Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my heartfelt birthday wishes to Ms. Hattie White as she celebrates her remarkable 100th birthday. Born in 1925, she lived in the vibrant Bedford Stuyvesant community in Brooklyn, New York. A community known for its rich African American heritage, social activism, and brownstone homes that reflected the pride of homeownership among neighbors. In fact, at a time when homeownership was not easily attainable, Ms. White owned a home where she provided her seven children with a stable and nurturing environment.

Ms. Hattie lived a life characterized by hard work, resilience, adaptability, and faith. Her life spanned historical events in our society, from the Great Depression, World War II, to the Civil Rights Movement, the cultural shifts of the 1960's and 70's and the advancements in technology. These events shaped her experiences and perspectives, further strengthening her resolve.

In addition to her family, Ms. Hattie has been and remains a devoted member of the Zion Shiloh Baptist Church. Her unwavering faith and commitment to the church community have made her a beloved figure among her fellow congregants. She is a respected elder of the church who is renowned for her years of leadership roles, community service, and guiding her congregation. Her compassion and generosity have touched the lives of many in Brooklyn, making her a true beacon of hope and inspiration.

Ms. Hattie White exemplifies a remarkable legacy of longevity, resilience and a proud spirit of service. She is cherished by her family and friends, who are deeply grateful for her unconditional love and friendship.

I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Ms. Hattie White, one of our Nation's Centenarians, on this special occasion of her 100th year birthday.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5100, a simple bill to extend the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs for an additional year.

Over the course of its 40-year history, the SBIR and STTR have been among the Federal Government's most effective engines for driving innovation. By channeling a small portion of research and development budgets into highly competitive awards, the government is able to utilize our nimble and innovative small businesses to drive forward technological innovation and meet critical agency needs.

These programs have been endlessly scrutinized since their founding, but economic analysis has shown an overwhelmingly successful program with an outsized return on investment for taxpayers.

Unfortunately, the SBIR and STTR programs are set to expire on September 30. If these programs are allowed to expire, agencies would lose the ability to issue new awards, cutting off a vital source of early-stage funding for small businesses. It would also delay commercialization of promising technologies and weaken the United States' competitiveness with foreign adversaries.

Despite this fast-approaching deadline, negotiations for a comprehensive reauthorization are ongoing, and while I attempted to start the process early by introducing a bill last December, formal negotiations didn't start until last month.

There are many areas of overlapping priorities between the majority and minority on this bill. We share a desire to lower the barrier to entry for new entrants and bridging the valley of death for the most promising ideas.

However, there are some outstanding issues we are working through that will take additional time. That is why I am grateful to our chairman, Mr. Williams, as well as Chairman Babin and Ranking Member Lofgren for their support for a 1-year extension.

This program has always been bipartisan, and it is imperative that we continue to work together to bridge our differences in a thoughtful manner. A 1-year extension is the most responsible course forward, one that five out of six corners agree on. It gives agencies and small businesses the certainty they need, while giving us adequate time to make the best decisions we can.

While we have heard arguments that this could be added to the NDAA, the timeline simply does not make sense. The programs will expire long before final passage of the NDAA, and doing so will result in a lapse in the program, something that has never happened before.

A 1-year extension does not mean that the work ends. We will continue to be at the table, ready to negotiate and ultimately pass a bipartisan, bicameral comprehensive reauthorization.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by reminding everyone that this is a bipartisan program that has never seen a lapse in its over 40-year history. The House is taking the responsible step of extending this program for a year to give us time to negotiate a longer-term reauthorization.

I appreciate the partnership of Chairman Williams and of my colleagues on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, Chairman Babin and Ranking Member Lofgren, for keeping this vital source of capital for our Nation's most promising innovators alive. I look forward to continuing discussions in the coming weeks and months to reach a bipartisan agreement.

Allowing this program to lapse is simply not an option. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this commonsense measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this bill. It is ironic we are debating a bill called the CLARITY Act when it offers no clarity on one of the biggest issues in crypto, the blatant conflicts of interest inside our own government.

Since returning to office, President Trump has turned the Presidency into a crypto cash machine. It is now estimated that crypto makes up the majority of Donald Trump's net worth.

Foreign investors, some under Federal investigation, are pouring millions into these ventures, buying access, influence, and favorable treatment.

So I ask: What are we doing here?

With this bill, not only are we continuing to allow President Trump to issue his cryptocurrency, but we are allowing him and his cronies to be in charge of the regulators overseeing that venture and compromising the stability of capital markets in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the GENIUS Act.

From the beginning, I have said that Congress needs to tackle stablecoin legislation, but we cannot pretend that this is happening in a vacuum. We are creating a framework for stablecoins while the President, his family, and members of his administration are personally invested in this market and directly profiting from it.

Mr. Speaker, 3 days before taking office, President Trump launched his own memecoin. When the coin's value collapsed, his insiders cashed out. Everyday investors were left holding the bag. It is estimated that they lost over $2 billion while the Trump circle walked away with more than $350 million.

Now, his family firm, World Liberty Financial, has launched its own stablecoin, once again netting the President's family tens of millions of dollars.

The administration is rolling back enforcement and reshaping policy to give these business interests a leg up.

These are such clear-cut conflicts of interest, yet this bill does nothing to address them. It doesn't bar the President or Cabinet officials from holding financial stakes in stablecoin issuers. It doesn't address the foreign investors piling into these ventures. It doesn't even try to draw a line between public office and private banks.

This isn't a framework for innovation. It is a framework for more corruption.

If we are serious about protecting consumers and about protecting our markets, we have to start with ethics. This bill fails that basic test.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Josie Mota Gomez, a visionary in education, lifelong advocate for youth, and social justice. For more than three decades, Josie has been a pillar of the El Puente Academy for Peace and Justice, located in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, her hometown.

Josie's journey began on a snowy day in February 1975, when she arrived in New York City from the Dominican Republic to reunite with her mother, Melida, who labored for years in a factory to provide a better future for her children. That act of sacrifice would leave an indelible mark on Josie, instilling in her the values of strength, perseverance and service. Accordingly, she began her formal education at Our Savior School in Williamsburg, learning English and discovering the value of community in a building that would later become home to El Puente Academy--the very school she would help shape decades later.

After attending the High School of Fashion Industries, Josie pursued her passion for communication and earned a degree in Speech Communications from Pace University. A brief stint in the corporate world left her unfulfilled--but a chance meeting with El Puente co- founders Dr. Frances Lucerna and Luis Garden-Acosta changed everything. In 1991, she joined El Puente as a community liaison, launching a lifelong commitment to youth, education, and social justice.

In 1993, Josie played a critical role in the founding of the El Puente Academy for Peace and Justice, the first public high school in the country centered on human rights and social justice. She has served the school for 32 of its 34-year history--guiding students, families, and fellow educators through every transition and triumph. Her leadership has shaped the Academy's identity, grounded in the belief that we are not just here to study history, but to make history.

Along the way, she earned a master's in education from Long Island University and a bilingual counseling license from Brooklyn College, yet she has always been defined not by titles, but by the deep relationships she has built. Josie walks with young people and their families, lifting them up, meeting them where they are, and helping them believe in their own power.

El Puente is not just a workplace for Josie--it is her family. Her four children were raised in its community, and her unwavering presence has come to symbolize its mission. Josie's journey is a testament to the immigrant experience rooted in sacrifice, shaped by resilience and driven by the hope of a better future.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Josie Mota Gomez on this special occasion of her retirement. I extend my deepest gratitude for her public service and wish her joy in this next chapter of life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Theodore M. Renz, who is retiring after nearly four decades of exceptional public service as the Executive Director of the Myrtle Avenue Business Improvement District (BID) in Ridgewood, Queens. Throughout his distinguished career, Mr. Renz has exemplified an unwavering commitment to community development, small business, and neighborhood revitalization, laying a strong foundation for a more vibrant community for future generations.

Since the Myrtle Avenue BID's establishment in 1988, Mr. Renz has been at the helm, guiding it through transformative growth. Recognizing the vital role that small businesses play in New York City's economy, Mr. Renz has worked tirelessly to ensure that the BID serves as an accessible and indispensable resource for local entrepreneurs. Under his leadership, the BID supports more than 300 businesses along a mile- long stretch of Myrtle Avenue, providing essential services including sanitation, public safety, beautification, and marketing that fosters a robust and welcoming commercial corridor.

Mr. Renz's tenure is marked by numerous accomplishments. He spearheaded major urban improvement projects, including a $2.4 million streetscape enhancement for Myrtle Avenue and played a pivotal role in helping secure a $55 million upgrade of the Myrtle-Wyckoff transit hub, enhancing accessibility for thousands of daily commuters and consumers. As an advocate for open space, he successfully championed the conversion of underutilized spaces into public plazas for the community. Today, the BID corridor is home to four new public plazas enjoyed by all.

As a lifetime resident of Ridgewood, Mr. Renz public service extends beyond the BID. He has served as Executive Director of the Ridgewood Local Development Corporation (RLDC) and as a member of Queens Community Board 5, consistently advocating for small businesses, public safety, and quality-of-life improvements. His collaboration with city agencies, elected officials, and local stakeholders has left a lasting impact on the Ridgewood community.

As Mr. Renz embarks on a well-earned retirement after 37 years of dedicated public

service, I extend my deepest gratitude for his leadership, and unwavering commitment to strengthening the economic fabric of New York City. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating Theodore M. Renz for his outstanding contributions and wishing him good health and joy in this next chapter of life.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule to make in order the amendment at the desk that protects against any cuts to Medicaid and SNAP.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2966, the American Entrepreneurs First Act.

If we really wanted to put American entrepreneurs first, we would be debating a bill to strengthen SBA lending and make it easier to access capital, or we could stop playing political games and finally vote to exempt small businesses from these painful on-again, off-again tariffs. That would put American entrepreneurs first.

Unfortunately, this bill does nothing to help small businesses grow or adjust to supply chain disruptions or unexpected tariff costs. Rather, it will actually make it harder for thousands of legally operating small businesses to get the financing they need at a time they need it most.

SBA loans are supposed to help creditworthy businesses that cannot get loans elsewhere. That includes many immigrant-owned businesses, businesses that follow the rules, pay taxes, and create jobs in our communities.

Let's set the record straight. First, the Small Business Act already prohibits the use of funds for individuals not lawfully within the United States. Contrary to any statement that my colleagues may make that Democrats have supported this, this is incorrect. The statute is clear. Secondly, there is no evidence, not a shred of evidence, that has been shared with Members of Congress, the public, the IG, or other law enforcement officials.

My colleagues across the aisle keep claiming that the Administrator, along with DOGE, identified a case wherein an illegal alien--we will get to my thoughts on that term in a minute--received a nearly $1 million loan despite holding only 49 percent ownership of a business.

These allegations are unsubstantiated. We have seen no documents, data, or details that have been shared to support this claim. This claim reportedly came from DOGE, which immediately sets off alarm bells given the well-documented issues with privacy and accuracy since its inception.

It is also troublesome that Republicans are blindly relying on the SBA Administrator's word. At our committee hearing the day before yesterday, all we heard from her was empty rhetoric and evasive answers. I would need to see some evidence before accepting her word on a case such as this.

If we are being asked to enact such drastic measures without proper vetting or a thoughtful process, then we need more than her assurances. We need evidence. We need real facts, not fabricated ones, to back up these accusations.

Republican support for this bill seems to be strictly based on this one case, but without the facts and circumstances, how can we know the truth?

Oftentimes, my counterparts seem to refer to anyone born outside the U.S. as an ``illegal,'' but Democrats understand the nuances of immigration status. What they call an illegal may actually be a visa holder, a green card holder, or someone with DACA or TPS protections. Precision of language matters, especially when it involves accusations of fraud.

That brings me to my next point. Without a full accounting of this case, we could be looking at an illegal rescission of loan funds made by the Trump administration. For all we know, the recipient of that loan was in compliance with the SBA rules at the time, rules that, I should note, were in place during the first Trump administration.

Those rules required 51 percent ownership of a business by a citizen or permanent resident, meaning a 49 percent ownership stake by a short- term resident, like a DACA recipient, was permissible if other requirements were met. It allowed a pathway for hardworking, documented persons to become entrepreneurs and give back to their communities.

Is this administration simply misrepresenting the rules and calling foul for no reason; or are they the ones in the wrong by rescinding a loan that was issued lawfully; or is this all just a manufactured narrative? We may never

know because, despite repeated requests, the Administrator hasn't shared any information.

On that note, if they have identified this as fraud or abuse, then there is a process in place to turn over these findings to the Office of Inspector General and other law enforcement for a full investigation. No such referral has occurred, and no SBA IG has yet been named after the illegal firing of Mike Ware, a respected watchdog praised by Democrats and Republicans alike.

We also keep hearing about the need to protect taxpayers' money and ensure SBA loans go to deserving small businesses. I don't disagree, but I remind my colleagues that some of the individuals they refer to as ``illegals,'' which in many cases means people with TPS or DACA status, do pay taxes. They contribute to Social Security. The previous 51 percent ownership rule recognized that and created a pathway for them to access some entrepreneurial assistance, but only as a minority partner with a permanent resident.

This rule codifies the new rule that 100 percent of the business must now be owned by a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. That might sound reasonable until you hear the real-world consequences.

Businesses could be shut out of SBA lending because of a foreign investor with less than 2 percent ownership. A husband and wife could not get a loan because one of them is a European citizen with an ownership interest in the business. Despite their clear commitment to creating local jobs and investing in their community, under this bill, they are also being penalized.

The harm isn't limited to businessowners. The bill creates a new set of compliance burdens that SBA lenders are not equipped to handle. Banks will have to verify the citizenship status of every owner down to the last percentage point, something they have told us could expose them to legal risk under civil rights laws like the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

We have also heard concerns that the information collected under this bill could be shared with immigration enforcement. This could turn the SBA from a resource for all small businesses into an enforcement arm of DHS. That is not what the SBA is for.

Finally, let me point out the double standard here. For years, Republicans have complained about regulations and reporting requirements being too burdensome for small businesses and lenders, but now they are ready to impose an incredibly complicated, mandatory, and invasive new compliance regime without offering any new resources to support it.

This bill is about scoring political points at the expense of immigrant entrepreneurs. It sends a message that some people, no matter how hard they work or how closely they follow the rules, do not deserve the same shot at success. We should be expanding opportunity, not closing it off.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and stand up for the small businesses that make our communities stronger, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, if this is so easy, then let's bring 1071 back. The type of information that it is requiring and that it is imposing lenders to provide is at the very front end, while 1071 is voluntary at the end of a loan being approved, then we are not burdening small businesses and lenders today.

By the way, this bill likely violates the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. SBA lenders have already told us that they are likely to pull back from lending not to violate ECOA.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. McIver).

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard supporters of this bill say it is about protecting taxpayer dollars and stopping fraud, but the facts just don't back that up. There is no evidence that undocumented immigrants are getting loans they are not supposed to. In the one case Republicans like to cite, not prove, that has been provided, it is highly likely that DOGE and the current administration are confusing the rules that were in place at the time with the stricter 100 percent ownership requirement they imposed later.

That is what this bill is really doing. It targets small business owners who are here legally, people like DACA recipients, visa holders, and refugees; people who are building businesses, creating jobs, and following every rule.

Republicans also claim this bill is about accountability, when in reality it creates a mess for lenders. It forces them to track and verify the age and citizenship status of every single businessowner down to the last percentage point. It requires all of this information just to be considered for the loan, unlike the section 1071 rules which required voluntary reporting after the loan's origination. This bill makes compliance a requisite for obtaining a loan.

I have to ask, after all of the complaints we have heard over the years about section 1071, how do my colleagues justify this now? How do my colleagues justify imposing this regulatory regime against lenders and borrowers?

Right now small businesses are struggling. Tariffs are driving up the costs of goods. Supply chains are under pressure. Instead of giving entrepreneurs the tools they need to grow, this bill adds more barriers and more uncertainty. If it is to become law, it is going to hurt the very small businesses which it will be trying to help.

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

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

Section 1071 the borrower can decline after the loan. The lender cannot get information from a trade group.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters in opposition to the bill, one from the Small Business Majority and another from UnidosUS.

June 5, 2025.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Roger Williams,

Chairman, Committee on Small Business,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nydia Velazquez,

Ranking Member, Committee on Small Business,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Johnson, Chairman Williams, Minority Leader

Jeffries and Ranking Member Velazquez: As a representative of

America's 34 million small businesses, Small Business

Majority writes to express our opposition to H.R. 2931, the

Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act of 2025, and H.R. 2966,

the American Entrepreneurs First Act.

Amid an increasingly more difficult economic environment,

the federal government should do everything it can to meet

small businesses where they are, which is why H.R. 2931 is an

example of a policy proposal that would be ineffective at

best and harmful at worst. The bill, which would require the

U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) to relocate any

regional, district or local SBA office housed in a `sanctuary

jurisdiction', ignores the fact that millions of small

businesses are located in or near cities that could be

designated as a `sanctuary jurisdiction.' Moving offices

farther away from the small businesses they were intended to

support certainly would not facilitate SBA better servicing

these small firms. What's more, there is no evidence to even

suggest that a city's policy toward immigrants has any

relationship to its ability to effectively meet the needs of

local small businesses. With that in mind, we strongly

encourage members of the House of Representatives to ignore

distractions like H.R. 2931 and focus on policies that would

truly benefit America's entrepreneurs.

In addition to ongoing efforts to shutter regional offices,

with no detailed or communicated plans as to where those

offices will be relocated or when, SBA has also slashed its

workforce by 43%, further restricting the agency's ability to

meet the growing demands of today's small businesses. Recent

national polling found that 78% of small business owners are

concerned about cuts to the SBA and its programs. Nearly 8 in

10 small business owners report having used SBA programs for

their business.

Also up for consideration is H.R. 2966, the American

Entrepreneurs First Act, which doesn't live up to its name.

Some small businesses that are majority owned by Americans

have foreign investors, and under this bill those businesses

would be denied access to critical Small Business

Administration resources. What's more, this legislation

ignores the fact that immigrant communities are a vital hub

of entrepreneurial activity in the United States. Immigrants

who may not yet be citizens employ American citizens and pay

taxes to the United States government; they too deserve

access to Small Business Administration resources. Small

Business Majority strongly supports uplifting immigrant

communities working in good faith to obtain U.S. citizenship.

These bills will lead to less vibrant communities and fewer

Main Street business opportunities for many in search of the

American Dream. Congress should do all it can to support

America's job creators, not pick and choose winners within

the small business community based on nothing more than where

a small business owner was born.

We urge your office to oppose H.R. 2931 and H.R. 2966 as

both proposals undermine the

SBA's capacity to carry out its mission and strip resources

away from hundreds of thousands of entrepreneurs.

Sincerely,

John Arensmeyer,

Founder & CEO, Small Business Majority.

Mr. Speaker, let me say that H.R. 2966 will not improve SBA lending or support small businesses. This bill creates new barriers, targets legally operating entrepreneurs, and burdens lenders with requirements they aren't equipped to meet. Small businesses are struggling.

This administration's trade policies have increased uncertainty and made it nearly impossible for many small firms to do business. The small businesses in my district and those that have reached out to my committee are not asking for this legislation. They want stability, and they want more support.

This bill risks making things worse by reducing access to capital for many small businesses that are following the rules. We should be working together to lift these businesses up, not passing laws to punish them.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill and focus instead on solutions that will truly help American small businesses.

Let me say, they brought this bill to the floor without a single hearing, no expert witnesses, no nothing.

Mr. 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, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2931. This bill is not about improving the SBA or expanding support for small businesses. It is about punishing cities for their politics and dragging a vital agency into another culture war.

Earlier this year, the SBA administrator abruptly announced that six regional offices located in cities like New York, Chicago, and Seattle will be relocated. These are some of the most diverse, economically important cities in the country. They are also home to thousands of small businesses that rely on these offices for support.

The decision was made without consultation, without any clear plan, and without even a basic briefing to Congress. In fact, 24 of my colleagues and I sent a letter to the administrator demanding answers. Myself and my colleagues still haven't received an adequate response; just rhetoric.

Now this bill will lock in that same reckless approach and expand on it. It strips regional, district, and local SBA offices out of so- called sanctuary cities, despite there being no legal definition and no justification for such a move.

This isn't about immigration enforcement. It is about politics. This administration wants to punish some of our larger cities because they have the nerve to vote Democratic. It is important to note all of the cities comply with the Federal laws.

Who will this bill hurt? It will not hurt politicians or city officials. It is the small business owners and their employees who will suddenly have to navigate SBA programs without the support they have relied on for years.

At the same time, the SBA is already in crisis. Huge numbers of staff have been fired or forced out. Customer service has plummeted. Small business owners are calling, and no one is there to answer. Now, in the middle of all of that, my Republican colleagues are talking about uprooting even more offices.

This bill doesn't fix anything. It adds more confusion and disruption for the people that are supposed to be helped. It wastes taxpayer dollars to carry out a political agenda, and it ignores the real economic challenges small businesses are facing.

Let's not forget, entrepreneurs across the country are already dealing with higher prices caused by tariffs. That is a direct result of this administration's trade policies. These added costs are squeezing margins and making it harder for small businesses to stay afloat. The last thing they need is less support from the very agency that is supposed to help them. They also don't need to be spending hours traveling to offices to get assistance.

If my colleagues really wanted to support the small businesses, they would be talking about access to capital. They would be looking at how to rebuild SBA policy, not gut it further. They would be focused on lowering costs, expanding outreach, and getting more entrepreneurs the tools they need to grow.

Just maybe, my colleagues could stop playing games and pass a bill exempting small businesses from the pain of this administration's on- again, off-again tariffs.

Instead, Members here are debating a bill that makes things worse. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill, stand up for small business owners in every ZIP Code and restore the SBA mission as a nonpartisan advocate for America's entrepreneurs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. McIver).

Mr. Speaker, it is quite rich to come to the House floor and talk about rule of law. At least on this side of the aisle, we don't have anyone who pardoned 1,500 felons.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Latimer).

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

Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record two news articles about DHS sanctuary jurisdiction lists removed from their website given the fact that their local sheriffs were opposed to the lists, as well as a Third Way article highlighting that the red State murder rate was 33 percent higher than the blue State murder rate, which can be found at: https://www.thirdway.org/report/the-21st- century-red-state-murder-crisis.

[From Chicago Tribune, June 1, 2025]

List of ``Sanctuary Jurisdictions'' Removed From US Government Website

Following Criticism

Washington--A widely anticipated list of ``sanctuary

jurisdictions'' no longer appears on the Department of

Homeland Security's website after receiving widespread

criticism for including localities that have actively

supported the Trump administration's hard-line immigration

policies. The department last week published the list of the

jurisdictions. It said each one would receive formal

notification the government deemed them uncooperative with

federal immigration enforcement and whether they're believed

to be in violation of any federal criminal statutes. The list

was published Thursday on the department's website but on

Sunday there was a ``Page Not Found'' error message in its

place.

What is a `sanctuary jurisdiction' and how was the US list

of them made?

The list was part of the Trump administration's efforts to

target communities, states and jurisdictions that it says

aren't doing enough to help its immigration enforcement

agenda and the promises the president made to deport more

than 11 million people living in the U.S. without legal

authorization. The list is being constantly reviewed and can

be changed at any time and will be updated regularly, a DHS

senior official said.

``Designation of a sanctuary jurisdiction is based on the

evaluation of numerous factors, including self-identification

as a Sanctuary Jurisdiction, noncompliance with Federal law

enforcement in enforcing immigration laws, restrictions on

information sharing, and legal protections for illegal

aliens,'' the official said in a statement.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said on Fox News'

``Sunday Morning Futures'' that there had been anger from

some officials about the list. However, she didn't address

why it was removed.

``Some of the cities have pushed back,'' Noem said. ``They

think because they don't have one law or another on the books

that they don't qualify, but they do qualify. They are giving

sanctuary to criminals.''

The list, which was riddled with misspellings, received

pushback from officials in communities spanning from urban to

rural and blue to red who said the list doesn't appear to

make sense.

In California, the city of Huntington Beach made the list

even though it had filed a lawsuit challenging the state's

immigration sanctuary law and passed a resolution this year

declaring the community a ``non-sanctuary city.''

Jim Davel, administrator for Shawano County, Wisconsin,

said the inclusion of his community must have been a clerical

error. Davel voted for Trump as did 67% of Shawano County.

Davel thinks the administration may have confused the

county's vote in 2021 to become a ``Second Amendment

Sanctuary County'' that prohibits gun control measures with

it being a safe haven for immigrants. He said the county has

approved no immigration sanctuary policies.

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

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

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

I include in the Record letters of opposition from the Democracy Defenders Action, UnidosUS, and the Small Business Majority, all organizations that raise concerns that the bill will deny small businesses access to critical support.

I am writing on behalf of Democracy Defenders Action (DDA),

a non-partisan organization committed to safeguarding our

democracy against rising authoritarian threats. We

respectfully urge you to oppose the Save SBA from Sanctuary

Cities Act, H.R. 2931.

The Save SBA from Sanctuary CMes Act is a blatant attempt

to coerce cities into abandoning their values and violating

the Constitution in service of Trump's unpopular, unlawful

deportation agenda. Cities must have the freedom to protect

their citizens, and the data is clear: cities with welcoming

policies are safer, stronger, and more prosperous.

If passed, this bill would essentially turn small

businesses into collateral damage in Trump's political war on

immigrants--cutting off critical SBA support to entrepreneurs

based solely on where they live. Ultimately, it will be small

business owners, many of whom are already struggling in

Trump's economy, that will be most harmed by the uncertainty

and service gaps prompted by the bill.

Congress must vote NO. Stand with local leaders. Stand with

small businesses. Stand on the right side of history.

Best,

Diamond Brown (she/her),

Senior Policy Counsel,

Democracy Defenders Action.

Mr. Speaker, the SBA is supposed to serve American small businesses, full stop--not just in certain cities, not just when it is politically convenient, but everywhere for everyone.

This bill doesn't meet that standard. It will rip support away from small businesses in the economic centers of this country because of the political party that runs their city. It creates disruption, wastes money, and puts politics ahead of supporting the American economy.

Politicians love to say that small businesses are the backbone of our economy. I ask, why target millions of them by supporting this bill? We should be supporting these businesses, not tearing them down.

The entrepreneurs I hear from aren't talking about asking for this. They are asking for better access to capital, more outreach, and a stable SBA that is there when they need it.

This bill moves us in the wrong direction. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2987, the so- called Capping Excessive Awarding of SBLC Entrants Act, or the CEASE Act.

This bill would impose a permanent statutory cap on the number of small business lending company, or SBLC, licenses the SBA can issue, limiting them to just 16.

While I understand and share some of the concerns raised about how the SBA has handled oversight of these licenses, I cannot support legislation that is rushed, vague, and potentially harmful to the very businesses we are supposed to be helping. Let's take a step back.

For more than 40 years, the SBA maintained a moratorium on new SBLC licenses, citing a lack of resources to properly supervise new entrants. That changed in 2023 when the agency finalized a new rule lifting the moratorium and began issuing additional licenses to expand participation in the 7(a) loan program. The goal was to help fill lending gaps, particularly in underserved communities that have historically struggled to access capital. That is a goal that I support.

I also believe it should be done carefully with the right oversight in place. I raised questions about the SBA's rollout of this policy when it first proposed the rule. I flagged concerns about whether the agency had the capacity to supervise these lenders effectively, and I called for transparency and clarity every step of the way.

I am not here to defend the SBA's process blindly, but H.R. 2987 doesn't actually fix the oversight issues. It just slaps an arbitrary cap on the program without addressing the real questions of how to improve accountability, how to expand access responsibly, and how to ensure these programs are helping the businesses that need it the most.

What is worse, the bill is completely silent on how this cap would apply to the Community Advantage program, a critical SBA initiative that helps make smaller-dollar loans available to startups, veterans, rural entrepreneurs, and other underserved borrowers.

Since being transitioned into the SBLC framework, Community Advantage lenders have continued to show strong results. Last year alone, the program issued over 1,100 loans worth nearly $200 million, with an average loan size of just $175,000.

These are the kinds of loans that traditional banks often will not make because they are not profitable, but they are exactly what many small businesses need to get off the ground. By leaving out an exception for mission-based CA lenders from the cap, this bill opens the door for a future administration to freeze new licenses or even eliminate the CA SBLCs altogether. That is a concern we have heard directly from lenders, community organizations, and small business advocates around the country.

These are the very lenders we relied on to help target PPP assistance to the smallest of small businesses during the global pandemic. They met the moment for many small employers in our communities that were locked out of the first rounds of PPP assistance.

At a time when small businesses are facing rising costs, tariff uncertainty, and tightening credit, Congress should be doing everything it can to expand access to capital, not pulling back on programs that are actually working. That is why I cannot support this bill in its current form.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Morrison).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to oversight. I am not opposed to having a real conversation about the future of SBA programs. I am opposed to legislation that leaves key questions unanswered and puts proven programs in jeopardy.

The Community Advantage program and the CA SBLCs have been a lifeline for thousands of small businesses, particularly in rural areas and for unbanked businesses.

They fill the gap that traditional lenders and larger 7(a) lenders won't. Small and new businesses often require small-dollar loans, not million-dollar loans. They simply need enough capital to get their business off the ground or finance modest expansions. That is why the CA SBLC lenders are so critical to growing our small business ecosystem.

The CA lenders have had bipartisan support for years, so why are my colleagues so afraid to include a provision of congressional intent to protect them from the cap? I just don't get it.

The Small Business Committee has always worked in a bipartisan manner, and here we are with a proven program that has had bipartisan support, and the Republicans with this legislation will put an end to

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit and vote ``no'' on H.R. 2987.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in 1994, Congress established a goal of awarding 5 percent of Federal contracting dollars to women-owned small businesses. Recognizing the obstacles that female entrepreneurs faced when entering and competing in the Federal marketplace, Congress identified this goal as an uphill battle. Three decades later, we can see how much of an understatement that was and how much more work has to be done.

Empowering female entrepreneurs has long been a top priority of mine. In 2000, to give women-owned firms a boost and incentivize agencies to bring in more WOSBs to compete for contracts, I wrote the law and created the WOSB program.

Today, many women-owned firms are critical partners to Federal agencies as a result of that law, yet the WOSB goal has been met only twice, and women-owned firms are not seeing the contracting opportunities that should accompany their level of participation in the market. We need to again provide a boost to the WOSB program and encourage more competition and success for WOSB firms.

My legislation that we are considering today will move more firms through the SBA's certification process so Federal agencies have a larger pool of companies that can trigger WOSB competitions.

Mr. Speaker, it will further protect the integrity of the program. We want to ensure that women-owned firms are who they say they are because that is who the program is designed to empower.

We expect that contracting officers will have more confidence working

with WOSBs, knowing that the SBA has already verified them.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Mr. James ``Jim'' King. Over the span of his career, Jim was instrumental in launching and leading the New York Small Business Development Center, where he served as Executive Director for 33 years.

Through his unwavering dedication, Jim advanced the mission of the NYSBDC by providing one-on-one advisement, training, and research to small business owners across New York State. His impact extended far beyond day-to-day operations, he was a steady force during moments of crisis, guiding NYSBDC's response to both local and national challenges. From playing a vital role in New York's economic recovery after the September 11th attacks, to helping small businesses rebuild following the devastation of Hurricane Sandy, Jim led with vision, and purpose. He was a pillar of our community and a champion for small business.

Jim will be remembered by the New York small business community as a true trailblazer whose dedication profoundly impacted the growth and success of countless entrepreneurs in our state. His legacy will live on in the hearts of those who were touched by his work and the businesses he was crucial to launching. My deepest condolences go out to his wife, his family, and all who had the privilege of knowing him. May he rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jessica Arocho, an exceptional individual who has devoted her life to serving the North Brooklyn community. As the Director of Community Affairs at NYC Health + Hospitals/Woodhull, Jessica exemplifies the spirit of service that defines our community leaders.

Jessica is a true product of Williamsburg, following in the footsteps of her strong Puerto Rican mother, Dona Carmen Gines, and other influential community leaders. Her lifelong commitment to service began in her childhood, when she frequently accompanied her mother to Woodhull Hospital, their trusted medical home. It is also where her youngest daughter was born, and where Jessica began her career in the Youth Outreach program.

Since taking on the role as Director of Community Affairs in January 2020, Jessica has been instrumental in enhancing the hospital's outreach and building partnerships with local organizations. She advocates for good health and promotes positive energy within the community, ensuring that residents have access to essential health resources. Her leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic was particularly noteworthy; she ensured that hospital staff received essential supplies, including meals and personal protective equipment. Additionally, she organized successful initiatives that provided thousands of coats, toys, backpacks, and school supplies to families in need.

Jessica's dedication extends beyond her professional responsibilities. She has served on the Community Advisory Board (CAB) for 16 years, including five years as Chair, and held the position of Vice Chair of the NYC Health + Hospitals Council of CABs. She has also been an integral part of Woodhull's leadership team, advocating for the hospital's funding and operational needs.

Her commitment to the community has been recognized, as she was named to Crain's ``2021 Notable Hispanic Leaders and Executives'' list, highlighting her role as a strong advocate for NYC Health + Hospitals/ Woodhull. Her relentless efforts and steadfast dedication to the Williamsburg and Bushwick communities serve as an inspiration for future generations of leaders.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing Jessica Arocho for her exceptional contributions to our community. Her dedication, leadership, and service are truly commendable, and she represents the very best of Brooklyn.