Biden agency's 'curious' voter registration work to be scrutinized by House committee.

A House committee intends to present a top Biden administration official with a critical letter during a Wednesday hearing, following lawmakers' accusations that the agency had repeatedly disregarded a subpoena concerning its electioneering activities in swing states.

The Small Business Administration has drafted a "strategic plan" for its voter registration work in Michigan, as per a Biden executive order, but the Small Business Committee chairman Roger Williams, R-Texas, claims it does not exist in its requested form.

According to committee sources, an SBA response to a separate FOIA request from an outside organization revealed the existence of a document.

The Republican majority on the committee has been seeking answers from the agency for months regarding its activities in Michigan, where it is accused of engaging in partisan voter registration outreach.

The committee pointed out that although the agency claims all work has been done transparently and in accordance with Biden Executive Order 14019, the order mandates the creation of a "strategic plan" detailing ways to boost voter registration and participation.

The document, according to Williams, is crucial to the committee's investigation into whether the SBA-Michigan Department of State deal is unconstitutional and a misuse of taxpayer funds.

The SBA has misled the Committee about the existence of a document demanded in the subpoena, specifically the strategic plan submitted to the White House’s Domestic Policy Counsel in September 2021 under Executive Order (E.O.) 14019, according to a letter signed by Williams and Small Business Oversight Subcommittee chairwoman Beth Van Duyne, R-Texas.

The SBA and its staff repeatedly asserted that the document did not exist until they ultimately admitted they could not provide it to the committee.

"Despite the subpoena, SBA officials informed Committee staff that no responsive document was found. The Committee was suspicious of SBA's claim, as failing to submit the report would violate the terms of the Executive Order. On two separate occasions, Committee staff asked SBA staff about the document and provided additional context to help SBA locate it. However, SBA still stated that no such document exists."

The SBA has been accused by Williams and other Congress members of using the pact to allocate taxpayer funds to a swing state in a partisan manner during an election year.

The Heritage Foundation's Oversight Project watchdog organization filed a Freedom of Information Act case in May, which uncovered evidence of at least a draft document related to the SBA.

In the context of this year's election, the Small Business Administration has entered an agreement with the Michigan secretary of state, which is curious, according to Oversight Project attorney Kyle Brosnan.

"Court filings have shown that SBA was not truthful about a crucial document related to the Biden-Harris electioneering executive order, which calls into question the agency's credibility and motivates our committee to continue demanding answers," Williams stated.

The SBA's use of the MOU to allocate resources to a swing state has been criticized as potentially unconstitutional by Williams and others in Congress, who previously accused the agency of engaging in partisan activities.

He claimed that the SBA was diverting its resources from helping small businesses to register Democratic voters in Michigan.

Ernst, a Republican senator from Iowa and the top Republican on the Senate Small Business & Entrepreneurship Committee, stated that the American people have the right to know how their tax dollars are being used by the SBA, and she will ensure accountability.

The committee asserts that the SBA complied with the White House order by submitting their strategic plan within the 200-day window.

In March, the agency introduced a unique agreement to aid in voter registration in Michigan.

The SBA initially argued that the document was not "final," but the committee requested both "interim" and "final" documents.

The document was not released in the FOIA suit due to an exemption, but the committee has different rights than private litigants.

The SBA cannot assert that a document does not exist just because it may be privileged, according to their statement.

The SBA spokesperson stated in August that the agency had given "extensive testimony, briefings, transcribed interviews, documents and other information in response to congressional inquiries, including the Committee’s most recent subpoena."

The spokesperson stated that the agency is still working to comply with the subpoena, despite having already provided the initial documents. Any accusation that the agency is engaging in unethical behavior or that its response has been anything other than cooperative is entirely false.