[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


MARKUP OF: H.R. 8033, THE REGULATORY TRANSPARENCY FOR SMALL BUSINESSES 
  ACT; H.R. 9031, THE ASSURANCE FOR SMALL BUSINESS ACT OF 2024; H.R. 
 9032, THE ENHANCED REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ASSESSMENT ACT; H.R. 9030, 
 THE AGENDA CLARITY ACT; H.R. 9085, THE REGULATORY REVIEW IMPROVEMENT 
   ACT OF 2024; H.R. 9033, THE LET AMERICAN BUSINESSES BE ON RECORD 
            (LABOR) ACT; H.R. 7198, THE PROVE IT ACT OF 2024

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
                             UNITED STATES
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                              HEARING HELD
                           SEPTEMBER 10, 2024

                               __________

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                               

            Small Business Committee Document Number 118-058
             Available via the GPO Website: www.govinfo.gov
             
                              __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
57-369                  WASHINGTON : 2024                              
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                 
            
                   HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

                    ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas, Chairman
                      BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
                        PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
                        DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
                         BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas
                         MARIA SALAZAR, Florida
                          TRACEY MANN, Kansas
                           JAKE ELLZEY, Texas
                        MARC MOLINARO, New York
                         MARK ALFORD, Missouri
                           ELI CRANE, Arizona
                          AARON BEAN, Florida
                           WESLEY HUNT, Texas
                         NICK LALOTA, New York
                          CELESTE MALOY, Utah
               NYDIA VELAZQUEZ, New York, Ranking Member
                          JARED GOLDEN, Maine
                        DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
                          GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
                  MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ, Washington
                        SHRI THANEDAR, Michigan
                       MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky
                       HILLARY SCHOLTEN, Michigan
                          JUDY CHU, California
                         SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
                      CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire

                  Ben Johnson, Majority Staff Director
                 Melissa Jung, Minority Staff Director
                            
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
Hon. Roger Williams..............................................     1
Hon. Nydia Velazquez.............................................     2

                                APPENDIX

Additional Material for the Record:
    H.R. 8033....................................................    47
    H.R. 9031....................................................    50
    H.R. 9032....................................................    52
    H.R. 9030....................................................    58
    H.R. 9085....................................................    61
    H.R. 9033....................................................    64
    H.R. 7198....................................................    66
    Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 9030 offered 
      by Mr. Thanedar............................................    79
    Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 9030 offered 
      by Ms. Chu.................................................    81
    Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 9085 offered 
      by Ms. Davids of Kansas....................................    83
    Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 7198 offered 
      by Ms. Velazquez...........................................    85
    Minority Views H.R. 8033, the ``Regulatory Transparency for 
      Small Businesses Act''.....................................    88
    Minority Views H.R. 9031, the ``Assurance for Small Business 
      Act of 2024''..............................................    90
    Minority Views H.R. 9032, the ``Enhanced Regulatory 
      Flexibility Assessment Act''...............................    91
    Minority Views H.R. 9030, the ``Regulatory Agenda Clarity 
      Act''......................................................    93
    Minority Views H.R. 9085, the ``Regulatory Review Improvement 
      Act''......................................................    95
    Minority Views H.R. 9033, the ``Let American Businesses be On 
      Record Act of 2024'' or ``LABOR Act of 2024''..............    97
    Minority Views H.R. 7198, the ``Prove It Act of 2024''.......    98
    ABC (Associated Builders and Contractors)....................   100
    ACT/The App Association......................................   102
    AFL-CIO Legislative Alert....................................   104
    American Sustainable Business Council........................   107
    Hon. Blaine Luetkemeyer Statement for the Record.............   109
    Coalition for Sensible Safeguards Letter Number 1............   111
    Coalition for Sensible Safeguards Letter Number 2............   115
    Freedom Fighters.............................................   118
    Joint Trades Letter..........................................   121
    Public Citizen...............................................   124
    Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council Letter.............   126
    South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce............   127

 
MARKUP OF: H.R. 8033, THE REGULATORY TRANSPARENCY FOR SMALL BUSINESSES 
  ACT; H.R. 9031, THE ASSURANCE FOR SMALL BUSINESS ACT OF 2024; H.R. 
 9032, THE ENHANCED REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ASSESSMENT ACT; H.R. 9030, 
 THE AGENDA CLARITY ACT; H.R. 9085, THE REGULATORY REVIEW IMPROVEMENT 
   ACT OF 2024; H.R. 9033, THE LET AMERICAN BUSINESSES BE ON RECORD 
            (LABOR) ACT; H.R. 7198, THE PROVE IT ACT OF 2024

                              ----------                              


                      TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2024

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

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]