U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

93–958 2015

MARKUP OF: • H.R. 4093, • H.R. 4094, • H.R. 

2751, • H.R. 2882, • H.R. 776, • H.R. 4121, 

• H.R. 2452 

MARKUP 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

UNITED STATES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARKUP HELD 

MARCH 5, 2014 

Small Business Committee Document Number 113–056 

Available via the GPO Website: www.fdsys.gov 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Congress.#13
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri, Chairman 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

RICHARD HANNA, New York 

TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

KERRY BENTIVOLIO, Michigan 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

NYDIA VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York, Ranking Member 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

YVETTE CLARKE, New York 

JUDY CHU, California 

JANICE HAHN, California 

DONALD PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

GRACE MENG, New York 

BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

RON BARBER, Arizona 

ANN MCLANE KUSTER, New Hampshire 

PATRICK MURPHY, Florida 

LORI SALLEY, Staff Director 

PAUL SASS, Deputy Staff Director 

BARRY PINELES, Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL DAY, Minority Staff Director 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Hon. Sam Graves ..................................................................................................... 1 

Hon. Nydia Vela ́zquez ............................................................................................. 2 

APPENDIX 

Additional Material for the Record: 

The Associated General Contractors of America ........................................... 40 

The American Legion ....................................................................................... 41 

The American Institute of Architects ............................................................. 42 

The American Subcontractors Association, Inc. ............................................. 44 

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) ......................................... 46 

Independent Electrical Contractors (IEC) ...................................................... 47 

Maralina Corporation ....................................................................................... 49 

Minority Business RoundTable (MBRT) ......................................................... 51 

NORBIC ............................................................................................................ 55 

The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) ................................. 56 

Veterans’ Entrepreneurship Task Force (VET-Force) ................................... 63 

Women Impacting Public Policy (WIPP) ........................................................ 65 

H.R. 4093, ‘‘Greater Opportunities for Small Business Act of 2014’’ ........... 66 

H.R. 4094, ‘‘Contracting Data and Bundling Accountability Act of 2014’’ ... 68 

H.R. 2751, ‘‘Commonsense Construction Contracting Act of 2013’’ .............. 74 

H.R. 2882, ‘‘Improving Opportunities for Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned 

Small Businesses Act of 2013’’ ..................................................................... 77 

H.R. 776, ‘‘Security in Bonding Act of 2013’’ .................................................. 84 

H.R. 4121, ‘‘Small Business Development Centers Improvement Act of 

2014’’ .............................................................................................................. 86 

H.R. 2452, ‘‘Women’s Procurement Program Equalization Act of 2013’’ ..... 92 

Amendment to H.R. 4093 Offered by Ms. Chu of California ........................ 96 

Amendment to H.R. 4094 Offered by Ms. Chu of California ........................ 97 

Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 

2882 Offered by Ms. Kuster of New Hampshire ........................................ 98 

Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 

2882 Offered by Ms. Hahn of California ..................................................... 99 

Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 

2882 Offered by Ms. Vela ́zquez of New York ............................................. 100 

Amendment to H.R. 4121 Offered by Mr. Murphy of Florida ....................... 101 

Amendment to H.R. 4121 Offered by Mr. Payne of New Jersey .................. 103 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

(1) 

MARKUP OF: • H.R. 4093, ‘‘GREATER OPPORTUNITIES FOR SMALL BUSINESS ACT OF 

2014’’ • H.R. 4094, ‘‘CONTRACTING DATA AND 

BUNDLING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2014’’ 

• H.R. 2751, ‘‘COMMONSENSE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTING ACT OF 2013’’ • H.R. 

2882, ‘‘IMPROVING OPPORTUNITIES FOR 

SERVICE-DISABLED VETERAN-OWNED 

SMALL BUSINESSES ACT OF 2013’’ • H.R. 776, 

‘‘SECURITY IN BONDING ACT OF 2013’’ • H.R. 

4121, ‘‘SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT 

CENTERS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2014’’ 

• H.R. 2452, ‘‘WOMEN’S PROCUREMENT PROGRAM EQUALIZATION ACT OF 2013’’ 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:00 p.m., in Room 

2360, Rayburn House Office Building. Hon. Sam Graves [chairman 

of the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Graves, Chabot, Coffman, Luetkemeyer, 

Mulvaney, Tipton, Herrera Beutler, Hanna, Huelskamp, 

Schweikert, Bentivolio, Collins, Rice, Vela ́zquez, Schrader, Clarke, 

Chu, Hahn, Payne, Meng, Barber, McLane Kuster, and Murphy. 

Chairman GRAVES. We will go ahead and call the meeting to 

order and get everybody in. We have got a vote at approximately 

1:15, which we will have to postpone or at least we will have to 

recess for a short period of time during the markup. But with that 

we will just kind of play it by ear. 

Today, what we are going to be doing, we are marking up several 

bills. The Federal Government routinely spends approximately half 

a trillion dollars through prime contracts each and every year, and 

surely that small businesses can compete for these contracts offers 

several benefits. One, business growth. Another, job creation. 

Greater competition, lower prices, and innovation. And over the 

past four years I have made it a priority to enact some reforms to 

increase small businesses’ ability to compete in the federal marketplace, and I am proud of some of our legislative accomplishments. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

2 

In the 112th Congress, the Committee reported out 11 contracting reform bills, many of which are now law, and I believe 

that through those efforts, the legislation we passed last year and 

the bills that we are going to mark up today, it is going to improve 

the ability of small contractors to successfully compete. 

We focused on a lot of what I will call the 3 C’s—clarity, competition, and consequences. In terms of clarity, our efforts ensure that 

small business contracting laws are understandable, comprehensive, and they promote transparency, and to that end we have 

passed reforms addressing and improving the roles of small business advocates, the process for determining which firms are small, 

the way SBA reports on goals, the way the 13 mentor-prote ́ge ́ programs interact, the way small business team on contracts, and the 

rules around suspension and debarment. 

Further, together we have helped small businesses compete. We 

have required that all acquisition plans address the use of small 

businesses. We have increased the role of small business advocates 

in the acquisition planning process, and we have expanded the 

number of contracts counted towards the small business goals, 

which means more opportunities for small businesses. 

And finally, we worked on consequences, which are holding businesses and agencies responsible. And to that end, we have made 

it easier to suspend and debar bad actors. We have also imposed 

penalties on firms acting as fronts for large businesses in an attempt to misuse the SBA’s contracting programs. We have required 

agencies to create mitigation plans when they fail to meet their 

goals. We have held large businesses accountable for their subcontracting plans, and we have tied senior executive bonuses to small 

business goals. 

Today, we are going to continue our work on clarity, competition, 

and consequences, and we will be marking up five contracting bills 

introduced by the Majority-Plus Contracting Bill and a bill addressing Small Business Development Centers, which is introduced by 

the ranking member. I believe that this is a very collaborative effort and is a testament to the importance of government contracting for small businesses and it is a tribute, I believe, to the 

bipartisan nature of the Committee. 

And while we will briefly discuss each of the bills individually before we mark it up, I want to emphasize how important these 

issues are to both small businesses and the taxpayers. When small 

businesses compete for these contracts something important happens and that is jobs. Jobs are created. Innovation occurs, competition brings down prices, and in short, when small businesses win, 

I think that we all win. 

I now recognize Ranking Member Vela ́zquez for her opening 

statement. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This committee has worked well together on procurement issues, 

exposing fraud, waste, and abuse and improving how SBA functions. It is my hope that today’s discussion will further that tradition. For small businesses, federal agencies can be a great client. 

Last year, the federal government spent $461 billion purchasing 

goods and services, everything from paperclips, to airplanes, to 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

3 

landscaping, to construction are required throughout the public sector, and small companies are vital to meeting these needs. 

Congress, and this committee in particular, have long recognized 

the benefits that stem from small business participation in the federal marketplace, helping small firms secure these opportunities 

foster job growth, help small businesses grow into larger ones, and 

create greater overall economic prosperity. 

At the same time when entrepreneurs are enlisted to meet government’s procurement needs, American taxpayers’ dollars are well 

spent. Small businesses provide excellent services and quality products at competitive prices. Moreover, bringing additional small 

companies into the procurement fold increases competition, raising 

the quality of services and products available to the government. 

Given the benefits of having government do business with small 

enterprises, it is important that federal agencies meet their contacting goals. Unfortunately, this has not happened. The 23 percent 

small business contracting goal has not been met in many years, 

although it appears that objective may finally be met this year. 

Similar initiatives aimed at helping women-owned businesses have 

fallen short. The Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business 

program has also not kept pace. The SBA is responsible for ensuring other agencies are proactively working to meet their small business contracting goals. 

Through hearings, oversight, and investigations, this committee 

has carefully examined why the SBA has repeatedly failed in this 

regard. Our efforts also help identify possible solutions. It is my 

hope that the committee can work together in crafting legislation 

that will make these programs function more effectively. 

We also must not ignore other elements of the SBA portfolio. At 

a time when our economy is still struggling with job creation, entrepreneurship is vital. As such, we must endeavor to ensure SBA’s 

entrepreneurial development programs remain up-to-date, providing the tools that help Americans launch new businesses. I look 

forward to that discussion today as well. 

Mr. Chairman, our economy remains in a difficult spot. We all 

acknowledge that. While progress has been made, we have a long 

way to go. Congress will be remiss to ignore the absolute vital role 

small businesses will play in restoring our nation’s prosperity. Today’s actions should provide a starting point in addressing some of 

the policy obstacles that are impeding small business growth. 

I thank the Chairman again, and I yield back. 

Chairman GRAVES. Thank you. 

Do any other members wish to be recognized for the purpose of 

an opening statement? 

Seeing none, we will move on. 

We are going to be marking up seven bills today, and we are 

going to do it in the order that they were noticed. 

H.R. 4093 

The first bill is H.R. 4093, the Greater Opportunities for Small 

Business Act 2014, which I did introduce with Mr. Hanna, Ms. 

Herrera Beutler, and Mr. Murphy. This bill does three things. 

What it does is raise the Federal Government small business prime 

contracting goal from 23 percent to 25 percent. It raises the subcontracting goal from 35.9 to 40 percent and ensures that only 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

4 

prime contracts are counted towards the prime contracting goal. 

Last year, the government spent $460 billion through prime contracts, and the preliminary data shows for the first time in seven 

years, the percentage awarded to small businesses exceeded 23 percent, and I believe this demonstrates that the tools we have given 

agencies to meet the small business goals and the focus we are 

placing on federal contracting, I think it is working. 

Given that federal spending failed by $40 billion during the same 

period, it also illustrates that doing more with small businesses is 

good for taxpayers. Thus, raising the goals will help small businesses compete. It is going to help taxpayers, and it is going to help 

the government operate more efficiently. And I urge support for the 

bill. 

I recognize Ranking Member Vela ́zquez for her remarks on 4093. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I support this bill. It would be difficult to overstate the significance of the federal marketplace to the small business sector. As 

of now, it appears that in 2013, small firms were awarded $83.2 

billion in federal contracts. While these numbers could see revision 

before SBA releases its annual scorecard, this preliminary data 

suggests that for the first time since 2005, the federal government 

may finally reach its goal of awarding 23 percent of contracts to 

small firms. While this constitutes progress, it is well past due and 

it is certainly not enough. Let us remember, every single year federal agencies miss their contracting goals amounts to billions of 

dollars in lost revenue for entrepreneurs. 

In that regard, the issue raised by H.R. 4093, raising the federal 

government’s statutory small business procurement goal, is a timely one. The bill also increases the government’s subcontracting 

goals and it eliminates a loophole that has inhibited small business 

participation in the Department of Energy contracts. Given the real 

tangible benefit that stems from using small businesses for federal 

projects, it makes perfect sense to discuss raising this threshold. 

Small businesses deserve better. It is my hope that the committee 

and Congress will work to ensure agencies do more to incorporate 

entrepreneurs into the procurement effort. It is a win-win for government, for taxpayers. It is a win-win for the small business sector. 

I yield back. 

Chairman GRAVES. Well said. 

Are there any other members that wish to be recognized for a 

statement on H.R. 4093? 

Seeing none, the Committee now moves to consideration of H.R. 

4093. Will the clerk please report the title of the bill? 

CLERK. H.R. 4093, to amend the Small Business Act to raise the 

prime and subcontract goals and for other purposes. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Chair? 

Chairman GRAVES. What is that? 

Ms. CHU. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GRAVES. Without objection, H.R. 4093 is considered 

read and open for amendment at any point. 

At this point I think we will just recess and we will come back. 

We have two amendments on 4093. Amendment 1 from Ms. Chu 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

5 

and Amendment 2 from Ms. Clarke. We will pick those up just as 

soon as we get back. 

So we will recess. I think we have got three votes, so we will recess temporarily. Thanks. 

[Recess] 

Chairman GRAVES. We will go ahead and call the markup back 

to order. And we are presently on Bill 4093. 

The first amendment up is Ms. Chu. 

Ms. CHU. Yes. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GRAVES. Clerk, please report the amendment. 

CLERK. Amendment 1 to H.R. 4093 offered by Ms. Chu of California. Add at the end of the bill the following: Section 4—— 

Chairman GRAVES. Without objection, the bill or the amendment, I mean, is considered as read, if that is all right. 

No objections? 

The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I strongly support the efforts of the Committee in ensuring that 

small businesses receive a greater share of government contracts. 

Providing more opportunities for small businesses to compete for 

contracts will create jobs and strengthen our economy. We must ensure that government contracting money is spent in such a way 

that maximizes the potential economic growth. This is why I am 

introducing this amendment, which would increase the federal contracting goal for women-owned small businesses to 6 percent, and 

I am proud to have the support of my colleagues, Representatives 

Clarke, Hahn, Meng, Barber, Kuster, and Murphy. 

Women make up 50 percent of the workforce, but the current 

goal for women-owned businesses is only 5 percent. Also, womenowned businesses lag behind male-owned businesses. The average 

revenue of women-owned businesses is only 27 percent of the average revenue of male-owned businesses. By granting a larger share 

of government contracts to women-owned small businesses, we will 

encourage women in the workforce to start their own firms. As 

business owners, not only will they be able to earn more for themselves and their families, they will also create jobs and contribute 

more to the economy. Increasing this contracting goal to 6 percent 

will give women-owned small businesses the opportunity to access 

billions more in federal contracts. It is imperative that the government spends its contracting dollars where they can do the most 

good and women-owned small businesses offer us great potential 

for growth. 

With that, I ask for the Committee’s support, and I yield back. 

Chairman GRAVES. Does any other member wish to be heard on 

the amendment? 

Mr. BARBER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman GRAVES. Who said that? Go ahead. 

Mr. BARBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Congresswoman Chu, for this amendment, which I am pleased to be a 

cosponsor. 

I strongly support this concept of increasing the contracting goal 

for women-owned small businesses from 5 to 6 percent, and I was 

a proud cosponsor of this amendment with the congresswoman. I 

know that we have to do more to help women-owned businesses in 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

6 

this country, and the Federal Government must lead by example 

when it comes to supporting women-owned businesses across the 

nation. This amendment is one small step that we can take to help 

women-owned businesses succeed, and I encourage my colleagues 

on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman GRAVES. Does any other member—— 

Mr. Murphy? 

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman GRAVES. Sure. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. 

I support the distinguished lady from California, Ms. Chu’s 

amendment to increase the federal contracting goal for womenowned small business. With March as Women’s History Month, it 

is the perfect time to recognize the irreplaceable contributions 

women make to our economy. For example, women have improved 

the average education level of America’s workforce, and women 

lead some of the most innovative companies in the nation. Women 

like Shirley Brostmeyer and Denise Castronova run vital businesses in my district. Ms. Brostmeyer is CEO of Florida Turbine 

Technologies, which develops cutting-edge jet engine innovations, 

and Ms. Castronova is owner and founder of Castronova Chocolates, which produces some of the best chocolate I have ever had. 

In addition to recognizing women’s equal role in the workforce, we 

must acknowledge that women still are paid a fraction of what men 

earn for identical work. 

Representative Chu’s amendment is one step in the right direction to level the playing field for women in business, and I trust 

my colleagues will support it unanimously. When women succeed, 

America succeeds. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman GRAVES. Any other member wish to be heard on the 

amendment? 

Ms. HAHN. I do. 

Chairman GRAVES. Ms. Hahn? 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I move to strike the last word. And I want to thank my colleague, 

Congresswoman Chu from California. I am proud to join her in offering this very important amendment. Government contracts offer 

small businesses of all kinds an opportunity to grow, to hire, and 

contribute to their local economy, but too often certain groups of 

small business owners are left out of these benefits. The lack of 

federal contracts going to women-owned small businesses is well 

documented and unacceptable, but we are making progress, and I 

am proud to offer this amendment with my colleagues that pushes 

us further. I am happy to support the Greater Opportunities for 

Small Business Act, and I hope that we can make sure that while 

we increase contracting with small businesses, we ensure that 

women small business owners see more opportunities as well. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairman GRAVES. Any other member wish to be heard? 

Ms. MENG. I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman GRAVES. Ms. Meng? 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

7 

Ms. MENG. I want to thank Congresswoman Chu for her leadership on this amendment. As we move to increase the small business contracting goal, it is important to secure additional opportunities for women and not leave contracting parity to chance. March 

is Women’s History Month, and I cannot think of a better way for 

the Committee to do its part than by passing this amendment. A 

1 percent increase can result in billions of dollars of federal contracts for women-owned businesses. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman GRAVES. Any other member? 

Ms. CLARKE. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, I would like to 

strike the last word. 

I, too, would like to take a minute to thank Ms. Chu for authoring, and my democratic colleagues who, along with myself, joined 

Ms. Chu as cosponsors of this amendment. Ever mindful that when 

women succeed, America succeeds, more and more women are 

swelling the ranks of our nation’s entrepreneurs. As such, it is important that we, as legislators, adjust our expectations to better reflect the diverse assortment of entrepreneurs and assist them as 

they create the jobs that will assist them as they create the jobs 

that will sustain our economy. 

Again, I would like to thank Ms. Chu, and I urge my colleagues 

to support this common sense amendment. And I yield back, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman GRAVES. Ms. Kuster? 

Ms. KUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the 

last word. 

I also thank Congresswoman Chu for her leadership on behalf of 

women entrepreneurs and small business owners across the country. I am proud to partner with you on this common sense amendment. 

Just two weeks ago, I hosted the first in a series of roundtables 

with women business leaders in Salem, New Hampshire. We discussed obstacles facing women entrepreneurs, including limited access to capital, technical assistance, and federal contracting opportunities. We can all agree that when women succeed, our entire 

economy and our country succeeds. By helping to level the playing 

field for women-owned businesses, this amendment would foster 

greater competition in contracting marketplaces and result in 

greater savings and options for America’s taxpayers. I urge all of 

our colleagues to support this common sense amendment, and I 

yield back. 

Chairman GRAVES. Does any other member wish to be heard on 

the amendment? 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman GRAVES. Ranking Member Vela ́zquez? 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. I rise to strike the last word. 

I just want to thank Congresswoman Chu for this amendment. 

The reality is that women employ more than 13 million people, are 

generating $1.9 trillion in sales, and women businesses are here to 

stay, and they play an important role in our economy. The womenowned business contracting goal is now 20 years old. With women’s 

role in the small business sector growing, we must take steps to 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

8 

update the federal contracting policy so that it reflects the new realities. 

On that note, I urge support of this amendment. Thank you. 

Chairman GRAVES. Does any other member wish to be heard on 

the amendment? 

As chairman of the Small Business Committee, I have always 

tried not to favor one particular group over another, or picking winners and losers. And we actually have four subcategories of small 

business goals. And I think that if we are going to increase the 

overall small business goal and there is going to be an extra $10 

billion out there to compete for, I think that all small businesses 

ought to have that opportunity instead of trying to single out and 

give an advantage to one subcategory over another. So I do not 

support the amendment. 

And with that, the question is on the amendment offered by Ms. 

Chu, which is Amendment 1, to 4093. 

All those in favor say aye. 

All those opposed no. 

It is the opinion of the chair the noes have it. 

Ms. CHU. Mr. Chair, I ask for a recorded vote. 

Chairman GRAVES. A recorded vote has been called. 

Clerk, please call the roll. 

CLERK. Mr. Graves? 

Chairman GRAVES. No. 

CLERK. Mr. Graves votes no. 

Mr. Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. No. 

CLERK. Mr. Chabot votes no. 

Mr. King? 

[No response] 

Mr. Coffman? 

Mr. COFFMAN. No. 

CLERK. Mr. Coffman votes no. 

Mr. Luetkemeyer? 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. No. 

CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer votes no. 

Mr. Mulvaney? 

Mr. MULVANEY. No. 

CLERK. Mr. Mulvaney votes no. 

Mr. Tipton? 

Mr. TIPTON. No. 

CLERK. Mr. Tipton votes no. 

Ms. Herrera Beutler? 

[No response] 

Mr. Hanna? 

Mr. HANNA. No. 

CLERK. Mr. Hanna votes no. 

Mr. Huelskamp? 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. No. 

CLERK. Mr. Huelskamp votes no. 

Mr. Schweikert? 

[No response] 

Mr. Bentivolio? 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. No. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

9 

CLERK. Mr. Bentivolio votes no. 

Mr. Collins? 

Mr. COLLINS. No. 

CLERK. Mr. Collins votes no. 

Mr. Rice? 

[No response] 

Ms. Vela ́zquez? 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Aye. 

CLERK. Ms. Vela ́zquez votes aye. 

Ms. Clarke? 

Mr. Schrader? 

Mr. SCHRADER. Aye. 

CLERK. Mr. Schrader votes aye. 

Ms. Clarke? 

Ms. CLARKE. Aye. 

CLERK. Ms. Clarke votes aye. 

Ms. Chu? 

Ms. CHU. Aye. 

CLERK. Ms. Chu votes aye. 

Ms. Hahn? 

Ms. HAHN. Aye. 

CLERK. Ms. Hahn votes aye. 

Mr. Payne? 

Mr. PAYNE. Aye. 

CLERK. Mr. Payne votes aye. 

Ms. Meng? 

Ms. MENG. Aye. 

CLERK. Ms. Meng votes aye. 

Mr. Schneider? 

[No response] 

Mr. Barber? 

Mr. BARBER. Aye. 

CLERK. Mr. Barber votes aye. 

Ms. Kuster? 

Ms. KUSTER. Aye. 

CLERK. Ms. Kuster votes aye. 

Mr. Murphy? 

Mr. MURPHY. Aye. 

CLERK. Mr. Murphy votes aye. 

Chairman GRAVES. Are there any other members that wish to 

vote? 

Ms. Herrera Beutler? 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Aye. 

CLERK. Ms. Herrera Beutler votes aye. 

Chairman GRAVES. Does any other member wish to be heard on 

the amendment? 

Seeing none. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I request that you change my vote 

from aye to nay. 

Chairman GRAVES. Ms. Herrera Beutler requests from aye to 

nay. 

CLERK. Ms. Herrera Beutler changes from aye to nay. 

Chairman GRAVES. Any other members wish to be recorded? 

Seeing none, please report the vote. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

10 

CLERK. The noes are 11, the ayes—— 

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, how was I recorded? 

Chairman GRAVES. How was Mr. Chabot recorded? 

CLERK. As a no. 

Chairman GRAVES. Any other members wish to be recorded? 

CLERK. Mr. Schweikert? 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. No. 

CLERK. Mr. Schweikert votes no. 

Chairman GRAVES. All right. 

CLERK. The ayes are 10, the noes are 12. 

Chairman GRAVES. Last vote, the ayes are 10, the noes are 12. 

The amendment is not agreed to. 

The next Amendment 2, Bill 4093, Ms. Clarke. 

Ms. CLARKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GRAVES. Clerk, please report the amendment. 

CLERK. Amendment 2 to H.R. 4093 offered by Ms. Clarke of 

New York. Add at the end of the bill the following—— 

Chairman GRAVES. Without objection, the amendment is considered read. 

The gentlelady has five minutes. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My very straightforward amendment is simply an amendment of 

the socially and economically disadvantaged small businesses participation. To ensure that our national recovery enjoys strong and 

robust growth, it is essential that all of our nation’s small businesses are fully engaged and active participants. Given the steady 

growth and participation, it is essential that we recognize this 

growth and make adjustments to reflect this reality. 

I urge my colleagues to support this common sense amendment, 

and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GRAVES. Any other member wish to be heard on the 

amendment? 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman GRAVES. Ranking Member Vela ́zquez? 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. I rise in support of this amendment. 

One area where the federal government has made some progress 

in its procurement goal is in regards to economically and socially 

disadvantaged individuals. This standard has historically been set 

at 5 percent, yet in recent years the federal government has supplied as much as 8 percent of its outsource projects to this class of 

business. Ethnic minorities and people of color benefit from this 

program, as do female entrepreneurs. The program is also important in encouraging entrepreneurs from lower income backgrounds 

to succeed. As federal agencies are regularly exceeding the goals 

set for this program, it only makes sense that we would ask them 

to do more. As the face of American small business changes, so too 

should our federal policies that govern contracting for small businesses. 

I believe the gentlewoman’s amendment is a good one that fits 

well with the overall intention of the broader bill. I therefore thank 

my friend from New York and yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman GRAVES. Does any other member wish to be heard on 

the amendment? 

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman? 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

11 

Chairman GRAVES. Mr. Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. Move to strike the last word. 

Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I would just like to reiterate 

the chairman’s comments that I think the purpose—those that are 

voting no are not opposed to any of these particular groups having 

access, equal access to the contracts that are available, but we 

think it ought to be an equal opportunity and we ought not to pick 

winners and losers. And that is why I think the folks on this side 

are voting no, not because we have any antipathy or opposition to 

various groups getting these contracts. 

And each one of these, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the chair a 

question. Each one of these groups would have an equal opportunity to get access to these funds, is that correct? 

Chairman GRAVES. Absolutely. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Thank you very much. I yield back my 

time. 

Chairman GRAVES. Mr. Tipton? 

Mr. TIPTON. Move to strike the last word. 

I do have a question actually for the sponsor of the amendment. 

If you would be so kind, what is the dollar amount that you are 

designating as economically disadvantaged? Where is that reflected 

in the amendment? 

Ms. CLARKE. I am sorry, what do you mean by dollar amount? 

Mr. TIPTON. Well, your amendment states ‘‘economically and socially disadvantaged.’’ 

Ms. CLARKE. Right. 

Mr. TIPTON. So what is the dollar amount that is economically 

disadvantaged? 

Ms. CLARKE. It is already set in statute, sir. 

Mr. TIPTON. What is it? 

Ms. CLARKE. So we are going based on the statute. 

Mr. TIPTON. So we are already protecting the economically and 

socially disadvantaged in statute now? So, thank you. I yield back. 

Ms. CLARKE. Yes, it is already in statute. 

Chairman GRAVES. Any other member wish to be heard on the 

amendment? 

As I stated before, I do not like singling out individual subgroups. I like the idea that all small businesses get to compete for 

this money. It does not prevent anyone from getting an opportunity 

under this. And so I am opposed to the amendment. 

And with that, the question is on the amendment offered by Ms. 

Clarke, Amendment 2. 

Ms. CLARKE. Will the gentleman yield just a moment, Mr. 

Chairman? 

Chairman GRAVES. Yes. 

Ms. CLARKE. I am sorry. I did not mean to disturb you, but I 

just wanted to point out that we are only talking 5 percent here. 

We are not talking the entire—so there is 95 percent for just about 

everybody. You know. 

Chairman GRAVES. Five percent of the total. And the fact of the 

matter is, if we increase that 2 percent, we actually back up on 

every other small business that is out there. We are worse off. 

Ms. CLARKE. What do you mean we ‘‘back up’’? 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

12 

Chairman GRAVES. Well, every other small business is worse off 

in terms of—— 

Ms. CLARKE. How are they worse off, Mr. Chairman, if they are 

already in contracts? How are they worse off? 

Chairman GRAVES. Because you take away everything that we 

are trying to do. 

Ms. CLARKE. I am not clear on what you mean but I yield back, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GRAVES. The question is on the amendment offered 

by Ms. Clarke, Amendment 2 to 4093. 

All those in favor say aye. 

All opposed votes no. 

The opinion of the chair is the noes have it. 

The amendment is not agreed to. 

Ms. CLARKE. Can we get a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman GRAVES. A recorded vote has been requested. 

Clerk, please call the roll. 

CLERK. Mr. Graves? 

Chairman GRAVES. No. 

CLERK. Mr. Graves votes no. 

Mr. Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. No. 

CLERK. Mr. Chabot votes no. 

Mr. King? 

[No response] 

Mr. Coffman? 

Mr. COFFMAN. No. 

CLERK. Mr. Coffman votes no. 

Mr. Luetkemeyer? 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. No. 

CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer votes no. 

Mr. Mulvaney? 

Mr. MULVANEY. No. 

CLERK. Mr. Mulvaney votes no. 

Mr. Tipton? 

Mr. TIPTON. No. 

CLERK. Mr. Tipton votes no. 

Ms. Herrera Beutler? 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. No. 

CLERK. Ms. Herrera Beutler votes no. 

Mr. Hanna? 

Mr. HANNA. No. 

CLERK. Mr. Hanna votes no. 

Mr. Huelskamp? 

[No response] 

Mr. Schweikert? 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. No. 

CLERK. Mr. Schweikert, no 

Mr. Bentivolio? 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. No. 

CLERK. Mr. Bentivolio votes no. 

Mr. Collins? 

Mr. COLLINS. No. 

CLERK. Mr. Collins votes no. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

13 

Mr. Rice? 

Mr. RICE. No. 

CLERK. Mr. Rice votes no. 

Ms. Vela ́zquez? 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Aye. 

CLERK. Ms. Vela ́zquez votes aye. 

Mr. Schrader? 

Mr. SCHRADER. Aye. 

CLERK. Mr. Schrader votes aye. 

Ms. Clarke? 

Ms. CLARKE. Aye. 

CLERK. Ms. Clarke votes aye. 

Ms. Chu? 

Ms. CHU. Aye. 

CLERK. Ms. Chu votes aye. 

Ms. Hahn? 

Ms. HAHN. Aye. 

CLERK. Ms. Hahn votes aye. 

Mr. Payne? 

Mr. PAYNE. Aye. 

CLERK. Mr. Payne votes aye. 

Ms. Meng? 

Ms. MENG. Aye. 

CLERK. Ms. Meng votes aye. 

Mr. Schneider? 

[No response] 

Mr. Barber? 

Mr. BARBER. Aye. 

CLERK. Mr. Barber votes aye. 

Ms. Kuster? 

Ms. KUSTER. Aye. 

CLERK. Ms. Kuster votes aye. 

Mr. Murphy? 

Mr. MURPHY. Aye. 

CLERK. Mr. Murphy votes aye. 

Chairman GRAVES. Are there any other members that wish to 

vote? 

Seeing none, please report the vote. 

CLERK. The ayes are 10 and the nays are 12. 

Chairman GRAVES. On this vote, the ayes are 10, the nays are 

12. The amendment is not agreed to. 

Are there any other amendments? 

Seeing none, the question is on agreeing to H.R. 4093. 

All those in favor say aye. 

All opposed votes no. 

The opinion of the chair is the ayes have it. H.R. 4093 is agreed 

to. 

Without objection, a quorum being present, the bill is favorably 

reported to the House. And without objection, the Committee staff 

is authorized to correct punctuation and any other necessary technical corrections conforming changes. 

H.R. 4094 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

14 

With that we will move on to H.R. 4094, the Contracting Data 

and Bundling Accountability Act of 2014, which I introduced with 

Mr. Hanna, Ms. Chu, Ms. Meng, and Mr. Murphy. 

Contracting bundling is a top complaint that I receive from small 

business contractors all over the country, and unjustified bundling 

and consolidation precludes small businesses from competing, along 

with all the other benefits that accrue from their participation. 

In a recent hearing, the Subcommittee on Contracting and Workforce and a recent GAO report found that contracts are not being 

properly identified as bundled or consolidated. Without this preliminary identification, agencies are not required to justify the decision to consolidate or bundle, nor are they required to mitigate the 

effects of their consolidation or bundling. And in short, this is as 

if the laws that were passed to limit contracting bundling simply 

do not apply. 

This bill attempts to address the problem by requiring the SBA 

or the Office of Federal Procurement Policy and other agencies to 

work together on a plan to improve the quality of the data, and it 

further requires that after the plan is in place for a year, then 

GAO will audit the process and look for further areas of improvement. This is not simply a bureaucratic exercise. Some agencies 

have gone 17 years without reporting a single contract as bundled 

when it is clear that they are bundling. Multi-billion dollar procurements have been awarded in the last week that are clearly consolidated but were not treated as such, and this is going to provide 

a measure of accountability that has been sorely lacking. And I 

would urge support of the bill. 

And I yield to Ranking Member Vela ́zquez for her remarks. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

One of the most daunting challenges facing small firms seeking federal work is the issue of contract bundling. Last year, $50 billion 

worth of federal contracts, nearly 10 percent of the entire federal 

marketplace was awarded through bundled or consolidated 

projects. Indeed, as a result of contract bundling, small businesses 

miss out on opportunities worth more than $50 billion. I remember 

when President Bush came into office, he issued a report and identified some of the contract bundles, and yet nothing happened. Still 

today, nothing really has been happening, and this is why this bill 

is important. 

It is critical that we have a full grasp of the extent and prevalence of this problem. In that regard, H.R. 4094, the Contracting 

Data and Bundling Accountability Act, will aggregate data on bundled and consolidated contracts, giving a clearer picture of how this 

problem shapes the procurement process. It is also important that 

officials in charge of addressing this practice explain what concrete 

steps they’re taking to prevent unfair bundling. 

In this committee, we often hear how the deck is stacked against 

small firms seeking federal work. Bundling is one of the most troublesome hurdles, shutting off large segments of federal work from 

entrepreneurs with the skill and experience to meet government 

needs. And it is important for small businesses. It is important for 

taxpayers. We should promote competition, and one way to do that 

is by providing a level playing field for small businesses to participate in the federal procurement marketplace. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

15 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GRAVES. Are there any other members that wish to 

be recognized for a statement on 4094? 

Seeing none, the Committee now moves to consideration of H.R. 

4094. 

Clerk, please report the title of the bill. 

CLERK. H.R. 4094, To direct the administrator of the Small 

Business Administration to develop and implement a plan to improve the quality of data reported on bundled and consolidated contracts and for other purposes. 

Chairman GRAVES. Without objection, H.R. 4094 is considered 

read and open for amendment at any point. 

Does anyone have an amendment? 

Ms. CHU. Yes, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GRAVES. What reason you rise? Okay. You did. 

Clerk, please report the amendment. 

CLERK. Amendment 1 to H.R. 4094 offered by Ms. Chu of California, page 3—— 

Chairman GRAVES. Without objection, the amendment by Ms. 

Chu is considered as read. 

Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. 

Ms. CHU. Mr. Chair, last year, the Small Business Subcommittee on Contracting and Workforce had an insightful hearing 

on the negative impact that unjustified contract bundling and consolidation has on small businesses. We learned that when federal 

projects are consolidated or bundled into larger contracts, fewer opportunities remain for small businesses. The extent to which, however, small businesses are negatively impacted is impossible to determine because the Federal Government has not met its requirement to self-report contract mergers over the past decade. 

Since that hearing last October, my staff has collaborated with 

Chairman Graves’s staff on this important issue and the development of this legislation which requires the SBA, in conjunction 

with other agencies, to develop and implement a plan to improve 

data reporting and mitigate unjustified contract bundling and consolidation in the Federal Government. This will bring more accountability to federal contracting and increase opportunities for 

small businesses. And as such, I support it. 

My amendment is very simple. It requires the Small Business 

Administration to brief the House and Senate Small Business Committees on the plan 90 days before they begin implementing it. 

This will give us an opportunity to give the SBA input on the plan 

before implementation begins. 

I ask for the Committee’s support, and I yield back. 

Chairman GRAVES. Do any other members wish to be heard on 

the amendment? 

Seeing none, I support the amendment. I think it gives the Committee, our Committee, some more oversight over contract bundling. I think any time that happens it is a good thing. 

So with that, the question is on the amendment offered by Ms. 

Chu, Amendment 1 to 4094. 

All those in favor say aye. 

All opposed votes no. 

The opinion of the chair is the ayes have it. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

16 

The ayes do have it. 

The amendment is agreed to. 

Does anyone else have an amendment? 

Seeing none, the question is on agreeing to H.R. 4094 as amended. 

All those in favor say aye. 

All opposed votes no. 

The opinion of the chair is the ayes have it. 

H.R. 4094 is agreed to. 

And without objection, and a quorum being present, the bill is favorably reported to the House. 

Without objection, the Committee staff is authorized to correct 

punctuation and make other necessary technical corrections and 

conforming changes. 

H.R. 2751 

With that, we will move on to H.R. 2751, the Common Sense 

Construction Contracting Act of 2013, introduced by Mr. Hanna, 

Ms. Meng, and myself. And I now yield to Mr. Hanna. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you, Chairman. And thank you, Ranking 

Member Meng for your support. 

This bill seeks to repair a problem that has been around quite 

a while. In a normal auction, there are multiple buyers. In a reverse auction, there are multiple sellers. So what happens is it 

works well—— 

Chairman GRAVES. Can the gentleman yield just so we can get 

clarification? 

Mr. HANNA. Yeah, I am sorry. 

Chairman GRAVES. This is H.R. 2751. 

Mr. HANNA. That is correct, 2751. Thank you. 

Chairman GRAVES. I think I misread it earlier, so I just want 

to make that clarification. 

I yield. 

Mr. HANNA. In a normal auction, there are multiple buyers bidding for a single item or project. In a reverse auction, there are 

multiple sellers. But what we have discovered is it works very well 

with nonsubjective items like pencils, pens, office supplies, a whole 

host of things that are commonplace and definable. Where it works 

very badly, and the Army Corps of Engineers conducted two studies showing the government does not save money when it uses reverse auctions because a lot of the things that are purchased are 

subjective. For example, design work, architectural work, construction work where it is much more complicated, reverse auctions 

have actually in many cases reversed competition and caused a 

race to the bottom because people literally keep bidding and bidding and bidding. And in many cases they wind up with a project 

that they wish they had not received. So what this does is it keeps 

a reverse auctioning alive where it works and it seeks to correct 

it and change it where it has not shown to work in those areas like 

designing architectural work and construction. 

Chairman GRAVES. I now recognize Ranking Member Vela ́zquez 

for any remarks you might have on 2751. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. I am in total agreement and support the gentleman’s legislation to H.R. 2751. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

17 

Chairman GRAVES. Do any other members wish to be heard on 

H.R. 2751? 

Ms. MENG. I do. 

Chairman GRAVES. Go ahead. 

Ms. MENG. Concerns across the construction industry from subcontractors and prime contractors have been raised about the effectiveness of reverse auctions. It has become apparent that reverse 

auctions for construction projects are not a wise use of taxpayer 

dollars. While money can be saved in the short term, the quality 

of projects and the contractors are often questionable. The bidders 

on many of these projects engage in a race to the bottom in an attempt to save their failing businesses. I look forward to continuing 

to examining these race to the bottom problems in other areas of 

federal procurement. 

I was happy to be an original supporter of this legislation, and 

I want to thank Mr. Hanna and Mr. Graves for sponsoring this important legislation which rids taxpayers of this wasteful procurement method. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairman GRAVES. Does any other member wish to be heard? 

Seeing none, the Committee now moves to consideration of H.R. 

2751. 

Clerk, please report the title of the bill. 

CLERK. H.R. 2751, to amend the Small Business Act to prohibit 

the use of reverse auctions for design and construction services procurements. 

Chairman GRAVES. Without objection, H.R. 2751 is considered 

read and open for amendment at any point. Does anyone have an 

amendment to offer? 

Seeing none, the question is on H.R. 2751. 

All those in favor say aye. 

All opposed say no. 

The opinion of the chair is the ayes have it, and H.R. 2751 is 

agreed to. 

And without objection, a quorum being present, the bill is favorably reported to the House. 

Without further objection, the Committee staff is authorized to 

correct punctuation and make other necessary technical corrections 

and conforming changes. 

With that, our next bill for consideration is H.R. 2882, the improving opportunities for Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small 

Businesses Act of 2014, which was introduced by Mr. Coffman, Ms. 

Flores, Mr. Miller, Mr. Roe, Mr. Hanna, Mr. Connolly, Ms. Herrera 

Beutler, and myself. 

And I now yield to Mr. Coffman to speak on H.R. 2882. 

H.R. 2882 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Members for 

bringing H.R. 2882, Improving Opportunities for Service-Disabled 

Veteran-Owned Small Business Act up for discussion in today’s 

markup. I am proud to have introduced this proposal with both 

Chairman Graves and Chairman Miller of the House Veterans Affairs Committee. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

18 

As many of you know, the Small Business Administration and 

the Department of Veterans Affairs operate procurement programs 

for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses. However, in 

my role as a member of both the House Small Business Committee 

and the House Veterans Committee, I have heard from a lot of veterans about problems with the current process, most notably regarding inconsistency between the SBA and VA. The SBA hears 

challenges for service-disabled veteran-owned small business status 

decisions for all agencies other than VA. In contrast, VA verifies all 

potential service-disabled veteran-owned small business companies 

applying for special procurement preferences for VA contracts. The 

difference is in the definition. Processes, and interpretation between the VA and SBA cause inconsistent decisions regarding 

which firms qualify for contracts. Under the current system, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business can qualify at one agency and not another for procurement purposes. This inconsistency 

often adds cost, confusion, and opens the door to fraud. Moreover, 

the current process requires the VA to make decisions that are outside their expertise, such as determining business structures. In 

fact, VA told us that over 98 percent of the firms they reject are 

rejected not because the individual is not a veteran or service-disabled veteran, but because of the business structure. This has 

caused numerous conflicts because the SBA has identified numerous cases they would have decided differently than the VA. The 

process is cumbersome, expensive, and does not work for our veterans. Therefore, H.R. 2882 will transfer the VA verification process for firms to the SBA, unify the definitions of service-disabled 

veteran-owned small business, and veteran-owned small business, 

and add transparency. Additionally, the legislation will increase 

predictability by creating an appellate process by which a servicedisabled veteran-owned small business can challenge an agency decision. 

I want to be clear that the legislation does not change the vet’s 

first preference at VA; rather, it works to make sure that only 

qualified firms are able to benefit from the vet’s first preference by 

adding transparency and clarity to the process. 

I want to again thank the chairman for bringing this issue up, 

and I yield back. 

Chairman GRAVES. Are there any other members that wish to 

be recognized for a statement on 2882? 

Seeing none, the Committee now moves to consideration of H.R. 

2882. 

Clerk, please report the title of the bill. 

CLERK. H.R. 2882, to amend the Small Business Act and Title 

38 United States Code to provide for a consolidated definition of a 

small business concern owned and controlled by veterans and for 

other purposes. 

Chairman GRAVES. Without objection, H.R. 2882 will be considered read and open for amendment at any point. And I do have an 

amendment in the nature of a substitute. 

Clerk, please read the amendment. 

CLERK. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2882 

offered—— 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

19 

Chairman GRAVES. Without objection, the amendment can be 

considered as read. 

Without objection, the objection in the nature of a substitute 

should be considered as the base text for the purpose of amendment. 

I do support 2882 as I outlined before because it does help legitimate service-disabled veterans and veterans compete for federal 

contracts, and it is going to allow the government to operate more 

efficiently. The bill reflects a concerted effort between this Committee and the Committee on Veterans Affairs to craft a balanced 

solution. The Veterans Affairs Committee has agreed to waive their 

jurisdiction on this bill, and I am offering this amendment in the 

nature of a substitute based upon some changes that were negotiated with the ranking member and myself. Furthermore, this 

Committee does not have jurisdiction over Title 38 of the United 

States Code, so changes to definitions in Title 38 have been removed from the bill in the amendment. 

The Department of Veterans Affairs should focus on deciding 

which individuals or veterans and service-disabled veterans and 

providing them with the benefits that they have earned. The SBA, 

on the other hand, should determine whether firms owned by veterans and service-disabled veterans are small for the purposes of 

the federal contracting program. What H.R. 2882 does is it realigns 

the functions of each agency so that they can each focus on what 

they do best, rather than perpetuating a broken system. 

I personally feel our veterans deserve a little bit better, and H.R. 

2882 is a good step. 

I now recognize Ranking Member Vela ́zquez for her remarks on 

the amendment in the nature of a substitute to 2882. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Time and again, this committee has seen how skills learned in 

the military are vital to a career in entrepreneurship, whether it 

is familiarity with the government procurement process, leadership 

abilities, tireless discipline, or a willingness to take risks, we have 

seen countless examples of veterans entering civilian life to become 

small business owners and create jobs in their community. 

Today, there are 22 million veterans who sacrificed for our nation, 5.5 million of whom were disabled from service-connected injuries. These brave individuals deserve our ongoing gratitude and 

our profound respect. Efforts to channel contracts to service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses is one way that we can show 

our commitment to them. Regrettably, lax verification of firms receiving these very contracts is undermining these efforts. GAO has 

done significant work finding that ineligible firms have won contracts that should instead have gone to service-disabled veterans. 

This abuse includes front companies posing as veterans, passthroughs where the bulk of the work and revenue went to nonveteran entities, and in some cases, outright fraud. As a result, veterans lost out on millions of dollars in government projects. 

The bill before us today, H.R. 2882, takes steps to improve this 

process. It moves the vets first verification initiative from the VA 

to the SBA. Ideally, doing so should take advantage of SBA’s experience in certifying firms in other contracting programs. The result 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

20 

should be fewer noneligible entities receiving contracts intended for 

America’s veterans. 

Unfortunately, H.R. 2882 uses an odd funding mechanism to reimburse the SBA. Instead of just authorizing funds as it is customary through Congress and the government, it relies on a complicated system of intergovernmental transfers. A similar system 

was put in place to fund small disadvantaged business certifications but it did not work, resulting in an end to the program. 

Putting in place a discredited idea to support our nation’s veterans 

makes no sense. In fact, it is a slap in the face to America’s war 

fighters, treating them like second class citizens, relying on external intergovernmental transfers as the underlying bill does puts 

the entire program at risk. If there is not enough funding or if 

there is a disagreement between the VA and SBA, the program 

could shut down. That means no service-disabled veteran-owned 

small businesses will be certified. It means that existing firms will 

not be examined. This is precisely when fraud and abuse takes 

hold, when no one is watching. Why are we taking this risk, especially when it comes to protecting veteran-owned contractors? 

While I support the bill, I will be offering an amendment to improve upon this flawed funding structure and ensure that veterans 

receive the full support they need. For this reason, my amendment 

is supported by the American Legion. Regardless, we must make 

every effort to ensure that imposters cannot defraud the government and deprive legitimate service-disabled veteran entrepreneurs 

their fair share of federal contracts. Addressing this failing is long 

overdue. 

I look forward to working with the chairman and my colleagues 

on this shared goal, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman GRAVES. Does anyone have an amendment to the 

amendment in the nature of a substitute? 

Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, a point of inquiry, please? 

Chairman GRAVES. Mr. Schrader? 

Mr. SCHRADER. Just on the substitute, just so I understand 

what the substitute does, I notice that it eliminates the original 

section 2 of the bill and wondered why that was, whether that defined the bill, what a qualifying veteran-disabled enterprise was, 

and just wanted to understand why that was eliminated. 

Chairman GRAVES. Counsel, do you want to explain what exactly? 

Mr. PINELES. The reason that the amendment in the nature of 

a substitute removed the section was because of the issues between 

the definitions at the Department of Veterans Affairs and the SBA, 

and we were trying to draw a bright line to ensure that the SBA 

would be simply ruling on what constitutes a small business. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Okay. I understand. I just hope that that is a 

good definition that they have because that has been a problem 

that we have observed in our Committee and want to make sure 

that a legitimate small business veteran-owned are the ones we are 

funding here. 

Second question if I may, Mr. Chairman. Just, again, for my edification, talk a little bit about the funding mechanisms. There is a 

six-year timeline that is in there and what is the rationale behind 

the six years? 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

21 

Chairman GRAVES. It is a six-year timeline. It does allow for 

continued funding beyond that point but it is a six-year. And what 

we are doing is moving the funds out of—it is a Veterans Affairs 

slush fund is what it is, and that is what we are trying to do under 

the bill and that allows us to at least have input on directing how 

that money is going to be spent. The SBA is going to be making 

the determination. Right now there is no oversight over that slush 

fund money. It is not appropriated. It is their money to do as they 

please. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Okay. 

Chairman GRAVES. At least from the Veterans Administration. 

We would rather the SBA be making the determination on whether 

or not those businesses qualify or not. 

Mr. SCHRADER. I certainly agree with the base bill in Mr. 

Coffman and your endeavor here. It also says ‘‘any cost.’’ So is this 

like whatever this program costs under the SBA, they will reimburse us, and there is enough in the fees that they collect to make 

sure that the small business administrator is completely reimbursed for the cost of the program? 

Chairman GRAVES. We think so. The problem with it is though 

if we appropriate money, then we are going to have to find an offset and that will kill the bill right up. And everything will stay just 

exactly the way it is and the VA will continue to use their slush 

fund. 

Mr. SCHRADER. One last question, Mr. Chairman, because I am 

trying to understand, and maybe it has to do with that offset. It 

seems like if we are saying $15 million, that we do not need an offset; right? I mean, it is money that has already been appropriated. 

SBA is going to do a better job. 

Chairman GRAVES. If it has to be appropriated, we have to find 

an offset. That is the way the rules are right now. And like it or 

not, it will kill the bill, so, which, you know, if that is what your 

intent is, then that is your prerogative. 

Mr. SCHRADER. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GRAVES. Does anyone have an amendment to the 

amendment in the form of a substitute? 

Ms. Kuster? 

Ms. KUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk 

and offer that amendment at this time. 

Chairman GRAVES. Clerk, please report the amendment. 

CLERK. Amendment 1 to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2882 offered by Ms. Kuster of New Hampshire. Page 

4, line 1—— 

Chairman GRAVES. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. 

The gentlelady, five minutes. 

Ms. KUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In addition to this panel, I am very fortunate to also be a member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, and there is no greater 

honor for me than serving the brave men and women who have 

served our country. While I am not a veteran, both my father and 

my husband’s father served in World War II. In fact, my father-inlaw was landing on the beaches of Normandy while my father flew 

cover overhead. My father flew a P–47 fighter plane and was shot 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

22 

down over the battle of the bulge on Christmas Eve of 1944. He 

spent the last six months of the war in a German prisoner-of-war 

camp, and when he returned home safely, he helped to start a new 

business, Wildcat Mountain Ski area in Pinkham Notch, New 

Hampshire. It is my goal with this amendment to help ensure that 

all veterans have the resources and support they deserve if they 

decide to follow in my father’s footsteps and start their own businesses. 

As amended, the underlying bill requires the Veterans Affairs 

secretary and the Small Business Administration administrator to 

meet twice a year to discuss how to increase opportunities for veteran-owned businesses. My amendment would expand this provision to also require the secretary and administrator to consult with 

veterans service organizations on how to achieve that goal. Republican and democrat alike, we can all agree that the best ideas do 

not come from Washington, D.C.; they come from individuals and 

communities in New Hampshire, Colorado, Missouri, New York, 

and across our country. My amendment would help ensure that the 

voices of veterans are heard as our government discusses how best 

to support veteran-owned small businesses and service-disabled 

veteran-owned small businesses. 

The American Legion and AMVETS have expressed support for 

this simple one-page amendment. I commend Congressman 

Coffman, Congressman Hanna, the chairman, and the ranking 

member for advancing the underlying bill, and I urge the adoption 

of my amendment. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman GRAVES. Does any other member wish to be heard on 

the amendment to the amendment in the form of a substitute? 

Seeing none, I support the amendment. I think it makes sense. 

So the question is on the amendment offered by Ms. Kuster. 

All those in favor say aye. 

All those opposed votes no. 

Seeing none, the opinion of the chair is the ayes have it and the 

amendment is agreed to. 

With that, Ms. Hahn, do you have an amendment? 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have an amendment at the desk and offer that amendment at 

this time. 

Chairman GRAVES. Please report the amendment. 

CLERK. Amendment 2 to the amendment in the nature of a substitute H.R. 2882 offered by Ms. Hahn of California. Page 4, line 

14—— 

Chairman GRAVES. Without objection, Amendment 2 is considered as read. 

Gentlelady, you have five minutes. 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First off, I would also like to thank Mr. Coffman for sponsoring 

this legislation. As another war comes to an end and we welcome 

our brave men and women back home, we must ensure that we afford them every resource at our disposal to ensure that they can 

live life the way they want to when they return from serving our 

country. For many veterans, this may mean starting and running 

their own small businesses, supporting themselves with their innoSBREP-219 with DISTILLER

23 

vative and hard-working spirit and contributing to their local 

economies. 

In the legislation as amended, I was happy to see in the Memorandum of Understanding that the secretary of Veterans Affairs 

and the Small Business administrator will begin a discussion on 

ways to improve collaboration between the two agencies in order to 

increase opportunities for veteran- and service-disabled veteran 

small business owners. This partnership is promising, and should 

this legislation pass, I am looking forward to this discussion being 

the foundation for new progress to better serve the men and 

women who have served us all so well. 

But if we are going to have this discussion, I think it is important that we include two groups of veterans who have had less access and less opportunities as small business owners—female veterans and minority veterans. Today, women and minorities are 

serving their country more than ever before, and in the coming decades we are going to see them make up a greater and greater percentage of our veterans. Yet, women make up just 4 percent of veteran small business owners despite making up almost 8 percent of 

the veteran population, and minorities make up more than 20 percent of the veteran population but just 14 percent of veteran small 

business owners. They make up just 7 percent of veteran owners 

of small business with employees. 

There is clearly significant room for improvement, and the resources we have available in both the VA and the Small Business 

Administration can go a long way in closing these gaps. My amendment is simple. It ensures that in the secretary and administrator’s 

upcoming discussion, they are sure to include ways to increase opportunities for women and minority veteran small business owners. 

I hope that the Committee will ensure that the SBA and the VA 

will report back to us on their progress regarding these issues. 

I am happy to support this legislation, and I hope we can work 

together to develop a productive collaboration with the VA so that 

we can best serve all the groups of the veterans. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman GRAVES. Does any other member wish to be heard on 

the amendment to the amendment? 

Mr. Coffman? 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Having served 21 years in the military and as a combat veteran, 

I can tell you that for our disabled veterans, the enemy does not 

discriminate on who they fire upon. And for us to break them up 

into categories based on race and gender is the wrong direction for 

this country. Our military has made tremendous progress on the 

issues of race and gender, although certainly concerned about the 

sexual assault issue now before the Congress. But it absolutely 

makes no sense to identify them beyond that of being veterans or 

disabled veterans. So I certainly strongly oppose the amendment. 

Chairman GRAVES. Do any other members wish to be heard on 

the amendment? 

Mr. Luetkemeyer? 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Maybe I am out of order here with regards to point of order, but 

can you explain how we can have two amendments amending the 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

24 

same section at the same point? We have already got a substitute. 

That would be the third agreement if I am not mistaken. Besides 

that, we are amending the same place according to the language 

of this amendment. I do not have a problem with the amendment, 

just the procedure here because both of them state on page 4, line 

14, insert after this section. 

Chairman GRAVES. The first one amended line 4. The second 

one amends line 14, does it not? 

Counsel, is it drafted correctly? 

Mr. PINELES. Yes. Ms. Hahn’s amendment amends page 4, line 

14, not line 4. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. He has the old version of the amendment. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay. My mistake. 

Chairman GRAVES. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the 

amendment? 

Yes, Ms. Herrera Beutler? 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I just have a quick question, Mr. 

Chairman, for the sponsor. 

Chairman GRAVES. Sure. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. This is not setting a specific number 

goal or it just—am I reading this correctly? In the meeting they are 

to discuss ways to improve collaboration under the memorandum, 

to increase opportunities? So we are not setting a floor or a ceiling? 

Ms. HAHN. No, we are not. And we are certainly not really 

breaking them into any categories that are unreasonable. I am just 

saying in their conversation, just let us make sure that when we 

discuss about outreach and opportunities we definitely are finding 

ways to help women veterans as well. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Okay, thank you. 

With that, I yield back. 

Chairman GRAVES. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the 

amendment? 

I do support the amendment. 

Ms. HAHN. Hallelujah. 

Chairman GRAVES. I think that anytime we can improve that 

collaboration I think it is important. 

So with that—— 

Ms. HAHN. Hallelujah. 

Chairman GRAVES. Mr. Coffman? 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you, Sam. 

Chairman GRAVES. The question is on the amendment offered 

by Ms. Hahn to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. 

All those in favor say aye. 

All opposed say no. 

The opinion of the chair is the ayes have it. 

The amendment is agreed to. 

With that, Ms. Vela ́zquez—and we possibly have a vote in five 

minutes. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Okay. 

Chairman GRAVES. Which does not make any difference. We 

will come back. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Sure. 

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

25 

Chairman GRAVES. Clerk, please report the amendment. 

CLERK. Amendment 3 to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2882 offered by Ms. Vela ́zquez of New York. 

Chairman GRAVES. Without objection, the amendment will be 

considered read. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ensuring that our nation’s veterans are able to build a career 

after their military service is a priority. After all, with 2.6 million 

veterans from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq alone, these men 

and women have the skill and leadership qualities necessary to 

help our economy continue to grow. The bill before us takes a step 

in the right direction. It will help ensure that only service-disabled 

veteran-owned small businesses qualify for contracts intended for 

them at the VA. However, the legislation relies on an unstable 

funding structure to support this important verification program. 

As worded in the bill, these intergovernmental transfers are no 

more than vague promises that the VA will reimburse the SBA for 

its costs. 

What happens if the VA does not collect enough fees from its 

contractors as the underlying bill requires? What happens if the 

SBA cost of operating this entity is greater than the amount of fees 

that the VA collects or wants to transfer to the SBA? These are important questions, and while OMB is directed to get involved, the 

true answers, ‘‘we do not know,’’ and ‘‘we hope everything works 

out.’’ This uncertainty only serves to create openings for nonveterans to defraud the government and take contracts away from 

actual service-disabled veterans. 

This is just not good for our veterans. Simply put, they deserve 

more than these loose promises. They have fought for our nation’s 

freedom, defended our democracy, and helped those in need 

throughout the world. We owe it to them to make sure that they 

have a dedicated funding stream that guarantees contracts intended for them actually go to them. My amendment, which is supported by the American Legion, and Mr. Chairman, at a given time 

I would like to ask unanimous consent for this letter from the 

American Legion in support of my amendment, to be entered into 

the record. 

Chairman GRAVES. Without objection. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. My amendment, which is supported by the 

American Legion, provides such assurances, and by doing so, ensures that funds are authorized for the program each year. In their 

letter, the American Legion states that they believe this program 

needs to be properly and permanently funded. As the representative of 2.4 million veterans in 14,000 posts, those are strong words 

from the American legion. 

With this in mind, I ask unanimous consent, that the letter is 

entered into the record. This is necessary because as we all know, 

the eligibility verification process requires resources. Certification 

relies on application screening, examinations, regular oversight, 

and site visits. To put it more straightforward, if we are going to 

channel contracts to veterans, we have to make sure that it is really veterans that are actually getting them. It is also important to 

realize that we have been down this path before and have seen the 

problems that intergovernmental transfers cost when relied upon 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

26 

for program funding. The Small Disadvantaged Business program 

relied on such a scheme 10 years ago, but due to problems with 

this structure, the program was unable to sustain itself. If the 

funding structure in the bill is maintained, it would not be a surprise to see the Vets First program cease operation in a few years 

altogether. What my amendment does is no different than what is 

already provided for the HUBZone and the 8(a) minority-owned 

firms. We talk about the importance of a level playing field, but 

what the underlying bill does is penalize veterans by giving them 

an unreliable program. 

Because of these reasons I urge you to vote yes on my amendment and fully fund this important initiative for our country’s veterans. We owe this to our veterans and it is time that we do right 

on their behalf. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. BARBER. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman GRAVES. Who called? 

Mr. BARBER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman GRAVES. Go ahead. 

Mr. BARBER. As the son of a veteran of World War II, of Korea, 

and Vietnam, and as a member who represents over 85,000 veterans, I am going to rise in support to this amendment. 

The funding structure of the bill in its current form is too unstable as it hinges on two agencies which we have asked to work together in the past with little success. They have to come to an 

agreement on paying for this program, and what they have done 

in the past does not hold great promise for the future. We need to 

ensure that veteran-owned businesses do not become a bargaining 

chip if the VA and the SBA cannot reach an agreement. And the 

only way to do this is to provide a straightforward appropriation 

for the program. 

Rather than hoping that these agencies will somehow magically 

reach an agreement, we need to ensure from the outset that this 

vital program has the right funding. Small businesses invest time 

and money to enter into the federal marketplace, so we need to 

provide them with a certainty that the program will be operational 

so that they can and will make an investment. This Committee has 

appropriated the other contracting programs, such as HUBZone 

and 8(a) programs, and we should not treat our veterans who have 

served our country valiantly—we should not treat them any differently. 

The bill in its current form fails to address what would occur in 

the likelihood that the agencies failed to reach an agreement for 

the initial funding or in the event of an extension of the program. 

The vast majority of veterans’ businesses who are denied certification through the current system have been denied because of 

their business structure, not their status as veterans or service-disabled veterans. Providing straightforward funding for this bill allows OHA, the expert in determining whether or not a business is 

small, the ability to hear appeals immediately. 

I urge unanimous consent for Congresswoman Vela ́zquez’s 

amendment, and I yield back. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman GRAVES. Mr. Coffman? 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

27 

Mr. COFFMAN. I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman GRAVES. Go ahead. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, the bill as currently written respects not only the veterans of this country, I being one of them, 

but also respects the taxpayers of this country in that it merely 

continues an existing funding source that this particular function 

has already been operating under. 

Chairman GRAVES. Anyone else? 

Mr. Schrader? 

Mr. SCHRADER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Big supporter of our veterans’ community. Big supporter of the 

underlying intent of this bill. I think it will go a long way hopefully 

to improving what our veterans deserve as far as small business 

opportunities. 

And to the end, I mean, for the sake of efficiency, it just seems 

odd to me that we have to go through kind of a byzantine, arcane 

funding mechanism which slightly tarnishes the great work that 

the Committee has done, the chairman and ranking member. I 

mean, I do not understand why we need an offset for something 

that saves you half the cost of the program. That goes against common sense at the end of the day. There is no constitutional, statutory, administrative rule that requires us to do that, and it seems 

for the sake of the veterans community, as has been state here by 

members of the Committee, we want to make sure the money gets 

to the veterans so that this program is done right, so there is no 

fraud in the program, that these men and women that have served 

our country, like Mr. Coffman, who I really appreciate, can actually 

get the opportunities that they richly deserve. The offset thing has 

been violated, if you will, in a number of other areas. Members of 

this Committee, both republican and democrat, have voted for the 

Skills Act, the Hazard Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013, 

the VA Major Medical Facility Bill, the Poison Control Center. All 

those things are the same. I mean, I would like just to have a clean 

deal here where, hey, we are cutting the program cost in half. That 

is a huge win for the taxpayer. I think to your point, to Mr. 

Coffman’s point, let us just appropriate the $15 million and make 

sure the money gets there and call it good. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Would the chairman—— 

Mr. SCHRADER. I yield back actually. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to add, look, 

I have a list of the members, Republican members on this committee, right here, you have voted on legislation that contained no 

offset authorizations for new programs. This amendment does not 

violate the Cut Gov’t in containing House Rule 21 plus 10. And it 

applies only to mandatory spending. Discretionary spending is not 

mandatory. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr.—— 

Chairman GRAVES. Go ahead. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I do not know who I am asking. I am 

asking Mr. Chairman for just a moment. 

Chairman GRAVES. Sure. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. So does this bill—I realize what I 

heard cited a couple times was last year’s bill is when we were not 

operating under an agreed-to bipartisan, bicameral budget. Are the 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

28 

bipartisan, bicameral budget that we enacted for appropriations 

levels for this year, would this amendment violate that enacted 

budget? Last year we did not—I mean, the House passed a budget 

but there was nothing agreed to that we were operating under. 

Would this violate that budget? 

Let me ask that question to the sponsor. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. This is an authorizing committee. This is not 

an Appropriations Committee. What we are doing is authorizing a 

program. And in fact, we asked the parliamentarian yesterday and 

he said you are correct. With regards to the leadership protocols, 

you are correct that they are not enforceable with a point of order. 

Additionally, budget act points of order are not enforceable in committee. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. No, I am not trying to get all parliamentarian on you. I just want to know, are we violating the spirit 

of the budget that we passed? That is all I want to know. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. And I know that we do not. This amendment 

does not. 

Chairman GRAVES. Here is the reality, and I think everybody 

in the room obviously supports veterans and want to make sure 

that as, to Mr. Barber’s point, anyone that has been denied, it has 

been based on business models or business practices. That is the 

reason we are trying to bring the SBA into this. That is the purpose of this. And we want to use a slush fund. We think they can 

do it for $10 million. There is $2 billion in this. It is unappropriated dollars. We cannot touch it, and the fact of the matter is, the 

reality is we have to have an offset. If we take this to the floor with 

a $15 million authorization, we have to have an offset or it is not 

coming to the floor. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, what would happen if VA does 

not collect the fees? 

Chairman GRAVES. Well, the fact of the matter is no money 

transfers until there is an agreement, until they come to a conclusion. So if there is none, then nothing changes. Nothing has 

changed. But what we are trying to do, at least at this point, is attempt to fix this for those veteran-owned businesses and allow 

them to be able to move forward. So the bottom line is if there is 

no agreement, then no money transfers and it stays exactly the 

way it is. If it works, and I think it will work, and the fact of the 

matter is the last time it did not work is because Congress did not 

reauthorize it. That is the reason it did not work. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. It did not because we did not have the oversight mechanism in place. It did not work because we did not provide a funding stream like we do for other programs. They deserve 

better. Veterans in this country deserve better. 

Chairman GRAVES. I agree. And that is the reason we are trying to fix it. OMB will have oversight over this, and the fact is if 

we have to go with an offset there will not be a bill. So nothing 

will change. So at least we are trying to fix it. 

So with that, does anyone else wish to be heard on the amendment to the amendment in the form of a substitute? 

Seeing none, the question is on the amendment offered by Ms. 

Vela ́zquez to the amendment in the form of a substitute. 

All those in favor say aye. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

29 

All opposed votes no. 

The opinion of the chair is the noes have it. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote. 

Chairman GRAVES. A recorded vote has been requested. 

Can we recess in the middle of that process, counsel? Because I 

do not think we have time. That is going to delay us. 

So everybody needs to—that is going to make everybody come 

back. 

So with that we will go ahead and recess. We will get the vote 

out of the way and then we will come back and we will finish with 

the recorded vote which we are in the process of having. So we are 

in recess. 

[Recess] 

Chairman GRAVES. I will go ahead and call the markup back 

to order. 

We have had a recorded vote called. Clerk, please read the roll. 

CLERK. Mr. Graves? 

Chairman GRAVES. No. 

CLERK. Mr. Graves votes no. 

Mr. Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. No. 

CLERK. Mr. Chabot votes no. 

Mr. King? 

[No response] 

Mr. Coffman? 

Mr. COFFMAN. No. 

CLERK. Mr. Coffman votes no. 

Mr. Luetkemeyer? 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. No. 

CLERK. Mr. Luetkemeyer votes no. 

Mr. Mulvaney? 

Mr. MULVANEY. No. 

CLERK. Mr. Mulvaney votes no. 

Mr. Tipton? 

Mr. TIPTON. No. 

CLERK. Mr. Tipton votes no. 

Ms. Herrera Beutler? 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. No. 

CLERK. Ms. Herrera Beutler votes no. 

Mr. Hanna? 

Mr. HANNA. No. 

CLERK. Mr. Hanna votes no. 

Mr. Huelskamp? 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. No. 

CLERK. Mr. Huelskamp votes no. 

Mr. Schweikert? 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. No. 

CLERK. Mr. Schweikert votes no. 

Mr. Bentivolio? 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. No. 

CLERK. Mr. Bentivolio votes no. 

Mr. Collins? 

Mr. COLLINS. No. 

CLERK. Mr. Collins votes no. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

30 

Mr. Rice? 

Mr. RICE. No. 

CLERK. Mr. Rice votes no. 

Ms. Vela ́zquez? 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Aye. 

CLERK. Ms. Vela ́zquez votes aye. 

Mr. Schrader? 

Mr. SCHRADER. Aye. 

CLERK. Mr. Schrader votes aye. 

Ms. Clarke? 

Ms. CLARKE. Aye. 

CLERK. Ms. Clarke votes aye. 

Ms. Chu? 

Ms. CHU. Aye. 

CLERK. Ms. Chu votes aye. 

Ms. Hahn? 

Ms. HAHN. Aye. 

CLERK. Ms. Hahn votes aye. 

Mr. Payne? 

[No response] 

Ms. Meng? 

Ms. MENG. Aye. 

CLERK. Ms. Meng votes aye. 

Mr. Schneider? 

[No response] 

Mr. Barber? 

Mr. BARBER. Aye. 

CLERK. Mr. Barber votes aye. 

Ms. Kuster? 

Ms. KUSTER. Aye. 

CLERK. Ms. Kuster votes aye. 

Mr. Murphy? 

Mr. MURPHY. Aye. 

CLERK. Mr. Murphy votes aye. 

Mr. Payne? 

Mr. PAYNE. Aye. 

CLERK. Mr. Payne votes aye. 

Chairman GRAVES. Are there any other members that wish to 

vote? 

Seeing none, please report the vote. 

CLERK. The ayes are 10, the nays are 13. 

Chairman GRAVES. On this vote the ayes are 10 and the noes 

are 13. The amendment is not agreed to. 

Are there any other amendments? 

Seeing none, the question is on agreeing to the amendment in 

the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2882 as amended. 

All those in favor say aye. 

All opposed votes no. 

The opinion of the chair is the ayes have it. 

The ayes do have it. 

The amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. 

And without objection, a quorum being present, H.R. 2882 as 

amended is favorably reported to the House. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

31 

And without objection, the Committee staff is authorized to correct punctuation and to make other necessary technical corrections 

and conforming changes. 

H.R. 776 

Chairman GRAVES. Our next bill for consideration is H.R. 776, 

the Security and Bonding Act of 2013 introduced by Mr. Hanna, 

Ms. Meng, and myself. And I yield to Mr. Hanna to speak on H.R. 

776. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you, Chairman Graves. 

I would like to thank Ranking Member Meng for her support, 

Congressman Luetkemeyer, and Congressman Collins. 

This bill has to do with the Miller Act, which requires prime contractors to provide the government with a surety bond when bidding construction projects. The overall purpose of a surety bond is 

to protect the taxpayer, contractors, whoever the agency may be in 

charge, ultimately, the owner. 

What has happened in the past is that the assets behind some 

of these surety bonds which ultimately back up the bond itself have 

been specious assets and have not been claimable in any format 

that we would recognize. This tightens that up and requires certain 

assets that are liquid and discernable and attachable. 

I am happy to answer any questions about it but these bonds 

have been a net increase to the treasury. There is a surplus in 

there now and it is a very simple fix to a problem that could be 

turned into a very large problem. It also expands the program to 

allow for more small businesess to use these bonds. 

Chairman GRAVES. Do any other members wish to be recognized for a statement on H.R. 776? 

The Committee now moves to consideration of H.R. 776. 

Clerk, please report the title of the bill. 

CLERK. H.R. 776, to amend Title 31, United States Code to revise requirements related to assets pledged by a surety and for 

other purposes. 

Chairman GRAVES. Without objection, H.R. 776 is considered 

read and open for amendment at any point. I have an amendment 

in the nature of a substitute. 

Clerk, please read the amendment. 

CLERK. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 776 offered by Mr. Graves of Missouri. Strike all the—— 

Chairman GRAVES. Without objection, the amendment is considered read. 

Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 

shall be considered as the base text for the purpose of amendment. 

Surety bonds protect taxpayers and contractors alike, and they 

ensure that the government is not left with unfinished buildings 

and to make sure that subcontractors are paid in the process. H.R. 

776 as introduced strengthens those protections. However, much of 

776 falls within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, which 

has not waived jurisdiction on this bill. Therefore, my amendment 

and the nature of the substitute ensures that we will not consider 

anything or any language that is out of our jurisdiction, only the 

language that is within our jurisdiction. I believe the bill as a 

whole and in part deserves our support. The portions of H.R. 776 

and this Committee’s jurisdiction is going to allow more small conSBREP-219 with DISTILLER

32 

struction companies to compete for federal contracts, and in turn, 

bring down the prices, I think, at least on federal construction 

projects. Based on data provided by the SBA, I am convinced that 

we can accomplish this without putting taxpayers at risk. And 

therefore, I would urge support of the bill. 

I now recognize Ms. Vela ́zquez for her remarks. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We often discuss the SBA’s role in helping small firms access 

capital by guaranteeing private loans. Less attention has been paid 

to the SBA surety bond initiative, which performs a parallel function in the area of bonding contractors. Current law requires that 

any contractor doing construction or repair work in excess of 

$150,000 must have a performance bonus, essentially guaranteeing 

work will be completed in accordance with the contract’s terms. 

In Fiscal Year 2013, the SBA’s Surety Bond program guaranteed 

6,151 bonds on final bids. Absent this backstop, it is likely that 

many small firms will struggle to find private market companies 

willing to guarantee their work. Recent analyses have suggested 

that women-owned and minority-owned firms face greater challenges in finding private market surety companies to bond them. 

As a result, this initiative is particularly useful for many companies Congress has targeted for greater involvement in the federal 

marketplace. 

With this in mind, as we seek ways to foster small business participation in the federal marketplace, the SBA Surety Bond program will likely need to be part of that equation. With projects 

growing in complexity, scope, and scale, it only makes sense that 

bonds provided will seek larger guarantees for their exposure. 

This committee and the House have previously recognized the 

economic value in the SBA Surety Bond program. As part of the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we increase the program site limit to encourage smaller firms to take on larger 

projects. It is my hope the committee continues working together 

to find ways to maximize the value of this initiative. 

I thank the chairman for this legislation. And I yield back and 

I support it. 

Chairman GRAVES. Does any other member have an amendment to offer? 

Seeing none, the question is on agreeing to the amendment in 

the nature of a substitute to H.R. 776. 

All those in favor say aye. 

All opposed votes no. 

The opinion of the chair is the ayes have it. 

The ayes do have it. 

The amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 776 is 

agreed to. 

Without objection, the Committee staff is authorized to correct 

punctuation and make other necessary technical corrections and 

conforming changes. 

H.R. 4121 

Our next bill for consideration is H.R. 4121, the Small Business 

Development Centers Improvement Act of 2014, which is introduced by Ranking Member Vela ́zquez. 

I now yield to Nydia to speak on 4121. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

33 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In every state, the SBA’s network of 900 Small Business Development Centers help would-be entrepreneurs build and launch new 

enterprises. They also assist existing business owners who are 

seeking to expand and grow their operations. Whether it is how to 

construct a business plan, market research, manufacturing assistance, or guidance for firms seeking to begin exporting their goods 

abroad, SBDCs are absolutely vital to small companies’ success. 

H.R. 4121, the Small Business Development Centers Improvement Act gives SBDCs the tools and resources they need to continue providing these invaluable services to our nation’s entrepreneurs. During this period of fiscal restraint, it is important that 

we continue to look to proven programs like the SBDCs. Doing so 

allows us to more efficiently allocate further resources to those programs that have proven benefits. 

SBDCs have a strong track record of success. In fact, previous analyses have found that for every dollar invested in them, $2.87 

is returned to the treasury. It is rare to see such a strong return 

on investment in any governmental program. That document of financial return does not even include the very extensive job creation 

and local economic development benefits SBDCs bring to their communities. 

At the same time that the SBDC program has demonstrated such 

success, SBA has recently experimented with a series of unproven 

programs that have neither been approved by the committee, by 

Congress, nor adhere to the same performance metrics as SBDC or 

other existing SBA entrepreneurial development initiatives. Given 

that SBA and the rest of the federal government is operating under 

significant budgetary pressure, we must ensure the agency’s resources are used wisely. 

It is with this in mind that I am putting forward H.R. 4121. It 

will ensure that any new entrepreneurial development services will 

be offered through the agency’s 16 networks. With budgets tight 

and sequestration still in effect, we simply cannot afford ‘‘pie in the 

sky’’ experimentation and duplication in the SBA programs. The 

SBA’s 16 entrepreneurial development works, including not just 

SBDC but also Women’s Business Centers and SCORE as well, are 

positioned to channel any new assistance to business owners. Using 

these existing networks, rather than creating new, duplicative 

ones, will ensure that the entrepreneurs receive the resources they 

need without wasting taxpayer dollars on an unproven scheme. We 

must also work to ensure that the SBDCs are freed up to do what 

they do best—assist small business owners. In that regard, the legislation makes a number of important changes that will streamline 

their operations and reduce their administrative burden. By granting SBDCs authority to better market their services, the bill will 

expand outreach to small firms that may not be aware these services exist. In addition, the legislation ensures that SBDC grants 

are targeted to the not-for-profit and higher education institutions 

that have proven to be such viable partners in the SBDC program 

to date. 

Mr. Chairman, in every economic downturn our nation sees a 

spike in entrepreneurship. As more Americans turn to entrepreneurship to support their families, we must ensure the assets are 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

34 

in place to help them succeed. The legislation I am presenting will 

improve the SBDC program and help new entrepreneurs and existing businesses flourish and create new jobs. 

I urge my colleagues to vote yes, and I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Chairman GRAVES. Thank you. 

Are there any other members that wish to be recognized for a 

statement on H.R. 4121? 

Seeing none, I support the ranking member’s bill for all the reasons that she provided. Repeatedly, this Committee has expressed 

concerns regarding SBA’s creation of new and unauthorized entrepreneurial programs in this already overcrowded space, and this 

bill reflects the Committee’s views and estimates of the last three 

years. Both Ranking Member Vela ́zquez and I have repeatedly 

stressed the need for SBA to strengthen authorized programs, such 

as SBDCs, rather than create initiatives that duplicate or overlap 

existing programs. 

So with that, the Committee now moves to consideration of H.R. 

4121. 

Clerk, please report the title of the bill. 

CLERK. H.R. 4121, to amend the Small Business Act to provide 

for improvements to Small Business Development Centers. 

Chairman GRAVES. Without objection, H.R. 4121 is considered 

read and open for amendment at any point. 

Now with that—— 

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman GRAVES. Do you have an amendment? 

Mr. MURPHY. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GRAVES. Clerk, please report the amendment. 

CLERK. Amendment 1 to H.R. 4121 offered by Mr. Murphy of 

Florida. 

Chairman GRAVES. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. 

Gentleman, you have five minutes. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I offer a common sense amendment to help small businesses get 

back on their feet in the wake of natural disasters. Currently, 

Small Business Development Centers are required by law to assist 

only small businesses in the same state as them. This makes sense 

most of the time, but not in the aftermath of natural disasters, like 

Hurricanes Sandy and Katrina. More often than not, SBDCs in 

areas hit by natural disasters are in no position to assist their community because they themselves are in the midst of recovering. My 

amendment would allow unaffected SBDCs to assist small businesses in areas where the president has declared a natural disaster. 

I am sure you will all agree that this is a straightforward fix to 

a needless problem. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, as well as the bipartisan bicameral Small Business Disaster 

Reform Act where I first introduced this provision and which has 

the support of multiple members of this Committee. 

I yield the balance of my time. 

Chairman GRAVES. Does any other member wish to be heard on 

the amendment? 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

35 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the gentleman’s amendment. I, myself, have seen the work the SBDCs have 

done right after 9/11 and right after Sandy, and it is worth having 

the opportunity to be able to allow for personnel from New York’s 

SBDCs to go to Florida. They have the experience. They have the 

expertise. They will help small businesses navigate the bureaucratic processes with FEMA and SBA. So it is a good amendment 

and I am very proud to support it. 

Chairman GRAVES. Do any other members wish to be heard on 

the amendment? 

With that, I think the amendment makes all the sense in the 

world. I wish that members of Congress could do the same thing 

that we are trying to allow the SBDCs to do in times of emergency. 

I do not know if you know it, but members of Congress cannot use 

their office personnel or their funds to be able to help out another 

member of Congress if they have lost their office in a natural disaster. So this makes all the sense in the world. 

So with that, the question is on Amendment 1 offered by Mr. 

Murphy. 

All those in favor to 4121, all those in favor say aye. 

All opposed no. 

The opinion of the chair is the ayes have it. 

The ayes do have it. 

The amendment is agreed to. 

Mr. Payne? 

Mr. PAYNE. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GRAVES. Clerk, please report the amendment. 

CLERK. Amendment 2 to H.R. 4121 offered by Mr. Payne of New 

Jersey. Add at the end of the bullet the following: Section 1 inclusions—— 

Chairman GRAVES. Without objection, the amendment is considered read. And with that, Gentleman, you have five minutes. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Prior to getting into the amendment, I have been listening to the 

discussion this afternoon and I feel that my colleagues offered some 

very good amendments around women and minorities because historically they have been disadvantaged in those areas. 

I used to work for my uncle at one time in a printing company 

and we went through the GSA process and the business grew and 

we flourished. And when we got into the private sector, the larger 

printing companies colluded to have the paper companies, not sell 

this one company, the only minority firm in that industry, not to 

sell us paper. We had to go to our senator at that time in New Jersey and compel the paper companies to start selling us the raw material again. 

So the amendments that were offered by my colleagues earlier to 

strengthen the focus on women and minorities are not about equality but equity. The problem with equality in this sense is that it 

addresses all groups without regard of the historical privilege that 

one group has had and continues to have. 

Equity on the other hand acknowledges the unfair treatment 

that has disadvantaged certain groups in attempts to level the 

playing field. Even with the proposed increases in contracting goals 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

36 

for women and minorities, we would not even begin to see the equity. 

I hope my colleagues can begin to understand equality versus equity as we move forward, and my amendment addresses the unemployed, another group facing tough times. The amendment looks at 

the current unemployment rate at 6.6 percent, but for every one job 

available there are three people actively searching for employment. 

Since 1995, small businesses have generated over 65 percent of the 

net new jobs and over 50 percent of the working population is employed by small business. 

As we look to strengthen the SBDCs and expand support for entrepreneurs through Ranking Member Vela ́zquez’s bill, we should 

also look to expand the pathway to entrepreneurship specifically 

for the unemployed. My amendment ads entrepreneurial education 

and support for the unemployed individuals to list the services provided by Small Business Development Centers. Entrepreneurship 

is one of the most viable career and economic growth opportunities, 

and as we shore up our efforts to support entrepreneurs, we must 

include the unemployed as well. And I hope this is one subgroup 

that we can understand we need to support. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. 

Chairman GRAVES. Do any other members wish to be heard on 

the amendment? 

Mr. BARBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to wholeheartedly support Congressman Payne’s amendment and thank 

him for his work to spur entrepreneurship in our communities. And 

I also want to say how much I appreciate his preliminary comments and what he had to say about equity. 

We had an opportunity several times today to bring equity to 

groups in our country that have been disadvantaged and we fail to 

do so. I hope we can reconsider and do a better job in the future, 

but I certainly want to commend the congressman for making that 

very clear to all of us. 

As a former small business owner, my wife and I ran a small 

business in our community for 22 years. We know, as Congressman 

Payne pointed out, that small businesses are our best job creators, 

and I believe that is why we must do more to ensure that potential 

entrepreneurs—people who are currently unemployed would be in 

that group—have the tools and the knowledge they need to succeed. 

I encourage all my colleagues on the Small Business Committee 

to support this amendment. I believe it is the right thing to do and 

hopefully we will all agree and vote yay on this amendment. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman GRAVES. Do any other members wish to be heard on 

the amendment? 

Seeing none, just to clarify real quick, the amendment continues 

to promote entrepreneurship as an option for the unemployed, and 

it does so by just using already existing resources that the SBDCs 

have. And with that, I do support it. 

The question is on the amendment offered by Mr. Payne, Amendment 2 to H.R. 2141. 

All those in favor say aye. 

All opposed no. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

37 

The opinion of the chair is the ayes have it. 

The ayes do have it. 

The amendment is agreed to. 

Does any other member wish to seek recognition with an amendment? 

Seeing none, the question is on agreeing to H.R. 4121 as amended. 

All those in favor say aye. 

All opposed no. 

The opinion of the chair is the ayes have it. 

H.R. 4121 is agreed to. 

Without objection, a quorum being present, the bill is favorably 

reported to the House. 

Without objection, the Committee staff is authorized to correct 

punctuation and make other necessary technical changes and conforming changes. 

With that, the last bill that we have is H.R. 2452, the Women’s 

Procurement Program Equalization Act of 2014 introduced by 

Ranking Member Vela ́zquez. 

I now yield Nydia for her remarks on H.R. 2452. 

H.R. 2452 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Despite the increased presence of women-owned businesses in 

our economy, the federal government has continually failed to meet 

its 5 percent procurement goal for women-owned small businesses. 

Data for Fiscal Year 2013 indicates that only 4.3 percent of eligible 

federal contracting dollars were awarded to these businesses. Failure to meet this goal deprived women-owned businesses of over $2 

billion in contracting dollars. Through the Women’s Procurement 

program, women-owned small businesses are eligible for contracts 

in 83 industries that have historically had underutilization of 

women-owned businesses. However, since its inception, the program has faced obstacles as it took over a decade to adopt rules 

that would put the program into effect. 

While its implementation was great progress, it by no means 

fixed the inequity that exists as the Women’s Procurement program 

continues to lag behind. Simply put, contracting officers lack the 

options under this program that exist under other programs. To address these issues, H.R. 2452, the Women’s Procurement Program 

Equalization Act of 2013 seeks to give federal agencies the tools to 

award more contracts to women-owned businesses. 

Let me be clear. The bill does not create new tools solely for 

women-owned businesses, but rather allows contracting officers to 

use the tools that are currently available under existing programs, 

such as the HUBZone and 8(a) initiatives. The main issue here is 

about parity. 

The disparity in the tools available to contracting officers to 

award contracts to women-owned businesses has limited the effectiveness of the program. In the last fiscal year, there were only 807 

contracting actions worth $40 million awarded through the Women’s Procurement program. This amounts to only .0004 percent of 

dollars awarded to small businesses and only .0001 percent of eligible contracting dollars. The program has also been hindered by 

flaws in its certification process. Existing law has asked businesses 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

38 

to certify their eligibility for the program and then be verified by 

the agency or third parties. With agency procurement officers acting as the certifiers, the certification process has become bogged 

down. These officials should be focused on awarding contracts to 

women-owned small businesses, not spending resources on an extensive certification process. To address this issue, the legislation 

puts SBA in charge of certifying participants. If unable to do so, 

the SBA may continue to approve third-party certifiers to carry out 

such responsibilities. Until we can ensure a uniform certification 

process, female business owners will never reap the full benefits of 

the Women’s Procurement program. 

We continually hear that what small businesses need most in 

this economy are customers. Well, our own federal government continues to be the largest customer that a small business can have, 

yet the federal marketplace remains largely untapped by womenowned businesses. Additionally, by ensuring that these businesses 

receive their fair share of contracting dollars, we could further increase job creation. If the 5 percent goal was met, women-owned 

businesses could create over 673,000 new jobs. Strengthening this 

initiative is critical to the almost 8 million women-owned businesses in the United States. Making up nearly 30 percent of all 

businesses across the country and generating $1.2 trillion in revenue, they are a rapidly growing part of our national economic fabric. Ensuring that they have access to government contracts is essential for their continued growth and that is exactly what this bill 

will do. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman GRAVES. Do any other members wish to be recognized for a statement on 2452. 

Mr. BARBER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman GRAVES. Go ahead. 

Mr. BARBER. I want to thank Ranking Member Vela ́zquez for 

introducing this important legislation, and I am proud to cosponsor 

the bill which provides additional support to women business owners in their efforts to make contracts or have contracts with the 

Federal Government. 

We can and must do better. We have a goal for women-owned 

businesses under the law which we are not meeting, and we have 

to do better to bring women-owned businesses into contracts with 

federal agencies. Women-owned businesses are a critical part of the 

economy in my Southern Arizona district, and of course, nationwide. And the steps we take to help these small businesses will 

boost the overall economy as we continue working to improve the 

jobs market. This bill gives procurement personnel the authority 

they need to expand the number of women-owned businesses being 

awarded contracts and allows the SBA to meet the goal of 5 percent. 

I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 

and vote for this important bill. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman GRAVES. Any other members wish to be recognized 

on H.R. 2452? 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

39 

Seeing none, I do support 2452. I think the legislation does bring 

some parity among the SBA’s contracting programs, and that is 

something this Committee has long supported. 

So the Committee now moves to consideration of H.R. 2452. 

Clerk, please report the title. 

CLERK. H.R. 2452, to amend the Small Business Act with respect to procurement program for women-owned small business 

concerns and for other purposes. 

Chairman GRAVES. Without objection, H.R. 2452 is considered 

read and open for amendment at any point. 

Does anyone wish to offer an amendment? 

Seeing none, the question is on agreeing to H.R. 2452. 

All those in favor say aye. 

All opposed votes no. 

It is the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. 

The ayes do have it. 

H.R. 2452 is agreed to. 

Without objection, a quorum being present, the bill is favorably 

reported to the House. 

And without objection, again, the Committee staff is authorized 

to correct punctuation and make other necessary technical changes 

and conforming changes. 

And with that, I thank everybody for coming back. And the 

markup is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:28 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

40 

A P P E N D I X 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 40 here 93958.001
41 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 41 here 93958.002
42 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 42 here 93958.003
43 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 43 here 93958.004
44 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 44 here 93958.005
45 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 45 here 93958.006
46 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 48 here 93958.009
47 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 49 here 93958.010
48 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 50 here 93958.011
49 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 51 here 93958.012
50 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 52 here 93958.013
51 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 53 here 93958.014
52 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 54 here 93958.015
53 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 55 here 93958.016
54 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 56 here 93958.017
55 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 57 here 93958.018
56 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 58 here 93958.019
57 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 59 here 93958.020
58 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 60 here 93958.021
59 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 61 here 93958.022
60 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 62 here 93958.023
61 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 63 here 93958.024
62 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 64 here 93958.025
63 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 65 here 93958.026
64 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 66 here 93958.027
65 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 67 here 93958.028
66 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 68 here 93958.029
67 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 69 here 93958.030
68 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 70 here 93958.031
69 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 71 here 93958.032
70 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 72 here 93958.033
71 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 73 here 93958.034
72 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 74 here 93958.035
73 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 75 here 93958.036
74 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 76 here 93958.037
75 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 77 here 93958.038
76 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 78 here 93958.039
77 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 79 here 93958.040
78 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 80 here 93958.041
79 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 81 here 93958.042
80 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 82 here 93958.043
81 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 83 here 93958.044
82 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 84 here 93958.045
83 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 85 here 93958.046
84 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 86 here 93958.047
85 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 87 here 93958.048
86 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 88 here 93958.049
87 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 89 here 93958.050
88 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 90 here 93958.051
89 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 91 here 93958.052
90 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 92 here 93958.053
91 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 93 here 93958.054
92 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 94 here 93958.055
93 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 95 here 93958.056
94 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 96 here 93958.057
95 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 97 here 93958.058
96 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 98 here 93958.059
97 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 99 here 93958.060
98 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 100 here 93958.061
99 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 101 here 93958.062
100 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 102 here 93958.063
101 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 103 here 93958.064
102 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 104 here 93958.065
103 

Æ 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 105 here 93958.066