Fair Lending for All Act

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 147, I call up

the bill (H.R. 5) to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 5.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5, the Equality Act, which amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other core civil rights statutes to explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The bill would also strengthen nondiscrimination protections for women and others.

In short, this long overdue legislation will provide millions of LGBTQ Americans explicit protections from being denied medical care, fired from their jobs, or thrown out of their homes simply because of who they are.

Much of the history of the United States is about expanding the definition of who is understood to be included when the Declaration of Independence says ``all men are created equal.'' When these words were first written, that phrase did not include Black and Latino men; it did not include Native Americans; it did not include women; and it did not include LGBTQ individuals.

Once again, we have an opportunity to continue our march toward justice and to enshrine in our Nation's laws protections for marginalized communities to ensure that everyone can fully participate in key areas of life and to provide them resources in the face of discrimination.

Today, I expect we will hear arguments asking us to pick and choose which of our Nation's children deserve our support, to pick which of our children are valuable enough to have a right to live their lives to the fullest. But that is a false choice and one designed to pit rights for some against rights for all. There is no question that all our children, including those who are transgender, deserve the freedom to choose their own path.

Many of the protections codified by this bill already exist throughout the country, whether through court decisions or in State laws. In those places, women still have rights, religious freedom is still protected, parents are still involved in their children's healthcare, and doctors are still free to exercise their professional medical judgment. And trans athletes from high schools to the Olympic trials sometimes win and sometimes lose, just like everyone else.

But the ability to have a job, to receive medical care, or to rent a home should not depend on who someone is, where they happen to live, or who represents them. LGBTQ people should not have to worry that a future Supreme Court could rip away their existing protections. They deserve the same protections as other communities that have historically faced discrimination, and that requires action from Congress.

For decades, the LGBTQ community has been telling us their stories of outrageous discrimination. Madam Speaker, to my colleagues, I say that it is far past time we stop asking them to come to the Capitol just to defend their existence.

To the LGBTQ community and, in particular, the trans youth and athletes who I expect will hear themselves demonized on the floor today: We see you, we appreciate you, we value you, and we will continue to fight for you.

I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), for his tireless leadership in introducing this bill and helping to shepherd it through the legislative process.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this landmark legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5, the ``Equality Act,'' which amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and other core civil rights statutes, to explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The bill would also strengthen non-discrimination protections for women and others.

In short, this long overdue legislation will provide millions of LGBTQ Americans explicit protections from being denied medical care, fired from their jobs, or thrown out of their homes simply because of who they are.

Much of the history of the United States has been about expanding the definition of who is understood to be included when the Declaration of Independence says, ``all men are created equal.'' When these words were first written, that phrase did not include black and Latino men; it did not include Native Americans; it did not include women; and it did not include LGBTQ individuals.

Once again, we have an opportunity before us to continue our march toward justice--to enshrine in our nation's laws protections for marginalized communities to ensure that everyone can fully participate in key areas of life, and to provide them recourse in the face of discrimination.

Today, I expect we will hear arguments that will ask us to pick and choose which of our nation's children deserve our support--to pick which of our children are valuable enough to have a right to live their lives to the fullest.

Despite what we will hear, that is a false choice--one designed to pit rights for some against rights for all. There is no question that all our children--including those that are transgender--deserve to have the freedom to choose their own path.

The Equality Act seeks to make our civil rights laws inclusive of all people who have historically faced discrimination. Not only does it provide explicit protections for the LGBTQ community, it also expands protections for women and people of color.

Under the Equality Act, women will finally be protected from discrimination in public accommodations and federally funded programs. By expanding the existing definition of public accommodations under the Civil Rights Act, the Equality Act also increases protections for people on the basis of race, color, religion, and national origin.

People of color should not need to fear being targeted and discriminated against while shopping, just because of the color of their skin. Muslim people should not need to fear being targeted while flying, just because of their religion. And LGBTQ people and women should not need to fear being denied services in public spaces and services simply because of who they are. At long last, this legislation provides them with legal recourse if they face such discrimination.

Many of the protections being codified by this bill already exist across all 50 states following the Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County in 2020, and we know that more than 20 states have had some version of the protections before us today even before the Supreme Court's ruling. In those places women still have rights, religious freedom is still protected, parents are still involved in their children's healthcare, and doctors are still free to exercise their professional medical judgment. And trans athletes, from high schools to the Olympic trials, sometimes win and sometimes lose, just like everyone else.

Opponents of the Equality Act argue that it undermines women's rights. That assertion is false. The Equality Act simply ensures that all women, including trans women, are included in female institutions and programs.

When it comes to athletics, the Equality Act ensures that LGBTQ students--including women and girls who are lesbian, bisexual, or transgender--will have the same opportunity to participate in sports as their peers. Trans women and girls have been participating in sports consistent with their gender at all levels for years, and we have not seen any dominance by trans athletes.

Young people who are trans are competing in sports for the same reasons as their peers who are not transgender--including to be part of a team and to challenge themselves--and they deserve the same opportunities as their cisgender peers.

That is why the Women's Sports Foundation, National Women's Law Center, and hundreds of athletes in women's sports and other women's rights groups have consistently voiced their strong support for inclusion of transgender women and girls in women's sports and have opposed efforts to exclude them. Women's sports can play a critical role in women's development and equality and including all women and girls in women's sports strengthens women's sports.

Similarly, single-sex institutions like women's and men's colleges have played an important and historic role in making our nation's higher education system the strongest and most diverse in the world. To be clear, nothing in the Equality Act should be construed to prohibit or otherwise limit or affect the ability of single-sex colleges to maintain their single-sex status. Moreover, it is not Congress's intention to alter in any way Title IX or the scope or availability of its exemptions as they currently stand.

In addition, the Equality Act will not undermine services like single-sex homeless shelters or single sex-facilities. It will simply ensure that these facilities do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Arguments that providing transgender people access to facilities consistent with their gender identity will undermine women's safety have no basis in reality. Laws protecting LGBTQ people from discrimination do not authorize anyone to engage in abusive or harassing behavior.

That is why over 300 domestic violence and sexual assault organizations, including the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, the National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence, and the National Center for Victims of Crime, have signed onto a National Consensus Statement of Anti-Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence Organizations in Support of Full and Equal Access for the Transgender Community.

Transgender people experience shockingly high rates of sexual and physical violence, and the real risk of violence occurs when transgender people are barred from using the appropriate facilities.

The idea that transgender people need explicit protections from discrimination is not new. Dozens of states provide nondiscrimination protections in public accommodations on the basis of gender identity, and in those states we have not seen the parade of horribles that Equality Act opponents raise.

The request to pit people's rights against each other is not based on the real-world outcomes--for which ample evidence exists to the contrary--but a continued resistance to advancing rights for those different from so many of us here in Congress. The ability to have a job, to receive medical care, or to rent a home should not depend on who someone is, where they happen to live, or who represents then politically. LGBTQ people should not have to worry that a future Supreme Court could rip away their existing protections, and they deserve the same protections as other communities that have historically faced discrimination. And that requires action from Congress.

For decades, the LGBTQ community has been coming here over and over to tell us their stories of outrageous discrimination. To my colleagues, I say, it is far past time we stop asking them to come to the Capitol just to defend their existence.

To the LGBTQ community--and in particular the trans youth and athletes who I expect will hear themselves demonized on the floor today--we see you, we appreciate you, we value you, and we will continue to fight for you.

I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island, Representative David Cicilline, for his tireless leadership in introducing this bill and helping to shepherd it through the legislative process. I urge my colleagues to support this landmark legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I object.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), who is a distinguished sponsor of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Madam Speaker, this bill does not affect Title IX and, consequently, religious freedom at all.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia).

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a number of documents.

Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights

Washington, DC, February 25, 2021.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the Lawyers' Committee

for Civil Rights Under Law (hereinafter ``Lawyers''

Committee''), a nonpartisan civil rights organization formed

at the request of President John F. Kennedy to enlist the

private bar in providing legal services to address racial

discrimination, we urge you to vote for the Equality Act

(H.R. 5). The Equality Act would clarify that LGBTQ+ people

are protected against discrimination in access to credit.

housing, education, and employment under federal law, as well

as to strengthen public accommodation antidiscrimination for

all people.

The Lawyers' Committee strongly believes that the Equality

Act is an essential step in fulfilling our nation's

commitment to civil rights for all people. Unfortunately,

discrimination is a persistent problem for millions of people

in the LGBTQ+ community, particularly for those who also

identify as people of color. Everyone in America, regardless

of who they are, is entitled to equal rights and should be

free to pursue career and educational opportunities and live

their daily lives free from discrimination.

Black Americans and other people of color continue to face

persistent discrimination while engaging in commonplace

transactions, errands, and tasks, such as shopping and

accessing transportation like taxis and car services. The

Equality Act would finally make this discrimination illegal,

as it strengthens the public accommodations provision in the

1964 Civil Rights Act. Congress must act now to pass the

Equality Act to clarify and strengthen federal civil rights

protections so everyone across the country can engage in

public life without the fear of harassment or discrimination

because of who they are.

As Congress considers this important bill, we are committed

to ensuring the Equality Act does solely what it was intended

to do: clarify and strengthen existing federal civil rights

protections for everyone in America. We strongly oppose any

effort to weaken any existing federal civil rights law the

Equality Act would amend.

We urge you to vote for final passage of the Equality Act

because no one in our country should be discriminated against

for who they are. It is time for Congress to clarify and

strengthen federal civil rights protections for all

Americans.

Respectfully submitted,

Damon T. Hewitt,

Acting President & Executive Director, Executive Vice

President, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under

Law.

Erinn D. Martin,

Policy Counsel, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under

Law.

Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stanton).

Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney).

Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean), and I ask unanimous consent that she may control that balance.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Torres).

Mr. Steube, what any religious tradition ascribes as God's will is no concern of this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Auchincloss).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Williams).

Madam Speaker, how much time do we have left?

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I have listened to this debate in amazement. I have been involved in this struggle for equality for many, many years. I was the chief author in the House of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and to hear it suggested that I would turn my back on religious freedom is just ridiculous.

This bill enshrines equality. It enshrines equality for everyone. That is its purpose. It does not contradict the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which, as a number of people have mentioned, I was the chief author of. But it does enshrine equality, and that is what our friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be afraid of, equality.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have the right to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is precisely because this bill enshrines equality; it is precisely because of the nonsensical nature of the arguments from the other side of the aisle that the Equality Act has been endorsed by more than 500 civil rights, women's rights, religious, medical, and other national and State organizations, including the American Medical Association, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Episcopal Church, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the NAACP, the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence--to end sexual violence--the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, the National Women's Law Center, the Network Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, the Rabbinical Assembly, and the United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society, all of whom obviously would not endorse this bill if it had anything to do with destroying religious liberty.

It has also been endorsed by dozens of business associations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Sports and Fitness Industry Association, and hundreds of other businesses.

I urge all Members to support this important legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, does anybody know what it means to be called names; to be thrown out of your apartment; to be thrown off of a job; and most sadly, to not be allowed to love the person that you love?

In the Hodges case, that was settled when they determined that no union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family. And then they ruled. They asked for equal dignity in the eyes of law; the Constitution grants them that right.

I rise in support of the Equality Act because I know what it means to be thrown out, to be looked at, and to be undermined. Our friends in the LGBTQ community every single day experience that. Trans women who are African American have been murdered.

This gives us equal dignity under the law. We could keep a job. If you are in that community, you can be married already, obviously, but you can keep a job. You can get healthcare; you can ensure that you can keep an apartment. You can walk in dignity.

We need the Equality Act as we have needed civil rights laws throughout this Nation.

If we are the place of ``We the People,'' if this Nation is based upon, we the people, then we will pass the Equality Act today. We will pass it now.

I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for his leadership and the gentleman from New York.

Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary and an original cosponsor, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, the ``Equality Act of 2021.''

Let me thank my colleague on the Judiciary Committee, Congressman David Cicilline of Rhode Island, for introducing this landmark legislation and his tireless efforts in making this day a reality.

Madam Speaker, our nation's long but inexorable march towards equality reaches another milestone today.

For as long as our national charters have been in existence, we have endeavored to ask ourselves: what do we mean when we say ``We the People?''

How expansive do we hold our pledge that all are entitled to the blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

To be certain our nation has come a long way, but as we debate this critical bill, I am reminded of the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015), and its powerful conclusion explaining the profound power of love and marriage, and the desire to be seen as equal in the eyes of the law:

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies

the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice,

and family. In forming a marital union, two people become

something greater than once they were. As some of the

petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a

love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand

these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of

marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it

so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for

themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in

loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest

institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the

law. The Constitution grants them that right.

Despite significant legal advances over the past several years, including marriage equality, LGBTQ Americans remain vulnerable to discrimination daily and too often have little recourse.

In the 116th Congress, the Equality Act had the bipartisan support of Members of Congress, with nearly 240 co-sponsors, as well as the strong support of the business community, and most important, the overwhelming support of the American people.

In the 117th Congress, the Equality Act was reintroduced with 223 original cosponsors.

More than 70 percent of American support the Equality Act.

This has been a long journey; the first Equality Act was introduced nearly 46 years ago.

It is long past time to secure the civil rights of LGBTQ people across the country and accord them full membership in the American family.

With the Trump Administration rolling back protections at the federal level and anti-equality opponents continuing to push discriminatory bills at the state level, LGBTQ people cannot wait another year for affirmation that they are worthy of the dignity of their peers and deserving of equal protection of the laws.

Today, too many LGBTQ Americans in too many places remain too vulnerable to discrimination daily with too little legal recourse.

Fifty percent of the national LGBTQ community live in states where, though they may have the right to marry, they have no explicit non- discrimination protections in other areas of daily life.

The Equality Act extends the full anti-discrimination protections of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other key pillars of fairness and justice in our country to LGBTQ Americans.

Sexual orientation and gender identity deserve full civil rights protections, not just in the workplace, but in every place: in education, housing, credit, jury service, public facilities, and public accommodations.

Today, there are only 21 states have explicit laws barring discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, housing, and public accommodations, and only 20 states have such protections for gender identity.

In most states, a same-sex couple can get married on Saturday, then be legally denied service at a restaurant on Sunday, and be fired from their jobs on Monday, and evicted from their apartment on Tuesday.

Madam Speaker, let me take a moment to discuss in more detail several of the important elements of the Equality Act.

The Equality Act amends existing federal civil rights laws to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in education, employment, housing, credit, Federal jury service, public accommodations, and the use of Federal funds.

It does so by adding sex in some places where it had not previously been protected,

and clarifying that sex includes sexual orientation and gender identity.

Specifically, H.R. 5, the ``Equality Act of 2021'' amends:

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to provide basic protections against discrimination in public accommodations by adding sex, including sexual orientation and gender identity;

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to provide basic protections against discrimination by recipients of federal financial assistance by adding sex, including sexual orientation, and gender identity;

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991, and the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 to make explicit protections against workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity;

The Fair Housing Act of 1968 to make protections against 1 housing discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity explicit;

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act to make protections against 7 credit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity explicit; and

The Jury Selections and Services Act to make protections against discrimination in federal jury service based on sexual orientation or gender identity explicit.

The march towards equality has been long and has awoken passions passion from many quarters for various reasons.

Well-intentioned people from all walks of life have had difficulty as progress washes over the debate surrounding protections for same sex individuals.

At times, the debate has seen input from members of the faith community, who strive to reconcile their love for all of God's sons and daughters, with the script of their sacred text.

I understand this tension, but I have carefully studied the text and am confident that passage of the Equality Act will not adversely affect any person's freedom of worship of the free exercise of their faith.

The Equality Act adds sexual orientation and gender identity to federal civil rights law and sex where it is missing.

But the same statutory exemptions that are already in place in the Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act will remain in place after enactment and the guarantees of the United States Constitution remain untouched.

The U.S. Constitution provides ample protections for religious freedom and nothing in this bill would, or could, infringe upon the protections afforded by the Constitution, as the principal sponsor of the bill, Congressman Cicilline, confirmed during a colloquy we held when the bill was marked up in the Judiciary Committee in the 116th Congress.

Specifically, the provisions relating to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (federal funding) include the original exemptions for discrimination based on religion.

Religious organizations (not just houses of worship) are free to limit participation in wide array of activities and services to only members of their faith.

This same exemption applies to public accommodations.

Houses of worship could be considered a place of public accommodation only if they offer their space or services for commercial public use.

This does not include religious services.

Nothing in this bill alters the ability of houses of worship or religious leaders to practice or carry out their faith.

No member of the clergy will ever be compelled to perform a religious ceremony that conflicts with their beliefs, including marrying same-sex couples.

The DOJ Title VI Manual and relevant and relevant case law clearly provide that a religious organization that is not ``principally engaged'' in providing social services is only bound by nondiscrimination requirements related to the program for which they receive funding if that funding is targeted in order to provide a specific program or service, i.e. disaster relief, rather than to the entity ``as a whole.''

Nothing in the Equality Act changes that rule.

There is a longstanding ministerial exemption in federal civil rights law that exempts religious organizations from complying with employment nondiscrimination provisions for ministers, rabbis and any other person who is ``carrying out the faith''.

The Equality Act does not alter that exemption in any way.

The Equality Act does not repeal the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

The Equality Act clarifies that RFRA cannot be used to defend discrimination in public settings or with federal funds.

The Equality Act does not alter or amend the RFRA standard for any other kinds of claims.

Federal civil rights laws and the United States Constitution provide many exemptions for religious organizations.

It bears stating again that the statutory exemptions that are , already in place in the Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act will remain in place and the United States Constitution remains untouched.

Courts have long-rejected religious claims as a reason to deny civil rights protections, including those based on race and sex, and the same analysis applies to all other protected characteristics.

Specifically, religious belief did not exempt restaurants or hotels from complying with the civil rights laws passed in the 1960s and cannot do so today.

RFRA explicitly contemplates that Congress would exempt certain laws from its application.

The clarifying language in the Equality Act is necessary to ensure that courts do not misinterpret the intended interaction between RFRA and our civil rights laws.

RFRA will still be available to address burdens on religious beliefs and practices in other contexts.

And any individual or organization that is concerned that their religious beliefs or practices are being unjustly burdened retains the ability to bring a claim under the First Amendment.

The time has come to extend the full blessings of equality and the majesty of the law's protection to all our brothers and sisters, including those in the LGBTQ community.

Madam Speaker, it been said that ``the moral arc of the universe is long but bends toward justice.''

Today, with passage by this House of H.R. 5, the Equality Act of 2021, we bend that arc even more in the direction of justice.

I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this life-changing and life-affirming legislation and urge all members to stand on the right of history and vote for its passage.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1170, I call up the bill (H.R. 2543) to amend the Federal Reserve Act to add additional demographic reporting requirements, to modify the goals of the Federal Reserve System, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2543 and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2543, the Financial Services Racial Equity, Inclusion, and Economic Justice Act, landmark legislation focused on promoting racial and economic justice.

This bill was introduced by Financial Services Committee Chairwoman, the Honorable Maxine Waters, and it includes several provisions authored by members of the committee. Unfortunately, Chairwoman Waters couldn't

be here today, but I would like the Record to reflect not only her authorship of this bill but also her unwavering commitment to achieving equity and inclusion on behalf of communities of color.

Today's House consideration of H.R. 2543 is historic in that for the first time in our Nation's history, the U.S. House of Representatives is voting on a comprehensive package of legislation to finally address inequity with equity and inclusion in terms of financial access, economic mobility, and fair treatment.

Today, I boldly and proudly say that this would not have been possible without the Honorable Chairwoman Waters' leadership. This bill is needed because racial disparities in lending, homeownership, and wealth creation are all too real.

For some, invidious discrimination, Mr. Speaker, is only a phrase. However, for too many others, it is a fact of life. According to the Brookings Institution, the racial wealth gap between White and Black households is more than $10 trillion. The onerous wealth gap is perpetuated by the toleration of ongoing discrimination, redlining, and systemic barriers to accessing financial credit and services.

Some of my colleagues across the aisle may say that the House shouldn't address this important issue. They may say that the House should ignore these very real, well-documented disparities and focus on getting inflation under control, to which I say, this bill deals with the very real inflationary pressures that people of color experience in their daily lives. Too often, Mr. Speaker, consumers and businesses from low-income communities and communities of color suffer invidious discrimination as they struggle to access capital and credit.

Chairwoman Waters said it best, and I was there to hear her say it, when she spoke before the Rules Committee this week. She noted that this type of discrimination is a form of inflation in communities of color. She indicated that when you add up inflated fees in tandem with inflated interest rates, simple loans cost more for people of color than others taking out the same loan in a different community.

This, of course, assumes that you are lucky enough to qualify for the loan in the first place. If you are not, then your options to build wealth are severely limited because you can't buy a home or start a small business. In fact, your only option for credit might be an inflated predatory payday loan that leaves you worse off, not better.

This is inflation that people of color experience each day, and we should be just as outraged and concerned about these needlessly inflated high costs as we are about the general inflation we are experiencing during the pandemic. And I would further argue that addressing this form of inflation will bring down costs for everyone because, as my colleagues across the aisle are fond of saying, a rising tide lifts all boats.

We also know that general inflation disproportionately hurts people of color, which is why this bill directs the Federal Reserve, as it carries out its duties to rein inflation in and promote full employment, to also consider racial disparities so that all people--all people--will benefit from the Fed's dual mandate.

Members of the LGBTQIA-plus community also face discrimination in lending. This is why it leads to higher costs for them as well. We shouldn't stand for this during any time of the year, but I am pleased to be among those fighting for LGBTQIA-plus justice during Pride Month. This is why H.R. 2543 includes my bill H.R. 166, the Fair Lending for All Act, which furthers fair lending by clarifying that lending discrimination is prohibited not only on the basis of race, Mr. Speaker, but also on the basis of gender identity, sexual orientation, and geography. This bill enhances supervision and establishes criminal penalties for fair lending violations.

Let's take a closer look at fair lending at this time. Every person who purchases a home should be able to read and understand their mortgage documents. This is why common sense should prevail. However, that is not the reality for many home buyers in our country today. This is why the bill includes robust language, robust language to access the requirements for a mortgage, and these mortgage conditions should be made clear in languages that people understand. It requires servicers to expand and preserve the dream of homeownership for borrowers with limited English proficiency. Chairwoman Waters' bill will also support the efforts of community development financial institutions, or CDFIs, and minority depository institutions, or MDIs, that fill a historic lending gap in underserved communities across this country. And it would mitigate banking deserts by allowing credit unions to serve areas that banks have ignored or abandoned.

Moreover, this legislation includes another bill of mine, H.R. 2516, the Promoting Diversity and Inclusion in Banking Act, which would require Federal banking regulators to evaluate policies and procedures banks and credit unions have to promote diversity and inclusion.

I thank Chairwoman Waters for her continued leadership, her bold leadership, as well as my colleagues and members of the Financial Services Committee for their tireless work, including Representatives Meeks, Cleaver, Beatty, Garcia of Texas, Torres, and Auchincloss.

Mr. Speaker, the pandemic has exacerbated and exposed many truths about our Nation's inequitable housing and financial systems, as well as its outsized impact on low-income families and communities of color. It is incumbent on this Congress to finally address these disparities, and that is precisely what Chairwoman Waters' bill will do.

Hence, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2543, the Financial Services Racial Equity, Inclusion, and Economic Justice Act.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), my dear friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing now why we have the invidious discrimination that exists in this country. Not one word has been said about the invidious discrimination, the high cost in loans that people of color suffer. Not one word is being said about it. Rather, there is always an effort to deflect. This has been going on for centuries, but not today. It ends today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I will read from an article entitled: ``Examining the Black-White wealth gap'' from the Brookings Institution dated February 27, 2020. ``A close examination of wealth in the U.S. finds evidence of staggering racial disparities. At $171,000, the net worth of a typical White family is nearly 10 times greater than that of a Black family ($17,150) in 2016. Gaps in wealth between Black and White households reveal the effects of accumulated inequality and discrimination, as well as differences in power and opportunity that can be traced back to this Nation's inception.''

And this is why it continues, because people on that side of the aisle are willing to tolerate invidious discrimination. They will talk about anything but invidious discrimination. They have no remedies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, inflation does care about your race if you happen to be a person of color and you are applying for a loan.

Inflation does care about your race if you happen to have fees added on that you shouldn't have simply because you are a person of color.

People of color have to deal with general inflation and the specific inflation associated with invidious discrimination, and it is the intolerance by my colleagues across the aisle through the centuries that has perpetuated this level of inflation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 20 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

People of color are constituents. People of color are Americans. People of color deserve the opportunity to have equality of opportunity.

Hundreds of years have gone by, and this is what we are getting as a result of those who would ignore the concerns of Americans of color.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Auchincloss), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, the Brookings Institution indicates that the Black and

White wealth gap reflects a society that has not and does not afford equality of opportunity to all of its citizens. This is evidenced today by the responses that we are getting.

No effort to deal with the centuries of inequality. No desire to deal with invidious discrimination. Always a reason why we can't get to it right now. I have been in Congress for years--never addressing this problem.

Mr. Speaker, today is a day of reckoning for all of those who have been hiding behind other issues. Today they have to confront the truth. There is invidious discrimination in America, it impacts the LGBTQ- plus, it impacts people of color, and women as well, and today we have legislation because of the Honorable Maxine Waters' efforts that can deal with these issues.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, people of color are clobbered every day by higher interest rates. They are clobbered every day by loans that have fees that are higher than loans for people of a different hue. These are the things that are being perpetuated when they tolerate this kind of behavior. For centuries they tolerated it.

Now we have the opportunity to do something about it. Let's eliminate these costs for some people so that we can deal with the costs for everybody. Until that is done, we have to have this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, we have just heard a great recitation on how to do nothing; how to maintain the status quo; how to be proud that you can stand up in the House of Representatives and defend the status quo for some 300 years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2543, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This week, Democrats have a bill on the floor to ``address inflation and help bring costs down for Americans.''

Just last week, President Biden stated that inflation is his ``top domestic priority.'' So, let's talk about inflation if we are going to talk about the Federal Reserve. Let's look at the numbers. Let's look at the stats.

The President announced that his focus is going to be on the economy this month. To kick it off, his Treasury Secretary, Secretary Yellen, finally admitted that she was wrong when she called inflation transitory last year.

To the Biden administration and congressional Democrats, I would like to say to you: Welcome to the party. You are a year late. The American people have been feeling this pain of inflation, and I am glad you are coming to the realization that we have to do something about it. Republicans welcome the conversation.

Inflation has surged to a 40-year high. Stats across the board are terrible. Everyday goods and services are more unaffordable today, especially for low-and middle-income Americans and those on fixed incomes. Skyrocketing consumer prices are outpacing wage gains. U.S. households will spend an extra $5,200 this year compared to last year for the same basket of goods and services they normally buy.

The national average for the price of gasoline has reached a staggering $5 a gallon. If that weren't bad enough, our economy is now shrinking. The U.S. GDP came in at a negative 1.4 percent in the first quarter of this year. That is problematic. That is bad.

Democrats want to blame everything from Putin to so-called corporate profiteering for the inflation crisis. They are still looking for who did it. Well, guess what, folks. The call is coming from within the house. They are the ones that put this on the American people.

This is all the result of Democrats' bad economic policies, and this crisis is of their own making. The American people know it. They see it. They feel it. They experience it.

In a recent poll released by The Wall Street Journal, 83 percent of respondents rated current economic conditions as poor or not good. This is the result of Democrat economic policies. Since they control the fullness of the Federal Government, they have put their economic policies into place, and we are living with the bad consequences. All across the board, inflation is way up.

In another poll released by RealClearPolitics, 60 percent of the American people disapprove specifically of President Biden's handling of the economy.

What is the Democrats' strategy? It is to distract struggling families with this bill that we have on the floor today, a bill that might sound good but does nothing to bring down consumer prices or help struggling families.

Let's talk about the contents of the bill. Republicans support improving diversity in financial services, but H.R. 2543, this bill, misses the mark. Committee Democrats had the opportunity to work with Republicans on a bipartisan legislative package to achieve that goal. In fact, five of the bills that make up this package received some Republican support, either in markup, in committee, or on the floor in previous Congresses. But instead of working with Republicans, committee Democrats injected this package with another eight partisan poison pills.

First, this bill blatantly politicizes the Federal Reserve. In fact, it tasks the Fed with a third mandate, and that third mandate is to close socioeconomic disparities instead of focusing on what we have asked the Fed to focus on, which is price stability and maximum employment possible. So much for the President saying he is not going to politicize the Fed or he is going to respect the Fed's independence. This bill goes completely counter to that.

This bill will make credit more expensive and less accessible to those who need it the most.

This bill will also pile regulatory costs on small businesses, forcing them to divert resources from business operations to report on diversity and inclusion metrics outlined in this bill. Currently, businesses can self-assess the makeup of their workforce. This bill would impose a one-size-fits-all mandate on all job creators, regardless of size, geographic location, or business model.

This bill is a boon for litigious trial lawyers, and it is a boon for them because it expands ECOA, and it opens businesses up to new lawsuits. This creates uncertainty in the credit markets, ultimately increasing the cost of credit and making it more difficult to assess credit risks for financial institutions and businesses.

Finally, while Americans are reeling from higher prices, this bill will make it more expensive for families to purchase a home. This bill will impose additional costs on creditors and servicers, which will inevitably be passed on to those applying for loans.

The bottom line, this is just another attempt by House Democrats to divert voters' attention from the big issues of the day, and that is their dismal economic record that they have foisted upon the American people.

If House Democrats are serious about addressing inflation, as the Biden administration has claimed and as the President has specifically said he is focused on this month, if they were serious, they would abandon a partisan messaging bill like the one we have on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), my colleague and friend and the ranking member of the National Security, International Development, and Monetary Policy Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson), the ranking member of the Fintech Task Force on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose), my friend and colleague, and a leader on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil), a leader on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Donalds).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), a longtime member and leader on the Agriculture Committee and the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), a great leader on the Financial Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5 because it puts the Hyde Amendment and other federal and state laws that bar taxpayer funding for abortion at serious risk and out of an abundance of concern for the women and children who flee to the protection of domestic abuse shelters,.

H.R. 5 weakens conscience protections for health care providers opposed to being coerced into participating in the killing of unborn babies.

H.R. 5 defines ``sex'' to include ``pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.'' The term ``related medical condition'' means ``abortion.'' In the case Doe v. C.A.R.S., the Third Circuit stated, ``We now hold that the term ``related medical conditions'' includes an abortion.'' Furthermore, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which enforces Title VII, interprets abortion to be covered as a ``related medical condition.''

To further clarify, H.R. 5 goes on to state:

(b): Rules.--In a covered title referred to in subsection

(a)--''(1) (with respect to sex} pregnancy, childbirth, or a

related medical condition shall not receive less favorable

treatment than other physical conditions; . . .

In other words, a provider may not withhold a ``treatment option,'' including dismembering, chemically poisoning or otherwise destroying an unborn baby girl or boy.

In a legal analysis released this month, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote:

Existing prohibitions on the use of government funds for abortion can be undercut in three ways.

First, federal and state governments are themselves providers of health care. Therefore, they would themselves be subject to the constraints that the Equality Act places on all health care providers and, as such, would likely be required to provide abortions. This conclusion is reinforced by the bill's expansive definition of ``establishment,'' which is not limited to physical facilities and places.

Second, it would seem anomalous to, on the one hand, mandate that recipients of federal funds provide abortions, as the Equality Act can be read to do, but, on the other hand, prohibit use of such funds for abortions. It can (and likely will) be argued that these newly enacted provisions, which would likely require recipients of federal funding to perform abortions, would thereby repeal by implication previously enacted legislation forbidding the use of those very same funds for abortion.

Third, even if the bill were not construed to require the federal government to fund abortions, it could still be construed to require states that receive federal funding to do so with their own funds, which would be a departure from the longstanding principle that the federal government not require government funding of abortion even on the part of state governments.

The possibility that the Equality Act may be used to undercut the Hyde principle against government funding of abortion has been noted even by those endorsing the bill including Katelyn Burns, New Congress Opens Door for Renewed Push for LGBTQ Equality Act (Dec. 5, 2018). But instead of denying that this problem exists, or (even better) urging an amendment to avoid it, one supporter of the bill has suggested that the issue simply ``has to be navigated super carefully.'' In other words, there is a problem and the suggested ``fix'' is simply to keep it from becoming politically visible.

In an incisive analysis of H.R. 5, Richard Doerflinger exposes the risk to unborn children, conscience rights and state all laws preventing taxpayer funding for abortion:

``Of especially grave concern is that the Equality Act introduces this same language on sex and ``pregnancy discrimination'' into Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, forbidding discrimination in ``federally assisted programs.'' This applies to a wide range of entities that may receive federal funds, including state and local government agencies, educational institutions, organizations providing health care, etc. (42 USC 2000d-4a). All of these would be required to show that they do not exclude the full range of treatments for the ``condition'' of pregnancy. Not only the federal government, but all states that receive federal funds for their health programs, could be required to fund elective abortions, reversing the longstanding policy of two-thirds of the states. The same changes to the definition of ``sex'' are made to Title II, on discrimination in places of ``public accommodation,'' and that title's definition of a ``public accommodation'' is expanded to include ``any establishment that provides a good, service, or program,'' including any provider of ``health care'' (H.R. 5, Sec. 3 (a)(d)).''

I also oppose H.R. 5 out of genuine concern for the women and children who seek refuge in a domestic abuse shelter.

By granting biological men--who self-identify as women-access to women's shelters, H.R. 5 removes the hard-fought gains to protect women and girls from abuse and to provide them with physical, emotional and psychological security.

In late 2018, nine female victims residing in a women's shelter in Fresno, California-Naomi's House, operated by Poverello House-filed a lawsuit against the shelter for admitting a biological man because he had self-identified as a woman. These victims stated that they had been sexually harassed by this biological man. They said that he had made ``sexual advances'' on them and would ``stare and leer'' and make ``sexually harassing comments about their bodies'' while they were forced to undress in the same room with him.

After repeatedly confronting the staff of Naomi's House--both verbally and in writing--with their extreme discomfort, these women were told that they would be expelled from the shelter if they refused to comply.

Madam Speaker, if we allow biological men who self-identify as women to receive access to these women-only shelters, abused women and children will lose the 'safe space' they so desperately need.

We must first and foremost protect victims of violence.

These brave women and children deserve a place where they can feel protected and secure, so they can begin the difficult process to heal as they deal with post-traumatic stress. Forcing them to share a shelter and its facilities--including showers and sleeping areas--with biological men who self-identify as women will likely cause these women and children to experience insecurity, discomfort, confusion, and fear of additional assault.

Women's shelters--there are about 1,500 nationwide--offer a safe space where a woman does not have to fear or worry about violence and intimidation and instead allows her to take steps toward rebuilding her life.

These victims deserve better. They deserve our protection and support. We must work to ensure the safety of women, girls, and children.