Capping Excessive Awarding of Sblc Entrants Act of 2025

Floor Speech

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Morrison).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Chu).

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 CA SBLC.

We should be working together to support and expand the CA SBLC program, not passing vague bills that threaten to cut it off.

At a time when small businesses need more capital, more support, and more stability, this bill moves us in the wrong direction.

In sum, I oppose H.R. 2987 because it will not protect the Community Advantage program, which has a solid track record of providing smaller dollar loans to thousands of women, veterans, rural, and underserved entrepreneurs.

At the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to the committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill. My amendment will ensure the requirements of the bill shall not apply to Community Advantage SBLCs, and it prohibits implementation of the bill until the Administrator certifies to Congress that 7(a) loan originations will not decrease to unbanked small business borrowers operating in rural- or low-income markets.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source