Promoting Diversity and Inclusion in Banking Act of 2021

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, 80 percent of Americans say inflation is the most important issue facing the country, that is according to ABC News/Ipsos poll. We can't get 80 percent of the American people to agree on anything in our political discussion, but they agree that this economy and this inflation are problematic.

We have been given our marching orders. Congress must act to address skyrocketing prices and provide relief to struggling families. That is what the American people are telling us we should be focused on.

Instead, here we are debating a messaging bill that stands no chance of becoming law.

I have already run through a long list of bad things in this bill. I did that in my opening, so I would rather spend the rest of my time discussing what western North Carolinians are most worried about, what my constituents are most worried about.

In the core part of my district known as the Catawba Valley, the cost of housing alone has increased more than 15 percent since last year. Where I live in the Lake Norman region, local food banks are struggling to keep up with the surging cost of food and increased demand stemming from those costs.

One food bank operator said: ``We are out of staples.''

That is a frightening thing.

They also added: We are tired of high grocery bills. We are tired of gas prices

going up. One of my constituents from Winston-Salem said that on a local Fox affiliate.

North Carolinians are fed up. The American people are fed up. They don't like what they see economically, and they deserve real answers and real solutions to address that core problem--the core issue of inflation.

So let me be clear. There is no mystery of why we have runaway inflation. It is Democrats' reckless spending that is the driver of this. They have managed the fiscal house for a year and a half, and they have managed to drive our economy into the ditch.

So we have got to get it out of the ditch. We have got to get it back on the road. We have to be in the right direction with a growing economy, not a shrinking economy, and with wages increasing more than the cost of the goods that people need to live.

So instead of addressing this crisis of their own making, Democrats would rather distract Americans with a bill that does nothing to bring down costs. This is yet another attempt to distract the American people from that basic challenge and that basic fact of high inflation.

But to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: you aren't fooling anyone. The American people are on to who caused inflation, who started inflation, and who is driving up the cost of energy bills, both at home and in their car. They understand why, and there are real consequences for not addressing the needs of the American people.

Thankfully, I have faith in the American people to get this right. I hope our elected officials will follow suit. We, on the Republican side of the aisle, are hearing this loud and clear, and that is why we are trying to return to fiscal stability and fiscal sanity and return to sound money. That is our focus.

Mr. Speaker, this bill doesn't address the core problems the American people are telling us we should address, and that is why we should reject this bill that does nothing to answer the call the American people have made.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the amendment en bloc. We know that Democrats' reckless spending and bad economic policies are hurting the American people.

Let's look at the inflation numbers. You have fuel oil, gasoline, used cars, groceries, and public transit all dramatically up.

Inflation is the big issue. Inflation is at a 40-year high of 8.6 percent--a 40-year high. Food is up 10 percent, gas 50 percent, shelter 5.5 percent from just last year. This is a result of Democrat policies.

The American people will pay $5,200 more this year than last year for the same goods and services. This is a direct result of bad economic policies.

Instead of working with Republicans to address these crises, Democrats are jamming through a partisan messaging bill that stands no chance of becoming law. This is bad policy. It is bad politics, bad process, the whole thing. The en bloc is more of the same.

Now, I will say that there are a few of the amendments that Republicans could support. I will give you an example.

Ms. Garcia offered an amendment that focused on onerous HUD regulations or unfair funding formulas. Committee Republicans and House Republicans agree that HUD should not get in the way of local public housing authorities' ability to provide assistance to the homeless.

A recent Government Accountability Office study examines--well, there is a request in the bill that we have a study to examine and report on the impediments that HUD is putting in place so that we can actually better serve the very people that we intend for the Housing and Urban Development Department to serve and for public housing authorities to serve.

But rather than work with committee Republicans on this issue, Democrats poisoned the well with partisan amendments to score political wins with their progressive base.

For example, in this en bloc, Democrats want to further politicize the Federal Reserve by adding a third mandate to address socioeconomic issues. This will divert the Fed's attention from its dual mandate of maximum sustainable employment and price stability. It will also threaten the stability of the monetary policy authorities we have given the Fed and add uncertainty and risk to the Fed's responsibilities.

The Federal Reserve is independent for a reason. It ensures that it is accountable to the American people and long-term economic growth, not to political whims or serving one party here in Washington. Even President Biden acknowledged the importance of the Fed's independence in his so-called plan for fighting inflation.

Additionally, this en bloc continues Democrats' government-knows-best approach. For example, it directs HUD and Treasury to create another interagency task force to focus on the state of housing in this country. Housing doesn't need another task force. It needs results.

To be clear, HUD's mission is to ``create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all.''

After 50 years, and nearly $2 trillion in spending, this amendment says that HUD is not getting the job done. An additional interagency task force isn't going to fix that.

Congress needs to reform how HUD operates so that it can assist the families and individuals it is tasked with serving.

In conclusion, this en bloc is more of the same. It will politicize the Fed, expand the CFPB's authority, and make credit harder to access and more expensive, ultimately harming the very consumers Democrats are claiming to help.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this en bloc, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let's focus on the main thing. The main thing to the American people right now is what they see when they fill up their tank at the pumps and buy gas. It is what they see when they go to the grocery store. It is what they see in their daily lives.

What they are seeing in their daily lives is inflation at a 40-year high. Here are fantastic examples that are horrible, horrible things to see, but they are important that we see because this is what the American people are facing.

Inflation is at a 40-year high. Food prices are up 10 percent, gas 50 percent, and shelter 5.5 percent from just last year. The American people will pay $5,200 more this year than they did last year for the same goods and services.

This is a direct result of Democrats' fiscal plans. It is a direct result of the Democrats' economic strategy, and we are suffering the consequences from it.

This bill, and the amendments that pass on the floor today, will do nothing to help struggling American families. Nothing.

Instead, they will politicize the Fed, expand the CFPB's authority, and make credit more expensive and harder to get. This is bad news. It is bad policy. It is a bad process.

We should reject it. We should make sure this bill does not become law.

I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Republican en bloc, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The amendments in this en bloc are where we should have started this debate. These amendments would improve the bill and provide real solutions for the American people who are suffering under the weight of misguided Democrat economic policies.

In whole, this amendment package would make the bill bipartisan and give us a real chance to pass the Senate and become law. These amendments would preserve the sections of the bill that Republicans supported during committee consideration, such as promoting new and diverse depository institutions, improving corporate governance through diversity, ensuring diversity in community banking, expanding opportunity for minority depository institutions, and improving the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program.

These are the bipartisan pieces of the bill. These five bills are the result of bipartisan discussions and compromise. They show that Congress is capable of working together and putting the American people first rather than really a far-left agenda that the rest of the bill is pushing.

These bills collectively would help to identify and implement solutions to support small banks and credit unions in the communities they serve.

Furthermore, this amendment en bloc would strike section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act which requires the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--which is an unaccountable agency, by the way--to issue a rule to force banks and credit unions to collect and report demographic data on small business loan applications.

We have seen what the CFPB can do under Director Chopra's scorched- earth policies. This proposed rule will make small business lending more costly and difficult for financial institutions of all shapes and sizes. It will also choke off the very access to credit those small businesses need right now.

So instead of limiting small business credit options and saddling them with unnecessary regulations, as the underlying bill does, we should focus on fostering growth and help small businesses succeed.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this en bloc, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

In closing, I would just reiterate the amendments in this en bloc are how we should have started this debate and how we should have started this bill.

These amendments would improve the bill and provide real solutions for American people who are suffering under the weight of misguided Democrat policies.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this en bloc, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition, but I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Mr. Gonzalez's attempt to help community banks. I would say that this amendment really doesn't do anything substantive to the bill. It doesn't help community banks compete and survive in the current regulatory environment.

In fact, if we were really serious about helping community banks, we would be looking at the Dodd-Frank Act and the additional regulatory burdens in place on these financial institutions, but we are not. This bill doesn't do that. We would be looking at the regulatory burdens that Dodd-Frank keeps on institutions that keeps them from lending to their consumers, the compliance cost burdens that make accessing credit more difficult, especially for hard-to-reach communities.

Last year, Democrats got rid of the true lender doctrine, which focused on providing legal certainty to banks and fintech partnerships. The true lender doctrine would have actually helped provide clarity and lower the cost and access to credit. It is these partnerships between fintechs and community banks that harness and scale technology and provide consumers with the financial products that they want and need, particularly in underserved communities.

If we are really serious about reaching underserved communities--and I think we should be--we should restore the true lender doctrine and rightsize overly burdensome regulations on community banks.

Those are the important points I would like to make in light of this amendment. I welcome a discussion about those issues. I think we have a lot of mutual concerns about the challenges the American people are facing, but I think it is important that we get to the big issues that are central in this economy, given the economic circumstances we are currently in as a result of Democrat policies, and we should be working to fix those big issues.

While I am not opposed to the amendment--I think it is fine; I am not going to oppose it--I think it is important that we highlight the big and essential things we should be about.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I just reiterate that this amendment really doesn't do anything substantive. If we are serious about helping community banks, rightsizing burdensome regulations would be the way to go, and reinstating the true lender doctrine would be a strong first step. There are bigger things that we should be doing to help these institutions.

While I am not opposed to the amendment, I think we should be doing the big, substantive items that are important for us to have a competitive economic situation for working Americans. We should be about these bigger items and focus on them.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment is a solution in search of a problem and provides a pathway for frivolous lawsuits in Federal court. Cash continues to be an important form of payment in many communities across America. However, businesses that have a substantial number of customers who wish to transact in cash already accept cash.

The amendment's requirements will impact small business owners in particular, who will be required to accept cash payment whether or not it makes economic or business sense.

Additionally, this amendment would give preferential treatment to ancillary service providers that may be facing a downturn in demand for services due to an increasing electronic payment usage desire among consumers.

Let's look at the bill. Let me try to explain it. The bill would prohibit retail businesses from refusing cash payments below $2,000. It would prohibit the retail business from charging a higher price to any customer who pays by cash than is customarily going to be charged for using other forms of payment. It provides a private right of action-- that means that they can sue--in Federal court for consumers who are aggrieved.

The amendment provides exceptions to these prohibitions, including if the business provides a mechanism to convert cash to prepaid cards.

This is really the desire to force basically ATMs into retail establishments. That is the construct of the bill. So imagine you are a small business, and now under Federal law, you are required to take a $2,000 cash payment. That seems onerous. Imagine you are a small businessperson who is now going to be faced potentially with lawsuits in Federal court for a failure to provide an ATM machine in your establishment. This seems quite onerous.

We can get into the question of the soundness of a fully digitized world. There is a serious debate to be had here, and there is an economic inclusion debate that is necessary for us to have. In a world of digital payments, not everyone is digital, so we have to make sure that we get to those key issues.

But this bill is rather convoluted, and it provides a number of requirements for businesses that are not in keeping with trying to get at the question of cash acceptance. I think we should have some serious discussions about cash acceptance, especially for our communities across America that are not online and don't have credit cards or prepaid cards in their pocket.

I think there are things we can still work on in this space. Unfortunately, this bill is too convoluted with too many mechanisms that would provide too many opportunities for new lawsuits, so I oppose it. I think it is important that we oppose this amendment, as I did in committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, has the gentleman's time fully expired?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from New Jersey. I agree with Mr. Payne on his choice of attire. I think the fact that two of us, who are very well dressed--appropriately dressed, I would say--are having a debate and are on different sides of this issue is very unbecoming of the bowtie community. We stand together more closely than this.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague--the fact that he has an undertaking in this arena to talk about the question of cash acceptance, I think, is important.

There are a number of questions that I have raised about this bill that I think are important. The private right of action in Federal court is problematic for us on this side of the aisle. The requirement to have a machine on site--on page 2 of the bill, it says the retail facility, or whatever the facility is, that is accepting payment, they have to provide customers with the means on the premises to convert cash into a card that is either a general-use prepaid card, a gift card, or an access device for electronic funds transfer. So it is a very specific requirement to have on premises.

Imagine the same scenario of this nice lady that lives in his district, Mr. Payne's district, who goes downstairs to purchase whatever, whether it is from a grocery store or whatever. Now, imagine they had an ATM that was two doors down. Under the construct of this bill, that wouldn't be sufficient.

There are important things to get at here. I oppose the amendment, but I welcome the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2543 represents a seismic and powerful response to racial discrimination in financial products. Thank you to Chairwoman Waters, and to my colleague who is managing, for the leadership given.

My amendment is very important. I am pleased that my amendment is included in the en bloc amendment that the Financial Services Committee has today.

It requires the Federal Reserve Board to submit a report to Congress about the prevalence of racial discrimination in lending to victims of a Federally declared disaster. I know it well.

This amendment merits the support of all of my colleagues because no district is exempt from natural disasters. I am reminded of 2017, among others, in my district where it was devastated by Hurricane Harvey over an area of 41,500 square miles, 21 trillion gallons of rainfall, and one-third of Houston underwater.

There was major discrimination against Black and Brown Houstonians who sought loans or home loans or financing to pay for repairs. They faced obstacles, delays, and outcomes that were different than their neighbors.

Mr. Speaker, this endemic discrimination was seen in efforts to gain assistance from the Small Business Administration.

Mr. Speaker, as an outspoken advocate for equity in this country's economy, I rise in support of the Financial Services Racial Equity, Inclusion, and Economic Justice Act.

This bill requires that financial services regulators and companies establish procedures to ensure racial equity and eliminate racial disparities in all aspects of their operations including employment, income, wealth, and access to affordable credit.

In addition to the reforms in H.R. 2543, the bill requires regulators to provide reports to Congress about economic inequality, especially within the labor force, and enact plans to minimize said inequalities.

America's economy has only rarely worked to the advantage of working- class people. Worse still, there has been an endemic and vile trend of implicit and perhaps explicit discrimination against people of color within policies and overall economic policy.

However, unfair monetary policy is not just an anachronism from long ago or a relic from a different era. It is happening now.

Recent analyses have found that algorithms used by lenders often are designed in such a way that they result in black and brown Americans being charged higher interest rates.

This legislation takes a major step toward fixing long-overdue-- disparities and fundamentally changing the financial services industry to make it proactive in fighting economic discrimination.

I am also very pleased that my amendment is included in the En Bloc Amendment that the Financial Services committee is bringing before the House today.

My amendment requires the Federal Reserve Board to submit a report to Congress about the prevalence of racial discrimination in lending to victims of a federally declared disaster.

This amendment merits the support of all of my colleagues because no district is exempt from natural disasters, and with the acceleration of climate change, it is increasingly likely that these events will occur even in areas of the country that previously felt insulated from them.

When disasters occur, our Nation has a moral and legal duty to facilitate their recovery and rebuilding. It is totally unacceptable and abhorrent for racial or ethnic discrimination to be injected into decisions on financial factors impacting remedial action.

However, in some instances, discrimination--whether by intent or effect--has occurred during these moments of greatest need.

For example, in 2017, my district in Houston was one of the many in Texas devastated by Hurricane Harvey. Over an area of 41,500 square miles spanning Texas and Louisiana, the storm dropped nearly 21 trillion gallons of rainfall and damaged 203,000 homes, of which 12,700 were destroyed.

At its peak on September 1, 2017, one third of Houston was underwater, and over 300,000 structures of all types were flooded in southeastern Texas, where extreme rainfall hit many areas that are densely populated.

Hurricane Harvey was the largest housing disaster to strike the U.S. in our Nation's history. When the cleanup began, thousands of Houstonians needed loans to help rebuild their homes and their lives.

But black and brown Houstonians who sought loans or home loan refinancing to pay for repairs faced obstacles, delays, and outcomes that were different from their other neighbors. This endemic discrimination was seen in efforts to gain assistance from the Small Business Administration.

If there was ever a moment when our financial systems need to fully support minority communities, it is after they have been decimated by a natural disaster.

For majority Houstonians who applied and received a $200,000 loan from the Small Business Administration or $25,000 by virtue of a government declaration, the process was streamlined. They could also apply for and receive $40,000 from the SBA to replace or repair personal property--such as clothing, furniture, cars, and appliances-- that was damaged or destroyed in the disaster.

The SBA asks applicants for collateral, such as a first or second mortgage on the damaged real estate, which are common forms of collateral for an SBA disaster loan.

In the case of majority applicants, it was found that the SBA usually would not decline a loan for lack of collateral.

However, for black and brown families, the system worked differently. Financing was difficult to access. Applications for loans from black and brown residents were less likely to be approved than applications from their white counterparts.

My amendment protects black and brown Americans who face the consequences of a debilitating natural disaster. It would guarantee their protection from unfair policies in their most vulnerable moments.

Fighting economic discrimination should be a bipartisan issue. No American deserves to be left behind because of antiquated monetary policy or a federal government that refuses to fight on their behalf.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to recognize the discrimination and to fix it by adding the Jackson Lee amendment.

I include in the Record an article titled: ``Black Communities are Last in Line for Disaster Planning in Texas.''

[From the Washington Post, May 12, 2022]

Black Communities Are Last in Line for Disaster Planning in Texas

Houston.--Lawrence Hester worries every time it rains.

During heavy storms, water overflows the dirt drainage ditch

fronting his yard and the bayou at the end of his block--

flooding the street, creeping up his front steps, pooling

beneath the house, and trapping his family inside. ``We are

always underwater here,'' said Hester, 61. And yet, the state

of Texas allocated none of the $1 billion in federal funds it

received to protect communities from future disasters to

neighborhoods in Houston that flood regularly, according to

an investigation by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development.

HUD has now found the exclusion of those majority Black and

Hispanic urban communities to be discriminatory. The state

``shifted money away from the areas and people that needed it

the most,'' disproportionately benefiting White residents

living in smaller towns, the agency concluded. Houston has

faced seven federally declared disasters in the last seven

years and suffered an estimated $2 billion in damage from

Hurricane Harvey in 2017. That storm devastated Kashmere

Gardens, where Hester has lived his entire life. The

floodwaters from Harvey deposited black mold throughout

Hester's home and left his daughter chronically short of

breath.

The state, which is appealing HUD's findings, denied

discriminating, saying the Texas General Land Office

administered the federal grant program based on HUD approval.

The situation in Texas illustrates the challenge facing the

Eiden administration, which has pledged to focus on racial

equity but is struggling to protect low-income communities of

color from the growing threat of climate change. Even after

HUD's finding of discrimination, the agency said it does not

have the power at this time to suspend the rest of the $4.3

billion in disaster mitigation money awarded to the state

under criteria approved by the Trump administration. ``What

is happening here with these federal dollars going through

the state and not one dime coming to the City of Houston

post-Hurricane Harvey is absolutely crazy, and it cannot be

justified,'' said Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner. ``What do I

say to the people in Kashmere Gardens when these storms keep

coming, and we are not putting in the infrastructure that

they desperately need to mitigate the risk of future

flooding?''

Black and Hispanic communities in northeast Houston,

including Kashmere Gardens, are especially vulnerable to the

more frequent storms and catastrophic flooding expected due

to climate change, according to the Federal Emergency

Management Agency. Many of the residential streets lack curbs

and gutters--common storm drainage infrastructure in

predominantly White neighborhoods in Houston--and rely

instead on open ditches dating back to the 1930s.

``Sometimes we can't get out because the water is so

high,'' said Jackie Spradley, Hester's wife. ``You're

literally trapped until the water starts to subside.'' She

can't get to work. Their 12-year-old daughter can't get to

school. The whoosh of traffic and trains permeates the

triangular neighborhood of modest single-family homes penned

between two highways and two sets of railroad tracks. During

large storms, runoff from impervious highway surfaces flows

onto residential streets.

Piles of trash--old tires, mattresses, furniture, home

insulation--accumulate for weeks in the drainage ditches

along many streets, blocking water from flowing through the

ditches to the bayou. Silt and other debris clog many of the

culverts beneath narrow driveways and footpaths spanning the

ditches. In the summers, standing water breeds mosquitoes.

The city of Houston had hoped to use $95 million in federal

grants to upgrade Kashmere Gardens' storm drainage

infrastructure. The proposed improvements, including

converting some of the ditches to a curb and gutter system,

would have removed the flood risk to nearly 1,400 properties.

But without the money, the city shelved those plans.

Hester's daughter Ashlei was 7 years old in 2017 when

Harvey floodwaters breached their family room, lapping at the

legs of the card table on which the family played dominoes.

Her cough worsened, and doctors prescribed four different

medications for asthma. She was hospitalized in 2018 for more

than a week. But doctors still did not know what was causing

her illness. It wasn't until December 2019, more than two

years after Harvey, when Hester and his wife discovered the

black mold that was making their daughter so sick. A city

inspector recommended that the house be condemned.

``I was so ashamed,'' Hester said. ``We didn't have nowhere

else to go.''

His mother had purchased the home in 1960, paying the

mortgage with wages from her job flipping burgers 16 hours a

day. Hester was born in the house months later. He had stayed

in the house after Hurricane Alicia flooded the home in 1983.

And after Ike in 2008. Even after Harvey, Hester stayed,

hoping to someday pass the three-bedroom ranch-style home

onto his daughter. But Hester, who is on disability for

herniated disks in his back and neck from his years as a

long-haul truck driver, and his wife, who sells insurance,

never had the money to adequately repair the storm-ravaged

roof and mold-covered walls. Hester said the city informed

him after Harvey that he was ineligible for funding to fix

the home because of unpaid property taxes ``It's not just

about the storm drainage,'' Hester said. ``It's about

everything.''

Hester said that the rainbow-hued oily waters he had

splashed in while playing in the drainage ditches as a child

had been polluted with cancer-causing creosote used to treat

wooden railroad ties and utility poles. A 2019 state health

department investigation confirmed elevated cancer rates

among residents in the southern end of Kashmere Gardens,

located near two Superfund sites. Residents fear that

flooding will carry toxic deposits into their yards. Hester's

mother had died of cancer. So had his father. And one of his

brothers. ``Cancer is killing the whole neighborhood,'' said

Hester, who is too afraid to visit the doctor about his own

health problems.

Federal disaster mitigation grants are supposed to improve

the inferior flood infrastructure in lower income

communities. But the HUD investigation found that competition

rules set by the Texas General Land Office unfairly favored

smaller towns with less urgent needs and where residents are

more likely to be White and less likely to be lower income.

The state knowingly adopted scoring criteria that prioritized

lower-density areas and excluded communities that HUD

designated as the most impacted by disasters from half the

grants, HUD said. ``Because the criteria had these

unjustified discriminatory effects, their use failed to

comply with HUD's regulations,'' the agency found.

No other state adopted Texas' method of distributing the

funds, according to HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal

Opportunity. The agency concluded that without Texas's

discriminatory criteria, nearly four times as many Black

residents and more than twice as many Hispanic residents

would have benefited from the grants. The General Land Office

said in its April 1 appeal that the state ``does not

discriminate, and the projects it has funded help minority

beneficiaries across Texas.'' The state said more than two-

thirds of residents in communities that received awards are

Black, Hispanic or Asian. The state pointed out that its plan

was approved two years ago and characterized HUD's new

objections as ``politically motivated.''

In addition to Houston and surrounding Harris County, the

General Land Office denied grants to the predominantly Black

and Hispanic cities of Port Arthur, Beaumont and Corpus

Christi as well as Jefferson and Nueces counties--all of

which experienced significant flooding from Harvey, according

to the civil rights complaint. Texas Housers, a nonprofit

focused on housing in low-income communities, and Northeast

Action Collective, a grassroots advocacy group of Houston

residents, filed the complaint with HUD last year. Instead,

funds were steered toward inland, Whiter communities that

were far less severely impacted by hurricanes and used to

fund routine infrastructure, the complaint said. That

includes $17.5 million for a new community center in Caldwell

County that is supposed to double as an evacuation center;

$10.8 million to install a sewage system in the 379-person

town of Iola; $6 million for a new sheriffs department radio

tower and

radios for Gonzales County; and $4.2 million for a 2,000-

foot-long road in Bastrop County to connect a Walmart parking

lot and a Home Depot, justified as an alternate path for

emergency vehicles in case the adjacent freeway is clogged

with hurricane evacuees from the Gulf Coast 161 miles away.

``These mitigation funds are a strategy to undo the

systemic racism of the past, but that's not what we're seeing

Texas interested in at all,'' said John Henneberger, co-

director of Texas Housers. ``This is a test of how serious

HUD and the Biden administration are in enforcing civil

rights.'' HUD's Office of Community Planning and Development,

which oversees disaster mitigation aid, wrote to the Texas

General Land Office in March expressing ``grave concerns''

over the distribution of the first round of grants. ``The

State has not identified a plan to protect communities while

guarding against competition criteria that could disadvantage

minority residents,'' HUD wrote. If a voluntary resolution

cannot be reached, HUD said it could refer the matter to the

Department of Justice for enforcement. But advocates worry

that could come too late for communities like Kashmere

Gardens. While HUD said it cannot stop the state from

awarding the rest of the grants ``due to prior decisions,''

it would begin monitoring how the money is distributed and

warned it could claw back the funds if necessary.

``Texas has a history of sending money to those who are

politically connected,'' said Shannon Van Zandt, a professor

of urban planning at Texas A&M University whose research

focuses on hazard reduction and housing. She noted that

racial disparities occurred with the distribution of disaster

funds after Hurricane Ike in 2008. Civil rights advocates say

HUD has the authority to suspend Texas's ability to spend

federal grant money; it has done so under previous

administrations. But Sara Pratt, former deputy assistant

secretary in HUD's fair housing office who is now

representing Texas Housers as an attorney, said there is

long-standing division among HUD staff over enforcing civil

rights violations when making funding decisions.

``There is deep disagreement internally,'' Pratt said.

``The secretary's job is to resolve disputes like this.'' HUD

Secretary Marcia L. Fudge declined to comment because the

Texas investigation remains open, HUD spokesman Michael Burns

said. ``Her commitment to civil rights and fair housing is

well documented and unwavering, and she is committed to

ensuring that all HUD funds are used in compliance with all

relevant laws and program requirements,'' Burns said. In

response to widespread criticism over how the first $1

billion in Harvey disaster grants was distributed, Texas now

plans to allocate $750 million to Harris County. Houston is

due to receive an additional $9 million out of $488 million

that the state plans to send to the Houston-Galveston region.

City officials point out that the $9 million amounts to less

than one tenth of the cost of its proposed improvements to

Kashmere Gardens.

In Kashmere Gardens on a recent morning after a

thunderstorm inundated streetside drainage ditches,

bulldozers and dump trucks worked to widen and deepen Hunting

Bayou to absorb runoff from future storms. The work is a

small portion of a $2.5 billion flood protection bond that

Harris County passed in 2018. The bulk of the bond money was

directed to wealthier neighborhoods because the county

expected to receive federal disaster funds for poorer ones,

according to county commissioner Rodney Ellis. But without

money to upgrade the ditch system to drain storm water from

neighborhood streets, it's unclear if the bayou expansion

will be effective.

``This is the Texas two-step in Houston. You have to get

the water from the neighborhoods to the bayous. And then you

have to get the water from the bayous to the Gulf of

Mexico,'' said Ellis, who represents the area. Residents,

too, remain skeptical. ``It's a wait and see situation,''

said Dorothy Wanza, another Kashmere Gardens resident whose

street turned into a river during Harvey and flooded her home

with more than a foot of water. The experience left the So-

year-old so traumatized that ``every time it rains, I get the

hell out of dodge.''

She spent the previous night fully dressed, prepared to

evacuate to one of her children's homes. ``The ditches

overflow, and once they are full, the water comes back on

you,'' Wanza said. On the other side of the bayou, Hester

said the city had recently cleaned out part of a ditch lining

his street for the first time he could recall in more than a

decade. Dirt and bricks still block some of the culverts.

``Right up under there, look,'' he said, pointing beneath

the concrete walkway leading from the street to his front

yard. ``It's stopped up on both sides.'' He nodded farther

down the street to another culvert: ``That whole drain hole

was flooded.'' He and his next door neighbor had removed as

many bricks as they could to move the water through. ``If we

don't do things around here, ain't nothing going to get done.

I have to go around here and try to help, and I'm in bad

shape myself.'' Hester limped around the perimeter of his

home and pointed two feet up the siding where Harvey

floodwaters had reached--a reminder of the catastrophe he

says he failed to protect his daughter from.

A nonprofit had removed the mold inside when it fixed up

the house in 2020, installing new cabinets, a new roof and

laminate flooring. But the entryway still slopes. The floor

joists need to be repaired. The porch is lopsided, its wood

rotted. Hester is stooped from years of pain. Yet he remains

intent on doing what he can to make things right. ``It's not

my life I'm worried about. It's my daughter's,'' Hester said.

``I'm half dead.''

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 have no additional speakers, and I am prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is painful to hear a Member of Congress talk about reckless spending when that spending is what was necessary during the pandemic.

Is it reckless spending to allow people to receive some sort of help when they couldn't go to work, Mr. Speaker?

My colleagues across the aisle would not have helped the American people who were out of work during a pandemic because it would be reckless spending.

Is it reckless spending to keep people in their homes and not allow them to be foreclosed on?

My colleagues across the aisle would have allowed people to be evicted and their things thrown in the streets because to them, helping people in a time of crisis is reckless spending.

Is it reckless spending to put food on the table of people who can't go to work?

Is it reckless spending to make sure babies and children who are going to school get proper schools that can protect them during a virus and a pandemic that was killing people worldwide?

We put money into schools. We put money into police departments and fire departments. But that is reckless spending to my colleagues across the aisle.

They are the best on the planet at doing nothing. Do-nothing politics is what that is all about. They find clever ways to find an opportunity to do nothing by saying things that mean nothing to the people who need help.

Reckless spending. How dare they call it reckless spending when people are suffering and need help.

Now, let me continue with the Brookings Institution with my final minutes.

This is from the Brookings Institution: ``Efforts by Black Americans to build wealth can be traced back throughout American history. But these efforts have been impeded in a host of ways, beginning with 246 years of chattel slavery and followed by congressional mismanagement . . . `'

Let me repeat that: by congressional mismanagement.

`` . . . of the Freedmans Savings Bank, which left 61,144 depositors with losses of nearly $3 million in 1874, the violent massacre decimating Tulsa's Greenwood District in 1921, a population of 10,000 that thrived as the epicenter of African-American business and culture, commonly referred to as Black Wall Street, and discriminatory policies throughout the 20th century including the Jim Crow Eras `Black Codes' strictly limiting opportunity in many Southern States . . . . `'

Mr. Speaker, today has been the best evidence we need of why invidious discrimination exists in this country, because there are people across the aisle who will tolerate it and who will come to this floor and talk about Americans as though you have to be White to be an American, as though people of color don't count, as though the LGBTQ- plus community doesn't count, and that women don't count. To them, Mr. Speaker, if you are a White man, you are an American.

But what about the rest of the people in this country who suffer?

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day to hear my colleagues across the aisle speak of reckless spending when people were suffering.

I thank God that we have the courage to help people in a time of need. If I could do it again, I would do it because I saw the suffering. Perhaps they don't see the suffering that I see. But I saw it, and I was prepared to do something about it.

I believe that in the final analysis, those who refuse to tolerate the kind of invidious discrimination that we suffer each day in this country, they will be vindicated. They will be vindicated.

I am grateful for the time, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 1170, I offer amendments en bloc No. 1.

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

Mr. Speaker, the 23 amendments offered in this en bloc are a terrific example of a working legislative process, a process through which well- considered legislation is further strengthened by the intellect, experience, and values of the House Democratic Caucus.

These amendments broaden this package's commitment to equity by ensuring that information is gathered regarding loans made to veterans, people with disabilities, and the LGBTQ-plus community, which will help reveal unfair or discriminatory practices against these communities.

We also have amendments that will ensure economic data are disaggregated within racial and ethnic groups, in recognition of the lived experiences across different communities.

The package is further bolstered by timely and necessary reporting ensuring that communities of color and low-income communities have access to wealth-building opportunities, including purchasing their first home and accessing capital.

Furthermore, this package includes amendments that will help us to better understand and address the country's growing affordable housing and homelessness crises that have disproportionately affected people of color.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support these amendments being considered en bloc.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, this is not another mandate. This is simply a requirement that the Fed fulfill its two mandates, the dual mandates to all of its people, to make sure that all people have price stability. This is what it is about.

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Brown).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, according to a recent National Bureau of Economic Research report, the racial wealth gap is on track to grow wider in the coming decades. It is estimated that the White-to-Black wealth ratio will increase from 5.6 to 1 in 2019 to 8.4 to 1 by 2200.

The time to act is now. These amendments will help ensure that everyone will have a fair chance, and in too many instances, a first chance at economic opportunity.

I thank our colleagues for offering their amendments, and I urge my colleagues to vote in support of these amendments because these amendments are principally about transparency.

If you have nothing to hide, you celebrate transparency. If you have something to hide, you want to eschew transparency.

These amendments seek to provide transparency so that we can get a better understanding of how we can better cure the invidious discrimination that has plagued our country for centuries.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 1170, I offer amendments en bloc No. 2.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Republican amendments presented here today stand as a testament to Republican values; namely, a tolerance for wealth inequality and racial discrimination.

Let's be clear. The amendment from Mr. Timmons will strike large portions of the bill and make no attempt to improve it.

As for the amendment from Mr. Davis, it will strike provisions requiring the reporting of small business lending data, effectively allowing banks to continue to hide the extent to which they are denying small business owners of color access to affordable credit.

According to a Fed survey, 46 percent of Black-owned firms that applied for financing received none of the financing they sought compared to just 22 percent of White-owned firms. We need more granular data on these trends to root out discrimination in lending once and for all.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, what we have been witnessing today is the behavior of persons who chose not to help the American people in a time of need.

When the American people were being evicted from their homes, they chose not to help. When schools were plagued by a virus and needed funding so that they could secure our children from the virus, they chose not to help. When people were out of work and needed help to put food on the table, fuel in their cars, they chose not to help.

Because they chose not to help, they have to call any help that was given reckless, and they have to call it bad policy.

But the truth is, if you do nothing, you put yourself in a position such that you cannot appreciate the suffering of people who are in the midst of a worldwide pandemic. They chose not to help. We choose to help, and we continue to help.

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day when people will call saving homes and keeping children safe from a virus reckless policy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do rise in opposition to H.R. 2543. I thank my friend from Houston, Texas, and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle that worked on many of the bills that are in the package today.

It is a shame that that package was not put together in such a way that we could be here in a bipartisan visit about the ones that we actually support and that we think could be enacted into law. Instead, Democrats have put together a partisan package of bills that politicize our central bank and do nothing to address the insidious inflation that is hurting all American families and workers--Black, Brown, and White.

Mr. Speaker, one thing I know is that H.R. 2543 will not become law. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, Arkansans woke up and as they went to work and filled up their tanks for the week, they had to pay $5 for gas. That is not as high as it is here in Washington, but $5 is hurting all of the hardworking families in my State.

While Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is still toeing the economically illiterate party line on inflation, even economists from the left of center admit that government spending was too much and not targeted.

Don't believe me?

Listen to President Biden's key advisers.

Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers predicted, a month after President Biden took office, that the proposed American Rescue Plan would ``set off inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation.''

Now Larry Summers is forecasting a recession.

Steve Rattner, Mr. Obama's former economic adviser on his staff, said Mr. Biden was ``wrong to omit the important contribution to inflation from excessive fiscal and monetary stimulus.''

The truth is, after the CARES Act and the December appropriations bill of 2020, there was plenty of COVID money left over, and the economy was well on its way to recovery with vaccines being distributed.

But House Democrats supercharged demand-side stimulus by adding another $2 trillion in unpaid-for spending in that so-called American Rescue Plan. Mr. Speaker, Americans aren't feeling rescued. They are feeling like hostages--hostages to the daily theft of the Biden inflation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the President fashions himself as a budget hawk, saying last month that he personally reduced the deficit last year, and he is complaining that we on this side of the aisle aren't giving him any credit. But what he doesn't tell you, Mr. Speaker, is that he is taking credit for deficits that were falling due to those expiring COVID programs.

The facts are, Mr. Biden has not reduced deficits. In fact, he has increased them. The Congressional Budget Office's latest numbers project $16 trillion in additional debt between now and 2032.

So I hear a lot of talk about deflection on our House floor today, and the deflection of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is the deflection from the insidious inflation that our families are facing. If House Democrats were serious, then they would target and spend less money. They would stop blaming Putin and accusing American companies of price gouging. They would stop cutting off capital to American energy companies through ESG mandates and intimidating banks, and they would stop threatening trillions in more taxes.

While government spending and supply chain constraints have contributed to higher prices, this inflation also stems from the Fed's loose monetary policy--too loose, too lax, and for too long.

Just as House and Senate Republicans worked to tailor and end the COVID funds at the end of 2020, we also urged the Federal Reserve to end zero interest rates and begin shrinking their balance sheet. Instead of doing anything to address these root causes of inflation, H.R. 2543 on the House floor would instead expand the Fed's mandate to address socioeconomic disparities.

Two weeks ago, Mr. Biden met with Fed Chair Jerome Powell in the Oval Office where Mr. Biden said that he embraced the Fed's independence. Apparently, House Democrats didn't get the memo. At a time when our central bank has failed to carry out its current mandate for sound money and price stability, Democrats want the Fed to not only be a climate regulator but also to end racial inequity. Expanding the Fed's mandate to address socioeconomic disparities would further inject uncertainty and risk into the Fed's monetary policy and politicize our historically independent central bank.

House Republicans believe Congress should return to pre-pandemic debates on our spending priorities, abandon economic pop science fads like modern monetary theory, and urge our Federal Reserve to return to its core mission.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill, H.R. 2543.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the ranking member on the House Financial Services Committee, Mr. McHenry, for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit. It addresses the core flaw that House Republicans believe presides today. We hear the voices of those 80 percent of Americans who say that $5,000 extra coming out of our pockets is what is hurting the working families, Black, White, and Brown, in my home State of Arkansas. We know inflation is the top issue facing this House and facing our families that we represent.

That is why if we were to adopt my motion to recommit, we would instruct the Committee on Financial Services to adopt my amendment to H.R. 2543. This amendment, Mr. Speaker, is straightforward. It would simply focus the Federal Reserve, as Representative Byron Donalds so eloquently outlined, on a single mandate: price stability.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of my amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage everyone to support adding our bipartisan amendment, the text of the bipartisan Payment Choice Act, to the bill.

Recently, the bill passed the Financial Services Committee on a bipartisan vote. I thank Chairwoman Waters for her work in helping to advance my legislation. I thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for their leadership and support of it.

The Payment Choice Act guarantees that every consumer has the choice to pay cash for goods and services. Right now, there is an attack on American currency. Companies are trying to ban cash in their stores, but cash is simple, common, and anonymous. And it is the necessary form of payment for 55 million Americans. That is right, 55 million Americans in this country.

The bill does not prohibit digital or other payments. Instead, it protects cash as a payment in this Nation, as it has been throughout our history. It protects Americans from being rejected from stores because they can only pay in cash.

Several cities and States have enacted their own laws to protect the right to pay cash already. This bill would provide a single law to protect cash nationwide. More important, the bill would protect the privacy of Americans. There is no data collection with cash transactions. Cash is a private transaction.

Customers should have the right to refuse to hand over their personal information for a simple purchase. It is not a partisan issue because Democrats and Republicans support this bill. Therefore, it is an American issue to protect American currency. I encourage all Members to support my amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the gentleman's wonderful summary of my bill up until the point where he raised the issue around preferential businesses, such as ATMs. There is no preferential treatment for any industry in this bill. All retail transactions are treated the same.

As the gentleman speaks on businesses being able to charge a higher price, I don't know about North Carolina, but in New Jersey, when I go to the gas station, there is a higher price charged for credit, not cash. So I think he kind of had that in reverse.

Mr. Speaker, this is an opportunity for 55 million Americans who don't have banking accounts or are underbanked, to continue to be a part of this economy. There is a population in this country, believe it or not, who would rather not be in the banking system.

I am just trying to protect the underserved and the underbanked. I don't know the makeup of the gentleman's district in North Carolina, although I think his attire is splendid with the bowtie. But back in his district, I don't know if they are affluent or not. I have some of the poorest Americans in my district, and they are reaching out to me saying: What do I do?

What happens to the grandmother who lives in a two-flight walkup and the store that she uses is on the first floor? Mr. Speaker, now, this business decides that they are not going to accept her cash anymore. You are asking this woman to walk another three or four blocks to find someone, like a pauper: ``Who will take my cash? Who will take my cash? Will you take my money? Will you take my cash?''

``No, no cash allowed here. Be gone.''

That is what we are looking at. That is what we are trying to prevent.

Mr. Speaker, I just say that we are here to fight for the underserved, the underbanked, and the unbanked.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.