Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3807) to amend the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 to increase appropriations to the Restaurant Revitalization Fund, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1033 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), my colleague and friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, this morning the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1033, providing for consideration of H.R. 3807, the Relief for Restaurants and other Hard Hit Small Businesses Act of 2022 under a closed rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Small Business, self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairwoman Velazquez, and provides one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to adopt the rule and support critical funding for restaurants and other small businesses across our Nation.

As we all know, small businesses--especially restaurants--are the backbone of our local economy. Not only for the revenue they bring in, but for the many local workers they employ; families that need their paycheck now more than ever. But sadly, restaurants have been some of the hardest-hit businesses throughout the COVID-19 crisis, and many have struggled to keep their doors open.

Many of us have made a promise to support workers, families, and businesses in their time of need, and that is why we established the Restaurant Revitalization Fund in the American Rescue Plan, which provided $28.6 billion in emergency assistance to eligible restaurants, bars, and qualifying businesses impacted by the COVID crisis.

This program was clearly a success, providing relief to more than 100,000 restaurants and food and beverage businesses across the Nation. Some recent estimates show the program saved over 900,000 jobs, and 96 percent of recipients said the grant made it more likely they would stay in business.

However, there is no question that our initial investment was not enough. The program ran out of funds in just 3 weeks, as the total funding requested exceeded $72 billion, far more than the $28.6 billion provided for in the American Rescue Plan.

This funding gap resulted in 178,000 restaurants who are unable to secure funding in this program, even though they applied to the program and met all of the eligibility requirements. Let me say that again, 178,000 restaurants, many of which are in danger of permanent closure if Congress does not provide them with the relief they need.

The underlying legislation, the Relief for Restaurants and other Hard Hit Businesses Act, would provide for $42 billion to replenish the Restaurant Revitalization Fund, giving the Small Business Administration the funding necessary to close this funding gap and process the applications of those entities who are deemed eligible in the initial application period, providing a lifeline for the restaurant industry that has faced so many challenges over the past 2 years.

In addition to this critical funding, the underlying legislation also provides $13 billion for a new Hard Hit Industries Award Program, which will grant much-needed relief to other small businesses across industries and sectors that were the hardest hit by the pandemic but were not eligible for the Restaurant Revitalization Fund or Shuttered Venue Operators Grant program.

This new program would prioritize those eligible small businesses that experience the heaviest pandemic-related losses, beginning with those that lost 80 percent of their revenue.

To pay for both the establishment of the new program and the replenishment of the Restaurant Revitalization Fund, this bill would use funds reclaimed, seized, or returned to the Federal Government from bad actors attempting to defraud previous recovery programs.

Back in October 2020, the Small Business Administration Office of the Inspector General had already identified $78 billion in potentially fraudulent loans and grants to ineligible entities, and more than 300 individuals have been brought to justice. This legislation also increases oversight and audit requirements, ensuring that this additional support goes to the businesses originally intended to receive assistance.

Mr. Speaker, I have always been an advocate of additional support for the restaurant and hospitality industry, and many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have demonstrated support for the Restaurant Revitalization Fund, as well. I hope we continue to see bipartisan support for this effort on the House floor.

I urge all of my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation to deliver critical funding for restaurants and small businesses in communities across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I always appreciate hearing from my colleagues and a distinguished member of the Rules Committee, Mrs. Fischbach. I do note, however, a couple of things before I yield some time.

The first is that as it relates to how the bill is funded, as I indicated, the inspector general himself, that office, indicated there is $78 billion in fraudulent claims that are being recouped by the Federal Government. This bill will cost $42 billion for the Restaurant Revitalization Fund replenishment, another $13 billion, $55 billion. There is plenty of money in those reclaimed dollars to be able to pay for this without having to appropriate new dollars. So this actually should be in line with the principles of some of our more conservative Members to have claimed dollars that are owed to the United States and to its taxpayers.

Secondly, as it relates to workforce shortages, and I think we all know in every industry, and the businesses I talk to back home, are struggling to find workers. Yet, I note yesterday in the Education and Labor Committee, of which I am a member, that we didn't get a single Republican vote for the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, WIOA's reauthorization, which will do great things to continue to move people into the workplace as quickly as possible. Yet, we received no support for that.

So we are going to continue to work on these issues here in this Congress. We are going to continue to lead. This majority is going to continue to look out for small businesses, it is going to continue to look out for people looking for work, and it is going to continue to look out for employers who face worker shortages. So we will continue to support this, and I believe this bill will be a great victory for the 178,000 restaurants who desperately need our support.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier), a fellow member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to just reiterate, this is really a simple issue. And there may be attempts to distract from what is a simple issue, but the Office of Inspector General indicated that we had $78 billion in fraudulent claims. That is an estimate. Some estimates range as high as $200 billion.

It seems silly to me that we wouldn't take advantage of those dollars which are being reclaimed to continue to try to get relief for the many, many tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of restaurants and their employees across the country.

And I dare say that when I talk to--I have sat down with many, many restaurant owners in the last several months who had made application, and, simply, didn't have the resources in the fund that we had allocated to get relief, continue to talk to me about this.

So this is really a very, very simple question. I know there are a lot of complicated, nuanced questions around here in Congress that we are always dealing with. This is a simple one: Do we want to help these small businesses, or do we choose not to help them? And I think we would argue here that they very much deserve and merit this support.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross), another distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, frankly, I am a little perplexed. I think when I get home and talk to my restaurant owners, they are going to say: Why were you having a conversation about something not related to the restaurant revitalization act?

I will explain to them that as much as I would like to get into a conversation about how Putin's aggressive actions in Ukraine have affected gas prices around the world, as much as I would like to have the conversation about oil companies that have decided to continue to reap record profits and not increase supply to meet the demand around the world, as much as we can talk about all those things, that is not why we are here today. We should have that conversation in an appropriate venue.

This conversation and the venue right now that we are in is to talk about the Restaurant Revitalization Fund. It is to talk about the 178,000 restaurants owned by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents all across America in every single district that we have the privilege of representing.

Every single district has restaurants, and that is what we are here to talk about: how to get relief into the hands of those individuals who, for 2 years, have struggled under the most difficult economic circumstances any of us could ever imagine.

Let's make sure we keep our eye on the ball. Let's continue to focus on the question in front of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), my friend and distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to just correct the record as it relates to the Energy and Commerce Committee. I think, just this morning, the committee held a hearing with the heads of oil companies, multinational oil companies, to bring them in to talk about why they refuse to increase supply, which would bring down the costs.

I didn't do exceptionally well in economics when I was in the State University of New York, but I do remember the old supply and demand issue. When demand is high and supply is low, prices rise. We are going to continue to work and push and urge those companies to increase supply to meet demand and bring the costs down.

There is not much we can do about what is going on in Ukraine, although we are desperately trying to help our brothers and sisters there defend their democracy, which has had an incredible impact on gas prices.

Let me also remind everyone who is tuning in, who is watching what is going on, that the issue before the House of Representatives today, the rule that is being considered, is dealing with the difficulties that have been faced by restaurants across this country during the pandemic, which has now lasted for nearly 2 years: the displacement of workers and the impact that it has had on communities all across this country. We are striving to achieve a solution here that will be good for everyone across all 50 States and these small businesses that continue to be the backbone of our local economies.

Mr. Speaker, I have been very grateful for the leadership of Mr. Blumenauer, who has led the charge on this issue for some time now. I think I have probably bothered him dozens of times to ask what we can continue to do to advance his efforts, and he has continued to provide leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), the sponsor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the State of Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I will say this, that I suspect when, hopefully, this bill becomes law and we have helped save the 178,000 restaurants around this country that a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will be taking credit for it. I hope many of them vote for it despite their unwillingness to really have a conversation about it today and to talk about extraneous issues.

Before I reserve the balance of my time, I include in the Record a January 24, 2022, article from CNBC entitled ``National Restaurant Association asks Congress for more grant money as omicron hits industry.''

[From CNBC, Jan. 24, 2022]

National Restaurant Association Asks Congress for More Grant Money as

Omicron Hits Industry

(By Amelia Lucas)

The National Restaurant Association is asking Congress to

replenish the Restaurant Revitalization Fund as the Covid

omicron variant hits operators' businesses.

Last year, lawmakers created the $28.6 billion fund to aid

bars and restaurants struggling in the wake of the pandemic.

The grants were designed to make up for a restaurant's full

pandemic losses of up to $5 million for a single location or

$10 million for a business with fewer than 20 locations.

Publicly traded companies were ineligible, but their

franchisees could still apply.

Since the fund was depleted, restaurants have been pushing

for Congress to replenish it. Several lawmakers have

introduced legislation to do so, but the bills haven't gained

traction, and the Biden administration hasn't appeared

interested in supporting the measures.

But the latest surge in Covid-19 cases and its impact on

restaurants could change minds.

The National Restaurant Association's latest survey of

operators found that 88% of restaurants saw indoor dining

demand wane because of the omicron variant. More than three-

quarters of respondents told the trade group that business

conditions are worse now than three months ago. And the

majority of operators said their restaurant is less

profitable now than it was before the pandemic.

``Alarmingly, the industry still hasn't recreated the more

than 650,000 jobs lost early in the pandemic, a loss 45

percent more than the next closest industry,'' the trade

group's top lobbyist, Sean Kennedy, wrote in a letter to

congressional leadership for both parties.

Kennedy also touted the benefits of the first round of RRF

grants. The trade group estimates that more than 900,000

restaurants jobs were saved by the initial round of funding,

and 96 percent of recipients said the grant made it more

likely they could stay in business. A full replenishment of

the fund would save more than 1.6 million jobs, according to

the trade group's estimates.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, first let me thank my colleague and friend, Mrs. Fischbach. We spend a lot of time together in the Rules Committee, and I always appreciate our conversations. While we may not agree on issues from time to time, I always appreciate her earnestness, and I appreciate her good work.

I want to thank all of my colleagues for their words in support of the rule before us today.

As I mentioned earlier, Congress acted last year to provide much- needed relief for restaurants and other small businesses, but we must do much more. Our economy simply cannot survive without small businesses, and it is paramount that we redouble our commitment to ensuring their continued success.

I pledge to always be an ally in that fight, and I know my colleagues join me in that. I look forward to voting in favor of this effort to bring much-needed relief to local restaurants and the small business community.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3807, as amended. Here we are today to discuss yet another spending bill that will add to our Nation's debt and deficit and continue to spike inflation; another bill that creates a new government program without regard to the effectiveness or management of existing programs; another bill that has been rushed to the floor without a committee markup or a CBO score.

In fact, the latest draft of this legislation was sent out last Friday night and has been amended since. This is not how we should legislate, Mr. Speaker. We must do a better job for our Nation's small businesses that create two out of every three new jobs in America.

I am sure I am not the only one who has experienced deja vu by my colleagues' agenda to spend now and think later.

This agenda is not working for Main Street America. The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council conducted a recent poll of small business owners and found that only 5 percent of small business owners report that ``Congress' policies are helping the economy and small businesses like mine.'' Just 5 percent, so that means 95 percent, Mr. Speaker, don't like what is going on.

While we are sitting here in Washington, D.C., deciding whether to spend more money for certain industries, Main Street is experiencing price shocks that have not been felt in over 40 years.

Inflation is burning through our Nation at a rapid pace. From food and shelter to gas and energy, prices in every category of life are increasing exponentially with no end in sight.

The Consumer Price Index stands at 7.9 percent annually, and the producer price index, which is the wholesale price index, is now at 10 percent. That makes short-term inflation look pretty bleak from the standpoint that if the wholesale price index is 10 and the CPI 7.9, we are going to have some more inflation, some high prices. There is no doubt about it.

American families are feeling the pain, Mr. Speaker. Businesses feel this pain. The Nation's smallest firms are suffering. In fact, small business owners are reporting that their number one problem is inflation.

The second most pressing issue for small business is the price of gas. These price shocks hit them every single day.

Today, we are considering injecting more money into the system, which will simply fuel the fire of inflation.

There is no doubt that small businesses suffered from the COVID-19 pandemic and the lockdowns that shut down Main Street. It has been just over 2 years since the CARES Act was signed into law. Since that time, we have spent approximately $6 trillion as a Nation to fight COVID-19.

Small businesses alone have received $1.2 trillion in forgivable loans and other grants. I am proud of the bipartisan relief that Congress provided small businesses throughout this pandemic, including the Paycheck Protection Program, which supported many small businesses, including restaurants, in keeping their businesses afloat and employees on the payroll.

The goal then was to quickly get dollars out the door to support our Nation's job creators during this time of crisis. But now, our Nation as a whole has learned much more about this pandemic. We have learned how to safely go about our lives.

This bill is a disingenuous attempt to posture to small businesses by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. If Democrats were serious about helping restaurants and small businesses, they would have called for an end to the ever-changing mandates and lockdowns that forced so many businesses to close their doors. They would have accepted my amendment during committee to adequately fund this program from the start. They would have considered my bill when it was introduced in July, the ENTREE Act, which responsibly refills the Restaurant Revitalization Program and is fully paid for, which this bill we are here for today is not.

When the government attempts to solve problems without the input of small businesses, they create more problems, Mr. Speaker.

Have my Democrat counterparts on the other side ever asked a small business owner if they are now capable of opening and operating safely?

Have they ever asked them whether they can now unlock their doors, turn on their lights, and protect their workers?

Have they ever asked them if they are able to now welcome customers and community members back into their storefronts carefully?

I have, and the answer from small businesses is a resounding yes.

Small businesses are some of the most innovative and nimble enterprises in America. They can pivot quickly, and most importantly, they can adapt to any situation with speed.

They are the entrepreneurs of our country that drive our country. They can figure out how to slice the bread thinner. They know how to do this. We saw this over the last 2 years.

At this time, small businesses need the freedom to operate independently without Washington watching over them. We must end the COVID economy of government handouts.

Furthermore, this bill creates another new grant program at the SBA. The SBA, in my judgment, is incapable of operating grant programs.

Let's briefly examine how they have performed over the last 2 years, Mr. Speaker. The Economic Injury Disaster Loan program, known as EIDL, is filled with fraud and identity theft issues. This is per the IG, the inspector general, in his report.

The SBA is a black hole when it comes to answering questions for constituent businesses. We have all had businesses in our district struggle with getting information for the grant application.

Frankly, this direct lending and direct grant program in the SBA has been a disaster with a 30 percent fraud rate. That is the IG report number. Yet, the SBA continues to defer EIDL payments.

The second program was the Shuttered Venue Operators Grant program. The SVOG was signed into law in December 2020. Disappointingly, and after long delays, the SBA attempted to launch this program in April, 4 months later.

My colleagues and I sent multiple letters to the SBA regarding this delay. The night before it went live, SBA's inspector general sent out a warning signal. He said: SBA, you are not ready to do this. You are not up and running yet.

But did they listen? Of course not. They went ahead anyway, and within hours, the whole program crashed. The program then took 2 more months to launch.

This is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. We have to do a better job than this. They have to do a better job than this.

The last program was the Restaurant Revitalization Fund. I would like to remind everyone that this program was woefully underfunded by my Democrat colleagues.

However, more shocking was the fact that congressional Democrats, the Biden administration, and the SBA prioritized certain businesses over others. The RRF program was fundamentally unfair. They picked winners and losers with American taxpayer dollars.

It was so bad, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals declared this program unconstitutional, Mr. Speaker. They declared the whole program unconstitutional.

The Court's majority opinion stated that the SBA injected explicit racial and ethnic preferences into the priorities.

Enough is enough. If you judge the future by the past, as my dad once said, it is clear the SBA is unable to properly and prudently manage grant programs and safeguard American taxpayer dollars.

Not only does the SBA have a disastrous past of administering grant programs, but any new dollars flowing will add fuel to the inflation fire.

I want to be clear; this bill is supposedly paid for by recovered funds. At best, this is an IOU, Mr. Speaker. It is not a real or immediate offset. I agree that we need to track down and hold fraudsters accountable, and I applaud that process. I support it entirely. But this process takes time, and it is not going to get all those dollars back.

For example, according to testimony provided by SBA's inspector general at a hearing in January, the total recoveries by his office in fiscal year 2021 was $4.2 billion. In the same testimony, and in collaboration with Secret Service, the inspector general reports that they have seized another $1 billion in the EIDL program. And lastly, and, again, according to the IG, financial institutions returned approximately $3.1 billion in fraudulent funding. That is not near enough to cover the $55 billion that this program wants to spend.

Now more than ever, small businesses need to escape the overbearing reach of the Federal Government.

If we want to help small businesses, then we need to stop this out- of-control spending. We should prioritize lowering taxes so small business owners and their workers can keep more of their hard-earned money. We must reduce regulations that bog small businesses down with paperwork and compliance costs.

I would argue that the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is the reason we have the good economy we have today because we continue to allow the business individuals to keep their hard-earned dollars and invest them as they see fit, whereas, if we tax them to death, those dollars come out of the system, and we limit their ability to drive our economy.

We simply need to move on from this COVID economy.

In my judgment, this is an irresponsible bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose it. This is about economic independence.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the majority leader's remarks. I also support trying to help restaurants. That is the reason we are here this morning.

But I do have a bill that is paid for that this one does not do. And I think that the preferences that were allowed that were shown to be unconstitutional is the reason we are here this morning, so we can find a way to fund the rest of those folks, which I think is important for our communities. And I agree, and I appreciate those remarks by the leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), the vice ranking member of the Committee on Small Business and a small business champion in his own right.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what ruthless, idiotic ideology the gentleman was just talking about, but I think capitalism is a pretty good ideology with which to generate the kind of activity it takes to make an economy go. I think we saw the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 has done that job.

Whenever they talk about the largest increase in employment history, it is pretty easy to have a low bar when you start talking about where we were in the pandemic. The bar you should be talking about is where we were prior to the pandemic, and we are still below that number.

Mr. Speaker, it is exciting for me this morning to be able to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser), who is the ranking member of the Small Business Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Tax, and Capital Access.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Donalds), one of our newest members on the committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne), who is the ranking member on the Small Business Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Regulations. In that position, she has been leading the way in protecting small businesses.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, we discussed this bill thoroughly this morning, and I think everybody understands that we have a $42 billion section of it that is wanting to help restaurants. I thoroughly support trying to get restaurants back on their feet.

In fact, it has been mentioned a number of times, we have an alternative bill called the ENTREE Act that actually fixed the constitutional problem that existed because the bill as originally structured, the Restaurant Revitalization Fund, was incorrectly structured. It prioritized groups over something else and was quite unconstitutional.

It was underfunded. I told everybody at the time that the bill came through committee that was the case. I offered an amendment to try to fix it, and it was defeated. Today, here we are trying to fix a bill that I said wasn't structured right, it was underfunded, and we tried to fix it.

I have a bill to do that. It is paid for. This bill suddenly has no chance because it has never even been in committee yet. We can't get a hearing on it.

Why? Who knows?

We have known for a long time we had this problem. Suddenly, last Friday this particular bill shows up, and now, all of a sudden, we recognize we have a problem. We have said this for a long, long time, 6 months or more already.

Number two, we have a second part of this which hasn't been discussed very much this morning, which are the hardest-hit industries. We have $13 billion there. I can guarantee you, Madam Speaker, this isn't going to come close to fixing that problem. If you open this up to every single business that has been hard hit, we are going to wind up being back here--which is fine--but I am just telling you right now this is not going to fix it.

I think one of the comments made earlier was that this bill is about economic resilience. I think our businesses are resilient. That is why our economy has continued to bounce back. But it is not going to be resilient if we strangle it with higher inflation, pouring more money into this, higher energy prices, and more regulation.

This is about freeing up the entrepreneurial spirit of our people and our small businesses that drive this country, taking those burdens off, lowering inflation, quit spending money we don't have, and give them the support they need instead of choking them off with all these other sorts of things.

We have a bill before us that can fix this if we allow it to come up. But we are not doing it this morning. Instead, we have a bill that is poorly structured again. I guarantee you, Madam Speaker, it is not funded correctly either. We are trying to find a way to claw back money which we don't even know for sure if we can. We have got some so far, but we don't have enough.

So where is the rest of it going to come from?

It is going to be printed. That is not how we should operate as a Congress. That is not what the American people expect of us. They deserve better than this.

Madam Speaker, let me just close by saying that enough is enough.

Whenever we don't let alternatives be heard, to be able to hear the voice of the minority and to be able to be heard, then we don't have a bipartisan atmosphere that this body should be operating under.

When you have one-party rule and you throw bills on the floor without going through proper order, this is what you get--another bill that is poorly structured, that is not going to have a chance in the Senate because nobody has worked together to find a way to solve a problem which we all recognize exists.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the select committee has now conducted over 800 interviews and depositions of witnesses who have knowledge of the events of January 6. This includes more than a dozen former Trump White House staff members.

Mr. Speaker, when you hear my colleagues make political, partisan attacks on the select committee, I hope that all of us can remember some basic facts: Through these interviews, we have learned that President Trump and his team were warned in advance, and repeatedly, that the efforts they undertook to overturn the 2020 election

would violate the law and our Constitution; they were warned that January 6 could, and likely would, turn violent; and they were told repeatedly by our State and Federal courts, by our Justice Department, and by agencies of our intelligence community, that the allegations of widespread fraud, sufficient to overturn an election, were false and were unsupported by the evidence.

Yet, despite all of these specific warnings, President Trump and his team moved willfully through multiple means to attempt to halt the peaceful transfer of power, to halt the constitutional process for counting votes, and to shatter the constitutional bedrock of our great Nation.

As a Federal judge has recently concluded, the illegality of President Trump's plan for January 6 was ``obvious.''

We are here today to address two specific witnesses who have refused to appear for testimony before the committee.

The committee has many questions for Mr. Scavino about his political social media work for President Trump, including his interactions with an online forum called ``theDonald.win'' and with QAnon, a bizarre and dangerous cult.

Mr. Scavino worked directly with President Trump to spread President Trump's false message that the election was stolen and to recruit Americans to come to Washington on January 6 to ``take back their country.'' This effort to deceive was widely effective and widely destructive, and Donald Trump's stolen election campaign succeeded in provoking the violence on January 6.

On this point, there is no doubt. The committee has videos, interviews, and sworn statements from violent rioters demonstrating these facts.

Mr. Navarro will also be a key witness. He has written a book boasting about his role in planning and coordinating the activity of January 6. We have many questions for Mr. Navarro, including about his communications with Roger Stone and Steve Bannon regarding the planning for January 6.

As Judge Carter recently concluded: ``Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021.''

In the case of both of these witnesses, Mr. Speaker, the committee would rather have their testimony than have to move this contempt citation. When you hear my colleagues attack the select committee, remember Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro have chosen not to appear. They did not have to make this choice, but they did.

In America, no one is above the law. Neither Mr. Trump nor Mr. Scavino nor Mr. Navarro is some form of royalty. There is no such thing in America as the privileges of the crown. Every citizen has a duty to comply with a subpoena.

Mr. Speaker, when you hear my colleagues challenge the committee's legislative purpose, remember the D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court of the United States have affirmed our legislative purpose. Too many Republicans are, once again, ignoring the rulings of the courts, as many of them did in the run-up to January 6.

Mr. Speaker, the tale of what happened following the 2020 election, resulting in the violence of January 6, is a tale of stunning deceit. It is a tale of lies about our election and contempt for the rulings of our courts.

The election claims made by Donald Trump were so frivolous and so unfounded that the President's lead lawyer did not just lose these cases; he lost his license to practice law. The New York Supreme Court found: ``There is uncontroverted evidence that Mr. Giuliani communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers, and the public at large in his capacity as lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump and the Trump campaign in connection with Trump's failed effort at reelection in 2020.''

Mr. Speaker, those in this Chamber who continue to embrace the former President and his dangerous and destructive lies ought to take a good, hard look at themselves. At a moment of real danger to our Republic, when the need for fidelity to our Constitution is paramount, they have abandoned their oaths in order to perform for Donald Trump. That will be their legacy.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a close call. Mr. Navarro and Mr. Scavino have chosen not to comply with a congressional subpoena. They are in contempt. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I think it is very important, as our colleagues consider their vote on this resolution, to keep in mind the facts.

Number one, neither Mr. Scavino nor Mr. Navarro has appeared in front of this committee. As I mentioned earlier, we have interviewed over 800 witnesses. The vast majority of them have cooperated fully and answered our questions. Some of the witnesses have taken the Fifth. Some of the witnesses have answered some questions and asserted a privilege on other questions.

But the notion that somehow the former President can instruct someone not to appear, that is not sustainable, that is not found anywhere in the law. If Mr. Scavino or Mr. Navarro wants to assert some kind of a privilege--and again, our questions for them have to do with their activities that are political activities that are not covered by executive privilege, but if they wish to assert that privilege, they can appear and do so.

Madam Speaker, I would also note that in Trump v. Thompson, the D.C. Circuit held, and then we were upheld in the Supreme Court, that the committee's need for this information outweighs the former President's rights to any kind of confidentiality.

I think it is important for those facts to be clear and to be on the Record.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Aguilar).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I know my colleague and friend, Mr. Armstrong, knows very well that, first of all, executive privilege is a qualified privilege.

Secondly, former President Trump has not asserted executive privilege.

Third, I have tremendous respect, obviously, for Justice Kavanaugh, but my colleagues continue to quote Justice Kavanaugh without noting that the opinion in the D.C. circuit, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, in that opinion the judge found a number of things, including ``to allow the privilege of a no-longer sitting President to prevail over Congress' need to investigate a violent attack on its home and its constitutional operations would gravely impair the basic function of the legislature.''

The Court also held that under any of the tests advocated by former President Trump, the profound interests in disclosure advanced by President Biden and the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol far exceed his generalized concerns for executive branch confidentiality.

And I would just repeat again, Madam Speaker, that Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro both have chosen not to appear in front of the committee to answer questions that are clearly outside of any potential claim of privilege they may have, and even if they believe there is a claim of privilege, they are obligated to appear and make that assertion. They cannot simply refuse to respond to the committee's subpoena.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Murphy).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I think it is again very important as our colleagues are contemplating their vote on this resolution that they keep in mind the facts. And we are hearing a number of things that are not consistent with the facts.

First of all, with respect to the establishment of the committee, Mr. Davis knows, and my colleagues know that we initially attempted to have a bipartisan commission, which, in fact, Leader McCarthy instructed Mr. Katko to negotiate with Chairman Thompson. Mr. Katko did that, secured everything the Republicans asked for, at which point, Mr. McCarthy walked away from the bipartisan commission, and then went over to the Senate side and lobbied against the establishment of a bipartisan commission.

The establishment of the select committee, again, is not what we would have hoped. The 35 Republicans who voted for the bipartisan commission wanted a bipartisan outside commission, but we cannot let this attack go uninvestigated.

Mr. Davis also knows that with respect to the membership of the committee, Speaker Pelosi said that she would not name two Members who had been identified by Mr. McCarthy; that is completely consistent with the resolution. And Mr. McCarthy then himself withdrew the other three and determined that he would not participate.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I continue to hear this allegation that the committee is not investigating what happened at the Capitol, not investigating what happened with respect to the Capitol Police, not investigating what happened with respect to security that day. That is just not true. The committee has an entire team that is very focused on and investigating what happened with respect to security at the Capitol.

And it is also the case, though, Madam Speaker, we must all remember that the former President provoked a violent assault on this body, and the extent to which there were security lapses, the extent to which people did not anticipate that there would be a violent assault on the Capitol, provoked by the former President, is not the fault of the Capitol Police. That is the responsibility of the former President.

And I would also note, Madam Speaker, that Mr. Davis voted ``yes'' on the bipartisan commission when it came up.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), my good friend and colleague.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it does not feel really good today. It feels sad, and it feels tragic that so many in my own party are refusing to address the constitutional crisis and the challenge that we face.

The ranking member of the Judiciary Committee went to law school. I am not sure if he passed the bar. But he knows that we all have an obligation to abide by the rulings of the courts.

So, yes, it was a false story. Yes, it was a big lie. In fact, former Vice President Pence has said that what President Trump wanted him to do was ``un-American.'' It was also unconstitutional, and it was illegal.

Mr. Speaker, what gives me tremendous hope though is although so many in my party in this body have put loyalty to Donald Trump ahead of their oath to the Constitution, the committee has interviewed scores of Republicans from around the country who, in fact, have shown the kind of tremendous bravery and dedication to public service that every American can be proud of: Republicans who were appointed by President Trump to posts in the Department of Justice; Republicans who stood firm; Republicans who threatened to resign and who refused to participate in President Trump's efforts to corrupt the Department of Justice with the stolen election lies--yes, lies--that led to January 6.

We have heard from Republicans serving in State legislatures, in State and local governments who also stood firm.

Mr. Speaker, it is crucially important that this body hold these gentlemen in contempt. It is crucially important that they have to abide by their subpoena.

I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, I call up the report (H. Rept. 117-284) and accompanying resolution recommending that the House of Representatives find Peter K. Navarro and Daniel Scavino, Jr., in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas duly issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 1037) recommending that the House of Representatives find Peter K. Navarro and Daniel Scavino, Jr., in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas duly issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start our debate by talking a little bit about what the American people ought to expect of their leaders, of those who hold positions of public trust and the responsibilities that come with it.

I have been thinking about those responsibilities for more than 50 years, in all the time I have been fortunate enough to hold a position of public trust. It doesn't matter if you are an alderman, a mayor, Member of Congress, President of the United States, or a staff member working as a civil servant, or a political appointee. When you work for the public, when the people's taxes pay your salary, those jobs come with serious rules and serious obligations.

Dan Scavino and Peter Navarro both held positions of public trust. Mr. Scavino was a top communications official in the Trump White House. Mr. Navarro was a trade adviser. They each drew salaries paid by the American people to the tune of over $180,000 per year. They both were to abide by certain rules and obligations. They both swore oaths of allegiance to the Constitution.

The select committee wants to talk to both of them, but about a lot more than their White House jobs. We want to talk to them about their roles in trying to overturn the 2020 election. We subpoenaed them for their records and testimony. They told us to buzz off. Not a single record. No-shows for their deposition.

Their excuse was: As former White House employees, the information we wanted--again, information about overturning an election--was shielded by executive privilege, a protection for the President to make sure sensitive, official conversations stay private.

In other words, they are arguing that their roles in trying to overturn an election had to stay secret because they had official roles as advisers to the ex-President.

If they want to make those claims, ridiculous as they sound, here is what the law requires: They need to show up and make those claims on the record, under oath. They refused to do that. That alone means they are in contempt of Congress. But I want to dig a little deeper into the argument these men are making.

As I mentioned before, these are rules and obligations that bind public servants. One of the most important rule is that you can't do campaign work on government time or using taxpayer money. Pretty straightforward. Plenty you can do on your own time, but not when you are on the clock. That is the law.

If you have heard of the Hatch Act, it has probably been when a Cabinet Secretary or White House official had crossed the line from their official duties into political matters. In fact, in 2020, Mr. Navarro was dinged by a government watchdog for violating the Hatch Act by using his official role to attack President Joe Biden. That law prohibits, among other things, someone from using ``official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the results of an election.''

Sounds familiar? In the case of Mr. Navarro and Mr. Scavino, trying to affect the result of an election wasn't knocking on doors or putting signs in people's front yards. They were trying to help a defeated President stay in power. It is not conceivable that their involvement in that effort could have legally overlapped with their official duties.

But beyond that, it was a betrayal of the oath these men took. It was a betrayal of the public trust. Even if you do it on your own time, trying to overturn an election is still trying to overturn an election. We know that the people who stormed this building on January 6 had the same goal: trying to overturn an election. That is what the select committee is investigating. That is why we need to hear from Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro.

But as the select committee works to provide answers to the American people, these two are saying: ``I worked at the White House when all this took place. Even if I was plotting to overturn the government, I was collecting a government salary at the time, so I don't have to talk about it.''

Can you imagine? I have served my community and my country most of my life. Like my colleagues in this body, I have labored to uphold my oath and do right by the people I serve. I know my constituents expect that of me.

To run into this kind of obstruction, this kind of cynical behavior, as we investigate a violent insurrection, is just despicable. It can't stand.

Dan Scavino and Peter Navarro must be held accountable for their abuses of the public trust. They must be held accountable for their defiance of the law. They are in contempt of Congress, which is a crime, and I call on my colleagues to do their duty to defend this institution and the rule of law and to vote ``yes'' on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, just for the record, let me say that we are here for this contempt process today, but the President's own daughter complied with the wishes of the committee. I would think that if his daughter complied with the wishes of the committee, everyone else should, even the people who worked for him.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader of the House.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger), a distinguished veteran of the Air Force and a member of the select committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the chairperson of the Committee on House Administration and a member of the select committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Luria), a veteran of the United States Navy.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me say for the record, if there is any Member on the other side who feels the strength to come and testify before our committee, I invite them, right now, to let us know and we will gladly entertain whatever information they have as to what happened on January 6. Some of them ran out of this building fearing for their lives, so there is no question that something happened.

And H. Res. 503 says, absolutely, we have to find the facts and circumstances as to what happened and why and make recommendations; and that is what we have to do.

We have the constitutional power to issue subpoenas. If people do not follow subpoenas, we have the right to bring them before this body and recommend contempt citations; and that is what we are doing today.

So it doesn't matter if they were a father, a mother, a sister, or a brother, had children; if they break the law, they break the law. No one is above the law, and that is the point we are trying to make.

We asked the individuals, subpoenaed them to come before the committee, and they chose not to come and, therefore, they broke the law, and that is why we are here today.

So, Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned, when I testified before the Rules Committee, it is absurd that there should be any disagreement at all about why we are here for this contempt resolution.

If you listen to the arguments from some of my friends on the other side, they have very little to say of substance of this matter. We hear excuses. We hear attacks about process. We hear scare-mongering about the select committee.

Let me remind my colleagues, we have conducted over 830 interviews and depositions. And again, I invite any of them to come talk to us if they want to. Now, if, for some reason, they are reluctant or afraid, then I feel sorry for them.

Our constitutional democracy was challenged on January 6. We have to fix this. Over 200 years, we have operated in complete freedom, and all of a sudden, this institution was attacked; and we have to fix that.

We are the number one democracy in the world, but we lead by example. Democrats are leading by example. The select committee is leading by example by bringing these two gentlemen who broke the law, who decided that it is better to deal with the law of Donald Trump rather than the Constitution of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, especially my friend from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney).

Mr. Speaker, I urge every Member to support adoption of this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and, Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, we are here to consider a rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3807, the Relief for Restaurants and other Hard Hit Small Businesses Act.

This legislation gives a check to the Small Business Administration without accountability or oversight mechanisms or even taking into account SBA's feedback.

Mr. Speaker, this bill appropriates an additional $55 billion to restaurants and small businesses, none of which is paid for. According to the Congressional Budget Office, as much as $340 billion in unobligated funds from various COVID relief legislation is available for expenditure, but we are not reallocating those. Instead, we would be relying on more deficit spending to provide these sums. Structurally, this bill is not going to work. This is a lot of money, and it seems that Democrats just want to throw it to the wind, because when you look at how the funds are being distributed, this bill will not fix the problem. This is something that could have been addressed had the bill gone through the committee process.

Because this bill is not immediately or responsibly paid for, it would further fuel the inflation crisis, which currently sits at a 40- year high of 7.9 percent. Inflation is the number one problem facing small businesses, according to them. That is what they are saying. Instead of pushing through drastic increases of inflation-inducing deficit spending, we must work together to advance progrowth policies that empower small businesses to operate independently without burdensome restrictions.

I need to point out the political game Democrats are playing this session. They are proposing bills that have titles that make them seem like commonsense bills, but really, they are disingenuous attempts to fix real problems.

This was true of last week's insulin bill, and it is true of this bill. What is worse is they know that they are not coming up with real solutions. That is why we are now looking at yet another bill that has not been through the committee process, there has been no transparency, no opportunity to discuss, no public or minority input, and has real flaws as a result that will only exacerbate the problems my colleagues have created. My Democratic colleagues do not want to negotiate with Republicans or allow any input from anyone to come up with a bill that would actually help people.

It is also why my colleagues did not take up the ENTREE Act, which was introduced last summer, at a time when restaurants really needed it. That bill was also aimed at helping restaurants and small businesses recover from the damage done by the pandemic with proper oversight and constraints and didn't include discriminatory language that prioritized certain groups based on criteria other than need. That eventually, the Supreme Court had to put a stop to.

Now, we need to be focusing on the crises that are going on that are going to become problems for restaurants this year: workforce and inflation. We are still seeing ``help wanted'' signs all over the country. Businesses are desperate for a workforce. Congress needs to stop paying people to stay at home and encourage them to work. And inflation is hitting every single corner of the economy. Between increasing prices on all goods, and the effects we are already starting to feel in the food industry from the Russian invasion of Ukraine, consumers are going to start feeling the pain. And, unfortunately, when you are trying to save money, going out to eat is not one of the first things a family typically does. We need to be getting ahead of these issues, not coming up with insincere attempts under the guise of COVID relief.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule and the underlying bill, and I ask Members to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just like to mention, we continue to talk about whether or not this is paid for. I respectfully ask: Where is the CBO score? That would answer the question if we actually had done any--put this legislation through any kind of process, through committee, getting the CBO score.

So I would question as to whether or not it was actually all paid for, as my colleague mentions. But I do think that if we had the CBO score, we could decide, finally, if it was paid for or not.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers and Congressman Westerman's American Energy Independence from Russia Act.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with the extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, for the fifth time, Republicans ask their colleagues to consider this bill. The average price at the pump two days before President Biden took office was $2.38 per gallon. They have been steadily climbing ever since.

On February 14, 6 days before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the average price for per gallon was $3.49. These prices are affecting every single American.

When adjusted for the increasing prices on all goods, thanks to failed Democrat policies, wages and salaries are below pre-pandemic levels. My constituents are pleading with Congress to focus on this issue and are being ignored by the out-of-touch majority.

Now, for the fifth time, House Republicans are urging the majority to immediately bring relief at the pump now. While my colleagues continue to bring flawed, misguided, and unvetted legislation to the floor, House Republicans stand ready to work on issues that directly affect American's pocketbooks.

To further explain the amendment, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that my colleague from New York would love to have the conversation, would love to have the conversation in the appropriate venue, and I think we would also love to have that conversation, particularly in a committee if we could hear the bill. But the majority has chosen to shut out almost every single Republican bill and not hold hearings where that would be the appropriate venue.

For now, I suggest to my colleague from New York that he talk to his leadership about actually hearing this bill in committee, having the conversation, and having the transparency and the input that we could from the public. Until that time, Mr. Speaker, this is our venue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Carl).

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, restaurants and small businesses are facing difficulties, and one of those challenges is high energy costs. Delivery costs go up. It costs more for their employees to get to work. It costs more for all of those things because of high energy costs. So this does affect restaurants and small businesses. I think this affects restaurants, small businesses, and every American.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I appreciate that my colleague from New York talks about an extraneous issue. But gas prices and the cost of energy in America is a serious issue, and it is facing every American. Every American is paying more at the pump, and they are facing the decision in their family budget of how they are going to use that.

In 2020, the last administration added 30 million barrels of oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Now the Biden administration is weighing a plan to release roughly 1 million barrels of oil a day from this reserve for months on end, and this is after he released 30 million barrels in early March

and 50 million barrels of oil back in November which did nothing to prevent a spike in energy prices.

Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers and Congressman Westerman have introduced the American Energy Independence Act to reverse President Biden's disastrous anti-American energy policies. This bill is a real solution, and it needs to be heard. We need to talk about this to the American people.

This bill, H.R. 3807, that we have before us is not going to help restaurants and small businesses. But, of course, that is not the Democrats' intention anyway. If it were, they would have brought this bill through committee and worked with Republicans to build an effective piece of legislation.

Instead, their intention is to push this legislation through that sounds good so that they can use it as a talking point to distract from their failed policies. This bill is just another example of the Democrats' reckless spending habits. Their solution to the effects of inflation is to throw even more money at it.

When will my colleagues learn that spending is what causes the inflation?

It is time for more pro-growth policies, not government handouts.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule and the underlying bill, I ask Members to do the same, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.