Nydia Velázquez

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, small businesses are being crushed by the Trump tariffs, and the SBA Office of Advocacy, to the best of my knowledge, has not conveyed their concerns to the White House. The Office of Advocacy is supposed to be an independent office within the SBA, and it is responsible for advancing the views and concerns of small businesses before Congress, the White House, Federal agencies, the Federal courts, and State and local policymakers, but it has done nothing on tariffs. That is particularly troubling to me and should be equally troubling to my friends on the other side of the aisle. Instead of helping small businesses that are being crushed by the Trump tariffs, the majority is focused on creating another deregulatory hotline, even though one already exists on regulations.gov. This bill to codify a hotline at the SBA Office of Advocacy is duplicative, unnecessary, and a waste of taxpayers' dollars. The system is clearly broken. For years, the chairman and ranking member of the Small Business Committee have had a strong tradition of working together to find common ground. That cooperation was essential in helping entrepreneurs launch and grow their small businesses. It is exactly what we are losing now. We are wasting valuable time today on bills that are unnecessary, divisive, and a waste of taxpayers' dollars. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues are focused on regulatory bills that will not help small businesses one iota, while allowing the authorization for critical, vital counseling and training programs to lapse. It doesn't make sense. Small businesses deserve better than slogans over substance. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Walkinshaw).

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4305, the Destroying Unnecessary, Misaligned, and Prohibitive Red Tape Act, or the DUMP Red Tape Act. While H.R. 4305 is less objectionable than the other anti- regulatory bills, it is simply not necessary. To begin with, a deregulatory hotline already exists on regulations.gov. Establishing another creates duplication and drains SBA resources. Isn't this contrary to everything Republicans, the administration, and the recently dissolved DOGE effort tried to prevent, duplicity? More concerning, the proposal hasn't been vetted properly. In the first 100-day report, the Office of Advocacy indicated there were 96 small business submissions and, more recently, reported there were 301 submissions. Yet, despite repeated requests for more information, the Office of Advocacy has failed to provide any specific information about this request to the committee--Democrats and Republicans. We have no way of knowing if the submissions are related to rules. They could have easily been about tariffs or unpaid invoices to contractors. To the best of my knowledge, the Office of Advocacy has not weighed in with the administration, which raises concern over its lack of independence from the administration. Turning to the specifics, the bill lacks adequate reporting mechanisms to identify who is making the submissions, leaving it vulnerable to abuse and unable to differentiate between a small business, trade organization, or law firm. The bill focuses on the costs of regulations, not the benefits, which greatly outweigh the costs. For these reasons, I oppose the bill. It is important to note that I said to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that if we can get information from the Office of Advocacy as to what small businesses are actually submitting and the mechanics of the hotline to ensure independence, I would be willing to work with them. Instead, the bill is being rammed through the House to score political points. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill and focus on real solutions to lift up small businesses during these troubling economic times. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

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

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I will close with this: Trump's tariffs, not regulations, are crushing small businesses. I know that it is painful for the other side of the aisle to discuss or even debate the issue of tariffs and how it is negatively impacting small businesses. The President of the United States said that on day one he will lower the costs. Yet, here we are. Witnesses have testified before our committee that the costs of tariffs are harming their small businesses. The uncertainty resulting from the on-again, off-again pronouncements by Trump has halted investment and expansion of small businesses, and it has hindered basic business decisions, like when to put in an order or how to plan for the holiday season. I know they don't want to talk about tariffs and, instead, we are debating these two bills. The American Action Forum estimates that Trump's tariffs are costing small businesses $85 billion a year, and that is not including the cost of navigating the uncertain environment or complying with the tariffs themselves. The tariffs disproportionately harm small firms, which operate on thinner margins and have virtually no buying power. Yet, we are focused today on a regulatory budget that is unworkable. The bill has no exceptions for national emergencies. Let's look back to 2020. SBA issued scores of rules to provide relief to help small businesses during the pandemic, so the author of the bill is incorrect when she claimed that SBA didn't issue regulations to make sure that people accessing the money from PPP will not commit crime, abuse, or fraud. The Paycheck Protection Program imposed significant compliance burdens on small businesses, but I believe we can all attest to the fact that the PPP helped millions of small businesses stay afloat that otherwise would have gone out of business. Clearly, the benefits of those regulations at the time outweighed the costs. Had a regulatory budget been in place in 2020, it would have been extremely challenging for SBA to cut existing regulatory programs to offset the cost of the Paycheck Protection Program. Moreover, many of the lending rules ensure accountability and fair access. Cutting them to free up funds for PPP would have compromised the integrity of the program. Moreover, these funds needed to be disbursed quickly. Imposing a no- new-spending-without-cuts approach would have delayed or reduced aid to small businesses. The bottom line is that this bill is slogan over substance and would harm small businesses rather than help them, particularly in a crisis. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2965, the Small Business Regulatory Reduction Act. Let me begin by stating that I wish we were here to talk about bills to help small businesses grow or policies that address challenges they are facing today, like tariffs and the cost of groceries and healthcare. Instead, we are talking about an unworkable regulatory budget. To be clear, small businesses are not talking about regulations. It ranks near the bottom of their list. Inflation, tariffs, and finding good employees are some of the top challenges facing small businesses. Take a walk down a Main Street, Mr. Speaker, and you will hear the same concern from small business owners up and down the block: The uncertainty and rising costs tied to the President Trump tariffs are crushing their small businesses, plain and simple. We should be working together on issues that matter: lowering costs for small businesses. Instead, we are considering two regulatory bills that will not help them one iota, while real problems go unaddressed. H.R. 2965 may sound good on the surface, but it will have the practical effect of limiting the SBA from issuing any rules, even if the benefits outweigh the costs. The SBA needs to issue regulations to update programs, issue disaster regulations, and even reduce recordkeeping requirements. That is good government practice. The majority fails to realize that agencies may be able to estimate the cost of a regulation, but they do not have the hard data on the costs that are imposed. This bill will require the SBA to make assumptions that could turn out to be incorrect. There is nothing in the bill that clarifies how the agency is to implement a regulatory budget, and it is therefore impractical. Finally, the bill does not include an exception for national emergencies, meaning that if this bill had been enacted before the pandemic, small businesses across the country might not have received PPP assistance in a timely manner, if they received it at all. For these reasons, I oppose the Small Business Regulatory Reduction Act, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. 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.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. 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.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. 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.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. 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.''

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. 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.''

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. 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.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. 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.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. 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.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

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

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. 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.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. 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.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. 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.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. 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).

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. 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.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

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

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

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