[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 96 (Thursday, June 5, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H2483-H2489]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1215
SAVE SBA FROM SANCTUARY CITIES ACT OF 2025
Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 458,
I call up the bill (H.R. 2931) to direct the Administrator of the Small
Business Administration to relocate certain offices of the Small
Business Administration in sanctuary jurisdictions, and for other
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 458, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Small Business, printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed
in part B of House Report 119-130, is adopted and the bill, as amended,
is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 2931
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Save SBA from Sanctuary
Cities Act of 2025''.
SEC. 2. RELOCATION OF CERTAIN OFFICES IN SANCTUARY
JURISDICTIONS.
(a) In General.--The Administrator shall relocate each
covered office located in a sanctuary jurisdiction in
accordance with this section.
(b) Determination Required.--Subsection (a) shall apply
with respect to a covered office only if, prior to ordering
the relocation of such covered office under such subsection,
the Administrator makes a determination that such covered
office is located in a sanctuary jurisdiction and makes such
determination publicly available.
(c) Relocation Requirement.--When relocating a covered
office under this section, the Administrator shall relocate
such covered office to a location that is not in a sanctuary
jurisdiction.
(d) Relocation Deadline.--
(1) Deadline.--Not later 120 days after the Administrator
makes publicly available a determination under subsection (b)
with respect to a covered office, the Administrator shall
relocate such covered office in accordance with subsection
(c).
(2) Noncompliance.--
(A) In general.--If a covered office described in paragraph
(1) is not relocated in accordance with subsection (c) prior
to the expiration of the 120-day period applicable to such
relocation under such paragraph--
(i) not later 5 days after the expiration of such 120-day
period, the head of such covered office shall submit to the
Administrator a written explanation of why such covered
office was not relocated prior to expiration of such 120-day
period; and
(ii) during the period beginning on the day after
expiration of such 120-day period and ending on the date on
which such covered office is relocated to a location that is
not in a sanctuary jurisdiction--
(I) such covered office shall cease operations; and
(II) each employee of the Administration whose duty station
was at such covered office shall be assigned to a duty
station at another covered office that is located in the same
State and not in a sanctuary jurisdiction or, if no other
covered office is located in the same State and not in a
sanctuary jurisdiction, any other covered office that is not
located in a sanctuary jurisdiction.
(B) Removal.--The Administrator shall immediately remove
the head of a covered office required to submit a written
explanation under subparagraph (A)(i) if--
(i) such head does not submit such a written explanation in
accordance with such subparagraph; or
(ii) the Administrator determines that the reasons provided
in the written explanation submitted by such head under such
subparagraph for the relocation of such covered office not
being completed prior to the expiration of the 120-day period
described in paragraph (1) with respect to such covered
office are insufficient.
(e) New Office Limitation.--The Administrator may not
establish a covered office in sanctuary jurisdiction.
(f) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Administration.--The term ``Administration'' means the
Small Business Administration.
(2) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Administration.
(3) Covered office.--The term ``covered office'' means a
regional, district, or local office the Administration, other
than the headquarters of the Administration, or any other
component of the Administration fully funded by funds
appropriated by Congress.
(4) Sanctuary jurisdiction.--The term ``sanctuary
jurisdiction'' means a political subdivision of a State that
has in effect a statute, ordinance, policy, or practice that
prohibits or restricts any government entity or official
from--
(A) sending, receiving, maintaining, or exchanging with any
Federal, State, or local government entity information
regarding the citizenship or immigration status (lawful or
unlawful) of any individual; or
(B) complying with a request lawfully made by the
Department of Homeland Security under section 236 or 287 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226 and 1357)
to comply with a detainer for, or notify about the release
of, an individual.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Small Business or their respective
designees.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams) and the gentlewoman from New
York (Ms. Velazquez) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams).
General Leave
Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and submit extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2931, the Save SBA from
Sanctuary Cities Act of 2025, introduced by Representative Finstad.
This legislation does exactly what is necessary to ensure SBA
employees are safe.
Despite inheriting one of the most secure borders in American
history, President Biden relaxed border policies, and today,
communities continue to deal with these consequences.
I am talking about everything from crime against small businesses
forced to close their storefronts to the death of innocent Americans,
and it hasn't stopped, as evidenced by the tragedy in Boulder,
Colorado, earlier this week.
Thankfully, President Trump is taking action to restore the rule of
law with executive orders that stop the Federal subsidization of areas
that refuse to comply with immigration laws.
This legislation, in part, codifies those efforts and the work
already done at the SBA. Under Administrator Loeffler's leadership, the
regional offices in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Denver, New York City,
and Seattle will be moved to safer communities within those States; but
there are other cities that need to be reached.
Under this bill, the SBA administrator will make determinations on
what offices will be moved and will make those decisions public to
ensure transparency.
It is important to note that SBA services to small businesses
nationwide will not be interrupted by passing this legislation.
[[Page H2484]]
When a small business in any jurisdiction needs assistance, they can
still go to their local small business development center or their
community lender.
The previous administration's border crisis should not put the safety
of small businesses who go to the SBA offices and the SBA employees who
work in those offices at risk.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are going to argue that
Republicans are working to close SBA offices. This bill simply
relocates these offices. As I said before, lending and counseling
services for small businesses will still be provided to constituents.
I urge all of my colleagues who support this bill to make Main Street
safe again.
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 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. WILLIAMS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Alford).
Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for this important
piece of legislation. I thank the ranking member for her passion and
her concern for small businesses in America.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2931, the Save
SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act of 2025, championed by my good friend
Congressman Finstad.
Mr. Speaker, this is not about a culture war in America. This is
about putting American small business owners first, while ensuring
lawless sanctuary cities do not reap the benefits of hosting SBA
offices.
It is pretty simple. This is all about protecting America's small
businesses and making sure that Federal taxpayer dollars are not
funneled into lawless sanctuary cities that put illegal aliens ahead of
their own citizens.
Why should hardworking American entrepreneurs in law-abiding
communities be second in line to support from their own government?
They shouldn't be.
This bill will relocate SBA regional offices from sanctuary
jurisdictions to communities that actually respect the rule of law,
that actually put American citizens first, and that is not
controversial. It is just common sense.
President Biden's open-border policies let in millions of illegal
aliens, unvetted illegal aliens, including dangerous, violent
criminals.
The woke policies of Democrat-run sanctuary cities, fueled by woke
politics, have become magnets for chaos, stretching public resources to
the brink, and crowding out citizens who actually follow the law.
What happens? Well, it often depletes the public resources meant for
U.S. citizens.
Moving SBA offices into nonsanctuary jurisdictions is a step in the
right direction.
Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. The Federal Government should not
reward sanctuary cities with permanent SBA infrastructure. That is not
just wrong, quite frankly, it is insulting to every law-abiding
taxpayer and every small business owner struggling to stay afloat.
These offices have got to be moved.
This legislation is another example of House Republicans working to
codify President Trump's executive orders.
In March, SBA Administrator Loeffler announced a series of actions to
put Americans first, including moving SBA regional offices out of
sanctuary cities. This bill makes it law and backs that up.
This commonsense legislation, as well as others that Members will be
voting on this week, put Americans and American small businesses first.
It puts Main Street first.
Mr. Speaker, people can't stop there. There are many cities that
share the same lawless, woke policies as sanctuary cities. They are
soft on crime, even if they don't wear the sanctuary label outright.
Kansas City is one of those, just as one example. It is not
officially designated as a sanctuary city, but it might as well be a
first cousin of one.
That is exactly why I have asked Administrator Loeffler to relocate
the SBA regional office from Kansas City in Missouri's Fifth
Congressional District down to our district, the Fourth District.
At the end of the day, American citizens and small businesses should
be the ones being served by SBA offices, not illegal aliens in
sanctuary cities.
Let's get serious. Let's put America first, like the mandate directed
to be done in November, the America First agenda led by President
Donald J. Trump.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and vote ``yes'' for
H.R. 2931.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New Jersey (Mrs. McIver).
Mrs. McIVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
the time.
My colleague across the aisle, obviously, wants us to be ``sleep''
because that is the opposite of being woke. I guess my colleagues
should introduce sleepy policies and be ``sleep'' at the job.
[[Page H2485]]
Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong opposition to the efforts to
undermine American small businesses by the very agency tasked with
fueling them.
Let me be clear. This is what H.R. 2931 would do. It would allow the
Small Business Administration to gut punch the small businesses it is
supposed to serve, just to punish cities that embrace their immigrant
communities.
Targeting sanctuary cities, as this bill does, is beyond the scope of
the SBA's duties. It flies in the face of what the SBA is supposed to
do: lift up small businesses in communities across the country, no
matter what city they are located in or what party they belong to.
Rather than driving economic growth, this legislation would strip
essential resources from some of our Nation's most vibrant and diverse
communities. This would hurt the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands
of businessowners. If the New York office were to close, the effects
would spill over into my own community. The SBA office in Newark
services over 800,000 small businesses in New Jersey alone. Cutting
offices from these areas will stall growth and jeopardize jobs. It will
displace employees and disrupt critical services that local businesses
rely on. It will burden nearby offices and stretch resources very thin.
It will make it harder for businessowners to get the help they need
when they need it. Newark's office would be overwhelmed if the New York
City office closes.
This bill weaponizes Federal resources to hurt cities that have made
the choice to protect immigrant communities. This is unjust.
I have worked closely with my Democratic colleagues to raise these
concerns directly with the SBA administrator through multiple letters,
outreach, and even in the Small Business Committee yesterday. SBA's
responses, if any, have been dismissive.
I stand firmly against using the SBA as a tool to penalize cities
based on their immigration policies. I hope my colleagues will stand
with me.
I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities
Act of 2025 to protect the SBA's mission and vibrant economies for all
of our cities.
{time} 1230
Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from the great State of Colorado (Mr. Crank).
Mr. CRANK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2931. We have
allowed sanctuary cities to openly defy Federal immigration law for far
too long. There must be real consequences for it.
I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Finstad) for introducing
this important piece of legislation. I am also grateful to Chairman
Williams of the Committee on Small Business for working with me to
ensure that my community, El Paso County and Colorado Springs, isn't
swept up in the radical sanctuary policies coming out of Denver,
Colorado.
Specifically, I thank the gentleman for accepting our amendment to
ensure that communities like mine, which are fighting back against
criminal-coddling politicians, remain eligible locations for SBA
offices.
We have heard a lot of folks who are opposed to this bill say things
like: It is undermining small business, or: It is creating a culture
war.
This is about the rule of law. This is about cities thumbing their
noses at taxpayers. You aren't entitled to Federal funds in America.
Mr. Speaker, there is a way to keep these offices in these cities:
Stop being sanctuary cities. Comply with the law.
When did complying with the Federal law become something that was
optional in America? It is incredible.
As we hold sanctuary jurisdictions accountable, we must recognize
that not every community in a sanctuary State is part of the problem. I
believe the amended bill draws that line distinctly, and it recognizes
districts, like Colorado-05 that I represent, that have been bravely
pushing back on their own.
When the Biden administration opened our borders and over 8 million
or more crossed into our country illegally, 300 migrants per day rolled
into Colorado because cities like Denver welcomed them with our
taxpayer dollars. Migrants with connections to dangerous gangs, like
Tren de Aragua, didn't just stay in Denver, but they moved to nearby
communities, and they took over apartment complexes that were owned by
individuals.
El Paso County, my county, recognized the threat, but had zero
support from the Colorado legislature, who at the same time passed more
laws to make it worse. The Colorado legislature passed laws prohibiting
law enforcement from honoring ICE detainers. The Colorado legislature
restricted data sharing with Federal immigration agencies. The
legislature also passed a law that banned contracts for immigration
detention centers.
This is lawlessness, and this body should recognize it as such.
In 2024, my good friend, Sheriff Joe Roybal of El Paso County, and
other county leaders filed a lawsuit against the State arguing that
these laws are unconstitutional and that they hamper public safety.
Contrast that with cities like Denver, which have exacerbated their
housing crisis, and they continue to support illegal immigrants, going
so far as to bar city employees from cooperating with Federal
immigration enforcement.
Mr. Speaker, talk about playing politics. That is playing politics.
They passed laws in Denver to create a legal defense fund for illegal
immigrants. They passed a law to spend more than $180 million a year on
related services, all while hosting the SBA regional office and
laughing at the American taxpayers while doing it.
This is unacceptable. Sanctuary cities should not be rewarded with
Federal offices and resources. That is why I wrote to SBA Administrator
Kelly Loeffler urging her to move the regional office to Colorado
Springs, where we cooperate with Federal authorities and support small
business, and we uphold law and order for our citizens.
While President Trump has delivered on his promise to regain
operational control of the border, the fight isn't over. We need full
cooperation between Federal, State, and local law enforcement.
It is unfortunate that Colorado's leadership is still going in the
wrong direction. Despite Governor Polis saying in January that he was
open to working with the Trump administration, he instead signed new
legislation in May that expands protections for illegal immigrants,
even after local officials raised serious concerns.
My community, meanwhile, is doing the work. El Paso County and the
Colorado Springs Police Department are partnering with ICE and the DEA.
In April, they led a nightclub raid that resulted in over 100 illegal
immigrants being detained for human and drug trafficking. This is
something that we are going to support with lawlessness? Not in my
community. In May, they turned over 13 illegal immigrants to ICE
custody.
We understand the real consequences of sanctuary policies. Colorado
has become a haven for illegal immigration. In one tragic case that we
all now know about this week, an illegal immigrant who overstayed his
visa launched Molotov cocktails at innocent Boulder residents in what
was a hateful, racial attack, despite the State knowing that that
person was already illegally in our country. The State of Colorado gave
him a driver's license. We can't let sanctuary jurisdictions defy
Federal law and endanger public safety.
I will be clear. El Paso County, my county, is not a sanctuary
jurisdiction. Despite the policies from Denver, we are committed to
working with Federal immigration authorities and protecting our
communities.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Williams and his staff for working with
me and working with my county. El Paso County is ready and willing to
host the SBA office.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 2931.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. 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. LATIMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
time.
[[Page H2486]]
Mr. Speaker, my district has over 30,000 small businesses, from
restaurants and small grocery stores in New Rochelle to construction
companies in Yonkers.
Every day, I hear from businessowners that they need certainty to run
their businesses. They rely on an immigration system that ensures that
their employees won't be targeted and unjustly detained on their way to
work. They rely on trade policies that keep the cost of their products
stable, and they rely on Federal partners who will be there when they
need assistance.
Since taking office, President Trump and SBA Administrator Loeffler
have outlined an agenda that will harm small businesses. Proposals such
as cutting the SBA workforce by 43 percent; relocating SBA offices away
from New York City, the center of that region; and firing an
independent inspector general do not represent anything that looks like
America First. It is an ideological agenda, and it is imposed upon the
majority of this country that functions differently and requires
tailored policies.
In addition, last week, my home county of Westchester was branded a
sanctuary jurisdiction by the Department of Homeland Security,
completely inaccurately. Westchester is not and has never been a
sanctuary jurisdiction. In the last 7 years, we have reduced violent
crime, and we have brought economic strength over a period of time that
rivals any county in this Nation.
Westchester County cooperates with Federal immigration law. County
law, however, requires that no administrative police can circumvent due
process. We do this to ensure that all residents will cooperate with
local law enforcement.
Westchester rejects the deep state police that appear masked and
without badges and proper identification. This bill represents an
attempt by House Republicans to enact retribution on places because
this administration wants to impose its view of law enforcement: deep
state authority not subject to judicial review.
The result of petty and punitive motives of this bill is that small
businesses will suffer. You would think that, when you offer support
for this President's tariff strategy, reckless as it is, which is
damaging small businesses that rely on international goods, components,
and supplies, they would instead be working to stimulate that. Yet,
this bill could not be further from that goal.
If this bill is passed, SBA offices will be relocated as political
payback, away from public access in major cities. In fact, that is the
point: to reduce programs that help small businesses gain access to
capital, professional services, and predictable tariff policies.
That is why I introduced an amendment to prohibit SBA from relocating
an office if the next closest office is more than 50 miles from the
communities that were relocated. We should be debating legislation that
will help small businesses tackle what they identify as their biggest
needs: workforce development, stability, and access to capital. That is
not what we are doing.
If we continue on this irrational path, American businesses will
suffer.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from New York.
Mr. LATIMER. Mr. Speaker, the mistakes we are making in this
Congress, bill after bill after bill, will damage this Nation's
strength at a time when we need unity and strength more than ever
before.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. 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.
____
[From NPR, June 2, 2025]
Homeland Security Pulls Down List of `Sanctuary' Cities and Counties
After Backlash
(By Ximena Bustillo)
The Department of Homeland Security removed a list of
``sanctuary jurisdictions'' days after the agency posted it
on its website.
The list included dozens of cities and counties across 37
states and the District of Columbia that DHS said were in
noncompliance with federal statutes.
``DHS demands that these jurisdictions immediately review
and revise their policies to align with Federal immigration
laws and renew their obligation to protect American citizens,
not dangerous illegal aliens,'' the DHS page stated.
The list, which posted late last week and came down on
Sunday, was supposed to be the latest step in the Trump
administration's effort to push back against local
municipalities that it believes are obstructing its goals to
increase immigration-related arrests and deportations. Since
the start of the administration, mayors and governors of
cities seen as ``sanctuary'' have been called to testify in
Congress and federal agencies have looked into curbing
federal resources from these areas.
In practice, sanctuary jurisdictions prohibit local law
enforcement from assisting federal immigration officials on
immigration-related operations.
But the list quickly faced intense criticism from mayors
and law enforcement confused as to why they had been
included. Over the weekend, the National Sheriff's
Association President Sheriff Kieran Donahue accused DHS of
lacking transparency and accountability in how the list was
compiled.
``This list was created without any input, criteria of
compliance, or a mechanism for how to object to the
designation. Sheriffs nationwide have no way to know what
they must do or not do to avoid this arbitrary label,''
Donahue said, calling on DHS to remove the list. ``This
decision by DHS could create a vacuum of trust that may take
years to overcome.''
Local leaders across the country also raised issues with
their inclusion on the list. Mayors from Boise, Idaho, and
San Diego, for example, were surprised to see their cities
named. Colorado leaders also raised concerns; Aurora was
removed before the list was posted.
[[Page H2487]]
President Trump issued an executive order on April 28 that
directed the department and the attorney general to publish a
list of states and local jurisdictions ``obstructing federal
immigration law enforcement and notify each sanctuary
jurisdiction of its non-compliance, providing an opportunity
to correct it.''
``Some of the cities have pushed back. They think that
because they don't have one law or another on the books that
they don't qualify but they do qualify,'' DHS Secretary
Kristi Noem on Fox's Sunday Morning Futures.
The list, a senior DHS official said in a statement to NPR,
is constantly reviewed, can be changed at any time and will
be ``regularly'' updated.
``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's statement said.
Since taking office, the Trump administration has taken
steps to retaliate against jurisdictions it considered
``sanctuary.'' For example, the United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services ended coordination on naturalization
ceremonies with ``sanctuary cities that restrict the ability
of law enforcement to cooperate with DHS--in defiance of the
rule of law--to enforce immigration laws and keep American
communities safe from illegal and violent aliens,'' according
to USCIS spokesman Matthew Tragesser.
The administration has vowed to review federal disaster aid
and other assistance that goes to ``sanctuary
jurisdictions.'' The withholding of funding prompted lawsuits
from 16 jurisdictions. A judge blocked the move.
The administration has also taken cities to court over
policies it says limit cooperation with immigration
authorities.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cisneros).
Mr. CISNEROS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for her
leadership on this issue and in the committee.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation does not actually address the safety of
the SBA. Workers are small businesses. Since my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle disagree with the city's policy, the majority chooses
to punish all small businesses in that area.
Let's be clear: This bill strips resources not from cities but for
millions of small businesses, and it makes it harder for Americans to
access assistance to start and grow their businesses.
Supporting small businesses should not be a partisan issue. We in the
Committee on Small Business have heard in our hearings that targeting
SBA resources in major cities will be critically detrimental.
For this reason, 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 this motion with
an important amendment to this bill. My amendment would prevent the
legislation from taking effect until Congress receives reporting from
the SBA on the proposed relocation of covered offices, including a
justification for how these moves could possibly serve small
businesses.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the
text of this amendment immediately prior to the vote on the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. CISNEROS. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in
voting for this motion to recommit.
I also submitted a separate amendment for consideration that would
have prevented the implementation of this bill if the cost of
relocating these offices out of Main Street would be more than zero
dollars. Unfortunately, the Republican majority has blocked my
amendment from receiving a floor vote today.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and to vote in
favor of my motion to recommit.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Correa).
Mr. CORREA. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me begin by thanking the
chair and the ranking member for their interest in good, managed,
efficient SBA offices. They are Federal taxpayer dollars being invested
to make sure that we continue to create jobs in our great country.
That being in mind, I would ask everybody to think about return on
investment to taxpayers. Orange County, California, my home, today is
probably the 30th largest economy in the world. It is home to
Disneyland and the Anaheim Angels, and is probably the 30th largest
economy in the world.
California, which always gets beat up here in this body, just became
the fourth largest economy in the world. Let me say: We are the fourth
largest economy in the world.
{time} 1245
Guess what? As California taxpayers, we pay the Federal Government
$100 billion more in Federal tax dollars than we get back from the
Federal Government. I would say, as an economy, we are doing pretty
good. We need the workers. We need workers.
California has the biggest agricultural sector in the United States.
We feed ourselves and other States in the Union and other nations, and
70 percent of our workforce is--guess what?--undocumented.
We are waiting for this body to pass immigration reform so good,
hardworking individuals can be legalized.
We have the biggest manufacturing sector in the United States. It is
not Pittsburgh or Michigan. California, southern Cal, is the biggest
manufacturing sector in the United States. Guess who most of those
workers are? Undocumented. They also pay Federal taxes.
Let's evaluate the SBA not on rhetoric but on how many jobs an SBA
office creates. What is that return on investment?
I am not sure why we are doing this today. We all know that there are
millions and millions of undocumented workers in this country.
Absolutely, we don't want criminals, hardened criminals, in our
district. I don't want them as my neighbors.
If they are hardworking, honest individuals, taxpayers, what is wrong
with giving them the opportunity to be American, to pursue that
American Dream, and to be legalized? That is what America is all about.
I ask my colleagues to strongly consider their ``yes'' vote and
please vote ``no.'' We are talking about Federal dollars, taxpayer
dollars.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. 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.
____
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.
[[Page H2488]]
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.
____
I'm reaching out on behalf of Small Business Majority to
urge your office to vote NO on H.R. 2931, the Save SBA from
Sanctuary Cities Act of 2025, which would penalize and strip
SBA resources away from hundreds of thousands of small
businesses at a time in which uncertainty on Main Street is
skyrocketing.
H.R. 2931 would require the SBA to relocate any regional,
district, or local office located in a ``sanctuary
jurisdiction,'' without any consideration for the cost or
process of determining a new location for these offices. The
bill follows the SBA's March announcement that it would
relocate six regional offices from major entrepreneurial
hubs, including New York City, Denver, and Chicago. As a
result, hundreds of thousands of small businesses in these
cities now stand to lose access to vital SBA personnel and
resources--simply because the agency is prioritizing a
political statement over the needs of entrepreneurs.
A statement from Small Business Majority Founder and CEO
John Arensmeyer is below:
``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 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
actually 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, 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.
We urge your office to vote NO on H.R. 2931 which would
continue to undermine the SBA's capacity to carry out its
mission and strip resources away from hundreds of thousands
of entrepreneurs for politically charged reasons.
Thank you for your consideration and please let me know if
you have any questions.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. 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. WILLIAMS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 458, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. CISNEROS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Cisneros of California moves to recommit the bill H.R.
2931 to the Committee on Small Business.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Cisneros is as follows:
Mr. Cisneros of California moves to recommit the bill H.R.
2931 to the Committee on Small Business with instructions to
report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendment:
Add at the end the following new section:
SEC. 3. REPORT TO CONGRESS.
(a) In General.--Upon making a determination under section
2(b), the Administrator shall submit to the Committee on
Small Business of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the
Senate a report on the proposed relocation of any covered
office that includes the following:
(1) The number of small business concerns located in the
sanctuary jurisdiction served by the covered office compared
to the number of such concerns located in area to which the
covered office will be relocated.
(2) A detailed summary of the data-driven criteria used to
inform the decision to relocate covered offices located in
metropolitan areas.
(3) An explanation of how a relocation under this Act will
better serve small business concerns.
(4) A detailed list of the district offices of the
Administration that may be impacted by this Act.
(5) A detailed explanation of the plans to maintain the
provision of services of the Administration during and after
relocations made under this Act, particularly in metropolitan
areas that are major economic centers.
(6) A detailed summary of the timeline for the proposed
relocations.
(7) A detailed list, including names and titles of the
employees for each covered office to be relocated.
(8) A summary of established clear, outcome-oriented goals
and performance measures for the proposed relocations.
(9) An explanation of the extent to which such goals align
with the mission of the Administration to--
(A) aid, counsel, assist, and protect the interests of
small business concerns;
(B) preserve free competitive enterprises; and
(C) maintain and strengthen the overall economy of the
nation.
(10) An identification of the individuals responsible for
carrying out a proposed relocation under this Act and the
resources required for such relocation, including a detailed
summary of the experience of such individuals and the ability
of such individuals to manage the relocation process.
(11) A description of the outreach and engagement the
Administrator conducted for small business concerns located
in sanctuary jurisdictions, and the input of such concerns on
the proposed relocation.
(12) A detailed and comprehensive estimate of the cost of
the proposed relocations and an explanation of the funding
for costs associated with such relocations.
(b) Prohibition.--The Administrator may not relocate a
covered office before the day after the date on which
Administrator submits the report required by subsection (a).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
[[Page H2489]]
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. CISNEROS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________