American Entrepreneurs First Act of 2025

Floor Speech

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, 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, 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.

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. ____ Tuesday June 3, 2025.

Dear Hill Colleague, On behalf of UnidosUS, we urge Members to vote NO on both the Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act (H.R. 2931) and the American Entrepreneurs First Act (H.R. 2966).

H.R. 2931 represents an unacceptable politicization of the Small Business Administration (SBA), proposing to strip vital SBA resources from so-called ``sanctuary'' jurisdictions. This would deny millions of small businesses, especially those in underserved communities, access to essential services such as loans, disaster relief, and technical assistance, simply based on where they are located. These are businesses already navigating high prices and ongoing economic instability caused by the chaotic policies of the administration. Punishing them because their local governments instituted policies to draw a line between local law enforcement responsibilities and federal immigration enforcement will only deepen inequities and disrupt local economies.

H.R. 2966 adds insult to injury by imposing sweeping new restrictions on SBA loan eligibility, explicitly excluding entrepreneurs with certain immigration statuses--including asylees, refugees, DACA recipients, visa holders, and undocumented individuals. Many of these individuals are lawfully present in the U.S. and are creating jobs, paying taxes, and helping their communities thrive. Shutting them out of SBA programs undermines entrepreneurship, limits innovation, and weakens our long-term economic competitiveness.

Immigrant entrepreneurs open businesses at higher rates than native born Americans and Latino-owned businesses contribute almost $800 billion to the nation's economy. And as we noted in our 2024 analysis on Latina Equal Pay Day, Latinas are key drivers of the U.S. economy. Their economic output exceeds $1.3 trillion, surpassing the GDP of Florida, and they own over a quarter of all Latino-owned businesses. Yet despite these contributions, Latinas face profound structural barriers, earning just 58 cents for every dollar earned by non-Hispanic white men, and with nearly two-thirds lacking access to employer-based benefits. These challenges would be compounded by H.R. 2931 and H.R. 2966, which threaten to strip away the limited federal support many Hispanic entrepreneurs and workers can access.

By excluding entire categories of immigrant entrepreneurs, these bills risk driving more individuals into the shadow economy, undermining transparency and accountability. States and localities have a strong interest in knowing which businesses are operating in their communities, including street vendors and other informal enterprises. Instead of supporting these efforts, the legislation would make it harder to identify and engage such businesses, ultimately hindering local economic development and effective regulation.

Together, these bills are part of a broader effort to scapegoat immigrants, even when doing so comes at the direct expense of American small businesses and working families. We urge Members to reject this harmful and short-sighted agenda by voting NO on H.R. 2931 and H.R. 2966.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, nays 190, not voting 25, as follows: [Roll No. 156] YEAS--217 Aderholt Alford Allen Amodei (NV) Arrington Babin Bacon Baird Balderson Barr Barrett Baumgartner Bean (FL) Begich Bentz Bergman Bice Biggs (AZ) Biggs (SC) Bilirakis Boebert Bost Brecheen Bresnahan Burchett Burlison Calvert Cammack Carey Carter (GA) Carter (TX) Ciscomani Cline Cloud Clyde Cole Collins Crane Crank Crawford Cuellar Davidson Davis (NC) DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Donalds Downing Dunn (FL) Edwards Ellzey Emmer Estes Evans (CO) Ezell Fallon Fedorchak Feenstra Fine Finstad Fischbach Fitzgerald Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Flood Fong Foxx Franklin, Scott Fry Fulcher Garbarino Gill (TX) Gillen Goldman (TX) Gonzales, Tony Gooden Gosar Graves Green (TN) Greene (GA) Griffith Grothman Guest Guthrie Hageman Harder (CA) Haridopolos Harrigan Harris (MD) Harris (NC) Harshbarger Hern (OK) Higgins (LA) Hill (AR) Hinson Houchin Hudson Huizenga Hunt Hurd (CO) Issa Jack Jackson (TX) James Johnson (LA) Johnson (SD) Jordan Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Kaptur Kean Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kennedy (UT) Kiggans (VA) Kiley (CA) Kim Knott Kustoff LaHood LaLota LaMalfa Langworthy Latta Lawler Letlow Loudermilk Lucas Luna Luttrell Mace Mackenzie Malliotakis Maloy Mann Massie Mast McCaul McClain McClintock McCormick McDonald Rivet McDowell McGuire Messmer Miller (IL) Miller (OH) Miller (WV) Mills Moolenaar Moore (NC) Moore (UT) Moore (WV) Moran Murphy Nehls Newhouse Norman Nunn (IA) Obernolte Ogles Onder Owens Palmer Patronis Perez Perry Pfluger Reschenthaler Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rose Rouzer Roy Rulli Rutherford Salazar Scalise Schmidt Schweikert Scott, Austin Self Sessions Shreve Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smucker Spartz Stauber Stefanik Steil Steube Strong Stutzman Suozzi Taylor Tenney Thompson (PA) Tiffany Timmons Turner (OH) Valadao Van Drew Van Duyne Wagner Walberg Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Westerman Wied Williams (TX) Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Yakym Zinke NAYS--190 Adams Aguilar Amo Auchincloss Balint Barragan Beatty Bell Bera Beyer Bishop Bonamici Boyle (PA) Brown Brownley Budzinski Bynum Carbajal Carson Carter (LA) Casar Case Casten Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Cherfilus-McCormick Chu Cisneros Clark (MA) Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Conaway Correa Costa Courtney Craig Crockett Crow Davids (KS) Davis (IL) Dean (PA) DeGette DeLauro DelBene Deluzio DeSaulnier Dexter Dingell Doggett Elfreth Escobar Espaillat Evans (PA) Fields Figures Fletcher Foster Foushee Frankel, Lois Friedman Frost Garamendi Garcia (CA) Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Golden (ME) Gomez Gonzalez, V. Goodlander Gray Green, Al (TX) Hayes Himes Horsford Houlahan Hoyer Huffman Ivey Jackson (IL) Jacobs Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson (TX) Keating Kelly (IL) Kennedy (NY) Khanna Krishnamoorthi Landsman Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latimer Lee (NV) Lee (PA) Leger Fernandez Levin Liccardo Lieu Lofgren Lynch Magaziner Mannion Matsui McBath McBride McClellan McCollum McGarvey McGovern McIver Meeks Menendez Meng Mfume Min Morelle Morrison Moskowitz Moulton Mrvan Nadler Neal Neguse Ocasio-Cortez Olszewski Pallone Panetta Pappas Pelosi Peters Pettersen Pocan Pou Pressley Quigley Ramirez Randall Raskin Riley (NY) Rivas Ross Ruiz Ryan Salinas Sanchez Scanlon Schakowsky Schneider Scholten Schrier Scott (VA) Scott, David Sewell Sherman Simon Smith (WA) Sorensen Soto Stansbury Stanton Stevens Strickland Subramanyam Swalwell Sykes Takano Thanedar Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Titus Tokuda Tonko Torres (CA) Torres (NY) Trahan Tran Underwood Vargas Vasquez Veasey Velazquez Vindman Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Coleman Whitesides Williams (GA) Wilson (FL) NOT VOTING--25 Ansari Buchanan Clarke (NY) Comer Crenshaw De La Cruz Gimenez Goldman (NY) Gottheimer Hamadeh (AZ) Hoyle (OR) Kamlager-Dove Lee (FL) McClain Delaney Meuser Miller-Meeks Moore (AL) Moore (WI) Mullin Norcross Omar Pingree Sherrill Tlaib Van Orden

Ms. STEVENS changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''

So the bill was passed.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Stated against:

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source