LGBTQI+ Data Inclusion Act

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York, Chairwoman of the Oversight Committee, for her leadership, and Chairman Grijalva for his dynamic leadership, as well.

I rise today because I just feel moved by the moment to really talk about truth in the moments that I have. I started this morning by citing the Declaration of Independence that said, we all are created equal--a portion thereof--with the unalienable rights of life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is important that today in Pride Month, as I recognize my constituents in Houston, all of them, and the caucus that has been a steadfast advocate in Houston for the rights of all people in the LGBTQI community.

It is important to be counted, to be recognized, and I want to emphasize, again, the distortion of how punitive this will be. It is voluntary.

I know my constituents. Some of them don't even fill out the Census because they are free. They know they don't have to do it. Some of them don't answer questions on the Census.

For anyone to suggest that this would be punitive and that people would be fearful and they would think not to do it, it is voluntary. And I can assure you that this community, LGBTQI+ Americans, remains vulnerable to discrimination on a daily basis.

Only 21 States have laws that explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, housing, and public accommodations, and only 20 States have such protections for gender identity.

H.R. 4176, the LGBTQI+ Data Inclusion Act, is to include and affirm and to be counted.

Do you realize that in most States a same-sex couple can get married on Saturday, then be legally denied service at a restaurant on Sunday, be fired from their jobs on Monday, and evicted from their apartment on Tuesday?

We thought we would be past that after years of working and fighting, but it is important to note that this bill will provide us with the appropriate information.

Madam Speaker, it is high time that we provide equal protection for all members of the LGBTQI community in accordance with the 14th Amendment.

H.R. 4176--again, not punitive--will take us one more step forward in the decades-long journey toward equality by creating a tool kit through which our LGBTQI community members can be represented and the demographic data can be taken.

Let me just simply say that the numbers speak truth. I said I wanted to discuss a moment of truth. When we have the data, we can help with housing, healthcare, schooling, or special needs that this community would have, representation as it relates to them being counted in Federal funding that may be necessary to aid in their circumstances.

I am reminded of tragedies that have happened before. Does anyone remember a young man being assailed against a fence just because he was part of the LGBTQI+ community?

I met with Matthew Shepard's mother. I remember these atrocities.

I see in a State like mine that transgender families are threatened over trying to find resources for their children. We love our children. We love our families.

The only thing I can see in this legislation is the importance of affirming, counting, treating with dignity, and recognizing that this wonderful community, the LGBTQI+ community, they, too, are America. We, too, are America.

This is a moment of truth, and it is simply collecting data, punishing no one but uplifting all Americans. I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 4176.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in strong support of H.R. 4176, the LGBTQI+ Data Inclusion Act, and to discuss my amendment to this legislation.

Despite significant legal advances over the past several years, including marriage equality, LGBTQI+ Americans remain vulnerable to discrimination on a daily basis.

Today, only 21 states have laws that explicitly prohibit 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, then be fired from their jobs on Monday, and evicted from their apartment on Tuesday.

Our country is comprised of trans people of color, lesbians living with a disability, gay immigrants, and those experiencing all other manners of intersecting and layering levels of oppression and privilege.

H.R. 4176 would make note of these stories and add their voices to the mosaic of our country.

The data available through these newly developed federal surveys will allow federal agencies to create better policies and practices designed to accommodate the needs of all our Nation's people.

I am conscious of the fact that if Congress expects the LGBTQI+ community to trust the federal government with their information, we must ensure their privacy and protection.

It is imperative that this data not be used to exclude, discriminate against, vilify, ostracize, or in any other way negatively impact anyone in this already vulnerable community.

That is a promise we make today.

Again, I remind you of the long path to full equality we walk. Let it be known, however, that one day our Nation will find itself knocking on equality's door.

When that happens, future LGBTQI+ Americans will look back and see themselves not hidden in shame, but present.

Present in our census, in our housing surveys, in our employment surveys.

They will be present in our metropolitan cities and in our rural towns, from the Atlantic beaches to the Pacific Northwest. From the forests of Alaska to the plains of my own Texas.

Through the LGBTQI+ Data Inclusion Act, LGBTQI+ Americans will be able to say--I was there. I am here.

It is high time that we provide equal protection for all members of the LGBTQI+ community in accordance with the 14th Amendment, which ensures equal protection for ALL Americans.

H.R. 4176 will take us one more step forward in the decades-long journey towards equality by creating a toolkit through which our LGBTQI+ community members can be represented in demographic data collection--and ultimately protected under the law.

This bill will require federal agencies to assess the ways in which they document sexuality, gender identity, and gender variance in surveys and provide new opportunities for LGBTQI+ individuals to self- identify themselves--all while ensuring the privacy and dignity of the people involved.

Though this legislation enacts a simple change on federal surveys, it represents a great gesture for our future.

We are not just talking about numbers today.

We are not just talking about percentages and ratios and clusters.

We are talking about the documentation and legacy of the great diversity of this Nation, and about enacting tools through which that diversity can be represented and protected.

As you all know, representation is the bedrock of American democracy.

If the government does not see you, how can it serve you?

As we discuss this Act, I especially want to keep in mind the members of the LGBTQI+ community who experience the fluidity and intersectionality that are aspects of gender and sexual identity.

Of course, gender and sexuality are just two facets of personhood.

Race, religion, socio-economic status, geographic region, disability status, and culture all play a part in crafting identity.

Madam Speaker, all of this is true about H.R. 4176, and yet, I encourage my colleagues in Congress to push for more.

That is why I believe my amendment is very important.

My amendment would direct the Comptroller General to issue a report to Congress about the impact of the implementation of this Act on the provision of services to LGBTQI+ persons.

It would assess the impact of H.R. 4176 by ensuring transparency into the correlation between the provision of services and one's gender identity, sexual orientation, and variations in sex characteristics.

Data collected through this Act would be used to monitor the flow of social services to LGBTQI+ communities. This will encourage the provision of services to the LGBTQI+ community, and if there are shortcomings, Congress and the public will be informed of them so that they can be remedied soon thereafter.

Despite our many gains, the United States is not always a welcoming place for individuals across the spectrum of genders and sexualities.

This is especially true for those coming from un-affirming communities and families--those for whom living their authentic lives may come at the cost of social ties and support systems.

For some, authenticity can be isolating.

As my colleagues know, the depression and suicide rates of LGBTQI+ individuals are horrifically high.

LGBTQI+ youth in particular are at greatest risk.

In Texas, The Trevor Project saw nearly 15,000 crisis contacts from LGBTQI+ youth in 2021.

Research consistently shows that trans and gay youth are more likely to experience depression when living in un-affirming or discriminatory environments.

Alternatively, the presence of supportive close friends and family in the life of an LGBTQI+ youth has a direct positive impact on that youth's self-esteem and overall health.

That supportive person could be a teacher, an athletic coach, a mental health counselor, or a troop leader.

The data available in H.R. 4176 could be used to help put more of these mentors in the lives of LGBTQ+ youth every day.

The LGBTQI+ Data Inclusion Act would enable agencies that provide mental health and other social services to gain access to a wealth of information about the communities they serve, so that they can better serve the LGBTQI+ community.

My amendment would allow us to see if they then use this data and their resources to safeguard the well-being of some of our Nation's most vulnerable individuals.

Ultimately, the Comptroller General study required by my amendment enables Congress to monitor the progress of H.R. 4176 in action.

It is with that in mind that I urge my colleagues to step forward in support of the LGBTQI+ Data Inclusion Act and my amendment.

Our lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex communities deserve to be documented in our Nation's history. They deserve to have their stories collected and used for their well-being. I am honored to be a part of that aim today.

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I thank the sponsor of this legislation and the chairwoman of the Oversight and Reform Committee for bringing this legislation to the floor.

Data collection is an indispensable tool to understand and address changes facing the LGBTQI community and other sexual- and gender- diverse communities.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article from American Progress dated May 24, 2022.

[From American Progress, May 24, 2022]

Collecting Data About LGBTQI+ and Other Sexual and Gender-Diverse

Communities

Data collection is an indispensable tool to understand and

address challenges facing LGBTQI+ and other sexual and

gender-diverse communities. Although strides have been made

in recent years, a persistent lack of routine data collection

on sexual orientation, gender identity, and variations in sex

characteristics (SOGISC) is still a substantial roadblock for

policymakers, researchers, service providers, and advocates

seeking to improve the health and well-being of LGBTQI+

people. More comprehensive and accurate point-in-time and

longitudinal demographic data on SOGISC are crucial to:

Advance research agendas;

Evaluate population trends;

Identify community-based needs;

Provide high-quality services;

Track and address discrimination;

Equitably distribute funding and other resources; and

Shape evidence-based policy solutions to promote equity and

reduce disparities faced by LGBTQI+ populations.

As the size and diversity of LGBTQI+ populations in the

United States continue to expand, particularly among youth

and young adults, the importance of collecting data on these

communities only continues to grow. Failing to collect these

data can create harms by hindering the ability of

researchers, policymakers, service providers, and advocates

to understand the experiences of LGBTQI+ communities,

identify disparities, generate policies that promote equity,

and evaluate the effectiveness of those policies. Yet

currently, the number of federally funded surveys that

include questions to identify LGBTQI+ respondents is limited.

While there are many kinds of data relevant to the

experiences of LGBTQI+ communities, this report focuses

specifically on data collection to capture SOGISC in two

types of settings: general population surveys and surveys of

LGBTQI+ communities. General population surveys assess a

large sample of the entire population, of which the majority

identify as cisgender and heterosexual and will not have

intersex traits. In contrast, LGBTQI+ community-based surveys

sample a population predominantly comprising sexual and

gender minorities. Community-based surveys can provide

important opportunities to learn more about even smaller or

less-studied sexual and gender minority populations, such as

people who are asexual, same-gender-loving, or Two-Spirit.

Because of their specific focus on sampling LGBTQI+

populations, community-based surveys may also be more likely

to reach larger proportions of groups such as LGBTQI+ people

of color, older adults, youth, people with disabilities,

people receiving social welfare support services, people

whose primary language is not English, and people interacting

with the criminal legal system.

When designing questions to accurately and effectively

survey either the general population or a predominantly

LGBTQI+ population, researchers must carefully weigh a number

of key considerations that are explained in this report.

Regardless of the type of survey, however, it is imperative

to ensure the following:

Entities collecting demographic data, including data

related to SOGISC, do so with a specific and well-defined

goal, such as collecting statistics on health experiences or

understanding the performance of a government benefit

program.

Data are collected, used, maintained, and shared only with

strong privacy, confidentiality, and ethical standards in

place to minimize the risk of data disclosure and misuse.

Entities collecting data adopt and post clear

nondiscrimination and confidentiality policies. These

policies should identify relevant legal nondiscrimination

protections; state why the data are being collected and how

they will be used; share contact information for resources to

enforce protections; and provide assurance that

confidentiality will be respected and that participation is

voluntary, allowing respondents to provide well-informed

consent with the knowledge that disclosure is voluntary and

that they have the right to opt out of responding.

Research and researchers comply with and are certified

through the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative

and consult community-based resources about how to conduct

effective and ethical research with LGBTQI+ populations that

ensures minority populations have a voice and role in the

design of survey questions.

LGBTQI+ people are meaningfully involved in question

development, testing, and the evaluation process.

This report examines best practices and key considerations

for collecting data on SOGISC in both general population

surveys as well as LGBTQI+ community-based surveys. The first

section of the report highlights evidence related to asking

these questions in general population surveys and examines

critical considerations, as well as avenues of future

research that policymakers and researchers should support.

The second section of the report compiles both evidence from

existing survey designs and interviews with LGBTQI+

individuals to create new suggestions and recommendations for

SOGISC question design in surveys of LGBTQI+ communities.

Ultimately, improving SOGISC data collection through these

kinds of general population and community-based instruments

is crucial to identifying disparities and crafting policy

solutions that promote more equitable outcomes for LGBTQI+

communities.

General population surveys are used to collect data from

representative samples of the population, allowing

researchers to create population estimates, describe

population demographics, assess disparities, compute

statistical weights for survey analysis, and develop policy,

program, and funding priorities. Federal, state, and local

governments rely on data from general population surveys such

as the decennial census, the American Community Survey (ACS),

and the Current Population Survey (CPS) for everything from

allocating budget resources to deciding where to locate

hospitals.

The persistent lack of routine data collection on SOGISC

remains a significant challenge for policymakers,

researchers, service providers, and advocates seeking to

improve the health and well-being of LGBTQI+ people.

Currently, most surveys, including those fielded by the U.S.

federal government and many state governments, do not collect

SOGISC information. While some surveys, such as the census

and the ACS, now invite people to answer questions about

their marital status or living arrangements in ways that

allow researchers to identify same-sex couples, this only

captures a small segment of the LGBTQI+ population. By not

asking specific questions about SOGISC, these surveys fail to

account for single LGB people or LGB people who are in a

relationship but not cohabitating with their partner(s), as

well as transgender people and intersex people altogether.

For example, according to the latest Gallup data, just 10

percent of LGBT adults in the United States are married to a

same-sex spouse, while an additional 6 percent live with a

same-sex domestic partner. This means that more than 5 in 6

LGBT adults cannot be identified by existing questions in

nonexperimental surveys conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau

such as the ACS and the census, which only account for

cohabitating same-sex couples. Failing to collect SOGISC data

creates real harms--hindering the ability to fully understand

the experiences of LGBTQI+ communities; to craft sound

policies that are inclusive of LGBTQI+ people and their

needs; and to evaluate the effectiveness of policies to

address disparities and promote more equitable outcomes.

More than 5 in 6 LGBT adults cannot be identified by

existing questions in nonexperimental surveys conducted by

the U.S. Census Bureau such as the ACS and the census.

As recommended by the National Academies of Sciences,

Engineering, and Medicine in their 2020 report, U.S.

population surveys must routinely collect, analyze, and

report demographic data that include SOGISC questions. The

information gathered by general population surveys shapes

major policy decisions and allocations of critical resources

related to health care, housing, employment, education, and

other services and benefits, affecting the everyday lives of

LGBTQI+ people and making the need to adopt SOGISC measures

even more urgent. Notably, expanding data collection on

SOGISC through government population-based surveys will

result in a larger sample size than in privately conducted

surveys. This is important because larger samples allow for

better, more reliable study and a richer understanding of the

diversity of the LGBTQI+ community. Moreover, having larger

samples will facilitate analysis and provide greater

comprehension of the experiences of populations that are

living at the intersection of multiple marginalized

identities.

Expanding and enhancing SOGISC data collection also

provides critical tools necessary to craft policy solutions

to improve outcomes and advance equity. By improving data

collection on LGBTQI+ populations, government agencies can

take meaningful steps to fulfill the directives set out by

executive orders 13988 and 13985, which President Joe Biden

signed on day one of his presidency.

LGBTQI+ advocates have long called for the federal

government and researchers to add SOGISC questions to major

surveys and other data collection efforts as a way to begin

addressing the deficiency of data on LGBTQI+ populations and

gaps in knowledge and policy affecting LGBTQI+ people.

Government officials, researchers, and others have questioned

whether the general population, composed mainly of non-

LGBTQI+ people, would understand these questions, answer them

accurately, or even refuse to answer them. The answers to

these questions are important because they affect the quality

of data gathered about LGBTQI+ people and, by extension, the

resources allocated, decisions made, and policies created

that affect LGBTQI+ communities.

Importantly, numerous federally supported entities and

other expert bodies have issued reports to determine

methodological best practices and improve measurement of

SOGISC in federal surveys. These groups have contributed to a

robust and continually growing body of research providing

evidence that SOGISC questions can be readily deployed in

federally funded and other surveys. For example, evidence

indicates that:

Sexual orientation and gender identity data are not

considered especially difficult or sensitive for survey

respondents to report, meaning that people generally

understand what the questions are asking and are willing to

answer them.

Securing participation of sexual minorities in surveys does

not require higher levels of effort, meaning it will not

create added costs or obstacles that would prohibit the

government or other researchers from conducting more

inclusive data collection.

People with intersex traits appear willing to disclose

their status and support collecting data on this measure in

research.

People will answer sexual orientation and gender identity

questions even across a variety of modes (for example,

telephone surveys and paper surveys) and via both self-

reporting and proxy reporting (for example, when a single

household member responds on behalf of all household members)

in federal large-scale general population surveys.

In other words, existing evidence addresses many of the

major hesitations or questions posed by government

researchers and others. Put simply, while more research is

needed to continue improving SOGISC measures, evidence

suggests these questions can function well in major general

population surveys, and they should be asked. For example, in

2021, the Census Bureau updated its experimental data

collection effort on the COVID-l9 pandemic to include

questions about sexual orientation and gender identity in the

Household Pulse Survey. This historic step marks the first

time a Census Bureau-sponsored survey has asked sexual

orientation and gender identity questions and highlights the

ways in which these questions can--and do--work in large,

nationally representative surveys. Expanding LGBTQI+-

inclusive data collection by asking SOGISC questions on

general population surveys is paramount to advancing equity

for LGBTQI+ communities.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article from the National Education Association, ``New Survey Data Shows LGBTQ+ Youth Mental Health Crisis.''

[From the National Education Association, May 25, 2022]

New Survey Data Shows LGBTQ+ Youth Mental Health Crisis

Last year, nearly half of LGBTQ+ youth seriously considered

killing themselves, including more than half of trans youth,

according to new data from The Trevor Project.

These figures reveal a deadly, mental-health crisis among

high school and college-age LGBTQ+ youth of all races, which

has been worsened by the Covid-19 pandemic and by recent,

political attacks on LGBTQ+ students by state legislators

across the nation.

``The [Trevor Project] study is actually on my computer

screen right now to send it to my colleagues,'' says Florida

high school teacher Michael Woods, whose state recently

passed a law that enables parents to sue school districts for

teaching LGBTQ-positive curriculum. ``Especially here in

Florida, with the `Don't Say Gay' law, which should also be

called `Don't Say Trans,' we have a lot of kids in stress,''

he says.

The study, which involved 35,000 LGBTQ+ high school and

college-age youth, of various races and identities, also

shows how schools and colleges can help. A little more than

half of LGBTQ+ youth identified their school or college as

``an LGBTQ-affirming space''--and those students reported

lower rates of attempted suicide. Even something as simple as

using the correct pronouns--the ones that match students'

gender identify--can decrease suicidal ideas.

``Small steps can make a big difference,'' says Joe Bento,

a Seattle high school teacher who also is chair of the

Washington state chapter of GLSEN, a national organization

that helps educators make schools more affirming for LGBTQ+

students.

The Trevor Project data shows how things have gone from bad

to worse for LGBTQ+ youth in the past two years. In 2019, 40

percent of LGBTQ+ seriously considered suicide; in 2021, the

rate hit 45 percent.

And it's even scarier among students of color. About one in

five Black LGBTQ+ students attempted suicide last year, as

did a slightly higher rate of Indigenous LGBTQ+ students.

Meanwhile, mental-health care is scarce. Nearly half of

LGBTQ+ youth--and more than half of Latino LGBTQ+ students--

told the Trevor Project that they wanted counseling and

didn't get it.

The pandemic is an obvious factor, educators say. When

colleges and schools switched to virtual learning, many

LGBTQ+ students were closeted in homes where their identities

are hidden. (Only 1 in 3 LGBTQ+ youth said they have LGBTQ-

affirming homes.) These students may have lost access to

counselors or other supports, like a Gay-Straight Alliance or

GenderSexuality Alliance (GSA) club.

``For a lot of queer students, school is their safe

space,'' says Bento. ``For a year and a half, they weren't in

that safe space.''

Now, students are back on campuses, in school buildings--

but that doesn't mean everything is okay, notes Bento. After

two years of pandemic-related isolation and trauma, students

desperately need mental-health support ``When we got back,

that didn't necessarily happen,'' he says. ``Suddenly it's

state testing! And it's this, this, this! Everything is `back

to normal,' but normal was garbage.''

Many students are suffering. But it's almost always the

most marginalized students who have the least access to

mental-health supports, Bento points out.

It's not just the pandemic. Making matters worse for LGBTQ

students, nearly 240 anti-LGBTQ+ bills have been filed this

year in state legislatures, most of them targeting trans

people, according to an NBC News analysis.

Many of these bills have been signed into laws that ban

trans women and girls from participating in high school

sports, prohibit trans students from using school bathrooms

and locker rooms that match their gender identity, and

restrict LGBTQ-positive school curriculum. For example,

Florida's new law enables parents to sue districts if they

think their child has had inappropriate instruction on gender

and sexuality. The cost of litigation will be borne by

districts, which already are removing curricula.

LGBTQ+ students are very aware of laws that seek to harm

them, educators say--and it causes them anguish. ``They're

just coming back to the rigors of school [after the

pandemic]--and now this!'' says Woods.

NEA and its affiliates strongly oppose these laws. This

spring, NEA President Becky Pringle wrote an open letter to

Florida students, published in the Sun-Sentinel newspaper.

``From protests to walkouts, you are bravely showing these

politicians that you aren't afraid to stand up for yourselves

. . . To our students in Florida and elsewhere: We see you!

We hear you! We are with you!''

For his part, Woods, an educator of 29 years, isn't afraid

either. He wears his ``We're All Human'' t-shirt and answers

his students' distressed questions. But he worries about

younger teachers with less job security, living in more

conservative areas. Many may feel like they can't be the

educators that students need.

``When young people don't feel like they have anywhere to

turn or anyone to talk to . . . well, I know why the stats

are the way they are,'' he says.

NEA members and their unions are working hard to get more

supports for students. In St. Paul, Minn., educators went to

the brink of striking this spring to protect the presence of

mental-health teams in every St. Paul school. Other K12

unions--like in Natrona County, Wyo.--are making sure federal

pandemic-relief funds are spent to hire more school

counselors and other professionals.

Recently, the Biden administration urged colleges and

universities to do the same with their money.

But it's also possible for individual educators to create

affirming spaces in their offices, classrooms, buses, and

other spaces. ``Words matter,'' says Bento, who introduces

himself to his students like this: ``My name is Mr. Bento. I

use he/him pronouns.''

Safe space posters are great at signaling that you support

your LGBTQ+ students but may not be allowable in all places.

``In those places, you can still put something on your body,

like a lanyard,'' says Bento. (The NEA LGBTQ+ caucus, of

which Bento is a member, offers ``Safe Person, Safe Space''

cards for educators to put in their lanyards.)

Bento uses the word ``partner,'' instead of boyfriend or

girlfriend, a subtle nod to the fact that not every

relationship looks the same and that some students may not

identify as male or female. ``Think about who is not

represented [in your words, in your curriculum],'' urges

Bento.

Yes, curriculum matters, too. (See GLSEN's inclusive

curriculum resource.) ``Students need curriculum that

reflects who they are, they need positive representation,''

says Bento. ``And not just Harvey Milk! Not just the AIDS

epidemic! Where's the joy?''

In fact, The Trevor Project asked LGBTQ+ youth the same

question: ``Where do you find joy?'' The responses can guide

educators in creating better spaces for all students. Answers

include:

Learning about LGBTQ history;

Learning I'm not alone and there are more people like me;

Supportive teachers;

Having a safe space to express gender, gender identity, and

sexuality;

LGBTQ clubs on campus; and

Living as their authentic self.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article from National Public Radio titled ``The Census Bureau's first ever data on LGBTQ+ people indicates deep disparities.''

[From National Public Radio, Sept. 24, 2021]

The Census Bureau's First Ever Data on LGBTQ+ People Indicates Deep

Disparities

The U.S. Census Bureau in July began asking Americans about

their sexual orientation and gender identity--a watershed

moment that marks the first time the federal government has

tried to capture data on LGBTQ+ Americans in its large real-

time national surveys.

The results so far are preliminary, but they do indicate

that the disparities queer

Americans experienced prior to the pandemic have continued to

endure 18 months in. For some, those disparities have grown

deeper.

According to the data, which captures results from July 21

to September 13, LGBTQ+ people often reported being more

likely than non-LGBTQ+ people to have lost employment, not

have enough to eat, be at elevated risk of eviction or

foreclosure, and face difficulty paying for basic household

expenses, according to the census' Household Pulse Survey, a

report that measures how Americans are faring on key economic

markers during the pandemic.

While think tanks like the Williams Institute at the UCLA

School of Law and advocate-led research groups have

previously studied LGBTQ+ poverty, no large government

population surveys, like those conducted by the census or the

Treasury Department, have attempted to capture the realtime

economic experiences of LGBTQ+ people.

Previously, those analyses were limited to studies of

``same-sex couples,'' a question the census began analyzing

with limited success in 1990, but that leaves out significant

portion of LGBTQ+ people. Lack of accurate data on the

population as a whole--and particularly on transgender

people, a group that has been chronically under surveyed--

hampered any federal response to persisting inequities,

advocates say.

``Having this on [the Pulse survey], both as a way to

understand what's going on during the pandemic, but also

hopefully as a starting point to more federal data

collection, is really an important moment,'' said Bianca D.M.

Wilson, the senior scholar of public policy at the Williams

Institute.

The data has only begun to be collected, and it's still too

early to tell whether the differences between groups are

representative of the LGBTQ+ population overall or just those

who were surveyed by the census at a given moment in time.

While researchers cautioned against drawing major

conclusions, the trends that emerge in the data are

consistent with what other surveys have found prior to the

pandemic as a result of employment discrimination, underpay,

discriminatory lending practices and other policies that have

limited economic mobility for queer people.

According to The 19th's analysis of the first four releases

of data from the census survey, as much as 23 percent of

LGBTQ+ people and 32 percent of trans people reported having

lost employment in the month before the census conducted its

questionnaire. About 15 to 16 percent of non-LGBTQ+ people

reported the same.

About 12 percent of LGBTQ+ people said they sometimes or

often did not have enough to eat. For non-LGBTQ+ people, the

figure was between 6 and 7 percent, and for trans Americans,

it was as high as 24 percent. About 31 percent of queer

people also said they had difficulty paying for basic

household expenses; for non-LGBTQ+ people it was 23 percent.

Housing insecurity was prevalent across all groups, with

more than 40 percent of people--both LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+--

saying they were very or somewhat likely to face eviction by

the end of September or October.

It's unclear how accurate the data for transgender

Americans is because the sample sizes are much smaller. But

it does follow what is already known: Roughly 29 percent of

respondents to the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, done by the

National Center for Transgender Equality and seen as the only

comprehensive study of its kind, said they lived in poverty.

About 30 percent said they had experienced homelessness in

their lifetimes.

``These are sort of the systemic disparities that we

observed pre-pandemic, that the pandemic has not only

deepened for both groups, but also sort of widened,'' said

David Schwegman, assistant professor of public policy and

administration at American University, who has conducted

research on ``same-sex couples'' and housing discrimination.

Wilson at the Williams Institute said that absent this kind

of large-scale data collection about LGBTQ+ people,

policymakers couldn't truly answer big questions about

whether attempts to address economic stress exacerbated by

the pandemic--like the now-expired federal eviction

moratorium--were working for everyone.

But data collection is only one step toward equity.

Dean Spade, an associate professor at Seattle University

School of Law who has also advised the upcoming National

LGBTQ+ Women's Community Survey by think tank Justice Work,

said that real change requires more than just counting trans

and LGBTQ+ people at the federal level.

Counting marginalized people to better understand the

issues they face doesn't necessarily mean their suffering

will be addressed through policy, he noted--and trans people

are accustomed to social services leaving them out or not

being designed with them in mind. It's why trans people, for

example, are helping each other pay for medical procedures

that aren't covered by insurance, housing those experiencing

homelessness and creating mutual aid networks, Spade said.

``We're helping each other survive right now,'' he said.

And there are still significant challenges with the data as

it is. Samples sizes are small, an issue that has barred

marginalized communities, including Asian women, Native

Americans and Pacific Islander women, from representation in

real-time data on some national surveys.

Those small sample sizes make it difficult to draw big

conclusions from the data until months down the line. The

Census Bureau said in a statement that it currently doesn't

have additional analysis to offer on the data, though it did

publish a report on the first set of LGBTQ+ data this summer,

finding that LGBTQ+ people are more likely than non-LGBTQ+

people to face economic hardship.

``The primary focus has been on collecting and releasing

data in a timely manner but there are plans in the future to

release data products that will provide additional context,''

the bureau said in a statement.

The other challenge has been crafting questions in a way

that takes into account knowledge gaps people may have about

what terminology best describes them.

The census survey, for example, asks respondents to choose

which best represents how they think of themselves: ``gay or

lesbian''; ``bisexual''; ``something else''; ``I don't

know''; or ``straight, that is not gay or lesbian.'' In past

attempts to phrase these questions, heterosexual people have

been found to incorrectly mark themselves, economists said,

so additional phrases have been added to improve clarity.

The survey also asks if people describe themselves as male,

female or transgender, and some transgender people may not

want to identify themselves given the rise in anti-trans

bills across the country, Schwegman said.

Spade pointed to smaller studies led by advocates as

important pools of information that can't be found anywhere

else, since they ask questions about daily threats like over-

policing and poverty.

``I think that those kinds of studies can be, to a lot of

us, more valuable than something larger that didn't ask the

questions or that missed whole groups of people in our

community,'' he said.

The real-time data from surveys like the current census

one, which will be collecting responses from July 21 to

October 11, could help impact policies in real time. The

problem for pandemic-related policies being negotiated in

Congress this fall is that this data may be coming too late,

Wilson said.

``It's 18 months into the pandemic, and had that been the

starting place, we would not be looking at a sample size that

would create problems for all the analyses that we want to do

to understand a trans-specific experience,'' Wilson said.

Madam Speaker, my amendment would direct the Comptroller General to issue a report to Congress about the impact of the implementation of this act on the provision of services to LGBTQI+ persons. It would ensure the impact of H.R. 4176 by ensuring transparency in the correlation between the provision of services and one's gender identity, sexual orientation, and variation in sex characteristics.

Again, I have emphasized, we want to have truth and discussion here. We want to be helpful. We want to affirm people and have them counted. Data collection through this act will be used to monitor the flow of social services to LGBTQI communities.

This will encourage the provision of services to the LGBTQI+ community, and if there are shortcomings, Congress and the public will be informed of them so that they can be remedied soon thereafter.

Despite our many gains, the United States is not always a welcoming place for individuals across many spectrums. This is essentially true for those coming from unaffirming communities and families, those for whom living their authentic lives may come at the cost of social ties and support systems.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment because it affirms children, families, our fellow colleagues, our soldiers, law enforcement, first responders, firefighters, teachers, people who see us in the retail area. It affirms America. This knowledge about who we are can be enormously helpful to being a better America.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the distinguished chairwoman of the full committee.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on each side.

Madam Speaker, let me offer what we are living in. There are more than 300 laws that have been passed across the Nation that are discriminating against the LGBTQI+ community. In addition, we find that less than half of these 50 States are protecting this community. That means that there is a half loaf for many in this community.

How do we remedy and educate States and local communities? We do so by ensuring that information is given. That is how you protect taxpayer dollars, that you are constructive in the use of dollars.

This is only to help with better implementation of social services that are already rendered, but such social services may not be geared toward addressing some of the populations here in the United States.

My amendment, which is what we always ask for, is making sure that we are accountable when we are addressing the concerns that have not been addressed in the LGBTQI+ community.

That is what I hope most people will see. But at the same time, I hope my amendment characterizes what America is: a compassionate, with passion, caring, and humanitarian Nation.

We go all over the world to fight for human rights, justice, and equality. Our soldiers put on the uniform to dignify our Constitution. Why not here in America?

Do my friends on the other side of the aisle realize how many men and women in the United States military come from the LGBTQI+ community? They didn't ask questions; they put on the uniform. I know they fought really hard not to have questions asked.

I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment for accountability and fairness and to recognize all of us are Americans.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution H. Res. 1191 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1191, for three measures.

First, it provides for consideration of H.R. 4176 under a structured rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment, provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, makes in order three amendments, and provides a motion to recommit.

Second, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 5585 under a structured rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, makes in order one amendment, and provides a motion to recommit.

Third, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 7666 under a structured rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment, provides 1 hour of general debate equally controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, makes in order 17 amendments, and provides en bloc authority and a motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule extends recess instructions, suspension authority, and same-day authority through July 13, and any requested roll call votes on suspension bills considered from June 21 to June 24 may be postponed through July 15.

Madam Speaker, I stand in support of the three bills in this rule: H.R. 7666, the Restoring Hope for Mental Health and Well-Being Act; H.R. 5585, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Health Act; and H.R. 4176, the LGBTQI+ Data Inclusion Act.

I want to start by thanking Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Pallone and Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers for their work crafting a bipartisan package to tackle the growing mental health crisis in our country.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen a dramatic rise in global mental health illness associated with anxiety, depression, and collective grief.

In my State, almost 45 percent of North Carolinians reported symptoms of anxiety or depression in February 2021, with more than 22 percent unable to get necessary care, largely because of prohibitive costs.

Almost 130,000 children ages 12 through 17 in North Carolina suffer from adolescent depression. Multiply that nationwide. More than half of the children in North Carolina did not receive any care in the past year. Once they reach high school, these children are twice as likely to drop out of school as their peers.

These statistics tell just part of the story of families disrupted, education delayed, and the barriers facing Americans striving to achieve their full potential and well-being.

Congress has a duty to address this crisis with the same urgency with which we passed COVID-19 legislation.

Today, we are doing just that with H.R. 7666, the Restoring Hope for Mental Health and Well-Being Act, which will provide improved access to healthcare for mental illnesses and substance abuse disorders.

This legislation boosts compliance with mental health parity laws, supports mental health care through telehealth, and reauthorizes key programs that fund mental health services, all deeply needed by our people.

This rule also includes H.R. 5585, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Health Act, ARPA-H.

For decades, the United States has been the leader in biomedical research around the world. However, our country has recently shown signs of slowing in this sector.

Promising research opportunities are put on hold due to high cost, complex coordination, long wait periods, and many other factors.

My State of North Carolina became the first State in the country to have a State-supported entity dedicated to promoting growth of the life sciences industry after the creation of the North Carolina Biotechnology Center in 1984.

In my district of Wake County, the Research Triangle Park stands as the largest research park in North America. ARPA-H will have profound influences in North Carolina's economy and the national economy and stimulate the development of breakthroughs in health research that will benefit millions of Americans.

H.R. 5585 will authorize $500 million each year for the next 5 years to support ARPA-H and fund groundbreaking research and development to continue saving American lives.

Finally, this rule includes H.R. 4176, the LGBTQI+ Data Inclusion Act. Most legislators agree that good policy should be evidence-based. Our Government collects demographic data to ensure we can identify whether certain groups of Americans are facing obstacles to the equal opportunities they need to thrive. However, Federal agencies are not currently required to collect demographic data on sexual orientation and gender identity. We need this data to know how to address issues faced by the LGBTQI+ people and combat discrimination.

In 2019, UCLA found that nearly one in four LGBTQ adults in the South, including in my State of North Carolina,

live in poverty, a rate higher than the overall poverty rate in the United States.

LGBTQI+ youth, in particular, face high levels of homelessness and are at greater risk of depression and suicidal thoughts than their peers. With good data, we can implement good programs aimed at eliminating these disparities and help members of this community reach their full potential.

As Cathy Renna of the National LGBTQ Task Force says, ``If we don't get counted, we don't count.'' This community is asking to be counted. Our Nation has already gone through the poor policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. We now have a responsibility to reverse the effects of this policy to help members of the LGBTQI+ community live as their authentic selves.

We can do that by allowing individuals to voluntarily disclose their sexual orientation and gender identities. In other words, by asking and letting them decide to tell.

Madam Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the three bills it contains, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a June 11, 2021, CNN Business article entitled ``LGBTQ+ Americans aren't fully counted by the government. That's a big problem.''

[From CNN Business, June, 11, 2021]

LGBTQ+ Americans Aren't Fully Counted by the Government. That's a Big

Problem

(By Anneken Tappe and Alicia Wallace)

Government data help policymakers find and fix problems for

people in need. But that's tricky if some groups aren't

represented in the stats.

This is the case for the LGBTQ+ community, and it's a huge

problem. Here's an example: The government's monthly jobs

report shows how many men and women, Black, White, Asian and

Hispanic workers are unemployed. The stats lay bare a lot of

inequities, but there are no comparable federal data on

LGBTQ+ workers.

``We are invisible in federal statistics, when it comes to

some policymakers,'' said

Justin Nelson, co-founder and president of the National LGBT

Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC).

Put more bluntly: ``If we don't get counted, we don't

count,'' said Cathy Renna, communications director at the

National LGBTQ Task Force.

Official stats, including the Census, are used to decide

how federal funds are distributed--to the tune of $1.5

trillion. But data gaps in the jobs reports, health surveys

and the decennial Census affect millions of people: 5.6

percent of US adults identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or

transgender, according to a Gallup survey published in

February.

Official data are needed ``to ensure that LGBT people are

included in efforts to reduce unemployment through increased

labor force participation, as well as to monitor compliance

with anti-discrimination provisions,'' researchers at the

UCLA School of Law's Williams Institute wrote earlier this

year in support of adding LGBTQ+ questions to the Current

Population Survey, which helps create the jobs report.

Recent research has found higher rates of poverty,

unemployment, health disparities, and workplace

discrimination among LGBTQ+ adults, according to the Williams

Institute. The negative outcomes were even greater among

transgender individuals and LGBTQ+ people of color.

Examples of how data can change outcomes for the LGBTQ+

community include the establishment of the Massachusetts

Commission on LGBTQ youth, school training services and

ongoing research after former Governor William Weld sought to

respond to an increase in LGBTQ+ youth suicides; the

improvement of individuals' medical care following research

asking patients about their sexual orientation and gender

identity; and the creation of equity programs within the Los

Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services

following a study that showed LGBTQ+ youth were

overrepresented in the youth foster system and experienced

harsher treatment.

Although independent research from the Williams Institute

and established pollsters such Gallup have provided some data

about the community, that research just doesn't carry the

same weight as government stats in leading to funding of

direct services and addressing the needs of people in the

queer community, Renna said.

Across government agencies, academics and the LGTBQ+

community itself, people have expressed a desire to better

understand the needs of that population. The government is

doing research to figure out how to best ask about sexual

orientation and gender identity.

But the business of big, robust data sets is complicated.

Government statistics are pretty sophisticated and the

methodology behind surveys goes through a lot of prodding.

But when it comes to the LGBTQ+ community, government

institutions haven't done enough research yet to make broader

improvements to the data.

The worry is that reporting errors on questions surrounding

sexual orientation and gender identity may lead to much

bigger errors in the eventual data.

``Questions for relatively small populations must be

formulated especially carefully; if they are not, even

relatively small sampling or reporting errors can lead to

large errors in estimates,'' the US Bureau of Labor

Statistics told CNN Business in an email.

The questions the Census Bureau asks also have to go

through an established process to review wording and

effectiveness. Ultimately the Office of Management and Budget

approves any new questions.

When the government surveys households, for example to

learn about America's employment situation, one person

answers questions for other members of their household. That

can make it harder to get accurate data on members of the

LGBTQ+ community, especially if a person hasn't come out to

their family, or if the survey respondent is uncomfortable

talking about another household member's sexual orientation

or gender identity.

``Not everyone's out,'' Renna added. ``Some of us live in

places where you can be fired if you come out.''

The NGLCC, which leans heavily on community-driven surveys

and private sector research, has yet to meet with the Census

and BLS on inclusive data-gathering efforts, Nelson said. But

he said he is optimistic about the Biden-Harris

Administration's efforts to broaden the scope of its data

collection.

President Joe Biden last week, in officially recognizing

June as Pride Month, urged Congress to pass the Equality Act

to ensure civil rights protections for members of the LGBTQ+

community and their families.

``We are a strong part of the economic fabric . . . not

just in Pride Month,'' Nelson said. ``We need to get

inclusive on data collection immediately, because the sooner

we can normalize that data collection, the less opportunity

there is for erasing it.''

The people behind government surveys are doing research to

move toward a world in which official data are more

inclusive.

Figuring out how to best ask about things as personal as

sexual orientation and gender identity is at the forefront of

that research. The willingness and ability to answer

questions about sexual orientation and gender of other people

is just as critical, the Census Bureau told CNN Business.

The last BLS research paper on the topic is from 2017.

While it's feasible for the government to ask these

questions, the paper recommends more in-depth analysis.

``The reality is that it's very chicken and egg,'' Renna

said. ``If you don't have the data, you can't understand the

community. If you don't ask the community questions, you

don't have the data.''

Some government surveys already collect information on

gender identity and sexual orientation, including the

National Health Interview Survey, the National Crime

Victimization Survey and the National Survey of Children's

Health.

Last year, the 2020 Census made history by including same-

sex marriage and same-sex unmarried partners as options on

its survey. The Bureau of Labor Statistics--which uses

surveys to compile the government's monthly jobs report--

began including same-sex married couples in its tally of

married workers in January last year.

Considering that only 20 percent LGBTQ+ people live in

same-sex married households, these surveys leave out the vast

majority of the community, said Kerith Conran, the Blachford-

Cooper research director and distinguished scholar at the

Williams Institute.

And there is a greater dearth of data especially when it

comes to LGBTQ+ youth, transgender people and gender

identity, she added.

Earlier this year, Conran and her colleagues highlighted

those and other inequities in a public comment urging the US

Census Bureau and BLS to add sexual orientation, gender

identity and sex assigned at birth questions to the Current

Population Survey.

``There are ongoing health and economic inequities that

aren't going to go away unless people start paying attention

to them,'' she said in an interview with CNN Business.

Data on sexual orientation and gender identity aren't

collected consistently across states--for example, only 30

states included the SOGI module in a US Centers for Disease

Control-backed behavioral risk survey in 2019. This creates

big gaps in the data, particularly in regions such as the

South and Midwest, Conran added.

``Those are the places where non-discrimination protections

and social acceptance are also lacking,'' she said. ``In the

places where people probably have worse conditions, [there

are] less data available to see what's going on for people.''

Madam Speaker, we rely on all kinds of data to inform our policymaking.

Right now, LGBTQI+ Americans aren't represented in Federal statistics, like for unemployment, poverty, health, and discrimination.

This gap severely impacts our ability to make smart decisions that may affect their community, let alone decisions that will help those in their community. It is imperative that we begin to let these individuals count in our Federal data system just as we do race, ethnicity, gender, and age.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, a group of 156 organizations committed to advancing equality and opportunity for the LGBTQI+ community, including the YWCA, wrote to Congress in support of H.R. 4176.

They said in their letter: ``Collecting this information in federally supported surveys, such as the Current Population Survey and the National Health Interview Survey, is essential to improving the well- being of LGBTQI+ populations across key areas of life. For example, although data are limited, research indicates that LGBTQI+ communities experience disparities across multiple domains of life compared to non- LGBTQI+ populations.''

This inclusive data ``is a crucial tool to better identify and address these disparities and to promote more equitable outcomes and opportunities for LGBTQI+ communities.''

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the letter signed by the 156 organizations.

June 14, 2022.

Hon. Carolyn Maloney,

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Raul Grijalva,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairwoman Maloney and Congressman Grijalva: As a

group of 156 organizations committed to advancing equality

and opportunity for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender,

queer, intersex, and other sexual and gender diverse

(LGBTQI+) people in the United States, we are writing to

voice our enthusiastic support for the amendment in the

nature of a substitute and passage of the LGBTQI+ Data

Inclusion Act (H.R. 4176).

The LGBTQ Data Inclusion Act, as introduced, would

facilitate the collection of voluntary, self-disclosed

demographic data on sexual orientation and gender identity

across federal surveys. The amendment in the nature of a

substitute would add variations in sex characteristics (also

known as intersex traits) to the data voluntarily collected,

and would accordingly change the bill title to the LGBTQI+

Data Inclusion Act. Collecting this information in federally

supported surveys (such as the Current Population Survey and

National Health Interview Survey) is essential to improving

the well-being of LGBTQI+ populations across key areas of

life. For example, although data are limited, research

indicates that LGBTQI+ communities experience disparities

across multiple domains of life compared to non-LGBTQI+

populations. This includes evidence of higher rates of

poverty, unemployment, and economic instability experiences

of homelessness and housing insecurity; worse mental and

physical health outcomes; heightened barriers to access

adequate health care, and widespread experiences of

discrimination. Due to the intersecting forces of racism,

xenophobia, ableism, ageism, and transphobia, for LGBTQI+

communities of color, LGBTQI+ people with disabilities,

LGBTQI+ older adults, and transgender people, these

disparities are often even more pronounced. LGBTQI+-inclusive

data collection is a critical tool to better identify and

address these disparities and to promote more equitable

outcomes and opportunities for LGBTQI+ communities.

Currently, most surveys fielded by the federal government

not collect data on sexual orientation, gender identity, or

variations in sex characteristics. For example, although some

surveys, such as the decennial census and American Community

Survey, ask questions that allow for the identification of

cohabitating same-sex couples, it is estimated that only 1 in

6 LGBTQ individuals are captured by those kinds of questions.

Although progress has been made in recent years, the overall

lack of routine data collection on sexual orientation, gender

identity, and variations in sex characteristics poses a

significant obstacle for policymakers, researchers, service

providers, and advocates dedicated to improving the wellbeing

of LGBTQI+ communities, especially those living at the

intersection of multiple marginalized identities.

The federal government collects survey data on a wide range

of subjects and populations and is uniquely positioned to

engage in LGBTQI+-inclusive data collection to generate

accurate, consistent, and representative data at a scale that

allows for the disaggregation necessary to describe the

diversity of LGBTQI+ communities. As demonstrated in the

recent consensus report by the National Academies, questions

about sexual orientation, gender identity, and variations in

sex characteristics can and should be added to federally

supported surveys. By doing so, federal agencies can take

meaningful steps to fulfill the Biden-Harris administration's

priorities to promote equity for LGBTQI+ and other

underserved communities through various actions, including

but not limited to expanding data collection efforts.

Passage of this bill is essential to better understand the

experiences of LGBTQI+ communities, generate policy solutions

that are inclusive of LGBTQI+ people and their needs, and to

evaluate the effectiveness of those policies to reduce

disparities and advance equity. Again, we strongly support

the amendment in the nature of a substitute for the LGBTQI+

Data Inclusion Act (H.R. 4176) and urge Congress to quickly

take up and adopt this important proposal.

Thank you for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to

contact Caroline Medina and Madeline Shepherd with any

questions.

Signed in partnership,

1Hood Power, A Better Balance, Ace and Aro Alliance of

Central Ohio, Advocates for Youth, AGE of Central Texas, AIDS

Action Baltimore, AIDS Alabama South, AIDS Foundation

Chicago, allgo, American Academy of HIV Medicine, American

Psychological Association, American Public Health

Association, American Trans Resource Hub, Amida Care, APLA

Health, Arizona Trans Youth and Parent Organization, Athlete

Ally, Atlanta Pride Committee, Austin LGBT Coalition on

Aging, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, Believe Out Loud,

BiNet USA, Brooklyn Community Pride Center, Inc., Cathedral

of Hope United Church of

Christ, Center for American Progress, Center for Applied

Transgender Studies, Center for Black Equity, Center for

Disability Rights, Center for Economic and Policy Research,

Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP).

Center for Reproductive Rights, CenterLink: The Community

of LGBT Centers, Colors+, Compton's Table, Corktown Health,

Council for Global Equality, CrescentCare, Damien Center,

DBGM, Inc., Dolan Research International, LLC, Elton John

AIDS Foundation, Engel O'Neil Advertising & Public Relations,

Equality California, Equality Illinois, Equitas Health, Erie

County Dems LGBTQIA+ Caucus Erie Gay News, Family Eldercare,

Family Equality, Family Values @ Work, Fenway Health,

Freedom for All Americans, Gay Elder Circle, Georgia

Equality, GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders (GLAD),

GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ Equality,

GLSEN, GLSEN New Mexico, Health Equity Alliance for LGBTQ+

New Mexicans, HealthHIV, Hetrick-Martin Institute,

Hispanic Federation, HIV + Hepatitis Policy Institute, HIV

Medicine Association, Howard Brown Health, Hugh Lane

Wellness Foundation, Human Rights Campaign, interACT:

Advocates for Intersex Youth, Jacobs Institute of Women's

Health.

John Snow, Inc., Justice in Aging, Kachemak bay Family

Planning, Lancaster LGBTQ+ Coalition, Lawrence, Lee McAvoy,

LMHC, Let's Kick ASS AIDS Survivor Syndrome, LGBTQ Center OC,

LGBTQ Community Center of Southern Nevada, LGBTQ Victory

Institute, LGBTQ+ & Equity Consulting, LLC, LGBTQ+ Spectrum

of Findlay, Los Angeles LGBT Center, Lyon-Martin Community

Health Services, MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger,

Methodist Federation for Social Action, Michigan Organization

on Adolescent Sexual Health (MOASH), Minority Veterans of

America, Movement Advancement Project, Naper Pride, NASTAD,

National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Center for

Transgender Equality, National Coalition for LGBTQ Health,

National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC), National

Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, National

LGBT Cancer Network, National LGBTQ Task Force, National

LGBTQ+ Bar Association, National Organization for Women,

National Women's Law Center, National Working Positive

Coalition.

New York Transgender Advocacy Group, North Carolina AIDS

Action Network, NW PA Pride Alliance, Inc., one-n-ten, Out &

Equal Workplace Advocates, one-n-ten, Out To Innovate, Out

Youth, OutCenter Southwest Michigan, OutNebraska, Outright

Vermont, PFLAG National, PGH Equality Center, Philanthrofund

Foundation, Positive Women's Network-USA, PowerOn, a program

of LGBT Technology Institute, PrEP4All, Prevention Access

Campaign, Pride at Work, Pride Center of New Jersey, Prism

United, Project Weber/RENEW, Resource Center, Roots of

Change, SAGE, SAGE Metro Detroit, San Diego Pride, SF LGBT

Center, SIECUS, Silver State Equality-Nevada, Still Bisexual,

The AIDS Institute, The Center on Colfax, Denver, CO, The

Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

The LGBT Center of Greater Reading, the Montrose Center,

The Source LGBT+ Center, The Trevor Project, The Well

Project, Thriving Mental Health Counseling NY PLLC, Trans

Maryland, Transgender Education Network of Texas (TENT),

Transgender Resource Center of New Mexico, Transhealth

Northampton, Treatment Action Group, U.S. People Living with

HIV Caucus, Umoja Behavioral Health PC, Union for Reform

Judaism, University of Nevada Las Vegas, URGE: Unite for

Reproductive & Gender Equity, Vivent Health, Waves Ahead

Corp, We Are Family, Whitman-Walker Institute, Woodhull

Freedom Foundation, YWCA USA.

Madam Speaker, I ask the gentleman if he is prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, the three bills in this rule have the potential to transform the health and opportunities of millions of Americans.

The Restoring Hope for Mental Health and Well-Being Act reauthorizes and establishes 35 critical programs that provide access to mental health care and substance use disorder treatment across the country.

Recognizing the benefits of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic, this bill promotes behavioral health integration into primary care through increased access to telehealth as part of the pediatric mental health care access grant program reauthorization.

The bill also requires self-funded, non-Federal governmental healthcare plans to comply with mental health parity laws. Mental health care is healthcare, and it is time we treat it as such.

The Advanced Research Projects Agency-Health Act will jump-start our Nation's investment in medical research and innovation. I am privileged to represent part of North Carolina's Research Triangle Park and see the breakthroughs that happen there. By establishing and funding ARPA- H, we ensure that research like this will continue, that more people will be able to access groundbreaking treatments and cures, and that our Nation remains a leader in medical innovation.

The LGBTQI+ Data Inclusion Act will equip our government agencies with the data they need to reduce barriers and challenges facing this community. Good data helps us make good policy. Without data, we are forced to legislate blindly and guess at solutions to close disparities.

Madam Speaker, I note that the LGBTQI+ Data Inclusion Act does not mandate that anyone disclose information about their gender identity or sexual orientation. Under this bill, individuals choose whether to share that information or not.

This bill, which we take up during Pride Month, will help us ensure the LGBTQI+ community is represented in policies aimed at closing disparities and helping underserved groups.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, before I start on the colloquy and go through the schedule, I was just talking to the Republican whip, my friend, Mr. Scalise. We were talking about a friend of ours, his name is John Bresnahan; he is

a reporter. He has covered Capitol Hill since 1994, I believe, is the note I had. He is an excellent reporter.

He reports the facts. He reports the truth. As I know Mr. Scalise agrees, reporters who do that not only serve us, but more importantly, their major purpose is to serve the American people because we know that a free press telling the facts and the truth to the American people give them the opportunity to make solid decisions for our democracy.

I wish John Bresnahan a happy 60th birthday, and hope that he has many, many more. I have had 23 more than that, so I appreciate the fact that he is still going strong.

Madam Speaker, I want to tell Mr. Bresnahan that he made the same promise to me, which is why we did this. If he was going to sing it, I was a little reluctant to do this, and he didn't. I join the whip in wishing John Bresnahan, a friend, a very careful and honest reporter, the very best 60th birthday and many more to come.

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and 12 p.m. for legislative business.

Madam Speaker, on Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

On Monday, we will be celebrating Juneteenth as a Federal holiday for the second time in American history. Juneteenth is the day on which the last slaves who were in Texas learned of their new status as free Americans, an extraordinary day in the history of our country, eliminating one of the great blights on the history of America. As de Tocqueville pointed out, we tried to heal our wounds and tried to heal our wrongs, and we are still working on that.

Last year, the Congress took the historic step of enacting legislation to recognize Juneteenth as a Federal holiday, at long last. I look forward to celebrating as we pay tribute to freedom to all men and women being created equal in the image of God. We celebrate the history of the African-American perseverance and triumph over injustice and adversity.

I say triumph--it has been a triumph--but there are battles yet to be won. Juneteenth not only looks back but it looks forward to winning those battles.

Madam Speaker, I see Mr. Green on the floor, who has a resolution on the recognition of the blight of slavery. I thank him for that resolution and look forward to having that considered.

On Monday, we will be celebrating that holiday, but we will be celebrating it as we do Martin Luther King's birthday, as we ought to be in celebrating Washington and Lincoln's birthday, and committing ourselves to the realization of the principles for which they stood.

Madam Speaker, the House will consider bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of those suspension bills will be announced at the close of business tomorrow.

Next week, Madam Speaker, the House will consider H.R. 7666, which is titled Restoring Hope for Mental Health and Well-Being Act, a bipartisan package of bills led by Chairman Pallone and Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers, to address the mental health and opioid abuse crisis.

The legislation expands access to treatment for opioid use disorders, promotes behavioral health integration, and reauthorizes critical programs to support mental health and substance use disorder, prevention, treatment, and recovery, including in our children.

Madam Speaker, the House will also consider legislation under suspension from Chairman Bobby Scott and members of the Education and Labor Committee to address the mental health, addiction, and suicide on college campuses, which is far, far too prevalent.

Our young people have faced stresses by the pandemic, stresses within our Nation, the divisions on which prey on their minds, so this is a very important piece of legislation. I hope it will be--and I believe it is going to be--bipartisan.

The House will also take up H.R. 6411, the Veterans Affairs' Committee Chairman Mark Takano's STRONG Veterans Act, again, bipartisan legislation to combat veterans' suicide and address mental health, and help our Nation meet its commitment to those who risk their lives and safety for our country.

Additionally, Madam Speaker, the House will consider H.R. 5585, Representatives Eshoo's ARPA-H Act. This legislation would establish the Advanced Research Project Agency for Health, an independent agency tasked with accelerating biomedical innovation and making transformative breakthroughs in the fight against the most challenging diseases confronting our people.

This agency will oversee the next steps in the Cancer Moonshot program and help meet the President's goal of cutting the cancer death rate by at least 50 percent over the next 25 years, and hopefully sooner.

Madam Speaker, as we celebrate Pride Month, the House will consider H.R. 4176, the LGBTQ Data Inclusion Act.

Madam Speaker, I anticipate that the House will vote on a compromised, bipartisan Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our PACT Act, after the Senate takes action on the version agreed upon in May. As the whip knows, that Act was a bipartisan act that dealt with those who were exposed to burn pits and other toxic substances of which they did not know while they were serving on bases, both here and around the world.

This bill, we believe the Senate will take action on, a version agreed upon in May, which preserves much of the House-passed legislation to care for veterans exposed to burn pits and other toxic chemicals during their service.

In addition, the House will consider other bills under suspension of the rules, the complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. Additional legislative items are possible.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would simply observe, as I observed the other day, that we all want to make sure that our Justices are safe.

Let me say, Madam Speaker, there is a very important reason for that. We want to keep all our people safe. But nine Justices of our Supreme Court represent that we are a nation of laws. They are one of the three branches of our government. Just as I was extraordinarily and remain extraordinarily concerned about the attack on this institution, the Congress of the United States, as we were preparing to elect a President of the United States, an attack on the Supreme Court and the lives of the Supreme Court Justices are an attack on our democracy, on a separate branch of government that is charged with continuing to make us a nation of laws.

So, very frankly, the Supreme Court Justices, under existing law, were protected. There were security people there. Luckily, there were security people there. But the gentleman is absolutely right. We want to make sure whether we agree or disagree with the individuals, whether we agree or disagree with the opinions or the judgements that Congress makes, we are a nation of laws, and the way to resolve our differences is not through violence but through the democratic process.

I thank the gentleman for his observation.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We continue to talk about this as if this were the President's fault. First of all, in a much wider range, this is a result of the pandemic.

Why is it the result of the pandemic?

Not solely the pandemic but let me take the pandemic first. Everybody stayed home--this body and businesses across America.

What did that mean that they stayed home?

They stopped buying gas.

What did the oil companies do?

They shut down some of their production, a very substantial reduction in production. But then as the prices went up, they were making as much money or much more money. So in making much more money, they didn't increase production, as the gentleman says will be an answer to the question, in a country that does, in fact, have regulations and does have rules, and because of those regulations and rules the production of our energy is, in fact, as the gentleman asserts, more efficient and more environmentally considerate.

The oil companies--acting from what they thought was good business practice, demand was down, but prices were going up--were making profits. They bought back stock, which, of course, increased the value of the stock that remained. They increased dividends, which, of course, encouraged people to invest in them. It made people happy about their investments.

But they didn't increase production. They didn't have to increase production. They were making good profits and making, from their standpoint, good business decisions.

As I indicated in the last colloquy that we dealt with this problem, there were millions of leases put on the market by this administration, as I recall, some 80 million acres. Approximately 2 percent of the leases were bid on, and then the Court said that this was not a legal process.

But it is interesting how small was the interest in additional production at that time irrespective of what happened subsequently.

The gentleman mentions a bill, as he has done in the past, H.R. 6858, the American Energy Independence from Russia Act.

But before I say that, let me say, I hope the President is going to Saudi Arabia to talk privately, not publicly trying to embarrass or harangue, and certainly not to beg. The United States of America doesn't need to beg any nation in the world, and this President is not begging anybody.

This President should say, however, Madam Speaker: Saudis, stop controlling the supply unreasonably and driving the prices up of your product.

Yes, they are making more money, and they have a cartel. That is called a monopoly. That cartel has made sure that the lack of supply drove up the international market price. And then Russia went to war.

Now, Russia going to war has affected to some degree the supply of oil, but, very frankly, buying Russian oil supports their criminal war effort, their vicious and murderous war effort. We are all against that. So we agreed that we would not take any oil, and we urged our European allies not to rely on it either.

Now, what did that create?

It created a lack of confidence in the stability of the market.

What happens when you have lack of confidence in the stability of a market?

Prices go up because it is a bet on what is going to happen with the price of that product in the future that the market really reflects.

Now, the reason I say it that way is because these are not Biden prices. Even if tomorrow we snapped a finger and said: ``Okay, go ahead,'' nothing would happen tomorrow, nothing would

happen next week, and nothing would happen next month. It would take a substantial period of time because the oil companies, based upon the lack of demand, shut down, nor did they pursue further production.

Now, let me say something about the price of oil. The national price of oil now does not reflect the increase as part of the market response to what is called the West Texas Intermediary, which I am sure the gentleman from Louisiana, an oil-producing State, knows much more about than I do.

But let me say this: In 2008, that benchmark for crude oil peaked at $147.02 in July of 2008. Adjusted for inflation, that is $199.57 today.

In that time, 2008, the average U.S. gasoline peaked at $4.14 per gallon. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $5.62 today.

So, in other words, in 2008, otherwise known as the last year of the Bush administration, gasoline prices were higher than they are today notwithstanding the fact that the world price was $31 less.

Excuse me, yesterday, June 15, that West Texas Intermediary oil--the benchmark for crude oil prices--was $116 a barrel, $31 less, without accounting for inflation, which would make it greater than it was in 2008. That wasn't George Bush's fault. It was the international market's fault and also this cartel that controls a large part of the supply of the oil in our country.

Now, my point--I still have to deal with H.R. 6858. One of its tenets is to approve the Keystone pipeline. The problem with that is, for whatever reason--and I understand my friend will have a response, Madam Speaker, as to well, because you disapproved it, meaning the Obama administration. They want to open the Keystone pipeline. The problem is the company that had the Keystone pipeline has abandoned it. Even if it were approved, they would have to get back in business and we would be well over a year--well over a year.

Now, I happen to have agreed that we should have approved that pipeline. I have said that publicly. I said that to the press. That didn't happen. But it would not solve the problem. And particularly, when you look at the figures that I just gave with respect to the world market price, we are paying a lot more now than we did in 2008 when it was higher.

So I would say to my friend, he also had a provision that expedites the LNG facility approval process. One of the problems we had is 20 percent of the LNG export capacity is now shut down.

It was shut down because the regulations that the gentleman speaks of, correctly, were not followed, and the LNG plant had an explosion. It shut down because it violated regulations that were imposed upon it.

What I would say to my friend--I have talked to the committee about his bill. The LNG process is working. As I told him, I have an LNG export plant in my district, which has changed from substantial exports to the Pacific region, and now, 80 percent is going to Europe to try to bridge that gap as the Europeans retreat from being dependent upon Russian oil.

I tell my friend, with all due respect--and I am not going to plead with him, but I am going to suggest to him--we are going to Saudi Arabia, I hope, to tell them in private: Look, this is not a game you want to be playing. You are making our consumers pay far more.

We have acted. We acted, and we passed, some time ago, a bill that said you cannot have gas prices that are set at unreasonable levels, which we know as gouging. It is like you have a flood in your city and 80 percent of the grocery stores are wiped out, and the grocery stores that remain triple their prices. That is called gouging. We passed that bill.

We also passed a bill today which, unfortunately, most Republicans voted against--``most,'' I say, not all--which will, again, seek to bring the price down at the pump. How? By utilizing American products to supplement and expand the supply of gas and, we believe, bring the price of a gallon down some 40 cents--that is what the experts say--if we continue to use a mix of fuel.

But let me say in closing, on these remarks, which I know have been relatively lengthy, we are in this together, Republicans and Democrats.

FOX News criticized me for saying we are at war. We just sent a billion dollars for a war we are not in because we believe in freedom. We believe in international law.

We believe that we have a dictator, a dangerous dictator, who is committing war crimes through his men and women in eastern Ukraine in particular and did it in western Ukraine as they came into Kyiv.

We are in this together, one Nation, one America, on behalf of freedom. We have taken tough action. As part of that, we are paying the price at the pump because of that invasion.

The pandemic shut down production and shut down the purchase of gasoline by people because they didn't go to work. They didn't need to get in their cars. They didn't need to commute.

I would simply say to my friend that we are on the same team. Our President is leading our effort to defeat this despot, to stop this war, to ensure the freedom not only of the Ukrainian people but of all people, and to ensure that we respect international law.

I looked at the gentleman's bill. I would be glad to talk about other ways, including maybe some of the things that are in his bill. But I will tell the gentleman, the first couple that I looked at, the Keystone pipeline is not going to be reopened. The gentleman and I may lament that as a policy because I was publicly, during the Obama administration, for the approval of that pipeline. So, I am prepared to work with the gentleman to see what we can do.

But we have done today's bill. It may not be perfect. It may not work. But it is certainly worth a try, to try to bring these awful prices down at the pump because I know all of our constituents, whether they live in Louisiana or Maryland, are struggling because they have to use their cars. They have to use that gasoline. They don't have an alternative. And they don't have an alternative to buying food.

Both of those are tough, and we need to act together to try to see if we can solve that problem in the context of an extraordinary pandemic, a historic pandemic that shut down the world, and we are just trying to get back.

We are trying to get supply chains going, including gasoline pipelines, which is why the President is going to Saudi Arabia, not to beg, but to assert the economic fact of the ramifications of the cartels stifling supply.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for all of that information.

It continues to befuddle me why our Republican friends would much prefer to blame President Biden and so avoid placing blame on Mr. Trump's friend, Mr. Putin. I don't understand that, Madam Speaker. It is not a nation indivisible.

Now, Madam Speaker, I used a statistic some weeks ago that I have heard not at all disputed. The Biden administration has approved more drilling permits on public land in 2021, in 1 year, than the Trump administration did each year during its first 3 years in office.

Not compared to the combined 3 years, just compared to each individual year. Number one.

Number two: Domestic oil production is greater today than it was under Trump. Not a whole big difference, 10,968 versus 11,185, but nevertheless, it speaks to the fact that the representation that somehow Biden has shut down the industry, and therefore, he is to blame.

We don't want to talk about the pandemic that shut down oil production. In Trump's last year--in Trump's last year--refineries in the U.S. reduced their capacity by more than 800,000 barrels. So, under the Trump administration, production was decreased.

Maybe they will look at the records and see whether or not that representation is accurate, and if it is not, I stand to be corrected. But those are the figures I have.

I notice that my friend did not respond to my representation that prices were higher under George Bush in 2008 than they are today. Now, because of inflation, the number is different, and compared to the world price, prices are higher.

So, I will say to my friend, we had at least 80 million acres, 2.5 million taken. As the gentleman pointed out before, the court said, No, that wasn't legal, so it was never effected. But we have those 800,000 that are not back online.

Don't blame them, though. Don't blame Putin. Don't blame the pandemic. Politically, let's blame Biden.

Now, I'm not sure why Bush had the higher price. Maybe it was that he was shutting down the oil business, the President from Texas. Maybe.

But there is more today being produced. Not by enough. Still, there are 800,000 barrels shut down. That is per day, by the way; not just 800,000--per day.

So we can argue back and forth on this. We are passing legislation. Our Republican friends, for the most part, voted against it. It won't work. It won't do.

I don't know whether they are right or wrong, but it is worth trying. It is worth trying because our consumers are hurting.

People at the grocery store--I go to the grocery store every weekend, Madam Speaker. I live alone. I don't buy a lot of groceries because they will go bad, so I go every weekend.

I see the shelves that are empty. I see the price of bacon has gone up now over $10. I see the price of the eggs I get, the price of the half and half I buy, or the orange juice I buy. It is going up.

I am in the fortunate position where I can pay for it without it binding me someplace else. But I know that a whole lot of people that I see shopping, they have got that list out, and they are very worried about their costs.

I don't know whether this bill we just passed is going to solve that--certainly, not overnight. I don't know whether a month from now it will help somewhat, 5 cents or 10 cents on a pound of bacon or a dozen eggs.

I don't know that, but it was worth a try, and we passed this bill. We got some Republican support, including, I think, the ranking member of the committee that reported the bill out.

We are not technically at war, but we are spending a lot of money on behalf of freedom, and we ought to be together. We ought not to be carping about our President who is doing everything he can think of to try to get a handle on this, both on inflation, on the cost to consumers, and on the supply of a product that we all need.

So, I would simply make a request that let's work together to try to get this problem solved. Saudi Arabia is not the answer, but it is part of the answer. The cartel is part of the answer. The Russians are part of the answer.

Maybe none of them are the entire answer. But when you understand that this administration has given more leases on public land than the prior administration did in its first 3 years, it is hard to say that this administration is the reason for this. Other than politically, it is a very salient argument, but that is all it is.

Oh, okay. Sorry.

Would the gentleman yield?

What I said was, in Trump's last year, refineries in the U.S. reduced their capacity by more than 800,000 barrels. That didn't have anything to do about leases.

That had to do with an economic decision, which probably made sense because what happened is the economy was contracting.

Madam Speaker, 2.8 million net jobs were lost during the 4 years of Trump, and 8.7 million have been gained.

As they have been gaining, people are getting back in their cars. They are getting back and driving. They are spending on the economy. But what happened?

The pandemic had shut down supply lines. And the oil companies, rationally, when demand went down, they reduced capacity. They don't need a new lease to go back up to the 800,000. They were doing it under the present authorization that they have.

That was my point. It continues to be my point. The companies have made a decision and they are not moving ahead rapidly to try to get more production.

One of the reasons is--I get it--they are making a lot of money. Some oil companies have got 300 percent greater profits now than they had some years ago. 300 percent.

So, why do we need to do more product? We are making great money. Chevron says it had the most successful year in 2021 than it has ever had. It may be another oil company. I may be wrong on that.

Was it Chevron? I am asking somebody who probably knows the answer better than me. One of the oil companies reported that.

I am not criticizing them for that. What I am saying is, this is a multifaceted challenge that confronts us, and we ought to address it in a way that it deserves, and that is in a bipartisan way that will have effect.

I am going to work with the gentleman. As I said, I was for Keystone. I was not for shutting Keystone down. I was approving it to go ahead. I thought it made sense. Our friends in Canada have an extraordinary supply.

As the gentleman observes, though--interestingly, because I think many of your colleagues oppose those rules and regulations--it is cleaner. It is better for the environment to produce it here.

Why? Because we adopted regulations--either the administration adopted or we passed them in legislation, and very frankly, I think that many of those were opposed by--I don't know whether you, but many in your party, so it is better to do it here.

So I don't want to dispute that, but it is also necessary to have production, particularly among the cartel countries, and Russia has no interest--Russia has an interest in additional production.

Why? Because that is how they are funding this war. But we ought to spend time on criticizing Putin and his war and the crimes that are being committed in his name in Ukraine, and our determination to make sure the Ukrainian people who have displayed extraordinary courage, and Zelenskyy, who has displayed extraordinary leadership, make sure they know that we are focused on them. And we are focused against Putin, not our own President, any more than I did when, you know, George Bush was President.

Very frankly, I supported, as the gentleman probably knows, the trade bills. I thought it was good to do business. A lot of our people didn't support him on that. I supported him on that.

So I think we need to be not so critical of our President. We have one President at a time. We had a pandemic. It wasn't on his watch we got a pandemic. It was on his watch that we got a handle on the pandemic.

On his watch, he has been giving more access to public lands than his predecessor did. We can debate the nuances of differences, but we ought to focus on why we have this crisis.

The gentleman knows these prices in many ways reflect the confidence and the stability, or the lack of confidence and the lack of stability in the market, and the war directly relates to that issue.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my friend and the House majority leader.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the confession about how many 60th birthdays he has shared. Here is to many more for you, but also for Bres.

As the gentleman points out, a fair and free press is vital to democracy. It is the First Amendment to our Constitution: freedom of speech and freedom of the press. While they might not report our press releases verbatim all the time--as we might like them to--they serve a vital purpose. Bres is one of those that we see in the halls, like the press that is around here making sure that the country knows what is happening here in the greatest democracy of the history of the world.

As a 60th birthday gift to him, I promise not to sing ``Happy Birthday'' to him. I wish Bres a happy birthday, and I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that update. As we celebrate Juneteenth next week, also right here in this House Chamber over 150 years ago is where the 13th Amendment to the Constitution was debated and passed. So history is made here on a regular basis. And then we celebrate the freedoms that result and continue as our Founders talked about to aspire towards a more perfect Nation so we will do that next week.

I do want to thank the gentleman because last week during this colloquy I know I asked my friend if we could bring the Supreme Court protection bill, the bill to make sure that Supreme Court Justices and their families get proper protection, as we were watching and saw a man arrested for trying to murder a Supreme Court Justice. Leader McCarthy, I know, urged that as well. So I appreciate that we got to bring that bill up, debate it, and quickly pass it to President Biden's desk where we can get that in place.

I would hope that the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, would start enforcing 18 U.S. Code 1507 to give protection properly as Federal laws dictate, but it is not being enforced at the homes of those Justices. But, again, I appreciate that we got a very overwhelming bipartisan vote on that bill this week.

Does the gentleman have anything to add before we talk about the schedule for next week?

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

I share those comments by the gentleman from Maryland.

As we look towards next week--we have had this conversation a number of times--one of the items I don't see on the agenda is an item to address the problem of high gas prices, and, of course, we have now crossed an average of more than $5 a gallon. It is a major burden for families, especially lower-income families who are being forced more and more to make those tough decisions of can they even afford to drive to work, and can they even afford to drive to see their doctor or to drive to the grocery store where they are paying maybe 20 percent more for some of the food items.

We have had a bill for over a month now, H.R. 6858, that would address these problems and allow us to actually have more control over our own energy production in America, to be able to drill in America for energy to lower the cost of gasoline, by confronting so many of the problems that this Biden administration has imposed that are making it hard for us to produce more energy in America to the point where you now have President Biden announcing that he is going to go to Saudi Arabia to beg them to produce more oil.

As we try to confront this challenge--and again, H.R. 6858 would allow us to do that--if you look at President Biden's proposed trip to Saudi Arabia, the President likes talking a lot about carbon footprints, carbon emissions, and global warming.

Why would the President get on Air Force One and fly 5,700 miles to Saudi Arabia to beg them to do something that we can do right here in America?

In fact, he could go less than 1,000 miles to Port Fourchon, Louisiana, in my district where they can produce hundreds of thousands of barrels a day in America which, by the way, because America has the best standards in the world, would emit less carbon than the oil produced in Saudi Arabia.

While the President will be flying over to Saudi Arabia, he won't know the answer he is going to get. They are an OPEC nation. They typically support a limited supply of oil because they want a higher price. So he doesn't know what the answer is going to be. He is going to fly 5,700 miles over and another 5,700 miles back to the United States. There are no solar panels on Air Force One, so that is going to be a lot of jet fuel and a lot of carbon emissions to do something that he could pick up the phone and call Port Fourchon. We would love to see him down there, but he can call them. I can tell you, Madam Speaker, the answer would be ``yes.''

They would say: Yes, we will produce more energy here in America.

But they are not allowed to right now because of limitations put in place by the Biden administration. So while we push to get this bill, H.R. 6858, brought forward, it really begs the question of first: What is the carbon footprint of President Biden's trip to Saudi Arabia?

But why even do this trip? Why go to Saudi Arabia and ask them to produce oil when we have it right here?

It is President Biden's policies that are stopping that oil from being produced, and, by the way, at a much lower carbon footprint than anything that Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela, or any of those countries would produce if it were their countries meeting the demands of our Nation and so many others.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman, hopefully, to see if we can get the bill scheduled for next week.

Madam Speaker, if there is common ground we can find on the components of H.R. 6858, I would be happy to help facilitate that negotiation because there are a number of very specific items in that bill that address the shortfalls, the deficiencies, the inabilities to produce energy in America. The Keystone pipeline might be one of the more well known.

President Biden, on his first day in office, canceled the Keystone pipeline.

Of course, it is not moving forward because he canceled it. It would provide a vital supply of oil from our friends in Canada that we wouldn't need from other people.

But there are a number of other pipeline issues. No new pipelines have been approved in the country. You have to have an ability to move energy around the country if we are going to be able to produce our own.

If a conscious decision was made in the White House that they don't want any pipelines, because that impedes the ability to produce energy in America, it just means we have to import more of it from other countries. Whether it is Saudi Arabia, Russia, any of them that I would not want us to have to get it from, it is going to come in some form. It might be a tanker. It is going to get here, and it is going to have to be put on rail or an 18-wheeler if it can't be put in a pipeline.

Let's get more pipelines produced, LNG export facilities. There are multiple, at least four, LNG export facilities that are sitting on the desk over at the Department of Energy ready to go. These are multibillion-dollar, privately funded projects that can't move forward because they won't move, yes or no, on those requests that have been pending for over a year.

Obviously, you look at leases, not being able to develop your lease. If you are a farmer and you own land, you could talk about all the thousands of acres of land, but if you need a permit

from the Federal Government to plant food and the Federal Government won't give you a permit to plant the food, then you can't use the land. The land is worthless.

You own leases on Federal or State lands, but the Federal Government, through President Biden, said you can't get permits to go and exercise that lease. Then the lease is worthless.

There has been a lot of talk by the White House about who to blame. By the way, I have never heard of President Biden pointing the finger at himself or looking in the mirror and going, is there something I can do? We have a list for him that he can do, and he won't.

But Joe Biden, as a candidate for President, has said things like this multiple times since being President: ``No more drilling on Federal lands. No more drilling, including offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period.'' That was Joe Biden.

Then, Joe Biden continued to carry out policies that followed through on those promises to kill drilling in America, and each step of the way, the price kept going up.

Prior to Putin's invasion--I know the President loves trying to blame Putin. Well in advance of Putin's invasion, the price of oil was going up. In fact, the President was--whatever terminology you want to use-- pleading with, begging, asking Putin to produce more oil prior to the invasion of Ukraine. That was who Joe Biden was asking back then as he was carrying out his promise, ``No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period.''

He only applied that, by the way, to America. He was asking other countries to drill. He was just saying you can't do it here. Putin said no, by the way.

In the meantime, Putin was making $700 million a day selling his oil to America and Europe during that period when President Biden was carrying out all the steps to stop drilling in America.

Then you fast forward. The price keeps going up. President Biden, again, doesn't look in the mirror.

The gentleman mentioned they blamed the pandemic. That didn't fly because that wasn't the case because people started getting out again, started going again.

Energy companies asked to start producing again and filed permit after permit application and got denied and denied and denied, so then the President blamed the oil and gas companies. They had hearings up here, brought in all the oil and gas companies.

Do you know what the oil and gas companies said under oath? They want to drill more, and they can't drill because of President Biden's policies. It is President Biden's policies stopping them from drilling.

Again, if the oil and gas companies or Putin were the reason that there was this inability, and President Biden, as he has done multiple times, blamed them, if they were the reason that they had this shortfall, he would continue to be blaming them. But he knew the public wasn't buying it because it wasn't them, so he just blames more people.

Then, he goes to price gouging. As the gentleman pointed out, there was a bill here on the House floor a few weeks ago to try to shift the blame over to price gouging, and the answer was to allow you to sue your local gas station if you didn't like the price of gas.

Well, none of us like the price of gas. Suing your gas station is only going to make the price higher. Obviously, that had no impact because that wasn't the reason. But that was the answer and the attempt to try to blame somebody else.

Then we moved forward, and it is all of these other issues-- refineries. This week, the White House started blaming refineries.

While the White House keeps throwing spaghetti at the wall, trying to figure out if somebody else will take the blame, he is going to go to Saudi and ask them to help us lower the price. Saudi's ability to produce is irrelevant to the price if we produce in America because we have the ability to drive down that price because we are not an OPEC nation. We are not a monopoly. We are a free-market economy when the free market is allowed to operate.

But President Biden, through his promises--``No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period''--in essence, he took the free market ability for America to produce energy off the table, which means he gave that leverage to monopolies, to cartels. They are taking advantage of it because President Biden gave them that.

Instead of asking them to produce more when they are fine with the high price of oil, whether it is Brent, West Texas, it doesn't matter what it is. He has taken it off in America so that they can limit the supply.

Let's not limit the supply. Again, if it is about saving the planet, if it is about carbon emissions, why not produce more here? There is no country in the world that produces oil that does it cleaner or better than us.

If you take America off the table, as President Biden has done--``No more drilling on Federal lands. No more drilling, including offshore.'' That was Joe Biden. He took it off the table here. That means you are going to need oil from countries that emit more carbon to produce the same oil, so you get higher carbon emissions.

Again, that doesn't even count the carbon emissions that will occur when President Biden gets on Air Force One and flies over 5,700 miles to go have this conversation that he doesn't need to have because he can have that conversation right here in America at a place like Port Fourchon, where the answer would be yes, and it would be cleaner. And by the way, it would bring billions more dollars into America's Treasury. It would lower the price of gasoline. It would create more jobs in America.

Every answer says yes, except President Biden keeps saying no. We want to address it through this legislation, which would counter some of those many things that President Biden has done to turn off the spigots in America.

If we can work on ways to confront this, I would be more than happy to have that negotiation, and we could go through, offline, how to do that. That is why I continue to bring up this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Just for clarification, the ranking member voted ``no'' on the bill.

The 800,000 leases--and I know we talked about this before. You can have 800,000 leases, but when you need, then, permits to actually utilize the lease--so you have a lease to go and develop oil, but you need to drill. You need to do seismic. You need to build pipelines, infrastructure to move it. If you don't get those permits to actually utilize the leases, the leases are worthless. That is what H.R. 6858 addresses. We have been raising that issue for a long time. The lease is no good if you can't, then, use the lease.

Obviously, we will continue to debate this. Hopefully, we will debate it over H.R. 6858 where we can actually be talking about how we work together to solve the problem.

Of course, as the gentleman knows, Congress did come together, Republicans and Democrats, to give our friends in Ukraine the tools to go and push Putin out of much of Ukraine and, hopefully, all of Ukraine.

We will continue to stand with the incredibly strong, resilient people of Ukraine in standing up to Vladimir Putin.

We will, hopefully, have this debate further as we are talking about the legislation that we would like to bring.

Unless the gentleman has anything else--Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1191, I call up the bill (H.R. 4176) to improve Federal population surveys by requiring the collection of voluntary, self- disclosed information on sexual orientation and gender identity in certain surveys, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the bill before us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4176, the LGBTQI+ Data Inclusion Act. This historic bill takes the long overdue step of ensuring that Federal agencies collect data on sexual orientation, gender identity, and variation in sex characteristics so that the Federal Government can better understand and serve America's LGBTQI+ communities.

We are considering this legislation at a critical time. Across the United States, the rights of the LGBTQI+ people are under attack and the health and safety of LGBTQI+ people are under threat. From the limited data currently available, we understand

that LGBTQI+ people disproportionately experience poverty, housing insecurity, adverse physical and mental health outcomes, discrimination, and more. For example, according to the Williams Institute, more than one in five LGBTQI+ people live in poverty. According to the American Psychiatric Association, LGBTQI+ people are 2.5 times more likely to experience depression, anxiety, and substance abuse than people who are heterosexual.

There is also an epidemic of violence against transgender and gender- nonconforming people across the U.S.--an epidemic that killed more than 50 people last year.

The LGBTQI+ Data Inclusion Act, introduced by my friend and chair of the Natural Resources Committee, Raul Grijalva, would close many longstanding gaps in the collection of data pertaining to our Nation's LGBTQI+ communities. By ensuring that Federal surveys collect data on sexual orientation, gender identity, and variations in sex characteristics, this bill will equip Congress and Federal agencies with the information they need to better understand the specific challenges faced by the LGBTQI+ communities and help us develop equitable policy solutions.

This bill currently has 128 cosponsors. The legislation has also received overwhelming support from more than 200 civil rights, health, and scientific organizations and the LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus.

This bill builds on the Biden administration's efforts to advance equity for LGBTQI+ populations, including by empowering Federal agencies to carry out the President's recently announced executive order to expand collection of Federal data pertaining to LGBTQI+ people.

The Biden administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy that strongly supports passage of the bill.

Importantly, under this bill answering questions about one's sexual orientation, gender identity, and variations in sex characteristics would be entirely voluntary, and the bill also includes strong confidentiality and privacy protections. The design of this bill strikes a necessary balance between informing policymaking and protecting the personal information of LGBTQI+ people across the country.

Before I conclude, let me take a moment to acknowledge the importance of the House taking this historic step during Pride Month--a celebration of immeasurable contributions made by LGBTQI+ people in every aspect of American life and a reminder of our continued mission to ensure that every community in the United States is treated with equality and respect.

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

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

I point out to my good colleague that this year the National Academies put out a report which found that complete and accurate demographic information on the LGBTQI+ community should be standardized and collected. The report showed that only a limited number of Federal surveys collect data on sexual orientation and gender identity, and that none collect data on intersex populations.

This bill would greatly improve our data collection efforts. This would help ensure the Federal Government's programs and services can reach every person in the U.S. with the greatest effectiveness.

It would help us also to better address longstanding health and economic inequities for America's LGBTQI+ population. From the limited research currently available, we understand that LGBTQI+ people disproportionately experience poverty, housing insecurity, adverse physical and mental health outcomes, discrimination, and more. So collecting this data is critically important to ensure that our policies meet the needs of our LGBTQI+ constituents.

I will give one example of why this is so important. Without the collection of this data, States were not able to measure the impact of the pandemic on the LGBTQI+ individuals. They were completely left out of all medical surveys leaving pandemic response programs at risk of neglecting these individuals. It moves us to a more inclusive and equitable society.

Representative Raul Grijalva is the distinguished and outstanding chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources. He is the author of the original bill. I was proud to work with him, with the committee members to bring it to the floor.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader.

Madam Speaker, I respond to his statements on the citizenship status in saying that it should be collected with LGBT data.

I want to make it very clear that the citizenship question should not be part of this bill. Requiring that citizenship questions be included in this bill is a duplication and totally unnecessary.

The Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics already ask about citizenship status in two different surveys: the American Community Survey, and the Current Population Survey.

This data is collected in addition to the volumes of citizenship records collected and maintained by the Department of Homeland Security.

The Trump administration's efforts to add the citizenship question to the Census was a fear tactic, intended to discourage specific people from participating in the Census, and to exclude them from the count.

Requiring citizenship data collection on Federal surveys was, and always will be, about suppressing data sets and denying U.S. citizens and residents the representation and resources they need to contribute to their communities.

Now, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration's stated reasoning for adding the citizenship question was ``pretextual.''

Unlike the citizenship question, collecting data on sexual orientation, gender identity, and variations in sex characteristics will allow individuals to receive the proper care and resources they need to thrive, while helping to combat the discrimination they face every day.

Unlike the citizenship question, these questions will be voluntary, and respondents' privacy will be vigorously protected.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), Chair of the LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his extraordinary statement, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the distinguished chief deputy whip.

I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) for introducing this important legislation. I am pleased that we were able to bring this bill before the House during Pride Month to show that we care about everyone in our country. We think everyone should be counted, everyone should be surveyed, and everyone's needs should be listened to.

I particularly thank the LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus for their attention and work on this bill and the Committee on Oversight staff for all the work required to make this happen.

I am also very grateful to the more than 124 cosponsors, my colleagues here in this body, and more than 200 civil rights, health, and scientific organizations that have supported this bill

and affirm the need for comprehensive Federal data collection on members of the LGBTQI+ communities.

This bill, H.R. 4176, moves this country one step closer to equality and gives us the tools to see and support all of our communities, all of our constituents.

I again urge my colleagues to support this bill. I thank the leadership of this body, our Speaker, our majority leader, and our Caucus chair, all of whom have played a role in supporting this legislation and moving it to a vote today.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Jackson Lee amendment.

This amendment would require reporting to Congress on the impact of data collection on the LGBTQI+ populations, facilitated by this act, and the provision of services extended to those groups.

As the chair of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, I am committed to ensuring the effectiveness and efficiency of government operations for all Americans. Reporting on the impacts of H.R. 4176 will provide transparency into the data collection and help inform our policymaking efforts.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Speaker, Representative Sean Patrick Maloney has an amendment at the desk, and I am his designee.

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

Today, I rise in support of this amendment that clarifies the Federal surveys governed by this bill can and should collect data on deceased LGBTQ individuals when applicable.

As we know, due to mistreatment and being stigmatized, LGBTQ+ youth are over four times more likely to attempt suicide than their peers.

In recent years, the number of violent fatal attacks against transgender people have hit record highs. But importantly, the actual number of fatal attacks is widely believed to be undercounted. Allowing a proxy of a deceased person to respond to a Federal survey can right this wrong.

Federal surveys often do not collect key demographic information on those they study, such as the gender identity or sexual orientation of a deceased person. As a result, we as policymakers do not have the full picture and cannot accurately identify disparities or create policy solutions that serve each person we represent.

For example, the Justice Department's National Crime Victimization Survey only asks questions about the victim's sexual orientation but not about their gender identity.

This potentially severe undercount of targeted violence against the transgender community has left us making policies with one hand tied behind our backs.

This amendment ensures that researchers and policymakers can understand the experiences of deceased LGBTQ individuals and make more informed decisions as we fight for equality and justice under the law.

Madam Speaker, I urge support of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I urge support of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise as designee for Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib's amendment made in order by the rule.

Madam Speaker, this straightforward amendment requires the agencies collecting information through this bill to create standards and protocols for anonymizing and destroying personally identifiable information at the appropriate time.

This amendment is a strong addition to the underlying bill, as it ensures that the necessary demographic information collected will be responsibly destroyed to fully protect an individual's privacy.

Complete and accurate data collection is essential to informing policies, laws, and programs that address the needs of our communities.

Individuals who identify as LGBTQI+ have been underrepresented in Federal data collection efforts for generations. This critical information has been missing from this community in all areas of data collection and has led to worsened outcomes compared to individuals who are fully counted in Federal data collection.

I am proud to support this commonsense pro-privacy amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.