Ranking Member Lofgren's Opening Statement at Hearing on Space Commerce's Mission Authorization Proposal

Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose)

(Washington, DC) — Today, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology is holding a Space Subcommittee hearing titled, “A Review of the Office of Space Commerce’s Mission Authorization Proposal.”

Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren’s (D-CA) opening statement as prepared for the record is below:

Thank you, Chairman Haridopolos, for holding this hearing, and thank you to Mr. Jordan for appearing before us today.

The United States has an international obligation under the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 to authorize and supervise non-governmental activities in space conducted by U.S. individuals or entities. Currently, the U.S. policy framework for authorizing and supervising space activities pertains only to commercial launch and reentry, commercial space-based remote sensing, and radiofrequency communications. Yet, we know that much more is on the horizon, or even happening already. It seems like almost every day we are reading about a new planned commercial space technology or service—some more far-fetched than others.  

Just last week, the Federal Communications Commission—the FCC—approved a license for a space activity that will, by design, reflect sunlight back and alter the physical conditions on Earth. In a rare admission, the FCC said that addressing any concerns related to the satellite’s purpose was outside of their jurisdiction. That admission illustrates, in part, why we are here today. No federal agency has statutory authority to oversee novel space missions. 

How we, in Congress, consider which agency should have such statutory authority to ensure novel space activities align with our international Treaty obligations is not just an interesting policy question. There are real risks—including potential financial liability—for the U.S. taxpayer. Companies and investors also need predictability in the regulatory landscape as they weigh business decisions.

We have worked on this topic in multiple Congresses and have seen many proposals over the years from the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch. We have not yet landed on a solution—and we need to.

I believe that we ought to advance a commercial space industry that contributes to the public good and a strong economy. Clarity about who regulates specific activities is needed. I also believe that any solution must allow for some commonsense rules for in-space operations to address international obligations, national security, foreign policy, public health and safety, and national interests—like maintaining a safe and accessible space environment and not undermining our own scientific capabilities on the ground and in space.

In that regard, Mr. Chairman, I would urge that we also consider the expertise and equities of other relevant agencies such as Department of Defense, Federal Aviation Administration, and NASA. 

I also want to highlight one of the Office of Space Commerce’s other activities that is of immense importance: standing up a civil space situational awareness capability to monitor satellites and space debris and notify operators of potential collisions. This effort, called Traffic Coordination System for Space, or TraCSS, has reached a pilot phase.

Yet, inexplicably, the Administration’s fiscal year 2027 budget request does not propose funding to continue the TraCSS project. Do we not need to worry about potential collisions in space, especially as orbits become increasingly congested? 

Despite the importance of TraCSS and a global space economy in the hundreds of billions of dollars, OMB requested just $11 million for the Office of Space Commerce for fiscal year 2027, an 80% cut from the fiscal year 2026 appropriation. Should we conclude from this budget request that the Administration does not prioritize ensuring that the United States remains the world leader in commercial space? It is not clear to me how the Office of Space Commerce would be able to take on the added responsibilities we are to hear about today at that funding level. 

Well, we have a lot to discuss, and I look forward to our witness’s testimony.

Thank you again, and I yield back

Rep. Angie Craig Introduces Legislation to Create a Public Option, Lower Health Insurance Costs for Minnesotans

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Angie Craig (MN-02)

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, U.S. Representative Angie Craig introduced legislation to create a public option and lower health care costs for Minnesotans struggling to afford sky-high insurance premiums.

Rep. Craig’s Medicare-X Choice Act builds on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and Medicare frameworks to create a Medicare Exchange plan that would offer affordable health insurance options to families, individuals and small businesses and increase competition in the health insurance market. The bill would also permanently extend the ACA enhanced premium tax credits that Congressional Republicans allowed to expire at the end of 2025, codify the “family glitch” fix and provide funding for a national reinsurance program – policies that Rep. Craig has long championed.

Americans are facing skyrocketing insurance premiums following the expiration of the ACA tax credits and the implementation of President Trump and Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which cut nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid last year. As a result, 17,000 Minnesotans have dropped their MNSure coverage – the health insurance plan they purchased through the state’s ACA marketplace – this year alone.

“Even before Republicans made historic cuts to Medicaid and stripped the American people of the ACA tax credits they relied on to afford health coverage, it was too expensive to be sick in this country,” said Rep. Craig. “Now, thousands of Minnesotans have lost MNSure coverage and countless others are paying through the roof just to access the basic health care they need. But it doesn’t have to be this way. A public option will offer folks across this country lower premiums for quality care, and that’s why I’m proud to be introducing this common-sense legislation in the house – to actually lower health care costs and increase competition in the marketplace.”

Since coming to Congress in 2019, Rep. Craig has worked to lower health care costs and make quality care accessible to every Minnesotan.

In April, she introduced the Patient Refunds for Bad Denials Act to hold health insurance companies accountable for above-average denial rates and refund patients for medical payments that should have been covered by insurance. And in February, she introduced the Patient Debt Relief Act to ease the burden of medical debt on Minnesotans by protecting individuals from predatory debt collection practices and requiring hospitals to offer more manageable repayment options.

In 2022, the provision of Rep. Craig’s bill that capped insulin copays at $35/month for Medicare recipients was signed into law as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. That same year, Rep. Craig successfully pushed the Biden Administration to close the “family glitch” – a move that lowered health care costs for an estimated 62,000 Minnesotans.

In 2019, Rep. Craig introduced her first health care bill, the State Health Care Premium Reduction Act, which would provide funding for state reinsurance programs to directly lower premiums, out-of-pocket costs and deductibles, and make the ACA tax credits permanent.

Senators Michael Bennett (D-CO) and Tim Kaine (D-VA) have introduced companion legislation in the Senate. Reps. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) and Mike Quigley (D-IL-05) are original co-sponsors in the House. Her bill is supported by Minnesota Senators Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith.

###

New Bipartisan Legislation to Modernize Vaccine Injury Compensation & Provide Relief to COVID-19 Claimants

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Lloyd Doggett (D-TX)

Washington, D.C.—Today, House Ways and Means Committee members Representatives Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) and Lloyd Smucker (R-PA), introduced the Vaccine Injury Compensation Modernization Act to provide overdue updates and improvements to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) and allow pending COVID-19 vaccine claimants to seek relief under the VICP. 

“Vaccines save lives and are an essential public health tool.  In the rarest of instances when a related injury is suffered, compensation for medical bills and related losses should be prompt and reasonable,” said Congressman Doggett.  “But that has not been happening because of extended delays, outdated compensation caps, and failure to include coverage for COVID-19 vaccines.  By making much-needed improvements to assure a prompt and fair response to vaccine-related injuries, this legislation will bolster consumer confidence and help combat misinformation.”

“Vaccines remain an important public health tool, but when rare vaccine-related injuries occur, Americans deserve a compensation system that is fair, transparent, and efficient,” said Rep. Smucker. “Our legislation strengthens the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program while bringing COVID-19 vaccine claims into the program, so they are handled under the same fair and efficient process as other vaccine injury claims.”

Established in 1986, the VICP provides a no-fault alternative to the traditional legal system through which consumers can be compensated for rare vaccine-related injuries.  The VICP provides necessary protections and certainty for patients, vaccine administrators, and vaccine manufacturers alike, but has not been significantly updated since first established and now has a significant case backlog.

Due to the unique emergency authorizations first granted to COVID-19 vaccines, injury claims were initially filed under the separate Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP).  Despite COVID-19 vaccines receiving full FDA approval and being added to immunization schedules, COVID-19 vaccine claims still remain under the CICP, which has not yet rendered decisions on over 6,745 claims and provided only nominal payouts for the very few approved.  Unlike the VICP, the CICP does not offer judicial review and claimants may only recoup medical and work-loss expenses that have not been compensated by other payors.  The VICP offers stronger due process protections as well as damages for pain and suffering, though these damages are capped at 1986 levels.

The Vaccine Injury Compensation Modernization Act would:

  1. Permit COVID-19, RSV, Shingles, and Dengue vaccine claims to be filed under the VICP.
  2. Reduce case backlog by expanding the number of Special Masters (judges for the VICP) from a ceiling of 8 to a floor of 10 and by permitting Special Masters to serve for multiple terms.
  3. Expedite claims processing by requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Attorney General to submit a budget implementation action plan outlining the required resources to eliminate case backlog.
  4. Provide fair compensation by increasing the cap on damages for the first time since 1986.
  5. Ensure adequate program resources by increasing the vaccine excise tax for the first time since 1986.
  6. Ensure consumers have sufficient time to file claims by increasing the statute of limitations from 3 years to 5 years.
  7. Expedite the addition of new vaccines to the program by requiring HHS to promulgate rulemaking to add a CDC-recommended vaccine or injury to the injury table within 6 months of a recommendation rather than 2 years.
  8. Expand the types of vaccines eligible for coverage under the VICP by including vaccines and injuries recommended by the CDC for administration in adults.
  9. Ensure all types of CDC recommendations qualify for VICP coverage, including recommendations that may be qualified for certain pre-existing conditions, age groups, or other factors.

A copy of the bill text can be found here.

###

Maryland Democrats Urge OMB to Rescind Rule Politicizing Federal Grant Decision-Making

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Steny H Hoyer (MD-05)

WASHINGTON, DC – Maryland Congressional Delegation members – Congressman Steny H. Hoyer (MD-05), U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks (both D-MD), and U.S. Representatives Kweisi Mfume (MD-07), Jamie Raskin (MD-08), Glenn Ivey (MD-04), Sarah Elfreth (MD-03), April McClain Delaney (MD-06), and Johnny Olszewski (MD-02) – are calling out the Trump Administration’s attempts to undermine and politicize the federal grant-making process. In a letter to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought, the lawmakers press OMB to rescind a new proposed rule that would overhaul the grantmaking and cooperative agreement processes across the entire federal government, centralizing power within OMB, reducing transparency and accountability, undermining Congress, and clearing the path for the Trump Administration to continue weaponizing and politicizing the federal grantmaking process. 

“We write to express strong opposition to the Office of Management and Budget’s sweeping proposed “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance” rule that would completely overhaul and politicize the grantmaking and cooperative agreement processes across the entire federal government,” the lawmakers begin.

They go on to stress the importance of federal grants, noting, “Across the state, federal investment supports research into our ocean and waterways as well as our air, crops, livestock and soil. Federal grants support advancements in health and medicine including research into the treatment of diseases such as pediatric cancer and sickle cell disease and drive the development of new technologies that will keep Americans healthy. Grant-funded childcare through Head Start and Early Head Start serves families from the Eastern Shore to Garrett County. These dollars power cutting-edge developments in space technology, satellites, AI, and quantum computing. Federal funds also allow organizations to support victims of sexual assault, violence, and other crimes. The proposed Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance represents a threat to every one of those efforts to better American lives, strengthen our economy, and keep our country competitive.”

On the proposed rule, the lawmakers write, “In reality, if finalized, this more than 400-page rule will make significant, sweeping, and binding policy changes to the Uniform Guidance across more than 40 federal grant-making agencies and offices responsible for awarding billions of dollars in funding and federal financial assistance each fiscal year. It would codify the Trump Administration’s campaign to eviscerate our research infrastructure and authorize more arbitrary cancellations, job losses due to funding uncertainty, and disruptions of work that require consistent data collection to maintain scientific validity.” 

“This rule would further centralize power within OMB giving it authority over the heads of dozens of federal agencies as well as merit-based processes in matters of grantmaking and cooperative agreements. In doing so, this rule would place layers of bureaucratic and political red tape between elected representatives who are Constitutionally-responsible for appropriations, the federal agencies whose resources support our state and help drive our local economies, and Marylanders who rely on grants to support valuable research and services,” they continue. 

The lawmakers detail the impact of federal grants on Maryland, noting, “Since the beginning of the President’s term, the Administration and OMB’s intentional delay in spending appropriated funds, grant terminations and disruptions, and overall fewer federal grants being awarded has impacted billions of dollars in federal funding to Maryland, including our state and local governments, schools, and research institutions. As a result, hundreds of our constituents have lost their jobs, Maryland research institutions and universities are undergoing hiring freezes and layoffs, and graduate and post-doctoral programs have been forced to cut or limit admissions–all which threaten to stifle U.S. leadership and innovation for decades to come.” 

“The people of Maryland and the United States deserve actual transparency, reliability, and accountability from our federal government, not arbitrary rules and political interference from OMB that would weaken our scientific and research enterprise, risk more jobs, and slow down hard-won progress. We urge you to rescind this proposed rule immediately,” the lawmakers conclude.  

The full text of the letter is available here and below.

Dear Director Vought:

We write to express strong opposition to the Office of Management and Budget’s sweeping proposed “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance” rule that would completely overhaul and politicize the grantmaking and cooperative agreement processes across the entire federal government.

Year after year, Maryland turns federal investment into public goods with national and global benefits. Across the state, federal investment supports research into our ocean and waterways as well as our air, crops, livestock and soil. Federal grants support advancements in health and medicine including research into the treatment of diseases such as pediatric cancer and sickle cell disease and drive the development of new technologies that will keep Americans healthy. Grant- funded childcare through Head Start and Early Head Start serves families from the Eastern Shore to Garrett County. These dollars power cutting-edge developments in space technology, satellites, AI, and quantum computing. Federal funds also allow organizations to support victims of sexual assault, violence, and other crimes. The proposed Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance represents a threat to every one of those efforts to better American lives, strengthen our economy, and keep our country competitive. We urge you to immediately rescind this proposed rule that will further risk evidence-based science, research, and innovation in Maryland and across the United States.

On Friday, May 29, 2026, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in conjunction with federal grant-making agencies, published a proposed rule in the federal register with the stated intent to “improve and clarify government-wide policies and requirements related to the management of Federal financial assistance including grants and cooperative agreements.” The purported objectives of the proposed rule include: improving transparency, accountability, and oversight of federal funds; reducing recipient burden; and clarifying 2 C.F.R regulatory text– commonly referred to as the “Uniform Guidance”– as an OMB regulation.

In reality, if finalized, this more than 400-page rule will make significant, sweeping, and binding policy changes to the Uniform Guidance across more than 40 federal grant-making agencies and offices responsible for awarding billions of dollars in funding and federal financial assistance each fiscal year. It would codify the Trump Administration’s campaign to eviscerate our research infrastructure and authorize more arbitrary cancellations, job losses due to funding uncertainty, and disruptions of work that require consistent data collection to maintain scientific validity.

This rule would further centralize power within OMB giving it authority over the heads of dozens of federal agencies as well as merit-based processes in matters of grantmaking and cooperative agreements. In doing so, this rule would place layers of bureaucratic and political red tape between elected representatives who are Constitutionally-responsible for appropriations, the federal agencies whose resources support our state and help drive our local economies, and Marylanders who rely on grants to support valuable research and services.

The federal grantmaking process includes essential, non-political guardrails that this rule seeks to eviscerate. Should it be finalized, OMB would have the legal authority to cancel any grant at any time simply because it no longer aligns with “federal agency priorities.” In almost all circumstances, Maryland grant recipients would not be able to appeal that decision or have a neutral party, such as a judge, review it. Just last year, legal action helped restore millions of dollars in wrongfully cancelled funding by the Trump Administration for AmeriCorps, mental health services, and biomedical research, among others. This proposed rule would make such cancellations easier. Without the ability to appeal or contest an arbitrary cancellation, grant- supported research including clinical trials and jobs can end with the stroke of a pen. Allowing political appointees to have the final say, rather than merit-based processes or Congress’s decision to fund programs, does not advance the stated goals of transparency or accountability.

Further, the rule contains a tangle of undefined new standards that would not clarify regulations. Federal regulations must be sufficiently clear to allow recipients to understand and comply with their obligations in good faith. This proposed rule introduces new criteria for evaluating grants such as adherence to “gold standard science,” whether they “promote anti-American values,” or specific consideration for, “a history of questionable practices,” like “affiliation with a group that has undermined public safety” but does not provide meaningful definitions for these new standards. Grantees must even ensure that all subrecipients do not, “take actions that could significantly damage the reputation of the pass-through entity, the Federal agency making the award, or the Federal Government.” The rule does make clear, however, that non-compliance with any of the new vague and underdefined standards can result in immediate termination of support.

Beyond the arbitrary standards that are ripe for abuse, this proposed rule seeks to prohibit freedom of association, speech, and the international collaboration that has made Maryland a leader not only in our region, but in the world. This regulation would bar researchers from using federal funds to publish the research they undertake with our collective resources and would prohibit researchers from attending professional conferences without pre-approval from the federal government. This rule would also presumptively prohibit many international collaborations and further restrict any scientific engagement with foreign entities. Fields from biomedical research to space science regularly put Marylanders in the position of leading work with teams of scientists and engineers in other countries. While security safeguards are always important, this rule would not strengthen them, but in practice, will limit freedom, research, and collaboration in the name of security.

Of course, this proposal does not come in a vacuum; it is being offered in the midst of illegal attacks, uncertainty, and gutting of the entire U.S. scientific and research enterprise by the Trump Administration. We are facing the consequences of these actions in real time. In fiscal year 2025 alone, the Trump Administration indiscriminately terminated thousands of NIH grants and disrupted more than 300 clinical trials, putting thousands of patients including children at risk. Recent reports suggest hundreds of NIH grants are actively being delayed because of the Administration’s unprecedented politicalization of the NIH grant review process–and as a result, Maryland-specific NIH competitive awards have decreased by 33% in fiscal year 2026 compared to prior years.

Since the beginning of the President’s term, the Administration and OMB’s intentional delay in spending appropriated funds, grant terminations and disruptions, and overall fewer federal grants being awarded has impacted billions of dollars in federal funding to Maryland, including our state and local governments, schools, and research institutions. As a result, hundreds of our constituents have lost their jobs, Maryland research institutions and universities are undergoing hiring freezes and layoffs, and graduate and post-doctoral programs have been forced to cut or limit admissions– all which threaten to stifle U.S. leadership and innovation for decades to come.

The people of Maryland and the United States deserve actual transparency, reliability, and accountability from our federal government, not arbitrary rules and political interference from OMB that would weaken our scientific and research enterprise, risk more jobs, and slow down hard-won progress. We urge you to rescind this proposed rule immediately.

Trahan, Markey, Warren Introduce Legislation to Provide Grants for Local Water Infrastructure Emergencies

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA-03)

Today, Congresswoman Lori Trahan (MA-03), Senator Edward J. Markey (D-MA), and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) introduced the Water Emergency and Technical Assistance Act to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize emergency assistance and grants for clean water and drinking water infrastructure.
When severe rainstorms in June caused a sewer pipe to break in Haverhill, Massachusetts, millions of gallons of untreated wastewater flowed into the Merrimack River, endangering public safety and resulting in economic losses from beach and fisheries closures. This legislation would provide technical and financial support to water treatment facilities during emergency situations in order to prevent and mitigate threats to public health, such as exposure to contaminants. 
“Haverhill showed us what happens when a century-old system fails and the federal government is nowhere to be found. Cities were left to fight sewage flowing into the Merrimack with local dollars and borrowed time,” said Congresswoman Trahan. “Our bill fixes that. It puts real federal money on the table the moment an emergency like this hits, so no community has to face it alone.”
“Water system emergencies spell disaster for their communities—they’re expensive, bad for business, and dangerous to public health. Our communities deserve clean water and quick access to support in response to emergency situations that put their health and economies in danger,” said Senators Markey and Warren. “The federal government should be able to provide emergency grants for emergency situations. This legislation would authorize grants for clean water and drinking water, so we can spend more time keeping our communities safe and local businesses open and less time hiking rates and fighting pollution.”
The Water Emergency and Technical Assistance Act would create a new emergency grant program under the Clean Water Act, funded at $50 million annually, to help communities respond immediately to failures in their wastewater systems, including combined sewer overflows and other critical system failures that threaten public health. The program would also make emergency funding and technical assistance available for other threats to water systems, including cybersecurity breaches that pose a substantial risk to public health. Additionally, the bill would reauthorize and expand the existing emergency grant program for drinking water systems under the Safe Drinking Water Act, increasing annual funding from $35 million to $50 million.
Last month, a main sewer line in Haverhill broke following intense rainfall, discharging untreated wastewater into the Merrimack River, forcing the temporary closure of multiple North Shore beaches, and halting local shellfish operations. The city moved quickly to install an emergency bypass, but it did so with little federal support. Had the bill introduced today been in place, Haverhill could have received federal emergency funds to support its immediate response, including the bypass installation.
The Water Emergency and Technical Assistance Act builds on Trahan’s ongoing efforts to secure federal support for communities along the Merrimack River. Yesterday, she led a request to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin requesting rapid response funding for water emergencies, long-term investment in replacing aging infrastructure, and restored grant funding for combined sewer upgrades. Trahan also introduced the bipartisan Stop Sewage Overflow Act to grow federal investment in combined sewer overflow projects to $500 million annually, and has secured direct community project funding for CSO work in Haverhill, Methuen, and Lowell. Emergency response funding would complement the long-term federal investment needed to complete wastewater system upgrades like the one underway in Haverhill for nearly a decade.
Full text of the can be accessed HERE.
###

CONGRESSWOMAN PLASKETT EXPRESSES CONDOLENCES ON PASSING OF ATTORNEY MICHAEL JOSEPH

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Stacey E. Plaskett (USVI)

For Immediate Release                             Contact: Tionee Scotland
July 14, 2026                                                   202-808-6129

PRESS RELEASE

CONGRESSWOMAN PLASKETT EXPRESSES CONDOLENCES ON PASSING OF ATTORNEY MICHAEL JOSEPH

U.S. Virgin Islands – Congresswoman Stacey E. Plaskett released the following statement on the passing of Attorney Michael Joseph:

“I was saddened to hear of the passing of Attorney Michael Joseph, a man whose life reflected a genuine passion for the law and a deep commitment to serving the people of St. Croix. Attorney Joseph dedicated his career to the practice of law in the community he called home, and his work touched the lives of countless Virgin Islanders who sought his counsel and trusted his judgment.

“Beyond his legal practice, Mr. Joseph was an author who took on the difficult but necessary task of chronicling a painful and pivotal moment in Virgin Islands history, ensuring that our stories, however hard to tell, are never forgotten. He also served our community through his work on the Board of Elections, helping to safeguard the democratic process for the people of the Virgin Islands.

“Mr. Joseph’s legacy as a jurist, historian, and public servant will continue to be felt throughout our community for years to come. I offer my prayers for peace and extend my deepest condolences to the Joseph family and all who knew and loved him during this difficult time.”

###

Amodei Votes in Favor of Passing of Sunshine Protection Act

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Mark Amodei (NV-02)

Washington, D.C. – Today, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 139, the Energy and Commerce Committee’s Sunshine Protection Act. The passing of this bill makes Daylight Savings time permanent, eliminating the need to turn back the clocks come November.

Congressman Mark Amodei released the following statement:

“I am proud to join the majority of my colleagues in the passing of the Sunshine Protection Act,” said Rep. Amodei. “I have spoken with countless Nevadans over the years that are in favor of making Daylight Savings permanent. This bill is the first step in allowing them to do so. The Sunshine Protection Act improves the quality of life for not only Nevadans, but all Americans, providing an additional hour of light at the end of the day.”

Key Takeaways:

  • This is the first time the House has fully backed this bill since it was first introduced in 2018;
  • 19 states across the U.S. have already passed this legislation or implemented similar resolutions;
  • The Sunshine Act is a bipartisan bill that eliminates biannual clock change;
  • This will provide an additional hour of daylight at the end of the day, improving quality of life following the workday.

Hoyer: Small Businesses and Their Employees Deserve Better than They're Getting

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Steny H Hoyer (MD-05)

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Congressman Steny H. Hoyer (MD-05), Ranking Member of the Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) Appropriations Subcommittee, delivered opening remarks and questioned Administrator Kelly Loeffler during an FSGG oversight hearing of the U.S. Small Business Administration:

Click here to watch a video of his opening remarks.
Click here to watch a video of his questioning.
 

Opening Remarks

“Madam Administrator, welcome. Glad to have you with us. As we all know, small businesses are the heart and soul of America’s economy. More than 36 million people are employed, in excess of 62 million American workers work for small businesses. That’s 46% of our workforce. These small businesses and their employees deserve better than they’re getting. The administration’s mantra continues to be: You’re on your own. That’s certainly been the SBA’s approach over the past year and a half. A proposed 67% cut that would stifle assistance and resources that help small businesses grow: the elimination of programs that help women and minority business owners who face extra hurdles to starting and growing their businesses – which I’m sure you know a lot about – withholding disaster loans from states because of politics, such as occurred in Western Maryland, new fees imposed on small businesses and limits on borrowing, attempts to shrink the agency under DOGE and limit the good it can do for so many millions of our people, and eliminating 15 out of 16 entrepreneurial development programs. Let’s be clear: the SBA’s role isn’t to give handouts, it’s to reach a hand out; a helping hand to those who need some extra support while they do the hard work of creating jobs.

“President Trump has called himself, quote, ‘The greatest jobs president God ever created.’ Excuse me, God. You can’t make that frankly absurd claim if his SBA continues down the path that has been on, Administrator Loeffler, you’ll have a clarity, I’m sure, for our subcommittee today. Why? Under your leadership, the SBA is making it harder for Americans to start businesses, grow businesses, and hire more American workers. I hope you’re prepared to explain why you and the President continue to tell American workers and small businesses owners, ‘You’re on your own,’ especially in this economy where inflation and higher costs, driven by the President’s war of choice in Iran, are causing so many small businesses and working families to struggle. I heard just yesterday from a small business owner in La Plata, Maryland, in my district, that sells, rents and repairs musical equipment for families and schools [that] their business is struggling because of the high costs resulting from the President’s illegal tariffs. Its owner reached out to me, in advance of today’s hearing, he wrote, and I quote, ‘Unlike large national chains, small businesses have very limited ability to absorb these rising costs. As prices increase, fewer families can afford to participate in school music programs, and school music departments face greater challenges stretching already tight budgets. I hope your subcommittee –’ he [was] talking to me – ‘will consider the impact these tariffs have on local businesses like ours and schools and families we serve.’

“Small businesses like the one I just spoke of deserve our help, and they deserve answers. Instead of telling them you’re on your own, we ought to be doing everything we can to help them make it in America. I look forward to hearing, Madame, your testimony and your observations. And I’ll ask some questions about why we have less resources than the Congress believed were necessary. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.”

Questioning

RANKING MEMBER HOYER: “Madam Administrator, the Congress appropriated funding for SBA’s entrepreneurial and development program, some of which you’ve talked about: SBDCs, women business centers, SCORE, veterans, business outreach centers, and others. Is the SBA currently withholding, delaying, or otherwise failing to obligate any of that appropriated funding?”

ADMINISTRATOR LOEFFLER: “So, Ranking Member Hoyer, no, in fact, we are facilitating the release of those funds that under the Biden Administration, as far back as 2021, were never provided, which were required statutorily to be sent out. We’re managing $340 million when we came in on day one that had never been disbursed, and we had to entirely fix the technology that supported it and the grants management program. We’ve rebuilt that. We rebuilt it ahead of schedule, and now we’ve already got, already a $106.5 million of that backlog from the last administration out, while getting most of what we’ve committed to getting out. And we will – I commit to you that we will follow the law and get the funding out as deemed appropriate by this body.”

RANKING MEMBER HOYER: “Have you received any directions from OMB at any time during the course of your administration at the SBA, to not disburse funding that has been appropriated?”

ADMINISTRATOR LOEFFLER: “Well, we’re working closely, both internally and externally. So, we work with OMB, we work with our internal political and career colleagues to ensure that the funds are going out as directed, as intended by Congress and that they meet the law and that they meet the executive orders. And so, we have continued to look at meeting all those objectives and making sure that the programs – I think small businesses would be interested to know that some of the programs that were lined up for funding were things like the Bi-National Institute for Human Development, which supports illegal aliens in Guatemala and Mexico and the Chinese Mutual Aid Society –”

RANKING MEMBER HOYER: “Excuse me, Madam Administrator, I have limited time and my question was pretty simple, which I don’t think you’ve answered. And that is, have you been directed at any point in time since you have been the Administrator of the SBA by OMB and Mr. Vought – not necessarily him personally – but OMB, to not expend money that had been appropriated by Congress?”

ADMINISTRATOR LOEFFLER: “I have been directed to follow the law, and in doing so, I am following the way the White House executive orders. I’m working internally, and we’re making sure that everything that is that you have directed to get out gets out. But we are not going to blindly write blank checks like the last administration did to the Chinese Mutual Aid Society that got $4 million –”

RANKING MEMBER HOYER: “I know – let me reclaim my time, because my time is short. You didn’t answer the question. I didn’t ask you whether you have done things that are prudent to do. I asked you, have you been directed by either Mr. Vought directly or OMB not to expend funds that were appropriated by the Congress of the United States that you’re avoiding. That’s an either yes or no question.”

ADMINISTRATOR LOEFFLER: “I think I’ve been very clear that we are following all requirements to get –”

RANKING MEMBER HOYER: “No, that’s not very clear.”

ADMINISTRATOR LOEFFLER: “I do not work directly on grant disbursements, and I’ll be happy to have my team follow up with you to clarify. But all of the funding that we’ve committed to getting out, we are getting out. Let me be clear: the Biden Administration did not get their money out. $340 million, we are cleaning that up by applying not just the technology, but the framework to make sure grant funding to the nonprofits that are not blank checks to –”

RANKING MEMBER HOYER: “Please, Madam Administrator, my time is very limited, and you are filibustering. Now, with all due respect, you’re closing up [in] cities around the country. in terms of your reorganization to which the Chairman referred. Is that accurate?”

ADMINISTRATOR LOEFFLER: “That’s inaccurate.”

RANKING MEMBER HOYER: “Okay. What is accurate?”

ADMINISTRATOR LOEFFLER: “When I came in, we had 132 offices. I think people would be shocked to know that we had 132 offices, 29 of which had 0 or 1 employee, and then –”

RANKING MEMBER HOYER: “Okay. Are you closing offices?”

ADMINISTRATOR LOEFFLER: “Yes, we absolutely are.”

RANKING MEMBER HOYER: “Can you name me an office that you are closing that is in a blue city or blue district? One?”

ADMINISTRATOR LOEFFLER: “We don’t classify them by blue city –”

RANKING MEMBER HOYER: “Can you name one?”

ADMINISTRATOR LOEFFLER: “We are making several –”

RANKING MEMBER HOYER: “The President said he did consider the politics.”

ADMINISTRATOR LOEFFLER: “We’re changing areas –”

RANKING MEMBER HOYER: “Can you name one, Madam Administrator?”

ADMINISTRATOR LOEFFLER: “I can name several. Yeah, I can tell you we have had to move out –”

RANKING MEMBER HOYER: “What are they?”

ADMINISTRATOR LOEFFLER: “Los Angeles, Portland, New York, Chicago, Atlanta.”

RANKING MEMBER HOYER: “No, that were closed. Can you name me one that is scheduled to be closed that is not in a blue district.”

ADMINISTRATOR LOEFFLER: “Yeah, I’m sure I can. I’ll be happy to get that district or the city. We don’t target them by blue or red –”

RANKING MEMBER HOYER: “No, I understand, but it would be –”

ADMINISTRATOR LOEFFLER: “– we target them, by, ‘Is there anyone working in that office?’ Let me give you an [example], we had an office for four years that had no employees working in it. We didn’t even have access.”

RANKING MEMBER HOYER: “You ought to close it. Matter of fact, it was closed if you had no people working in it.”

ADMINISTRATOR LOEFFLER: “We were paying – the taxpayers were paying for it. The taxpayers are now saving $32 million thanks to –

RANKING MEMBER HOYER: “Madam Administrator, with all due respect, I’ve asked you two direct questions, you have not answered either one of them.”

ADMINISTRATIVE LOEFFLER: “I’m here to advocate –”

RANKING MEMBER HOYER: “That’s regrettable. I will send you some questions in writing. I would hope you would answer them. Thank you very much.”

Sánchez cosponsors Block the Bombs Act

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Linda Sanchez (38th District of CA)

WASHINGTON – Congresswoman Linda T. Sánchez (D-Calif.) released the following statement after signing on to cosponsor the Block the Bombs Act:

“As a mother, I’m heartbroken by the devastating loss of innocent lives and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran. This cannot continue. That is why I oppose providing offensive weapons to Prime Minister Netanyahu and his far-right government without meaningful safeguards or accountability.

“While I have consistently supported defensive aid for close American allies, military aid for Israel must include strong conditions to prevent further suffering. This bill applies only to offensive weapons and won’t affect other aid, including funding for the defensive Iron Dome, humanitarian assistance in Gaza, peacebuilding or U.S. embassy operations.

“Lasting peace will only come through diplomacy and dialogue, but that cannot happen until Israel’s attacks end and civilian lives are protected.”

###

Congressman Riley M. Moore’s ‘Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act’ Passes U.S. House

Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Riley Moore (WV-02)

Washington, D.C. – Today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed Congressman Riley M. Moore’s bill, H.R. 1181, the Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act. This legislation safeguards the constitutional rights and privacy of law-abiding gun owners by prohibiting payment processors and financial institutions from using discriminatory merchant category codes (MCCs) to track firearm and ammunition purchases.

Congressman Riley M. Moore released the following statement:

“The Second Amendment is not a second-class right. Americans should never have their lawful firearm purchases tracked by financial institutions or payment processors. The creation of a separate merchant category code for gun stores at the behest of the Democrat-affiliated Amalgamated Bank opens the door to creating an unconstitutional backdoor gun registry and discrimination against law-abiding gun owners. My bill stops this dangerous overreach, protects consumers’ financial privacy, and ensures that a backdoor federal gun registry can never be created through credit card transaction data. I’m proud the House has acted to defend both the Second Amendment and Americans’ right to privacy.”

In 2022, the International Standards Organization approved the creation of a separate merchant category code for firearm and ammunition retailers. Merchant category codes are four-digit identifiers used by payment processors to classify businesses based on the products they sell. The creation of a distinct code for gun stores raised concerns that financial institutions could use payment data to monitor, flag, and track lawful firearm purchases, creating a backdoor gun registry without congressional authorization.

As West Virginia State Treasurer, Moore successfully led the charge to ban financial institutions from implementing the firearm retailer specific merchant category code for West Virginia retailers. 

H.R. 1181 passed the House with the support of 132 cosponsors, including original cosponsors, Rep. Andy Barr and Richard Hudson, and is backed by leading Second Amendment organizations, including the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, Gun Owners of America, the National Rifle Association, and Heritage Action. 

The Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act:

  • Prohibits payment card networks from requiring firearm retailers to use a distinct merchant category code that separates them from general merchandise or sporting goods stores.
  • Bars financial institutions from assigning separate merchant category codes to firearm retailers.
  • Establishes federal enforcement mechanisms authorizing the Attorney General to investigate violations, issue compliance orders, and seek injunctions against entities that attempt to track firearm purchases through discriminatory coding practices.
  • Preempts state and local laws that conflict with the legislation.
  • Requires the Attorney General to submit reports to Congress detailing investigations, enforcement actions, and the effectiveness of the law.

Congressman Moore introduced the Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act to prevent financial institutions from weaponizing consumers’ financial data against law-abiding Americans exercising their constitutional rights.

###