Letter to The Honorable Isabella Casillas Guzman, Administrator (September 18, 2024)

Summary

Letter dated September 18, 2024, from the House Committee on Small Business to the Honorable Isabella Casillas Guzman, Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration. The letter states the Committee's concern that the SBA misled the Committee about the existence of a strategic plan submitted to the White House's Domestic Policy Counsel in September 2021 under E.O. 14019, a document demanded in the Committee's July 30, 2024 subpoena. It states that SBA officials said no responsive document existed, and discusses the SBA's August 30, 2024 response and a Freedom of Information Act case. It also raises concern about the SBA's Memorandum of Understanding with the Michigan Department of State. The Committee requests answers no later than October 9, 2024.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

                                                September 18, 2024

The Honorable Isabella Casillas Guzman
Administrator
U.S. Small Business Administration
409 3rd Street SW
Washington, DC 20416

Dear Administrator Guzman:

       The House Committee on Small Business (Committee) writes regarding its concerns with the
Small Business Administration’s (SBA) production of documents pursuant to the Committee’s July 30,
2024 subpoena. Specifically, the Committee is deeply concerned that the SBA has misled the
Committee regarding the existence of a document the Committee specifically demanded in the
subpoena: the strategic plan the SBA submitted to the White House’s Domestic Policy Counsel in
September 2021 under Executive Order (E.O.) 14019.1 On numerous occasions, the SBA and its staff
claimed that this document did not exist before eventually claiming it could not be produced to the
Committee.

        In the Committee’s first letter to the SBA regarding its Memorandum of Understanding with
the Michigan Department of State, sent on April 4, 2024, the Committee requested “Interim and final
reports drafted and submitted to the White House regarding implementation of the E.O. from March 1,
2021, through October 31, 2021.”2 After three months, the SBA neither produced these documents, nor
a number of other documents the Committee had requested, forcing the Committee to issue a subpoena
that included this outstanding request.3 In response to the subpoena, SBA officials stated to Committee
staff that no responsive document existed.

        The Committee was skeptical of SBA’s claim, as failing to submit this report would violate the
terms of the Executive Order, which requires that agencies “submit to the Assistant to the President for
Domestic Policy a strategic plan outlining the ways identified under this review that the agency can
promote voter registration and voter participation.”4 On two separate occasions, Committee staff
further inquired about this document with SBA staff and added context to help the SBA identify the
document, including directing the SBA to the specific portion of the executive order requiring this
report in a meeting with SBA staff; the SBA again indicated that no such document exists. The



1
  Exec. Order No. 14019, 86 Fed. Reg. 13623 (Mar. 10, 2021).
2
  Letter from Roger Williams, et al., Chairman, H. Comm. on Small Bus., to Isabella C. Guzman, Adm’r, U.S. Small Bus.
Admin. (Apr. 4, 2024).
3
  Subpoena from H. Comm. On Small Bus., to Isabella C. Guzman, Adm’r, U.S. Small Bus. Admin. (Jul. 30, 2024).
4
  Exec. Order No. 14019, 86 Fed. Reg. 13623, 13624 (Mar. 7, 2021).
The Honorable Isabella Casillas Guzman
September 18, 2024
Page 2 of 4



Committee then tried to steer the SBA to reconsider its claim that it did not have any such document in
its August 16, 2024 letter, which informed the SBA of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation
involving this document, and the Committee’s belief that the document referenced in this case was
responsive to its request.5

         On August 30, 2024, the SBA responded to the Committee’s letter stating that “SBA’s position
in the referenced litigation is consistent with previous statements to the Committee. SBA’s declaration
in that litigation notes ‘no final strategic plan existed.’ Thus, as we have stated to the Committee, no
final plan was transmitted to the White House.”6

         The Committee did not merely request the final strategic plan submitted to the White House,
rather, it requested interim and final reports submitted to the White House pursuant to E.O. 14019. In
fact, the Committee used such inclusive language in its request to avoid the very gamesmanship the
SBA is now engaging in. Relatedly, in the FOIA case involving these documents, the SBA also
initially claimed that no responsive document existed. The SBA then partially granted plaintiff’s
appeal, reasoning that a draft document that was submitted to the White House was responsive to their
request.7

        The SBA submitted a draft plan to the White House on this matter in September 2021.8 The
Committee has been requesting this document since April 4, 2024. This draft would certainly meet the
ordinary understanding of the term “interim,” as was requested by the Committee. And while the
SBA’s August 30 letter asserted that this document was withheld in the FOIA case under a valid
exemption, FOIA exemptions do not provide a shield from Congressional investigations, and the
exemption cited in this case includes privileges not recognized by this Committee. As noted in the
Committee’s subpoena, should the SBA wish to make a claim of privilege on this document, it must
clearly state this and provide a description of the document for the Committee. The SBA cannot
pretend or claim that this document simply does not exist.

        Further, the Committee is greatly concerned that the SBA has entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding and Agreement with the Michigan Department of State, in furtherance of E.O. 14019,
while proudly proclaiming it never created a finalized plan to submit to the White House. Involving the
SBA in voter registration efforts creates serious concerns regarding potential political influence by the
SBA or its staff on small business owners and inherently strains constitutional principles. To involve
the SBA in such activity without a finalized plan increases the level of risks substantially and increases
the likelihood that this agreement will be misused.




5
  Letter from Roger Williams, et al., Chairman, H. Comm. on Small Bus., to Isabella C. Guzman, Adm’r, U.S. Small Bus.
Admin. (Aug. 16, 2024).
6
  Letter from George Holman, Assoc. Adm’r, Congressional and Legislative Affairs, U.S. Small Bus. Admin. to Roger
Williams, Chairman, H. Comm. on Small Bus (Aug. 30, 2024).
7
  U.S. Small Bus. Admin. Decl., Am. First Legal Found. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., No. 22-cv-3029, 2 (D.D.C. Jan. 11, 2023)
(Exhibit A)
8
  Id.
The Honorable Isabella Casillas Guzman
September 18, 2024
Page 3 of 4



        While the SBA’s actions create substantial concerns regarding the SBA’s truthfulness, provided
the SBA adequately addresses the Committee’s concerns in this matter, the Committee does not
believe it is necessary for it to take further action on this issue, but it reserves its right to take such
action if necessary. The Committee hopes that, in making clear its desire to avoid such action, the SBA
may begin to better appreciate the substantial efforts the Committee has made to accommodate the
SBA throughout the 118th Congress, and that more productive dialogs between the Committee and the
SBA may resume.

        The Committee has broad authority to investigate “problems of all types of small business”
under House Rule X.3(l). The SBA’s persistent delays continue to undermine the Committee’s
investigation into these efforts. Further, the Committee must reiterate its serious concerns regarding the
SBA’s efforts to comply with its legitimate oversight requests. We therefore request the following
information and answers as soon as possible but no later than October 9, 2024:

       1. Does the SBA have possession of a document that it sent to the White House regarding its
          planned actions under E.O 14019, as required by the E.O.?

       2. Was the SBA aware of this document when it initially informed the Committee that no
          responsive documents existed?

       3. Why did the SBA not produce this document to the Committee in response to the
          subpoena?

       4. What search terms and methods did the SBA use to determine that no responsive document
          exists?

       5. Describe the working relationship between the SBA’s FOIA office and its office
          responsible for Congressional document production.

               a. When FOIA requests overlap with Congressional document requests, to what extent
                  do the FOIA and document production teams collaborate?

       6. Going forward, what steps will the SBA take to ensure its productions are accurate and
          complete?

                                            In God We Trust,




_________________________                             _________________________
Roger Williams                                        Beth Van Duyne
Chairman                                              Member of Congress
Committee on Small Business                           Committee on Small Business
The Honorable Isabella Casillas Guzman
September 18, 2024
Page 4 of 4




cc:   The Honorable Nydia M. Velázquez, Ranking Member


File and source

File

407083_2024-09-19_chairman-williams-pens-letter-to-sba-in-response-t_att0.pdf

Size

210,302 bytes

SHA-256

d5f03d5efccf2d704a4789823676cb30c5b0e62301ef23de2180ba203117f29f

Our copy

407083_2024-09-19_chairman-williams-pens-letter-to-sba-in-response-t_att0.pdf

Original

No public link identified.