.R. 9032, THE ENHANCED
REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ASSESSMENT ACT;
H.R. 9030, THE AGENDA CLARITY ACT; H.R.
9085, THE REGULATORY REVIEW IMPROVE-
MENT ACT OF 2024; H.R. 9033, THE LET
AMERICAN BUSINESSES BE ON RECORD
(LABOR) ACT; H.R. 7198, THE PROVE IT ACT
OF 2024
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
UNITED STATES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
HEARING HELD
SEPTEMBER 10, 2024
Small Business Committee Document Number 118–058
Available via the GPO Website: www.govinfo.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
57–369 WASHINGTON : 2024
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas, Chairman
BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas
MARIA SALAZAR, Florida
TRACEY MANN, Kansas
JAKE ELLZEY, Texas
MARC MOLINARO, New York
MARK ALFORD, Missouri
ELI CRANE, Arizona
AARON BEAN, Florida
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
NICK LALOTA, New York
CELESTE MALOY, Utah
NYDIA VELÁZQUEZ, New York, Ranking Member
JARED GOLDEN, Maine
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ, Washington
SHRI THANEDAR, Michigan
MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky
HILLARY SCHOLTEN, Michigan
JUDY CHU, California
SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
BEN JOHNSON, Majority Staff Director
MELISSA JUNG, Minority Staff Director
(II)
CONTENTS
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Hon. Roger Williams ................................................................................................ 1
Hon. Nydia Velázquez ............................................................................................. 2
APPENDIX
Additional Material for the Record:
H.R. 8033 ........................................................................................................... 47
H.R. 9031 ........................................................................................................... 50
H.R. 9032 ........................................................................................................... 52
H.R. 9030 ........................................................................................................... 58
H.R. 9085 ........................................................................................................... 61
H.R. 9033 ........................................................................................................... 64
H.R. 7198 ........................................................................................................... 66
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 9030 offered by Mr.
Thanedar ....................................................................................................... 79
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 9030 offered by Ms.
Chu ................................................................................................................. 81
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 9085 offered by Ms.
Davids of Kansas .......................................................................................... 83
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 7198 offered by Ms.
Velázquez ....................................................................................................... 85
Minority Views H.R. 8033, the ‘‘Regulatory Transparency for Small Busi-
nesses Act’’ ..................................................................................................... 88
Minority Views H.R. 9031, the ‘‘Assurance for Small Business Act of
2024’’ .............................................................................................................. 90
Minority Views H.R. 9032, the ‘‘Enhanced Regulatory Flexibility Assess-
ment Act’’ ....................................................................................................... 91
Minority Views H.R. 9030, the ‘‘Regulatory Agenda Clarity Act’’ ................ 93
Minority Views H.R. 9085, the ‘‘Regulatory Review Improvement Act’’ ...... 95
Minority Views H.R. 9033, the ‘‘Let American Businesses be On Record
Act of 2024’’ or ‘‘LABOR Act of 2024’’ ......................................................... 97
Minority Views H.R. 7198, the ‘‘Prove It Act of 2024’’ .................................. 98
ABC (Associated Builders and Contractors) ................................................... 100
ACT/The App Association ................................................................................ 102
AFL-CIO Legislative Alert ............................................................................... 104
American Sustainable Business Council ........................................................ 107
Hon. Blaine Luetkemeyer Statement for the Record .................................... 109
Coalition for Sensible Safeguards Letter Number 1 ...................................... 111
Coalition for Sensible Safeguards Letter Number 2 ...................................... 115
Freedom Fighters ............................................................................................. 118
Joint Trades Letter ........................................................................................... 121
Public Citizen .................................................................................................... 124
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council Letter ..................................... 126
South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce ............................... 127
(III)
MARKUP OF: H.R. 8033, THE REGULATORY
TRANSPARENCY FOR SMALL BUSINESSES
ACT; H.R. 9031, THE ASSURANCE FOR SMALL
BUSINESS ACT OF 2024; H.R. 9032, THE EN-
HANCED REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY AS-
SESSMENT ACT; H.R. 9030, THE AGENDA
CLARITY ACT; H.R. 9085, THE REGULATORY
REVIEW IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2024; H.R.
9033, THE LET AMERICAN BUSINESSES BE
ON RECORD (LABOR) ACT; H.R. 7198, THE
PROVE IT ACT OF 2024
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2024
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:52 a.m., in Room
2360, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Roger Williams [chair-
man of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Williams, Stauber, Meuser, Van Duyne,
Salazar, Mann, Ellzey, Molinaro, Alford, Crane, Bean, LaLota,
Maloy, Velázquez, Golden, Phillips, Landsman, McGarvey,
Gluesenkamp Perez, Scholten, Thanedar, Chu, Davids, and Pappas.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The committee will now come to order
and a quorum is present. Without objection the Chair is authorized
to declare a recess of the committee at any time.
As required by the House rules a copy of legislative measures
have been made available to Members and the public at least 24
hours in advance. Pursuant to Committee Rule 13 and House Rule
11, all votes will be rolled to the end of this meeting.
Good morning, and welcome to today’s markup where we will be
discussing 7 bills that highlight our nation’s small businesses and
the burdensome regulations imposed on them by this Administra-
tion. I am going to be speaking on each of the bills we bring up
today in much greater detail, so I will keep these remarks very
brief.
To put it bluntly, Main Street America has been crippled by the
over $1.68 trillion in new costs imposed by new regulations during
President Biden’s time in office.
My colleagues and I on this committee have the privilege of being
main street’s voice in Washington and began investigating how
(1)
2
these staggering numbers are possible. We sent letters to federal
agencies and questioned how they were adhering to the laws on the
books that are supposed to insulate small businesses from the most
damaging regulations coming out of Washington, D.C.
The markup we are having today is a result of the information
that we gained through our investigation and the various hearings
we have had on the impacts of these actions throughout this Con-
gress.
These bills are intended to prevent this type of harmful regu-
latory regime from being implemented by the future administra-
tions. By requiring government agencies to assess and limit the di-
rect and indirect costs of their rules and regulations, federal agen-
cies are forced to consider the interests of small businesses.
Main Street America cannot afford more red tape, nor can they
afford more—spend any more valuable time on compliance. They
need a regulatory environment they can survive in so they can con-
tinue to fuel our nation’s economy, and that is exactly what these
bills seek to give them.
I would like to thank our Members for bringing these bills for-
ward for consideration in today’s markup. Every piece of legislation
we are going to look at today is the product of hearings and inves-
tigations we have conducted.
Here on this committee, we know it is our job to put forward
meaningful policy solutions that will help and not harm our na-
tion’s job creators. They are already dealing with enough thanks to
the current economic landscape.
We must continue the fight for Main Street America, and these
pieces of legislation are a great step in the right direction. I am ex-
tremely proud to see how our committee is generating sound and
responsible legislation that will free up our nation’s small busi-
nesses to focus on their core operations.
The policy solutions we plan to markup here today have received
statements of support from 50 stakeholders including the American
Farm Bureau, who is the voice of 5.9 million farmers across the
country, to the National Federation of Independent Business, who
represents 325,000 small businesses. They recognize these bills are
not duplicative and are vital for small businesses to survive in the
harsh regulatory environment brought by the Biden-Harris Admin-
istration.
I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter this letter into
the record. And without objection it is so order.
So, with that, I look forward to today’s markup, and I yield to
the distinguished Ranking Member from New York, Ms. Velázquez.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Part of our role as Members of the Small Business Committee is
to recognize the impact regulations have on small businesses and
work to find ways to balance the shared goal of minimizing the
burdens and achieving the intended effects of regulations.
Throughout committee hearings, we have heard that agencies
have been better about considering the impact of their rules on
small entities since the passage of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
To that end, the Office of Advocacy has been working diligently
to educate and train rule-writing staff about their responsibilities.
We have seen the fruits of their labor, the analysis agencies are
3
conducting has improved significantly. Agencies are responsive to
Advocacy’s letters and have made meaningful changes to the rules
to minimize the burden on small businesses.
In fact, Advocacy’s efforts resulted in more than $90 million in
estimated regulatory costs for small businesses in fiscal year 2023
alone.
Contrary to what we will hear today, the process is working, and
federal regulations can and do benefit our economy. Let me share
some examples.
Regulations that protect our air and waters boost small busi-
nesses in the outdoor recreational industry, accounting for $564 bil-
lion of our GDP in 2022.
Regulations to combat climate change protect small businesses
that do not have the resources to recover from a climate disaster.
With smart, well-crafted regulations we can grow our economy,
protect the health and safety of Americans, and limit the burden
on small businesses.
Moreover, smart, well-crafted regulations have the potential to
unleash innovation. Small businesses all across the nation have
found new opportunities to invest cost-effective and efficient solu-
tions to pressing policy problems as a result of a regulatory change.
And regulations help to level the playing field for small busi-
nesses, enabling them to better compete against anti-competitive
big business practices.
Unfortunately, we will hear talking points that the Biden Admin-
istration unleashed a regulatory onslaught on small businesses
across the country or that agencies do not take into consideration
the best interests of small business when making rules. Let us take
it for what it is, political themes for partisan gains.
Let us look at the facts. The Biden Administration proposed rules
to improve the lives of Americans. One rule would make it easier
to cancel subscriptions and speak to customer service agents di-
rectly, freeing small business owners of the hassle of being placed
on hold or endless automated instruction will save them time and
money.
Unfortunately, the bills we are considering today will grind the
regulatory process to a halt and harm the health, safety, and wel-
fare of Americans and small businesses. These bills adds numerous
procedural and analytical requirements that will complicate rule-
making and redirect limited agency resources, without improving
the process. Put simply it is paralysis by analysis.
These bills also mandate overly extensive information about reg-
ulatory impacts that would not only burden the agencies, but also
the small businesses that will have to provide information.
These bills reflect many of the major antiregulatory themes in-
cluded in Project 2025, a radical plan to gut environmental, health,
and safety protections. Even Larry Hogan, the former Republican
Governor of Maryland has said there is no clearer threat to Amer-
ican values than Project 2025.
To that end, I cannot support these bills, and plan to support
amendments to make much-needed improvements.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady yields back and does any other
Member seek recognition for the purpose of making an opening
4
statement? Okay. Seeing none, we will now move to the consider-
ation of the first bill.
The first bill we will mark up is H.R. 8033, the Regulatory
Transparency for Small Business Act introduced by Representative
Luetkemeyer. I now recognize Mr. Mann, from the great State of
Kansas, for an opening statement on the bill.
H.R. 8033
Mr. MANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I get started, Mr.
Luetkemeyer, the sponsor of this bill isn’t able to be here today. I
would like to ask unanimous consent to enter his statement into
the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My district of Big First District of Kansas is home to more than
20,000 small businesses and more than 80 percent of employees in
the district are employed by small businesses.
The Biden-Harris Administration’s burdensome and overreaching
regulations on America’s small business owners has wreaked havoc
on small business throughout the Big First and across the country.
Less than a century ago the laws of the United States could fit
into a single book but today bureaucrats have filled enough vol-
umes to fill up this entire dais with the Federal Register of govern-
ment regulations sitting at more than 90,000 pages.
Between ramped inflation and high interest rates, a disrupted
supply chain and burdensome federal regulations our small busi-
nesses are struggling. The last thing they need are more rules from
Washington, D.C. that make it harder for them to make an honest
living and serve their community as well.
Unfortunately, President Biden and Vice President Harris have
done just that, issuing more than 817 rules that have cost small
business owners more than $482 billion and millions of hours of pa-
perwork.
Our bill, this bill, the Regulatory Transparency for Small Busi-
ness Act forces federal agencies to identify the approximate number
of small business that will be affected by the proposed regulation,
the cost associated with this implementation, and to provide the
data the agencies use to make their determinations. We need more
transparency.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back. Are there any
other Members who wish to be recognized for a statement on the
bill? Okay. If there are no other Members who wish to be recog-
nized, I would like to recognize the Ranking Member to speak on
the bill.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under current law
agencies are required to certify whether a rule would have a sig-
nificant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
and submit their certification and factual basis in the Federal Reg-
ister.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they are con-
cerned that agencies are improperly certifying the rules and that
it negatively impacts small businesses. However, the facts prove
otherwise.
If a certification is inadequate the courts will overturn it. Agen-
cies recognize this and understand information must be meaningful
to withstand a legal challenge. If there is a disagreement over the
5
certification, the Office of Advocacy can send a comment letter to
an agency expressing concerns.
And for the most part, this process works.
For example, EPA proposed a rule that will impose a one-time
requirement to electronically report data related to asbestos. Advo-
cacy sent a letter to EPA stating the agency improperly certified
the rule under the RFA. When EPA published the final rule in July
2023, it provided an exemption to business with an annual sales
threshold of $500,000 or less in any calendar year from 2019 to
2022, which saved $144 million for small businesses.
Despite the mechanism in place to hold agencies accountable to-
day’s bill requires agencies to identify the approximate number of
small entities affected by the regulation. The next goal and the cost
per entity, that might sound good at first. But it is not that simple.
As drafted H.R. 8033 imposes a cost estimate for every proposed
rule. Under current law only economically significant rules are re-
quired to have a cost benefit analysis. Let me put this requirement
into perspective.
The Coast Guard has issued thousands of rules to declare tem-
porary safety zones for sport races, firework shows, and other pub-
lic events. Why would we vote to require the agency to conduct a
cost estimate for thousands of rules that will not impact small busi-
nesses? It is a waste of taxpayer resources.
To add insult to injury the information required by the bill is fre-
quently unavailable to agencies at the proposed rule stage. That is
why we have a notice and comment period which allows the public
to weigh in and provide rule writers with information necessary to
make informed choices.
Because this bill makes the rule making process far more bur-
densome, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady yields back. I now recognize my-
self to speak in support of this legislation.
H.R. 8033, the Regulatory and Transparency for Small Business
Act will require agencies to show their work when determining
whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a sub-
stantial number of small entities.
When agencies are drafting proposed rules they must determine
whether the rule will have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If it does then the agency must complete
an analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act or RFA. If it does
not the agency merely must justify that it does not.
Certifying saves the agency the headache of doing an analysis so
often times despite the true impact of a rule an agency will improp-
erly certify that the rule will not have a significant impact despite
evidence to the contrary.
H.R. 8033 will require agencies to show their work when certi-
fying that a bill will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities to ensure that a proper certifi-
cation is done.
They are already required to do this type of an analysis, so as
long as the agencies are following the law this should not be much
additional work.
I thank the Vice-Chairman of this committee, Mr. Luetkemeyer,
for his hard work on this legislation, which will address one of the
6
largest gaps in the RFA process. If there is no further discussion
the committee now moves to consideration of H.R. 8033.
The clerk will report.
The CLERK. H.R. 8033, to amend Title 5——
Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection the first reading of the
bill is suspended with and without objection the bill is considered
as read and open for amendment.
Do any Members seeks recognition for the purpose of offering an
amendment? Okay. If seeing none, the question is now in the adop-
tion of H.R. 8033. In favorably reporting to the House. All those in
favor say aye.
Mr. MANN. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. A Member was okay, and for pur-
pose does the gentleman seek recognition?
Mr. MANN. Oh I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. To request a recorded
vote.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. A recorded vote has been requested
and a roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to Committee Rule 13, and
House Rule 11, further proceedings on the bill are postponed.
H.R. 9032
The next bill we will markup is H.R. 9032, the Enhanced Regu-
latory Flexibility Assessment Act introduced by the Representative
Maloy. I know recognize the bill’s sponsor, Ms. Maloy for an open-
ing statement.
Ms. MALOY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is kind of uncomfort-
able for me to find myself in the position of advocating for more
analysis or more red tape. I am usually talking about how we need
less bureaucracy and agencies need to have less power to hold
things up but the reason this is important is because the Regu-
latory Flexibility Act is supposed to provide some accountability
and transparency.
The problem with the regulatory administrative state is that
agencies and bureaucrats are making decisions that have the force
of law without accountability or transparency.
So Congress passed the Regulatory Flexibility Act to increase
transparency and help agencies make better decisions but it in-
cluded some squishy language that isn’t accomplishing the goals
that Congress was trying to accomplish so the Enhanced Regu-
latory Flexibility Act requires agencies to answer questions like,
why is an agency considering this action, what objectives and legal
basis exist for this rule and estimate of the number of small enti-
ties that are impacted, whether access to credit will be impact,
whether some entities will be more impacted than others.
And agencies are required to actually respond to comments and
concerns, give a detailed statement that includes an economic as-
sessment, quantifiable description of the rules impact or a descrip-
tive statement of why that isn’t possible.
And so that is the kind of agency action that benefits main street
businesses and helps keep Americans freer and the government
more accountable and that is why I urge my colleagues to support
the Enhanced Regulatory Flexibility Act and I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady yields back. And are there any
other Members who wish to be recognized for a statement on the
7
bill? Okay. If there are none, other Members to be recognized. I
would like to recognize the Ranking Member to speak on the bill.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill adds a
number of procedural and analytical requirements to the initial
and final regulatory flexibility analysis. The addition of an esti-
mate of the total impact of the ERFA will require agencies to look
not just at the rule but look at it in the context of all rules as well
as the past, present, and future costs.
Agencies have never been required to complete this analysis, so
the information is not even available. Moreover, an estimate of the
total impact will also require an economic assessment justifying
certification for ERFA.
This is just another attempt by the majority to require agencies
to add a cost estimate for every proposed rule which has never
been required because it was prohibited and nonsensical.
The bill provides no resources for agencies to conduct this detail
analysis. Moreover, agencies are required to make sure benefits of
the rules outweighed the costs and this bill will ignore health and
safety benefits.
Americans want clean air, safe food, and consumer protections,
and small business want a level playing field. They don’t want
these safeguards rolled back for big businesses all under the guise
of protecting small businesses.
The addition of this very detailed ERFA Act requirements make
it easier to overturn a rule through the courts and would deter the
implementation of rules that benefits that small businesses without
improving the rule making process.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill which is just another
page out of the Project 2025 playbook. I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady yields back. And I now recognize
myself to speak in support of this legislation.
H.R. 9032, the Enhanced Regulatory Flexibility Assessment Act
addresses a key issue within the RFA by requiring agencies to be
more detailed and precise with their analysis.
As currently written the RFA includes flexible language such as
where feasible and to the extent possible. H.R. 9032, strengthens
this language and requires agencies to provide more descriptive
and concrete details when conducting an RFA analysis.
This committee has recently and consistently heard how woefully
inadequate agencies’ analysis of their own regulations are. This
legislation aims to strengthen that review and ensure that if an
agency expects main street to comply they are doing their best to
understand the impacts it will have.
This bill closes a loophole that has been taken advantage of to
force more expensive regulations on our nation’s job creators. I
thank Ms. Maloy for her work on this legislation. I urge a yes vote
and if there’s no further discussion the committee now moves to
consideration of H.R. 9032.
The clerk will report.
The CLERK. H.R. 9032, to amend chapter——
Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection the first reading of the
bill is suspended with and without objection or the bill is consid-
ered as read and open for amendment. Does any Member seek rec-
ognition for the purpose of offering an amendment? Seeing none,
8
the question is now in the adoption of H.R. 9032 in favor of report-
ing it——
Ms. MALOY. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman WILLIAMS.—to the house.
All those in favor say aye?
Ms. MALOY. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, ma’am?
Ms. MALOY. I request a record vote.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. A recorded vote has been re-
quested. And a roll call vote is ordered, now pursuant to——
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, ma’am?
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Are you planning to call for a yes and no? You
vote yes. We vote no.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. We missed that. Okay. All right.
Thank you. All right. In the opinion of—okay. All right. Seeing
the—yeah, right here. The question is now adoption of H.R. 9032
favorably reporting to the House.
All those in favor say aye?
All those opposed say no?
Okay. In the opinion of the Chairs, the ayes have it. And H.R.
9032 is agreed to and ordered in favor to the House.
Sorry?
Okay. A recorded vote has been requested. A roll call vote is
order and pursuant to Committee Rule 13, and House Rule 11, fur-
ther proceedings on the bill are postponed.
H.R. 9030
Consideration of H.R. 9030, the next bill the Regulatory Agenda
Clarity Act introduced by Representative Alford. I now recognize
the bill’s sponsor, Mr. Alford from Missouri for an opening state-
ment.
Mr. ALFORD. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Mem-
ber Velázquez for holding this important markup today. You know,
this committee exists and we say it time after time after time, but
it’s the truth, it’s to champion main street to ensure that small
business that employ about half of all Americans can continue to
thrive. And I want to make one thing perfectly clear, with all due
respect this has nothing to do with Project 2025.
These bills today are for project Main Street America. And we
need to start telling the truth about that. Our role is to help lower
the barriers. Yes, establish guard rails but not road blocks that
stand in the way of small businesses in America and to support the
ones that already exist.
A major impediment to small business is the plethora of rules
agencies finalize each and every year that our small businesses are
forced to comply with. In 2023 alone Mr. Chairman, federal agen-
cies collectively finalized $129.2 billion in net regulatory costs.
These rules created 60.5 million new hours of paperwork each
year for Americans. It’s almost as bad as putting furniture together
from Ikea from the instructions they have if you’ve ever done that.
Small business owners are already straining under the weak
Biden-Harris economy and skyrocketing inflation and do not have
time to read hundreds and hundreds of pages of new regulations
they are required to comply with. To help these American’s Mr.
9
Chairman I am proud to have introduced the Regulatory Agenda
Clarity Act, a bill that would require federal agencies to publish
their regulatory agendas in plain, simple language in the Federal
Register. How can anyone be opposed to that?
Additionally, agencies would be required to include the North
American Classification System, codes of small entities that would
be impacted by any proposed rule making. So, thank you, Chair-
man Williams for including this legislation in our markup today
and I hope that all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will
agree that simple, clear language is a way to ensure prosperity for
our small businesses which is why we are here on this committee.
Thank you and I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who wish
to be recognized for a statement on the bill? Okay. If there are no
other Members who wish to be recognized, I’d like to recognize the
Ranking Member to speak on the bill.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s interesting to
hear the other side. Almost two months ago it was referred to the
Biden Administration. All of a sudden today is Biden-Harris. But
we welcome that.
Currently a regulatory flexibility agenda is required to be pub-
lished in the Federal Register twice a year along with a list of rules
that have a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities.
There are a number of requirements including a summary of
each rule under consideration, the objective, and the legal basis for
issuing a rule and schedule for completing action on proposed rule.
Despite these requirements the majority doesn’t believe agencies
are taking their responsibility seriously. Instead, they want each
agency along with Advocacy to publish a plain language summary
on its website and provide a brief description of the sector by the
NAICS code.
The good news is most of this information is already provided on
regulations.gov and most agency publish this information or a link
to regulations.gov on their websites. Requiring Advocacy to dupli-
cate the work of agencies is duplicative and provides no additional
value. Furthermore, agencies do not always know every NAICS
code of every sector affected by the rule. That is what the rule
making process is designed to do, get feedback on proposed regula-
tions. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady yields back. I now recognize my-
self to speak in support of this legislation.
I want to thank Mr. Alford for sponsoring H.R. 9030, the Regu-
latory Agenda Clarity Act, which will help streamline the regu-
latory information agencies post in their annual regulatory agenda.
This bill will require agencies to post their regulatory agenda to
their own websites along with NAICS codes of the primary im-
pacted industries and a plain language summary of the proposed
regulation.
Main street should not have to search far and wide in order to
know what regulations are coming in their direction requiring
agencies to post their agendas on their own website will be a good
step in ensuring that job creators can adequately prepare for new
requirements that may be imposed upon them.
10
Agencies are already supposed to know how many and what type
of businesses are being affected by these rules. So as long as the
agencies are properly following the law, this bill should not impose
much of a burden. I urge my colleagues to support this common-
sense legislation. If there is no further discussion the committee
now moves to consideration of H.R. 9030.
The clerk will report.
The CLERK. H.R. 9030, to amend Chapter 6——
Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection, the first reading of the
bill is dispensed with and without objection the bill is considered
as read and open for amendment. Do any Members seek recogni-
tion for the purpose of offering an amendment?
Mr. THANEDAR. Mr. Chair, I would like to propose an Amend-
ment to 9030.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. What amendment. I would ask the
Clerk to designate the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.
9030——
Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection the reading of the
amendment is dispensed with. The Member is recognized to explain
their amendment.
Mr. THANEDAR. Thank you, Chairman. I would like to offer an
amendment to the nature of a substitution to H.R. 9030, the Regu-
latory Agenda Clarity Act as currently constructed.
This bill would only impose unnecessary and duplicative require-
ments that would complicate the process and redirect limited agen-
cy resources without improving regulatory outcomes.
A brief description and summary of the rule is already posted on
regulations.gov. And some agencies currently post this information
on their websites requiring Advocacy to post the information on its
website is redundant and provides no additional value to small
businesses.
It is also important to note that the Regulatory Flexibility Agen-
da is a comprehensive collection of rules the agencies are consid-
ering and working on. Agencies do not always move forward with
every rule requiring more detailed information at this preplanning
stage like the NAICS code may lead agencies to exclude rules from
the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda unless they are certain to move
forward with the rule making process.
This legislation currently does not provide additional value to
small businesses. Instead, it only burdens them and critical federal
agencies with additional regulations that do nothing to help.
My amendment will help achieve the majority’s goal from this
legislation by ensuring that the information that is currently post-
ed on regulations.gov will be posted on agencies websites within 5
days of the publication of the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda and
that this description is written in easy-to-understand terms.
Having experienced the challenges of running a small business
I recognize the urgent need to provide a clear, concise, and acces-
sible information to our nation’s small business owners.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment to make
these critical regulations more understandable for small business
owners and all across America. I thank Chairman Williams and
Ranking Member Velázquez for their time and I yield back.
11
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back and does any-
one else wish to be recognized for——
Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Chair, I seek recognition for a rebuttal.
Chairman WILLIAMS. I now recognize Representative Alford
from Missouri for 5 minutes.
Mr. ALFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to start out by say-
ing one thing, I will be more than happy to link Kamala Harris to
the overburdensome, over regulation America that is stifling small
businesses.
This amendment undermined the intent of this legislation by re-
moving the requirement for agencies to include the NAICS codes
in their annual regulatory agenda and the requirements for the Of-
fice of Advocacy to also post agencies regulatory agendas. These re-
quirements are not burdensome. There is part of this committee
that is more concerned about the burden put on agencies than the
burden put on our small businesses. We should be looking out for
the small businesses.
This change would be immensely beneficial for small businesses,
which may be looking for a better understanding of the regulations
and the framework that they are required to work under. Agencies
should be doing everything in their power to make sure that small
businesses can comply with a regulation as easily as possible. Per-
haps if workers at the Small Business Administration were at their
desks actually working down the street here they wouldn’t be so
concerned about what they need to be doing and these added clari-
fications that we are proposing here today. This bill makes incre-
mental commonsense changes that will help small business owners.
I urge opposition to this amendment and I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back. Does anyone
else wish to be recognized for a statement on this amendment?
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, ma’am?
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. I rise to support the amendment being offered
by Mr. Thanedar, and it makes commonsense improvements to the
bill and what you are accomplishing here today is setting up all
these agencies to fail. You are adding duplicative efforts that are
already in the law and yet you don’t provide one single penny for
them to do their job. It just doesn’t make sense. I urge my col-
leagues to support this amendment and I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back. And does any-
one else wish to be recognized for a statement on this amendment?
Seeing none I now recognize myself for a statement on this amend-
ment.
This amendment would gut the purpose of this bill, which simply
to ask federal agencies to provide enough detail about rule making
so small businesses know what applies to them. I urge opposition
and I yield back. And I urge all my colleagues to oppose this
amendment. The question is now on the amendment H.R. 9030 of-
fered by Representative Thanedar. All those in favor say aye?
All those opposed say no?
In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have it. Or the nos have it
and, in the opinion of the Chair the nos have it.
Mr. THANEDAR. Mr. Chair?
Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes.
12
Mr. THANEDAR. I ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. There has been a recorded vote
asked for and is being requested. A roll call vote is ordered, pursu-
ant to Committee Rule 13, and House Rule 11, further proceedings
on the bill are postponed.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. I agree with you, the ayes have it.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Does anyone else wish to offer an amend-
ment?
Ms. CHU. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady’s recognized. There is an amend-
ment at the desk. The clerk with designate the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.
9030 offered by Ms. Chu.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The reading of the amendment is dis-
pensed with. The Member is recognized to explain their amend-
ment.
Ms. CHU. Mr. Chair, I oppose H.R. 9030, as written because it
is duplicative of current law and does not pose a clear benefit to
the small businesses we intend to serve. Under existing law federal
agencies are already required to list the rules it expects to publish
in their regulatory flexibility agendas that would have a significant
economic impact on small entities. Adding an extra requirement for
the Office of Advocacy to also post the summaries on its website
is not only redundant but incredibly burdensome to an agency that
can’t afford it spread its already thin resources even thinner. What
is more, requiring agencies to post even more details for every rule
that is considering not necessarily even publishing is equally as
burdensome and restrictive. This requirement is clearly intended to
undermine the SBA’s ability to issue regulations by putting up new
administrative burdens designed to discourage the agency from
pursuing new rulemaking.
And by the way I take exception to the comment made earlier
on the other side that all SB employees are lazy and doing nothing.
But these gross stereotypes are all throughout Project 2025 and
this regulation is part of a playbook to bring the regulatory process
to a screeching halt.
Of course, we want to ensure that agency rulemaking helps small
business but this bill is not the right way to accomplish this. In-
stead, agencies should be engaging with small entities to ensure
that the rules it is considering are effective and beneficial. My
amendment would strike the language in the underlying bill and
instead replace it with language that would require agencies to
conduct comprehensive outreach to small businesses when devel-
oping the regulatory flexibility agendas. Specifically, this would in-
clude community-based outreach, outreach to organizations that
work with small entities, agencies field offices and the use of alter-
native platform and media for engaging with small entities. These
requirements are similar to the provisions included in the Biden-
Harris Administration’s executive order to modernize regulatory re-
view.
And by the way, I have experienced SBA employees in my dis-
trict and I think they are very, very hard working and have a deep
desire to help small businesses. Rather than implement policies
that would unnecessarily burden agencies with requirements that
13
don’t even pose a clear benefit to small businesses we would be di-
recting our focus to incorporating the perspectives and feedback of
small entities from the get-go, about agency rules that may affect
them.
I urge support for any amendment and yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady yields back.
Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Chair, I seek recognition for rebuttal.
Chairman WILLIAMS. All right. Then I recognize Representative
Alford from Missouri for 5 minutes.
Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Chair, thank you so much. Just to be clear,
Mr. Chair and you can go back and check the record for yourself,
I did not say SBA workers were lazy and doing nothing. That has
never been my contention. I think their focus is wrong in many
areas. Instead of focusing on making it easier for businesses to do
business in America, they are out registering Democrat voters in
Michigan. This amendment is another unserious attempt to shield
agencies from having to do their job an consider small businesses
in every step of the rulemaking process. Representative Chu’s
amendment would remove any requirement for the agency to ex-
plain in plain, simple language what their regulation will do as
well as remove any requirement to include NAICS codes to help
small businesses identify which regulations they have to comply
with. It is not that difficult. To speak in plain words myself this
amendment would completely gut this bill and simply tell the agen-
cies to do whatever you want to do. This amendment does nothing
to address the problems at hand and I urge this committee to op-
pose this amendment and let us get on helping businesses build
their businesses in America and not contribute to the closing of
small businesses which is the fabric of America. Thank you and I
yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back. Does anyone
else wish to be recognized for a statement on this amendment?
Okay. If no, this amendment——
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, ma’am, you are recognized.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Mr. Alford wants agencies to provide a de-
scription by NAICS code of each sector that may be affected for
every rule even if the rule may never come to fruition. It is busy
work and a far better solution is to get ANC, to get out of out of
the Capitol Beltway, to connect directly with small businesses and
learn how rules may impact them. That is why I strongly support
Ms. Chu’s amendment which will ensure agency outreach and en-
gagement to small businesses as this happening at the earliest
stage of the rulemaking process. This amendment will go a long
way to where helping agencies craft meaningful regulations to pro-
tect our health and safety but not unduly burden small businesses.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady yields back. Does anyone else
wish to be recognized for a statement on this amendment? All
right. Seeing none I now recognize myself for a statement on this
amendment.
This amendment also guts the purpose of this bill by directing
agencies to do something already within their purview, urge oppo-
14
sition, I urge all my colleagues to oppose the amendment, meant
to oppose this amendment.
Now the question is now on the amendment H.R. 9030 offered by
Representative Chu.
All those in favor say aye?
All those opposed say no?
In the opinion of the Chair the no’s have it.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady’s recognized.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. I would like to request a roll call.
Chairman WILLIAMS. All right. A recorded vote has been re-
quested and a roll call vote is ordered pursuant to Committee Rule
13, and House Rule 11, further proceedings on the bill are post-
poned.
And does anyone else have a wish to offer an amendment? See-
ing none the question now in the adoption of H.R. 9030 and favor-
ably reporting it to the House.
All those in favor say aye?
All those opposed say no?
In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have it. H.R. 9030 is agreed
to and ordered favorably to the House.
Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Chair?
Chairman WILLIAMS. Seek recognition?
Mr. ALFORD. I request a recorded vote.
Chairman WILLIAMS. A recorded vote has been requested and
a roll call vote is ordered pursuant to Committee Rule 13, and
House Rule 11, further proceedings on the bill are postponed.
H.R. 9085
The next bill we have we will markup is H.R. 9085, the Regu-
latory Review Improvement Act of 2024 introduced by Representa-
tive Meuser. I now recognize the bill’s sponsor Mr. Meuser for an
opening statement.
Mr. MEUSER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My legislation H.R.
9085, the Regulatory Review Improvement Act of 2024, is a step to-
wards enhancing transparency, accountability and efficiency in how
federal agencies review the rules and regulations that impact our
small businesses.
As it stands agencies are required to review their rules ever 10
years, however the current system allows these reviews to be de-
layed year after year up to five times without any clear explanation
as to why. This creates an environment where burdensome regula-
tions issued by federal agencies can persist indefinitely with little
to no scrutiny. This bill introduces several important requirements.
First it mandates that during each 10-year review agencies must
consider public feedback through a comment period. This ensures
that small businesses, entrepreneurs, and stakeholders are able to
share how these regulations have impacted them and forces the
agency to listen to the stakeholder.
Second agencies will be required to conduct both a qualitative
and quantitative analysis looking at the actual cause, compliance
burdens and a paperwork hours required since the rule was imple-
mented. This is crucial for understanding the real world impact
these regulations have had on small businesses and communities,
15
current economic analyses employed by CFPB, SEC, and the Fed
other injuries are woefully inadequate.
And finally, this bill demands action requiring agencies to deter-
mine whether these rules should remain on the books. We want to
streamline the regulatory environment not have it grow and stifle
innovation. So, since the Biden-Harris Administration took office
three and a half years ago, federal rulemakings have added $1.68
trillion in costs and increased annual paperwork by 324 million
hours. Small businesses simply do not have the ability to hire, you
know, extensive legal teams and lawyers and accountants to navi-
gate the complexities forced on them by these federal agencies.
H.R. 9085 seeks to reduce that burden by ensuring federal agen-
cies are actively reviewing and streamlining regulations. I ask my
colleagues to support the passage of this commonsense reform.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back. Are there any
other Members who wish to be recognized for a statement on the
bill? Okay. If there are no other Members who wish to be recog-
nized, I would like to recognize the Ranking Member to speak on
the bill.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Throughout the
years the issue of retrospective review has been a bipartisan issue
and one which Democrats and Republicans could work together to
remove unnecessary regulations from the book. In fact, President
Obama issued executive orders to reaffirm the need for agencies to
carry out their reviews.
More than 800 reviews were completed with 70 notable regu-
latory provisions removed from the books, resulting in $37 billion
in savings from paperwork reductions during his tenure in office.
With that said we have held a number of regulatory hearings and
this issue has never come up, nor have we invited any agencies to
hear feedback on this particular issue.
Legislation should not operate in vacuum, nor should we ignore
regular order. We need good data to legislate. We need to know
which agencies are delaying, the retrospective reviews for how long
and why. Instead, we just pulled this bill out of thin air and re-
quire agencies to delay their review for no more than one year.
What happens, I just ask my colleagues here, what would hap-
pen in the event of a national emergency, like COVID-19? Would
we have agencies delay getting the economic aid out of the door to
small businesses and focus instead of retrospective reviews? I think
not.
And if you sit here, there and claim otherwise, I assure you this
was not brought up once during negotiations because there was a
need for agencies to be nimble.
I have tried to no avail to reach a compromise with the majority
to first determine the scope of the problem and ask agencies to
make recommendations to Congress. Unfortunately, that effort
wasn’t particularly fruitful. Therefore, I will have no choice but to
oppose this bill. I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady yields back and I now recognize
myself to speak in support of this legislation. H.R. 9085, the Regu-
latory Review Improvement Act of 2024 makes important changes
to the agencies period review of rules. Agencies required to review
16
their rules once they have been in effect for 10 years and determine
whether they should be continued or rescinded. Currently agencies
have the opinion to delay the review of the rules for a year up to
five times without giving a reason for doing so. H.R. 9085 would
allow agencies to spin their review for only a year, one at a time
and then require them to give a rationale for why they were unable
to complete their review within the time frame allotted.
This bill will force agencies to review what regulations are al-
ready on the books and determine if they are still fulfilling their
intended purpose.
Further when considering the review our agencies will be re-
quired to offer a comment period for stakeholders to weigh in on
the rules impact over the past 10 years. It is important that we
continue to elevate small businesses voices throughout the rule
making process including if past rules are necessary.
I want to thank Mr. Meuser for his work on H.R. 9085, and I
look forward to supporting it. If there is no further discussion the
committee now moves to consideration of H.R. 9085.
The clerk will report.
Mr. MEUSER. Mr. Chairman.
The CLERK. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, sir?
Mr. MEUSER. May I make a remark?
Chairman WILLIAMS. So move?
Mr. MEUSER. Mr. Chairman, I think we all agree or at least on
this side of the aisle that bureaucrats need bright lines, not guide-
lines. We are in a stage of our federal government where the bur-
dens of big government are not neutral. They are very problematic
particularly for small business.
We must—this bill provides urgency, a requirement for the bu-
reaucrats to do their job in a timely manner and too many, too
many small businesses feel that they are pushing against the
ocean. So, such this amendment guts the entirety of a bill that will
have such an impact in reducing regulatory burdens and the on-
slaught from particularly this administration needs to be, needs to
be dealt with. And this bill helps do that and it supports Main
Street American needs. I yield back.
Ms. DAVIDS. Mr. Chairman?
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman? May I ask, make a parliamen-
tary inquiry? Here. So, the gentleman is granted five more minutes
to speak on an amendment that has not been offered yet and so
we need some clarifications here.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Is she going to be given the opportunity to go
up?
Ms. DAVIDS. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
Chairman WILLIAMS. All right. Do any Members seek recogni-
tion for the purpose of offering an amendment?
Ms. DAVIDS. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, ma’am?
Ms. DAVIDS. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. There is an amendment at the
desk and the Clerk will designate the amendment.
17
The CLERK. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.
9085——
Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection the reading of the
amendment is dispensed with. The Member is recognized to explain
their amendment.
Ms. DAVIDS. Thank you, Chairman. We certainly have an obli-
gation to ensure that small businesses across the country are
helped and not hurt by regulatory guardrails. A key part of that
is making sure that agencies regularly review their rules and see
what is working and what is not. These reviews help agencies un-
derstand how small businesses would have been impacted by regu-
lations and what rules are both overlapping or duplicative. A
mouthful. These can lead to, these reviews can lead to cutting gov-
ernment waste and lead to cutting regulations that burden entre-
preneurs unnecessarily and to make sure that agencies are com-
plying with that standard, Congress needs more data on how to
successfully do retrospective reviews and how those have gone. And
at the same time, we shouldn’t be hindering agencies’ ability to
conduct those reviews. You know, we can, we can make sure we are
not hindering agencies’ abilities to conduct those reviews at the
same time that we are making sure that we are not hurting small
businesses by adding uncertainty to the regulatory process. There-
fore, my amendment would ensure that when agencies ask for a
delay in reviewing their rules that they give the public a reason
why. It also would mandate that agencies report to our committee
each year on whether they are actually meeting their review re-
quirements, how they are conducting their reviews and any legisla-
tive recommendations to improve the review process.
My amendment does all of this without hampering the flexibility
that agencies need to ensure that these reviews are done correctly
and I would urge and request all my colleagues to vote in support
of this amendment to improve this piece of legislation and increase
congressional oversight. I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady yields back. And does anyone
else wish to be recognized for a statement on this amendment?
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Chair?
Chairman WILLIAMS. I now recognize Representative Stauber
from Minnesota for 5 minutes.
Mr. STAUBER. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I want to yield
my time to Representative Meuser from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MEUSER. I thank my colleague and my apologies for jump-
ing ahead. I am just anxious about the idea of trying to improve
the regulatory situation for our small businesses versus attempts
to minimize or even gut them.
We must accept the fact that our bureaucracies have gotten far
too burdensome. Every small business will tell you that. Spend
some time on main street and we know that. We need to do what
we can do to require the bureaucracies, the agencies to listen to
their stakeholders and provide information and handle regulatory
burdens that they are deemed to remove or consider in a timely
manner.
That is all my bill does. It requires a sense of urgency, a time
frame to do their job and create assessments and to provide infor-
mation so small business can weigh in on why it is so burdensome.
18
So therefore, I greatly oppose any amendment to minimize my bill
and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back. Does anyone
else wish to be recognized for a statement on this amendment?
Okay. Seeing none, I now recognize myself for a statement on
this——
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, ma’am.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Yes, I would like to——
Chairman WILLIAMS. Recognized.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ.—comment on the amendment.
Chairman WILLIAMS. All right.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, let me applaud Ms. Davids for
her thoughtful amendment which will require agencies to report to
Congress every two years on their efforts to conduct these reviews
and include recommendations to make the 610-review process work
better. I do not understand why asking the agencies to report back
to Congress every two years will minimize or undermine the base-
line bill. I support the amendment being offered by Ms. Davids and
I urge my colleagues to as well. I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Back. Does anyone else wish to be recog-
nized for a statement on this amendment? Seeing none, I now rec-
ognize myself for a statement on the amendment.
This amendment guts the entirety of a bill that will have con-
crete impact on reducing burdens on small businesses and replace
it with a, with a report bill. We have seen some of the outrageous
regulatory numbers coming from this administration. Replacing
this bill with a study is not what main street needs. I urge my col-
leagues to oppose and I yield back. I urge all my colleagues to op-
pose this amendment.
The question is now in the amendment of H.R. 9085 offered by
Representative Davids.
All those in favor say aye?
All those opposed——
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Yes, aye. I am sorry.
Chairman WILLIAMS. We are even now. All right. Here we go.
All those in favor say aye?
All those opposed say no?
In the opinion of the Chair the no’s have it. And the amendment
is now——
Ms. DAVIDS. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, ma’am, so recognized.
Ms. DAVIDS. I request a recorded vote.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. A recorded vote has been requested
and a roll call vote is order. Pursuant to Committee Rule 13, and
Rule 11, House Rule 11, further proceedings on the bill are post-
poned.
Mr. MEUSER. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, recognized. Does anyone else wish to
have, offer an amendment? Okay. Seeing none the question is now
in the adoption of H.R. 9085 in favor of reporting it to the House.
All those in favor say aye?
All those opposed say no?
Ms. DAVIDS. In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have it.
19
Mr. MEUSER. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, so moved?
Mr. MEUSER. I request the ayes and nays to be recorded.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. A recorded vote has been requested
and a roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to Committee Rule 13, and
House Rule 11, further proceedings on the bill are postponed.
H.R. 9031
The next bill we will mark up is H.R. 9031, the Assurance of
Small Business Act of 2024 introduced by Representative Stauber.
I now recognize the bill’s sponsor, Mr. Stauber from the great State
of Minnesota for an opening statement.
Mr. STAUBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise today to speak
in favor of my bill, H.R. 9031 the Assurance for Small Business Act
of 2024. This year we have held many hearings examining the reg-
ulatory burdens placed on American small businesses by the Biden-
Harris Administration.
Across 17 different agencies the rulemaking process has grown
out of control and Main Street America has paid the price. Over
700 regulations that have been added to the Federal Register since
the Biden-Harris Administration took office, costing nearly $440
billion and adding more than 236 million paperwork hours to our
small businesses and family farms.
We have an existing system in place that helps prevent burden-
some regulation. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies
to take into consideration whether the proposed regulation causes
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small en-
tities. However individual agencies use various definitions of ‘‘sig-
nificant economic impact’’ and ‘‘substantial number of small enti-
ties’’ when considering a rule’s affect.
While one size fits all definitions often cause more harm than
good agencies are creating definitions that benefit their causes
rather than protect the small businesses. And with every agency
using their own unique analysis to determine what qualifies as sig-
nificant economic impact it makes oversight extremely difficult.
My bill the Assurance for Small Business Act of 2024 addresses
this concern. This bill will require each agency to submit to Con-
gress their definitions used and a comprehensive list of factors the
agency considers when conducting RFA analysis. This will allow
Congress to keep proper oversight of agencies and hold them ac-
countable to the intent of the FRA. I urge my colleagues to support
this legislation as it will help ensure that the federal government
does not further hinder the growth of American small businesses.
Mr. Chair, thank you and I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back. Are there any
other Members who wish to be recognized for a statement on the
bill? If there are no other Members who wish to be recognized I
would like to recognize the Ranking Member to speak on the bill.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not in the
habit of opposing bills that call on agencies to report to Congress.
In fact, a good data leads to good policy decisions. However, I can-
not in good conscious support this bill which amounts to nothing
but busy work for agencies with leader to no value for policymakers
or small businesses.
20
The RFA does not define the terms significant economic impact
and substantial number of small entities. The Office of Advocacy
has said these terms should not be measured in absolute terms the
Office has developed guidance for agencies to follow. Despite this
the first requirement of H.R. 9031, would require every rule writ-
ing agency to review every single rule going all the way back to
1980 and report on how the agency define these terms.
We already know that the application of these terms has varied.
And there is a legitimate reason why 5 URNs in an industry of
more than 1,000 regulated entities is not the same as 5 URNs in
an industry of 20 regulated entities. Looking back over of a period
of nearly 45 years as this report will do is a waste of resources. If
my colleagues want to see the current guidelines for these terms
I respectfully suggest they look on agencies’ websites.
Even more troubling is the second requirement of the bill which
would have agencies report on a comprehensive list of factors in-
cluding the threshold analysis, the initial regulatory threshold
analysis, and the final regulatory threshold analysis for each and
every rule going all the way back to the passage of the build in
1980. The scope is overly broad and I am not quite sure what
would be gained from this type of report given the lack of analysis.
Finally, it requires agencies to report to Congress in 90 days,
which a sort time frame to compile broad based requests for data
going back to the 1980s. I suspect this is a messaging bill and
therefore oppose it because it lacks substance, scope, and require-
ments for solid analysis.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady yields back. And I now recognize
myself to speak in support of this legislation.
H.R. 9031, the Assurance for Small Business Act will require
rulemaking agencies to issue a report to Congress on how they de-
fine a significant economic impact on a sustainable number of
small entities. There is no one size fits all definition of significant
economic impact on substantial numbers of small entities.
However, it seems agencies will use this to their advantage and
use varying definitions to fit their own narratives by reporting to
Congress agency-wide definitions of a significant economic impact
and a substantial number of small entities, it will be easier to hold
them to their own standards.
This bill will help our committee perform better oversight as we
examine agencies that we are following the law and are truly tak-
ing the interest of small business into account during the rule-
making process. I thank Mr. Stauber for introducing this common-
sense piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it. If
there is no further discussion the committee now moves to consid-
eration of H.R. 9031.
The clerk will report.
The CLERK. H.R. 9031, to require——
Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection, the first reading of
this bill is dispensed with—and without objection this bill is consid-
ered as read and open for amendment. Do any Members seek rec-
ognition for the purpose of offering amendment?
Okay. If no, seeing none the question is now on the adoption of
H.R. 9031 favorably reporting to the House.
21
All those in favor say aye?
All those opposed say no?
In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have it. H.R. 9031 is agreed
to and ordered favorably to the House.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote.
Chairman WILLIAMS. A recorded vote has been requested and
a roll call vote is ordered now pursuant to Committee Rule 13, and
House Rule 11, further proceedings on the bill are postponed.
H.R. 9033
The next bill we will markup is H.R. 9033, the Let Americans
Businesses be On Record Act introduced by Representative Bean.
I now recognize the bill’s sponsor, Mr. Bean from the great State
of Florida for an opening statement.
Mr. BEAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. A very good
morning to you and good morning small business committee. It is
good to see everybody back. Let us review. If you have been paying
attention to what happens in small business, we have had dozens
and dozens of witnesses that run small business from all over
America sit at that table right there and they have come to tell us
what is it like running a small business in America right now. And
guess what they have told us? I will review it with you. They have
told us these are the challenges, the top four challenges, skilled
labor, taxes, inflation, and regulation.
One of the questions that I always ask, have you ever seen this
bad? Have you ever seen regulations this bad? And they say, the
majority, not all but the vast majority, no, we have never seen it
this bad.
So, during the break, I don’t know what you did during the
break. We went to work. The Bean team partnered with the Clay
County Chamber of Commerce and we did a roundtable. We did a
listening session and thanks to the Chamber of Commerce, Clay
County Chamber of Congress invited dozens of businesses. We did
a listening sessions at the Orange Park Townhall. Thank you City
of Orange Park for letting us have the townhall to invite busi-
nesses to come in and tell us what they are worried about. What
are their challenges running small businesses in Northeast Flor-
ida? Guess what? Same thing, skilled labor, taxes, inflation, and
regulation. Far too often small business owners have to pay thou-
sands of dollars, they have to hire attorneys that can speak swamp
speak. They can—have to challenge up with all the crazy town
things that happens in this town. And often government will issues
these rules and regulation without even listening to main street.
What will the impact be? We don’t know. We just going to do it.
Today Members of this committee we have an opportunity to
change that. I am proud Mr. Chairman with your leadership and
your guidance, I am proud to present this bill, Let Americans Busi-
nesses be On Record Act, or you can call it the LABOR Act, how
about that? The LABOR Act expands small business regulatory en-
forcement fairness act panels to the Department of Labor. The De-
partment of Labor. You see right now, Mr. Chairman, everybody
knows this that has been paying attention, other agencies, the Con-
sumer Financial Protection Agency, the EPA, the Environmental
Protection Agency, OSHA, Occupational Safety & Health Adminis-
tration, they are required before they publish these crazy rules lis-
22
tening to main street. They have to have these panels where people
get to have input of how this rule will affect them. Now Mr. Chair-
man your leadership and the hearings that you have held, we have
held dozens, we all know the culprit in issuing rules without hav-
ing hearings with—that is harming main street is the Department
of Labor. For some reason they are exempt from having these pan-
els. So today the LABOR Act will change that. We will ask this
body and this bill should it pass we will ask the Department of
Labor before you do any rules what does main street think about
it? How will it, how will it impact? So that is what we are doing.
That is what the bill does. And I say to my colleagues across the
aisle, this is one, this is one that we can all agree on. Can’t we all
agree? Can’t we agree that before we enact any type of rules or reg-
ulations on the backbone America because that is what small busi-
ness is, it is the backbone of America. We want them healthy be-
cause when small business is health, America is healthy, is
healthy. They are struggling right now. So let us do that before we
put any more obstacles, any more things in their way let us hear
how will this affect them? So, with that I ask everybody to join me
in pushing this bill, the LABOR Act and let us get it done. I yield
back Mr. Chairman?
Chairman WILLIAMS. Gentleman yields back. Are there any
other Members who wish to recognized for a statement on the bill?
Okay. If no other Members wish to be recognized I would like to
recognize the Ranking Member to speak on the bill?
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the RFA, three
agencies are required to hold and brief of panels when they RFA
is triggered. The Occupational Safety & Health Administration,
Environmental Protection Agency, and Consumer Financial Protec-
tion Bureau. This legislation we expanded to the entire Depart-
ment of Labor. The paper—the purpose of these panels is to give
small businesses a greater opportunity to provide input into the de-
velopment of regulations. I agree with my colleagues that small
business participation in the rulemaking process is vitally impor-
tant. However, I disagree with this approach. So briefing panels
take time and cost money and this bill provides no funding to the
DOL for the extra work. The current process to convene is to brief
a panel at OSHA takes from four to eight months. It requires 120
days of formal work with the Office of Advocacy and Office of Infor-
mation and Regulatory Affairs, OIRA to identify small businesses
to serve, hosting the panel, and writing a final report. And prior
to this interagency work OSHA needs time to develop the detailed
information and substantial analysis just to host a panel. OSHA
currently dedicates a full salary to a number of technical staff in-
cluding economists and lawyers for 6 to 12 months to carry out
each panel. That is a significant undertaking and substantial re-
sources are needed to convene a panel. Again, and not surprising,
this bill does not include any funds to pay for the additional work.
And the bill to fund the Department of Labor in fiscal year 2025
slashes funding for the agency by 22 percent. At the end of the day
today’s bill is another messaging bill that is unworkable. It asks
agencies to do more and more with less and less. Even the Office
of Advocacy does not support expanding this requirement to all
agencies within the Department of Labor, expanding SBREFA to
23
more agencies than needed will strain agency resources and poten-
tially delay final rule implementation, which is unfortunately a
goal of extremely radical Project 2025 playbook. I urge my col-
leagues to oppose this bill and I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady yields back and now recognize
myself to speak in support.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, recognized. I now recognize Rep-
resentative Crane.
Mr. CRANE. I would like to yield some time to Mr. Bean.
Mr. BEAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Crane. And Mr. Chair-
man, thank you so much. And to our friends on the other side of
the aisle, you have just described oh, the regulation that will be
put on the Department of Labor of all the things they will have to
comply with. Welcome to the world of small business. This is what
a small business has to deal with all the time of these wacky rules
that no one ever considers what happens on main street. So, with
that that is the irony of the speech——
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Would the gentleman yield for one question?
Mr. BEAN.—that we can’t—with that I yield back, Mr. Chair-
man.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Show me the money.
Chairman WILLIAMS. I think the time is still is Mr. Crane’s, re-
mainder of your time. The gentleman yields back. Are there any
other Members who wish to be recognized for a statement on the
bill?
Mr. BEAN. Mr. Chair?
Chairman WILLIAMS. I now recognize Representative Stauber
from Minnesota for 5 minutes.
Mr. STAUBER. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wholeheartedly support
this initiative by Representative Bean from Florida. What he just
described is what we have seen for the last two years almost on
this committee every single small business man and woman that
we have had at the hearing have talked about the rules and regu-
lations, how devastating they are. As he spoke about going
throughout his district and talking to small business as we all do,
it is the rules and regulations, it is one rule here, one rule there
that cost that small business a lot of money over time. And it is
just getting, the bureaucracy is getting bigger and bigger and big-
ger. It is just, it is just one rule and then another rule and then
another rule. These small businesses can’t afford a rule department
just to, just to keep up with these federal bureaucracies that are
putting on them. I have owned a small business for 31 years. The
rules and regulations must stop. We have heard it from the experts
that we have had at the hearing. And this is exactly what Rep-
resentative Bean is talking about. And I am thankful he brought
it up and I look forward to supporting legislation. Mr. Chair, I yield
back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Yields back. Are there any other Mem-
bers who wish to be recognized for a statement on the bill? Okay.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, ma’am?
24
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Can I ask the author of the bill a question,
please, an inquiry?
Chairman WILLIAMS. You may.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Have you spoken or reached to the Office of
the Advocacy on this bill?
Mr. BEAN. Thank you very much for the question. I have not
but I have spoken to small business——
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Yes.
Mr. BEAN.—and that is who this really affects. We need to lis-
ten——
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. But do you know that the Office of Advocacy
that is the office that advocates on behalf of small business is op-
posed to this legislation?
Mr. BEAN. But a main street is in support of this legislation and
those are my constituents and that was the hearing that we did in
Orange Park, Florida. Regulation is strangling small business. So
let us let the Department of Labor listen before they just publish
a willy nilly rule, let us let them listen to main street of how this
will actually affect the bottom-line business that is, that is crip-
pling main street across America.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you. You answered my question.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady yields back. Are there any other
Members who wish to be recognized for a statement on the bill? All
right. I now recognize myself to speak in support of this legislation.
H.R. 9033, the LABOR Act will take an important step in holding
one of the federal government’s worse regulator offenders account-
able. This committee conducted a thorough investigation into the
rulemaking process and found the Department of Labor is one of
the worst offenders of the Regulatory Flexibility Act’s require-
ments. Their rules often fail to accurately account for their impacts
on small entities. The small business Regulatory Enforcement and
Fairness Act requires the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Occupational Safety
& Health Administration with-in the Department of Labor to con-
vene a panel of stakeholders for feedback on a rule that is going
to have significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Given the DOL’s record it seems only fitting that
they too are required to conduct these panels. Now it is better to
get a regulation right than to move quickly and force it on the
backs of small business owners before the agency can even under-
stand the repercussions. I want to thank Mr. Bean for his work on
this legislation and urge my colleagues to vote yes. So, if there is
no further discussion the committee now moves to consideration of
H.R. 9033.
The clerk will report.
The CLERK. H.R. 9033, to amend Title 5——
Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection the first reading of the
bill is dispensed with, and without objection the bill is considered
as read and open for amendment. Do any Members seek recogni-
tion for the purpose of offering an amendment? Seeing none the
question is now the adoption of H.S. 9033 in favor of reporting to
the House.
All those in favor say aye?
Those opposed say no?
25
In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have it. H.R.—yes, sir.
Mr. BEAN. May I request a recorded vote?
Chairman WILLIAMS. A recorded vote has been requested and
a roll call vote is ordered pursuant to Committee Rule 13, and
House Rule 11, further proceedings on the bill are postponed.
H.R. 7198
The next bill we will markup is H.R. 7198, the Prove It Act of
2024 introduced by Representative Finstad. Are there any Mem-
bers who wish to be recognized for a statement?
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Chair?
Chairman WILLIAMS. Now recognize Representative Stauber
from Minnesota for 5 minutes.
Mr. STAUBER. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise today in support of
my colleague’s bill H.R. 7198. Small businesses are the backbone
of our economy. They are the innovators, job creators, and driving
force behind economic growth. In Minnesota small business account
for over 99 percent of all businesses and employ over half the work-
force. It is no exaggeration to say that the success of our economy
is tied to the success of our small businesses. We have heard nu-
merous times this Congress that the Biden-Harris Administration
lacks concern for small businesses. Time and time again they have
pummeled small business owners with costly rules and regulations
with little or no regard. Tools exist to stop administrations from
overregulating. But these tools must work for even the smallest of
entities. We must provide easier pathways for small businesses to
hold agencies accountable especially under this Biden-Harris Ad-
ministration. That is why I am proud to co-sponsor my Minnesota’s
colleague’s, Representative Finstad’s bill, H.R. 7198. By allowing
small businesses to directly challenge an agency’s ‘‘certification’’
and requiring agencies to be fully transparent about how regula-
tions will impact the small business community, H.R. 7198 will
take power away from unelected bureaucrats and rightfully return
it to small business owners. And I want to repeat that. H.R. 7198
will take power away from the unelected bureaucrats and rightfully
return it to the small business owners. I urge my colleagues to join
me in supporting this legislation as it will give small businesses a
greater say in the regulatory process, which will only strengthen
America’s economic backbone. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back. Are there any
other Members who wish to be recognized for a statement on the
bill? If there are no further Members who wish to be recognized,
I would like to recognize the Ranking Member to speak on the bill.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congress passed
the IFA in 1980 out of concern that uniformed regulations
disproportionally burden small firms. It requires agency to consider
the ramifications federal rules have on small businesses and give
the Office of Advocacy the authority to monitor agencies’ compli-
ance with the law. It is important to note that the RFA does not
seek preferential treatment for small entities. Nor does it require
agencies to adopt the least burdensome rules. It mainly seeks to
identify barriers to small businesses competitiveness and to help
level the playing field. Concerns have been raised that the RFA has
become a tool for large businesses to obstruct the regulatory proc-
ess. Unfortunately, the Prove It Act wouldn’t solve the problem but
26
rather exaggerate it and give a big corporations a hammer to wield
against rules and harm the businesses the law is designed to as-
sist.
First this bill creates an unworkable quasi judicial process within
the Office of Advocacy for reviewing agencies certifications. It
would allow any group, any group that claims to represent small
businesses like Amazon for instance to petition Advocacy to block
rules that they do not like. It does nothing to prevent or limit du-
plicate petitions which further bogs down the Office of Advocacy
with numerous meetings and additional reviews.
Second, it requires agencies to take into consideration the indi-
rect effects of the rules in their regulatory flexibility analysis. Indi-
rect costs are difficult to estimate. Agencies do not have the infor-
mation available to them nor do they have control over minimizing
them.
And if Advocacy finds that an agency failed to conduct a required
review of a rule they could announce that the rule has ceased to
exist. Agencies will then have to review the rule before it could be
reinstated.
Small businesses need certainty and this provision would cause
undue confusion requiring business owners to come into compliance
with a rule only to remove it from the books and then reinstate it
again isn’t the safeguard I think this legislation was trying to
achieve.
I am afraid this bill will open the door for well-resourced trade
associations and corporations to challenge any rule they oppose,
possibly requiring Advocacy to review agencies’ RFAs compliance
for thousands of rules issued each year.
Why are we granting Advocacy, which has not had a Senate con-
firmed chief counsel since 2017 a vast amount of new authority.
If enacted the Office will need to double its staff and no surprise
this bill provides no new funding for the additional work. So, be-
lieve me, small businesses when the other side claims that they are
here to advocate for you, ask them, where is the money for the
agencies to do their job.
This bill will do little to help small businesses but it will cer-
tainly help powerful companies with the money to roll back rules
that protect our health, safety, and the environment. I urge my col-
leagues to oppose this bill and I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady yields back. I now recognize my-
self to speak in support of this legislation. H.R. 7198, the Prove It
Act of 2024 is an important bipartisan piece of legislation which
will help ensure that agencies comply with intent of existing law
and will give small business owners the ability to petition their
government when they see does not accurately account for a rule’s
impact.
Small businesses do not have the resource to hire compliance of-
ficers, lawyers, or lobbyists to ensure that they understand and
have their voices heard when the requirements are coming out
across the federal government.
Too often agencies issue one size fits all rule would make it chal-
lenging for small entities to comply or even keep track of. The
Prove It Act will help agencies ensure that they comply with the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and take into account small entities as
27
they craft their, as it crafts regulations. The bill does three main
things.
First the bill allows small businesses to petition the government
when an agency does not accurately account for the impact of a
given rule. Under the Prove It Act, small businesses and stake-
holders will be able to go to the SBA’s Office of Advocacy if they
believe an agency has immediately—improperly certified that a
regulation will not have a significant impact on a substantial num-
ber of small entities.
Second, it requires agencies to consider indirect costs when con-
ducting a regulatory flexibility analysis. Currently agencies must
only consider agencies directly regulated and impacted by a regula-
tion they issue. We have heard time and time again, however, that
this is not even close to the whole story. The downstream impacts
of regulation are often just as if not more costly than direct costs.
In order to truly understand how impactful a regulation is we must
take into account all of the factors.
And third, it requires agencies to publish follow-up guidance
rules to the rules on regulations.gov. This piece of the Prove It Act
is very similar to the Post It Act, sponsored by Mr. Molinaro which
passed this committee unanimously and passed the House on sus-
pension.
The Prove It Act takes important steps in ensuring that agencies
comply with the intent of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and con-
siders small entities in the rulemaking process. And I urge my col-
leagues to support the legislation and yield back. And if there is
no further discussion the committee now moves to consideration of
H.R. 7198.
The clerk will report.
The CLERK. H.R. 7198, to amend Title 5——
Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection the first reading of the
bill is suspended with and without objection the bill is considered
as read and open for amendment. Do any Members seek recogni-
tion for the purpose of offering an amendment?
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, ma’am?
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. So, moved. Okay. There is an
amendment at the desk. And the Clerk will designate the amend-
ment.
The CLERK. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.
7198——
Chairman WILLIAMS. Without objection, the reading of the
amendment is dispensed with and the Member is recognized to ex-
plain their amendment.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment
will strike the numerous analytical procedures in the Prove It Act
that will enable big corporations to roll back rules and put small
businesses on uneven ground.
In its place my amendment requires the Office of Advocacy to
train agencies on how to comply with the Regulatory Flexibility
Act. Key personnel at every rule writing agency will be required to
undergo Regulatory Flexibility Act training every four years.
28
We have heard from Advocacy that when agencies have a better
understanding of the Regulatory Flexibility Act it leads to more
meaningful consideration of small business throughout the rule-
making process.
Advocacy has been working diligently to train staff and we have
seen the fruits of their labor year after year. Agency analysis is im-
proving. This amendment will ensure that the Office is reaching all
agencies once every four years. Similar to the amendment offered
by Ms. Davids to an earlier bill, my amendment will require agen-
cies to submit a report to Congress under which respective review
requirements under Section 610.
The bottom line, small firms do not what to deal with the chaos
that will result from the enactment of the Prove It Act. Most small
businesses oppose deregulation. Business owners invested signifi-
cant resources to comply with existing requirements and deregula-
tion will cost them time and money. Deregulation also leads to a
patchwork of state regulations that make it harder for small busi-
nesses to comply with multiple requirements. They need certainty.
Finally federal regulations help to level the playing field and
allow small firms to better compete against Goliaths in industry.
I urge all Members to support my amendment and oppose the
Prove It Act. I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady yields back. Does anyone else
wish to be recognized for a statement on this amendment?
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Chair?
Chairman WILLIAMS. Recognize Representative Stauber from
the great State of Minnesota for 5 minutes.
Mr. STAUBER. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in strong opposition
to the esteem Ranking Member’s amendment. In fact, over 50 orga-
nizations representing small businesses from a wide range of in-
dustries have written in support of H.R. 7198.
They recognize that this legislation is vital to reducing regulatory
burdens and ensuring agencies consider the needs of small busi-
nesses when implementing new rules. It is both unrelated to the
core of H.R. 7198 and is a distraction from the real issues that
small businesses across the country face.
Again, the Ranking Member, Mr. Chair, has talked about the Of-
fice of Advocacy several times that agency has been mentioned. I
would submit that the folks that we asked to come to the hearings
and testify the ones that we have asked, not one has, not one small
business has said, yeah, we need more rules and regulations. Not
one.
This administration, Mr. Chair, has put in over 700 regulations
punishing American small businesses. The rules and regulations
that are put on small businesses have been devasting. They come
here on a, on a weekly basis and tell us.
If we say they are the engine of our economies, allow them to
thrive and survive and be prosperous in our small town and large
town America. These 700 regulations have placed over $440 billion,
that is with a B, over $440 billion on the small businesses of Amer-
ica.
Again, not one has, not one small business owner that has come
to a hearing has said, we need more rules and regulations from
these three letter agencies by these unelected bureaucrats. Not one.
29
We need to start listening to our small businesses, those men and
women who want to be entrepreneurs that are out on Main Street
America trying to make it.
These punishing, these punitive rules and regulations have to
stop and the Office of Advocacy obviously is not being as good as
they should. Seven hundred rules and regulations and I will just
say, submit to you, Mr. Chair, these legislations are good for small
businesses.
And if it means that the three letter agencies, the unelected bu-
reaucrats in the three letter agencies, Mr. Chair, some of them
have never owned a small business, Mr. Chair, if it means that
they have to change their ways and stop the punishment of small
businesses, well I am all for it.
American small businesses are the engines of our economy, they
are the entrepreneurs and they make America move and grow and
become prosperous. And this committee and some Members on this
committee don’t seem to understand that. And I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back. Does anyone
else wish to be recognized for a statement on this amendment? See-
ing none, I now recognize myself for a statement on this amend-
ment.
Half of this amendment is the exact same as the one debated ten
minutes ago and the other half changes the intent of the under-
lying bill. The Prove It Act has been a number 1 asked for small
business groups around the country as we discuss regulation re-
form.
And as we have already mentioned it brings small business’
voices to the forefront when the agencies recklessly approve regula-
tions without doing what is required in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act. And if we want to truly help Main Street America we should
oppose this amendment and support the underlying bill. So, I urge
all my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
The Prove It Act makes important steps ensuring that agencies
comply with the intent of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and con-
sider small entities in the rulemaking process and I urge my col-
leagues to support the legislation and I yield back. No if there is
no further discussion the committee now moves into consideration
of H.R. 7198, and the Clerk will report. Okay. All right. The ques-
tion is now on the amendment to H.R. 7198, offered by Ranking
Member Velázquez.
All those in favor say aye?
All those opposed say no?
No. In the opinion of the Chair the no’s have it. The amendment
is not agreed to.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Chairman?
Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes, ma’am.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. I would like to request a roll call.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. A recorded vote has been requested
and a roll call vote is ordered pursuant to Committee Rule 13, and
House Rule 11, further proceedings on the bill are postponed.
And does anyone else wish to offer an amendment? Okay. Seeing
none the question is now in the adoption of H.R. 7198 favorably re-
porting to the House.
All those in favor say aye?
30
All those opposed say no?
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and H.R. 7198 is
agreed to and ordered favorably to the House.
All right. I request a recorded vote and a roll call vote is ordered
by me pursuant to Committee Rule 13, and House Rule 11, further
proceedings on the bill are postponed.
All right. Now when we—the committee will now stand in recess
subject to the call of the Chair. We will reconvene around 2 o’clock
after the first period of votes on the floor.
Adjourned.
[Recess.]
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. The committee will now come to
order. The committee will now resume consideration of the bills on
which roll call votes were requested and postponed.
We will start with H.R. 8033. The question now is adopting H.R.
8033 and ordering it favorably reported to the house.
The clerk will call the roll.
The CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer?
[No response.]
Mr. Stauber?
Mr. STAUBER. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Stauber votes aye.
Mr. Meuser?
Mr. MEUSER. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Meuser votes aye.
Ms. Van Duyne?
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Van Duyne votes aye.
Ms. Salazar?
Ms. SALAZAR. Aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Salazar votes aye.
Mr. Mann?
[No response.]
Mr. Ellzey?
Mr. ELLZEY. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Ellzey votes aye.
Mr. Molinaro?
Mr. MOLINARO. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Molinaro votes aye.
Mr. Alford?
Mr. ALFORD. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Alford votes aye.
Mr. Crane?
Mr. CRANE. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Crane votes aye.
Mr. Bean?
Mr. BEAN. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Bean votes aye.
Mr. Hunt?
[No response.]
Mr. LaLota?
Mr. LALOTA. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. LaLota votes aye.
Ms. Maloy?
31
Ms. MALOY. Aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Maloy votes aye.
Mr. Golden?
Mr. GOLDEN. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes no.
Mr. Phillips?
Mr. PHILLIPS. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Phillips votes no.
Mr. Landsman?
Mr. LANDSMAN. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Landsman votes no.
Mr. McGarvey?
Mr. MCGARVEY. No.
The CLERK. Mr. McGarvey votes no.
Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez?
Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez votes no.
Ms. Scholten?
Ms. SCHOLTEN. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Scholten votes no.
Mr. Thanedar?
Mr. THANEDAR. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Thanedar votes no.
Ms. Chu?
Ms. CHU. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Chu votes no.
Ms. Davids?
Ms. DAVIDS. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Davids votes no.
Mr. Pappas?
Mr. PAPPAS. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Pappas votes no.
Ranking Member Velázquez?
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. No.
The CLERK. Ranking Member Velázquez votes no.
Chairman Williams?
Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes.
The CLERK. Chairman Williams votes aye.
Mr. Mann?
Mr. MANN. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Mann votes aye.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. Are there any other Members who
have not voted or wish to change their vote?
All right. Seeing none, the clerk will report.
The CLERK. Mr. Chairman on that vote 13 ayes, 11 nays, and
zero present.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. The motion agreed to and H.R.
8033 is adopted and will be favored—reported favorably to the
House
The question now is in adopting H.R. 9032, and ordering it favor-
ably reported to the House.
The clerk will call the roll.
The CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer?
[No response.]
32
Mr. Stauber?
Mr. STAUBER. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Stauber votes aye.
Mr. Meuser?
Mr. MEUSER. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Meuser votes aye.
Ms. Van Duyne?
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Van Duyne votes aye.
Ms. Salazar?
Ms. SALAZAR. Aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Salazar votes aye.
Mr. Mann?
Mr. MANN. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Mann votes aye.
Mr. Ellzey?
Mr. ELLZEY. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Ellzey votes aye.
Mr. Molinaro?
Mr. MOLINARO. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Molinaro votes aye.
Mr. Alford?
Mr. ALFORD. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Alford votes aye.
Mr. Crane?
Mr. CRANE. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Crane votes aye.
Mr. Bean?
Mr. BEAN. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Bean votes aye.
Mr. Hunt?
[No response.]
Mr. LaLota?
Mr. LALOTA. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. LaLota votes aye.
Ms. Maloy?
Ms. MALOY. Aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Maloy votes aye.
Mr. Golden?
Mr. GOLDEN. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes no.
Mr. Phillips?
Mr. PHILLIPS. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Phillips votes no.
Mr. Landsman?
Mr. LANDSMAN. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Landsman votes no.
Mr. McGarvey?
Mr. MCGARVEY. No.
The CLERK. Mr. McGarvey votes no.
Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez?
Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez votes no.
Ms. Scholten?
33
Ms. SCHOLTEN. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Scholten votes no.
Mr. Thanedar?
Mr. THANEDAR. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Thanedar votes no.
Ms. Chu?
Ms. CHU. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Chu votes no.
Ms. Davids?
Ms. DAVIDS. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Davids votes no.
Mr. Pappas?
Mr. PAPPAS. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Pappas votes no.
Ranking Member Velázquez?
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. No.
The CLERK. Ranking Member Velázquez votes no.
Chairman WILLIAMS. I need to vote.
The CLERK. Sorry about that, sir.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Unless you don’t want me to.
The CLERK. Chairman Williams?
Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes.
The CLERK. Chairman Williams votes aye.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who wish—
who have not voted or wish to change their vote?
Seeing none, the clerk will report.
The CLERK. Mr. Chairman on that vote 13 ayes, 11 nays, and
zero present.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The motion agreed to and H.R. 9031 is
adopted and will be reported favorably to the House
We will now be voting on the amendment offered to H.R. 9030,
offered by Mr. Thanedar.
The clerk will call the roll.
The CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer?
[No response.]
Mr. Stauber?
Mr. STAUBER. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Stauber votes no.
Mr. Meuser?
Mr. MEUSER. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Meuser votes no.
Ms. Van Duyne?
Ms. VAN DUYNE. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Van Duyne votes no.
Ms. Salazar?
Ms. SALAZAR. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Salazar votes no.
Mr. Mann?
Mr. MANN. No
The CLERK. Mr. Mann votes no.
Mr. Ellzey?
Mr. ELLZEY. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Ellzey votes no.
Mr. Molinaro?
34
Mr. MOLINARO. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Molinaro votes no.
Mr. Alford?
Mr. ALFORD. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Alford votes no
Mr. Crane?
Mr. CRANE. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Crane votes no.
Mr. Bean?
Mr. BEAN. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Bean votes no.
Mr. Hunt?
[No response.]
Mr. LaLota?
Mr. LALOTA. No.
The CLERK. Mr. LaLota votes no.
Ms. Maloy?
Ms. MALOY. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Maloy votes no.
Mr. Golden?
Mr. GOLDEN. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes aye.
Mr. Phillips?
Mr. PHILLIPS. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Phillips votes aye.
Mr. Landsman?
Mr. LANDSMAN. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Landsman votes aye.
Mr. McGarvey?
Mr. MCGARVEY. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. McGarvey votes aye.
Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez?
Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. Aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez votes aye.
Ms. Scholten?
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Scholten votes aye.
Mr. Thanedar?
Mr. THANEDAR. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Thanedar votes aye.
Ms. Chu?
Ms. CHU. Aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Chu votes aye.
Ms. Davids?
Ms. DAVIDS. Aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Davids votes aye.
Mr. Pappas?
Mr. PAPPAS. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Pappas votes aye.
Ranking Member Velázquez?
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Aye.
The CLERK. Ranking Member Velázquez votes aye.
Chairman Williams?
Chairman WILLIAMS. No.
35
The CLERK. Chairman Williams votes no.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have
not voted or wish to change their vote?
Seeing none, the clerk will report.
The CLERK. Mr. Chairman on that vote 11 ayes, 13 nays, and
zero present.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. The amendment is not adopted.
We will now be voting on amendment offer to H.R. 9030, offered
by Ms. Chu.
The clerk will call the roll.
The CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer?
[No response.]
Mr. Stauber?
Mr. STAUBER. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Stauber votes no.
Mr. Meuser?
Mr. MEUSER. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Meuser votes no.
Ms. Van Duyne?
Ms. VAN DUYNE. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Van Duyne votes no.
Ms. Salazar?
Ms. SALAZAR. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Salazar votes no.
Mr. Mann?
Mr. MANN. No
The CLERK. Mr. Mann votes no.
Mr. Ellzey?
Mr. ELLZEY. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Ellzey votes no.
Mr. Molinaro?
Mr. MOLINARO. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Molinaro votes no.
Mr. Alford?
Mr. ALFORD. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Alford votes no
Mr. Crane?
Mr. CRANE. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Crane votes no.
Mr. Bean?
Mr. BEAN. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Bean votes no.
Mr. Hunt?
[No response.]
Mr. LaLota?
Mr. LALOTA. No.
The CLERK. Mr. LaLota votes no.
Ms. Maloy?
Ms. MALOY. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Maloy votes no.
Mr. Golden?
Mr. GOLDEN. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes yes.
Mr. Phillips?
36
Mr. PHILLIPS. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Phillips votes yes.
Mr. Landsman?
Mr. LANDSMAN. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Landsman votes yes.
Mr. McGarvey?
Mr. MCGARVEY. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. McGarvey votes yes.
Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez?
Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. Yes.
The CLERK. Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez votes yes.
Ms. Scholten?
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Yes.
The CLERK. Ms. Scholten votes yes.
Mr. Thanedar?
Mr. THANEDAR. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Thanedar votes yes.
Ms. Chu?
Ms. CHU. Yes.
The CLERK. Ms. Chu votes yes.
Ms. Davids?
Ms. DAVIDS. Yes.
The CLERK. Ms. Davids votes yes.
Mr. Pappas?
Mr. PAPPAS. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Pappas votes yes.
Ranking Member Velázquez?
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Yes.
The CLERK. Ranking Member Velázquez votes yes.
Chairman Williams?
Chairman WILLIAMS. No.
The CLERK. Chairman Williams votes no.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. Are there any other Members who
have not voted or wish to change their vote?
Seeing none, the clerk will report.
The CLERK. Mr. Chairman on that vote 11 ayes, 13 nays, and
zero present.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. The amendment is not adopted.
The question now is on adopting H.R. 9030 and ordering it favor-
ably reported to the house.
The clerk will call the roll.
The CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer?
[No response.]
Mr. Stauber?
Mr. STAUBER. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Stauber votes yes.
Mr. Meuser?
Mr. MEUSER. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Meuser votes yes.
Ms. Van Duyne?
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Yes.
The CLERK. Ms. Van Duyne votes yes.
Ms. Salazar?
Ms. SALAZAR. Yes.
37
The CLERK. Ms. Salazar votes yes.
Mr. Mann?
Mr. MANN. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Mann votes yes.
Mr. Ellzey?
Mr. ELLZEY. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Ellzey votes yes.
Mr. Molinaro?
Mr. MOLINARO. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Molinaro votes yes.
Mr. Alford?
Mr. ALFORD. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Alford votes yes.
Mr. Crane?
Mr. CRANE. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Crane votes yes.
Mr. Bean?
Mr. BEAN. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Bean votes yes.
Mr. Hunt?
[No response.]
Mr. LaLota?
Mr. LALOTA. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. LaLota votes yes.
Ms. Maloy?
Ms. MALOY. Yes.
The CLERK. Ms. Maloy votes yes.
Mr. Golden?
Mr. GOLDEN. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes yes.
Mr. Phillips?
Mr. PHILLIPS. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Phillips votes yes.
Mr. Landsman?
Mr. LANDSMAN. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Landsman votes no.
Mr. McGarvey?
Mr. MCGARVEY. No.
The CLERK. Mr. McGarvey votes no.
Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez?
Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. Yes.
The CLERK. Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez votes yes.
Ms. Scholten?
Ms. SCHOLTEN. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Scholten votes no.
Mr. Thanedar?
Mr. THANEDAR. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Thanedar votes yes.
Ms. Chu?
Ms. CHU. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Chu votes no.
Ms. Davids?
Ms. DAVIDS. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Davids votes no.
38
Mr. Pappas?
Mr. PAPPAS. Yes
The CLERK. Mr. Pappas votes yes.
Ranking Member Velázquez?
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. No.
The CLERK. Ranking Member Velázquez votes no.
Chairman Williams?
Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes.
The CLERK. Chairman Williams votes yes.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have
not voted or wish to change their vote?
Mr. THANEDAR. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thanedar?
The CLERK. Mr. Thanedar is recorded as yes.
Mr. THANEDAR. Could that be made no? Thank you.
The CLERK. Mr. Thanedar votes no.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Any others want to change their vote?
Okay. Seeing none, the clerk will report.
The CLERK. Mr. Chairman on that vote 17 ayes, 7 nays, and
zero present.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. The motion agreed to and H.R.
9030 is adopted and will be reported favorably to the House.
We will now be voting on an amendment offered to H.R. 9085,
offered by Ms. Davids.
The clerk will call the roll.
The CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer?
[No response.]
Mr. Stauber?
Mr. STAUBER. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Stauber votes no.
Mr. Meuser?
Mr. MEUSER. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Meuser votes no.
Ms. Van Duyne?
Ms. VAN DUYNE. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Van Duyne votes no.
Ms. Salazar?
Ms. SALAZAR. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Salazar votes no.
Mr. Mann?
Mr. MANN. No
The CLERK. Mr. Mann votes no.
Mr. Ellzey?
Mr. ELLZEY. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Ellzey votes no.
Mr. Molinaro?
Mr. MOLINARO. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Molinaro votes no.
Mr. Alford?
Mr. ALFORD. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Alford votes no
Mr. Crane?
Mr. CRANE. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Crane votes no.
39
Mr. Bean?
Mr. BEAN. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Bean votes no.
Mr. Hunt?
[No response.]
Mr. LaLota?
Mr. LALOTA. No.
The CLERK. Mr. LaLota votes no.
Ms. Maloy?
Ms. MALOY. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Maloy votes no.
Mr. Golden?
Mr. GOLDEN. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes yes.
Mr. Phillips?
Mr. PHILLIPS. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Phillips votes yes.
Mr. Landsman?
Mr. LANDSMAN. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Landsman votes yes.
Mr. McGarvey?
Mr. MCGARVEY. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. McGarvey votes yes.
Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez?
Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. Yes.
The CLERK. Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez votes yes.
Ms. Scholten?
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Yes.
The CLERK. Ms. Scholten votes yes.
Mr. Thanedar?
Mr. THANEDAR. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Thanedar votes Yes.
Ms. Chu?
Ms. CHU. Yes.
The CLERK. Ms. Chu votes yes.
Ms. Davids?
Ms. DAVIDS. Yes.
The CLERK. Ms. Davids votes yes.
Mr. Pappas?
Mr. PAPPAS. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Pappas votes yes.
Ranking Member Velázquez?
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Yes.
The CLERK. Ranking Member Velázquez votes yes.
Chairman Williams?
Chairman WILLIAMS. No.
The CLERK. Chairman Williams votes no.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have
not voted or wish to change their vote?
Seeing none, the clerk will report.
The CLERK. Mr. Chairman on that vote 11 yeses, 13 nos, and
zero present.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. The amendment is not adopted.
40
The question now is on adopting H.R. 9085 and ordering it favor-
ably reported to the House.
The clerk will call the roll.
The CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer?
[No response.]
Mr. Stauber?
Mr. STAUBER. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Stauber votes yes.
Mr. Meuser?
Mr. MEUSER. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Meuser votes yes.
Ms. Van Duyne?
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Yes.
The CLERK. Ms. Van Duyne votes yes.
Ms. Salazar?
Ms. SALAZAR. Yes.
The CLERK. Ms. Salazar votes yes.
Mr. Mann?
Mr. MANN. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Mann votes yes.
Mr. Ellzey?
Mr. ELLZEY. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Ellzey votes yes.
Mr. Molinaro?
Mr. MOLINARO. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Molinaro votes yes.
Mr. Alford?
Mr. ALFORD. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Alford votes yes.
Mr. Crane?
Mr. CRANE. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Crane votes yes.
Mr. Bean?
Mr. BEAN. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Bean votes yes.
Mr. Hunt?
[No response.]
Mr. LaLota?
Mr. LALOTA. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. LaLota votes yes.
Ms. Maloy?
Ms. MALOY. Yes.
The CLERK. Ms. Maloy votes yes.
Mr. Golden?
Mr. GOLDEN. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes no.
Mr. Phillips?
Mr. PHILLIPS. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Phillips votes no.
Mr. Landsman?
Mr. LANDSMAN. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Landsman votes no.
Mr. McGarvey?
Mr. MCGARVEY. No.
41
The CLERK. Mr. McGarvey votes no.
Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez?
Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez votes no.
Ms. Scholten?
Ms. SCHOLTEN. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Scholten votes no.
Mr. Thanedar?
Mr. THANEDAR. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Thanedar votes no.
Ms. Chu?
Ms. CHU. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Chu votes no.
Ms. Davids?
Ms. DAVIDS. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Davids votes no.
Mr. Pappas?
Mr. PAPPAS. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Pappas votes no.
Ranking Member Velázquez?
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. No.
The CLERK. Ranking Member Velázquez votes no.
Chairman Williams?
Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes.
The CLERK. Chairman Williams votes yes.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have
not voted or wish to change their vote?
Seeing none, the clerk will report.
The CLERK. Mr. Chairman on that vote 13 ayes, 11 nays, and
zero present.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. The motion agreed to and H.R.
9085 is adopted and will be reported favorably to the House.
The question now is adopting H.R. 9033 and ordering it favorably
reported to the House.
The clerk will call the roll.
The CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer?
[No response.]
Mr. Stauber?
Mr. STAUBER. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Stauber votes aye.
Mr. Meuser?
Mr. MEUSER. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Meuser votes aye.
Ms. Van Duyne?
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Yes.
The CLERK. Ms. Van Duyne votes yes.
Ms. Salazar?
Ms. SALAZAR. Yes.
The CLERK. Ms. Salazar votes yes.
Mr. Mann?
Mr. MANN. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Mann votes yes.
Mr. Ellzey?
Mr. ELLZEY. Yes.
42
The CLERK. Mr. Ellzey votes yes.
Mr. Molinaro?
Mr. MOLINARO. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Molinaro votes yes.
Mr. Alford?
Mr. ALFORD. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Alford votes yes.
Mr. Crane?
Mr. CRANE. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Crane votes yes.
Mr. Bean?
Mr. BEAN. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Bean votes yes.
Mr. Hunt?
[No response.]
Mr. LaLota?
Mr. LALOTA. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. LaLota votes yes.
Ms. Maloy?
Ms. MALOY. Yes.
The CLERK. Ms. Maloy votes yes.
Mr. Golden?
Mr. GOLDEN. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes no.
Mr. Phillips?
Mr. PHILLIPS. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Phillips votes no.
Mr. Landsman?
Mr. LANDSMAN. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Landsman votes no.
Mr. McGarvey?
Mr. MCGARVEY. No.
The CLERK. Mr. McGarvey votes no.
Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez?
Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez votes no.
Ms. Scholten?
Ms. SCHOLTEN. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Scholten votes no.
Mr. Thanedar?
Mr. THANEDAR. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Thanedar votes no.
Ms. Chu?
Ms. CHU. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Chu votes no.
Ms. Davids?
Ms. DAVIDS. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Davids votes no.
Mr. Pappas?
Mr. PAPPAS. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Pappas votes no.
Ranking Member Velázquez?
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. No.
The CLERK. Ranking Member Velázquez votes no.
43
Chairman Williams?
Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes.
The CLERK. Chairman Williams votes yes.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have
not voted or wish to change their vote?
Seeing none, the clerk will report.
The CLERK. Mr. Chairman on that vote 13 ayes, 11 nays, and
zero present.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. The motion is agreed to and H.R.
9033 is adopted and will be reported favorably to the House.
We will now be voting on an amendment offered to H.R. 7198,
offered by Ms. Velázquez.
The clerk will call the roll.
The CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer?
[No response.]
Mr. Stauber?
Mr. STAUBER. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Stauber votes no.
Mr. Meuser?
Mr. MEUSER. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Meuser votes no.
Ms. Van Duyne?
Ms. VAN DUYNE. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Van Duyne votes no.
Ms. Salazar?
Ms. SALAZAR. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Salazar votes no.
Mr. Mann?
Mr. MANN. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Mann votes no.
Mr. Ellzey?
Mr. ELLZEY. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Ellzey votes no.
Mr. Molinaro?
Mr. MOLINARO. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Molinaro votes no.
Mr. Alford?
Mr. ALFORD. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Alford votes no.
Mr. Crane?
Mr. CRANE. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Crane votes no.
Mr. Bean?
Mr. BEAN. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Bean votes no.
Mr. Hunt?
[No response.]
Mr. LaLota?
Mr. LALOTA. No.
The CLERK. Mr. LaLota votes no.
Ms. Maloy?
Ms. MALOY. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Maloy votes no.
Mr. Golden?
44
Mr. GOLDEN. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes yes.
Mr. Phillips?
Mr. PHILLIPS. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Phillips votes yes.
Mr. Landsman?
Mr. LANDSMAN. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Landsman votes yes.
Mr. McGarvey?
Mr. MCGARVEY. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. McGarvey votes yes.
Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez?
Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. Yes.
The CLERK. Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez votes yes.
Ms. Scholten?
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Yes.
The CLERK. Ms. Scholten votes yes.
Mr. Thanedar?
Mr. THANEDAR. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Thanedar votes yes.
Ms. Chu?
Ms. CHU. Yes.
The CLERK. Ms. Chu votes yes.
Ms. Davids?
Ms. DAVIDS. Yes.
The CLERK. Ms. Davids votes yes.
Mr. Pappas?
Mr. PAPPAS. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Pappas votes yes.
Ranking Member Velázquez?
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Yes.
The CLERK. Ranking Member Velázquez votes yes.
Chairman Williams?
Chairman WILLIAMS. No.
The CLERK. Chairman Williams votes no.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have
not voted or wish to change their vote?
Seeing none, the clerk will report.
The CLERK. Mr. Chairman on that vote 11 ayes, 13 nays, and
zero present.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The amendment is not adopted. The
question now is in adopting H.R. 7198 and ordering it favorably re-
ported to the House.
The clerk will call the roll.
The CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer?
[No response.]
Mr. Stauber?
Mr. STAUBER. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Stauber votes yes.
Mr. Meuser?
Mr. MEUSER. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Meuser votes yes.
Ms. Van Duyne?
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Yes.
45
The CLERK. Ms. Van Duyne votes yes.
Ms. Salazar?
Ms. SALAZAR. Yes.
The CLERK. Ms. Salazar votes yes.
Mr. Mann?
Mr. MANN. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Mann votes yes.
Mr. Ellzey?
Mr. ELLZEY. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Ellzey votes yes.
Mr. Molinaro?
Mr. MOLINARO. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Molinaro votes yes.
Mr. Alford?
Mr. ALFORD. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Alford votes yes.
Mr. Crane?
Mr. CRANE. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Crane votes yes.
Mr. Bean?
Mr. BEAN. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Bean votes yes.
Mr. Hunt?
[No response.]
Mr. LaLota?
Mr. LALOTA. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. LaLota votes yes.
Ms. Maloy?
Ms. MALOY. Yes.
The CLERK. Ms. Maloy votes yes.
Mr. Golden?
Mr. GOLDEN. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Golden votes no.
Mr. Phillips?
Mr. PHILLIPS. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Phillips votes no.
Mr. Landsman?
Mr. LANDSMAN. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Landsman votes no.
Mr. McGarvey?
Mr. MCGARVEY. No.
The CLERK. Mr. McGarvey votes no.
Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez?
Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez votes no.
Ms. Scholten?
Ms. SCHOLTEN. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Scholten votes no.
Mr. Thanedar?
Mr. THANEDAR. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Thanedar votes no.
Ms. Chu?
Ms. CHU. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Chu votes no.
46
Ms. Davids?
Ms. DAVIDS. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Davids votes no.
Mr. Pappas?
Mr. PAPPAS. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Pappas votes no.
Ranking Member Velázquez?
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. No.
The CLERK. Ranking Member Velázquez votes no.
Chairman Williams?
Chairman WILLIAMS. Yes.
The CLERK. Chairman Williams votes yes.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Are there any other Members who have
not voted or wish to change their vote?
Seeing none, the clerk will report.
The CLERK. Mr. Chairman on that vote 13 ayes, 11 nays and
zero present.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. The motion is agreed to and H.R.
7198 is adopted and will be reported favorably to the House.
Without objection committee staff is authorized to make tech-
nical and conforming changes and Members have two business
days to file additional supplemental dissenting and minority views.
Thank you all for being here today.
If there is no further business, this concludes today’s markup.
Without objection the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:52 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
47
APPENDIX
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
Æ
File and source
- File
- CHRG-118hhrg57369.pdf
- Size
- 4,597,977 bytes
- SHA-256
- 776343303959ac2a96acca8c76d28b54a4cd239f37358e772e3c08829080e910
- Our copy
- CHRG-118hhrg57369.pdf
- Original
- www.govinfo.gov