A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to "Small Business Lending Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B)".

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), my colleague on the Committee on Rules, for yielding, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, once again, House Republicans are spending a week on legislation that fails to solve many of the very real issues facing our constituents.

Last week, when I was in my district, my constituents shared with me their aspirations, their worries, and their vision for how to make our communities thrive for generations. Veterans from Hobbs described how hard it is to travel for access to healthcare and other services-- services that they have earned.

Seniors from Hobbs described the concern about paying their bills on a fixed income and the need to reduce costs. The Lovington mayor led us on a tour of the wastewater plant as he described the need to invest in water infrastructure in rural communities and thanked us for doing that and promoting such investment.

In Taos, New Mexico, ranchers and farmers working with the New Mexico Acequia Association, which for those of you who don't know, is a centuries-old system of providing irrigation to farmers and ranchers in New Mexico.

They talked to me about their concerns about growing their business amid the climate crisis that we are seeing and the drought conditions. These are real challenges that our constituents want us to fix, challenges that Congress has the ability and responsibility to address.

Does this rule make in order any bills to help address veterans' need to access healthcare?

Does it make in order any bills to help seniors pay their bills?

Does it help our rural communities access rural clean water systems?

Does it help our farmers keep their heritage and grow our foods?

Nope. It doesn't.

What are we doing this week?

We have a bill that prevents the use of Federal lands to provide temporary shelters for certain noncitizens, including migrants who are legally applying for asylum. It is a bill that fails to address the humanitarian crisis or security needs at our border.

Our colleagues across the aisle have consistently repeated harmful theories, like the invasion theory, where they seek to demonize the communities I represent and from which I come. Their talking points simply inflame the issue rather than looking to solve it.

This is just more of the same from a majority that is unable to govern effectively. Instead, we should pass legislation that actually improves our immigration system and acknowledges and upholds the dignity of immigrant communities.

There are real solutions to deal with the border. The Republican majority just doesn't want us to vote on them on this floor.

For example, the Dream and Promise Act has vast support from Americans, but will we see Republicans put it on the floor?

Nope.

The Farmer Workforce Modernization Act that has bipartisan support would help agricultural communities and help farmworkers, but will we see Republicans put it on the floor?

Nope.

We could move these bills, if only Republicans would stop blocking them. We will also consider today a resolution to reverse a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule. That rule would require lenders to collect and report information about the small business credit applications they receive, including geographic and demographic data, lending decisions, and the price of credit.

We know that many rural small businesses struggle with access to financial resources. It is important to know whether or not the banks, especially the big banks, are serving them.

Americans, the middle class, and small businesses want somebody on their side because they know the big banks and corporations aren't. That is why Americans across the political spectrum overwhelmingly support the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Despite the strong public support, Republicans continue to attack the Bureau. The Democrats are on the side of small businesses when we stand up for the Bureau and its work.

We should support initiatives to bring capital to entrepreneurs and innovators, especially in rural America. A lot of that work happens because of credit unions, I might add. I support efforts to address the credit unions' concerns about the smaller entities.

A CRA, though, as proposed by the Republicans, is an overly broad and blunt tool that prevents an agency from promulgating any regulation in an area that it addresses.

This CRA that they have put forward would tie the hands of the Bureau. It would prevent them from rulemaking regarding data for small businesses, women-and minority-owned businesses.

We need access to this data to make sure that small businesses, women- and minority-owned businesses, rural businesses have access to capital. Investing in these small businesses is how we grow the middle class, and that is what Democrats are focused on. How do we grow the middle class.

Lastly, H.R. 5961 would freeze certain Iranian funds involved in the 2023 hostage deal between the U.S. and Iran. We must acknowledge, and do acknowledge, that Iran is dangerous and a state sponsor of terrorism. We cannot allow the terror to continue.

I must remind my Republican colleagues that the Rules Committee already reported a rule for this bill. Their own party blocked the House from voting on this bill when they voted down the rule on the floor.

This week we should be debating a bill with aid for our allies, including Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan, and others around the world, but I guess we are not.

I guess we should not be surprised with this rule. This is just a continuation of the chaos and closed process that has been a hallmark of this Republican-led House. We have seen over 40 closed rules on the floor that have blocked two-thirds of bipartisan amendments, including blocking half of all Republican amendments.

Republican leadership clearly hasn't made good on their promise to make the legislative process more open, inclusive, and accommodating.

This year, Republicans will have wasted nearly a month on internal politics just to elect a Speaker--time that could have been spent lowering costs for seniors and helping those veterans I mentioned earlier, time that could have been spent helping our farmers and ranchers, time that could have been spent helping to grow our middle class.

As Republicans continue to press forward legislation that seeks to further destroy and divide, House Democrats are working to improve the lives of everyday people.

House Democrats are committed to putting people over politics, to do what is right for everyday Americans; lowering costs, growing the middle class, and defending fundamental freedoms.

As we have all year, House Democrats continue to extend the hand of partnership to get things done for the American people, including passing legislation that invests in working families and keeping our Nation safe.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying bills.

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

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

This entire Congress, Republicans have tended to use titles for their bills that are extremely misleading. For example, today's rule includes the so-called Protecting our Communities from Failure to Secure the Border Act. Interestingly, though, this bill does not actually secure the border. In fact, it does not include any resources for States to deal with migrants who are awaiting processing. How is that protecting our communities? Let's invest where we need to address this issue.

Instead of addressing real problems at the border, Republicans are bringing up this unnecessary legislation to attack vulnerable migrants under the guise of protecting public lands. Remember, this is a public lands bill. It came out of the Natural Resources Committee. If they really cared about protecting public lands, they wouldn't have passed an Interior appropriations bill out of their committee that cuts nearly a billion dollars from the Federal land management agencies that are tasked with protecting these public lands.

The concern really isn't about protecting public lands, and it is not really about addressing the real immigration concerns. If they were really, truly interested in that, they would work with us to address the root causes of migration.

The most effective way to control the number of asylum-seekers arriving at our ports of entry is to help them stay in their home countries. They talk about that in some of their bills, but look at what they say and what they do.

Let's focus on what they actually do. They have put forward appropriations bills that actually cut funding for customs and border officers. They cut CBP funding. They cut money for fentanyl interdiction. That is what they actually do.

They may have bills with fancy titles and all this talk, but what happens when it comes to what they are funding? They are not funding with the necessary resources to address these issues.

For example, the last time we were in the Rules Committee, they were cutting funding for the FBI, DEA, and law enforcement agencies that we need to work on these issues. They are not supporting the kind of cutting-edge inspection machines that we need to detect fentanyl at our southwestern border ports of entry, like in the President's national security supplemental request.

I asked them if they were going to support the national security supplemental request with those provisions in it, if they were going to support the Democratic amendments in the border package earlier this year that would have made that bill better.

It is not a great bill. They focus on that wall. They are fixated on that wall. It is not what we need. We have seen report after report that it does not work. They just keep using migrants to score political points. This is the third bill we have seen this year, but none of them are true solutions.

If they were serious about solving the issues at our border, they would work with us on comprehensive legislation instead of these things that do absolutely nothing to fix the problem.

The problem isn't in New York City. It is their failure to work with us on legislation that would solve the issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter of support for proposed section 1071, CFPB rule, which highlights the benefits of collecting lending demographic data for small farmers and farmers of color.

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

This letter tells us a lot about how Democrats see the issues in rural America, how Democrats see the issues affecting our small businesses, our women-owned businesses, and our minority-owned businesses. It is one of wanting to make sure that the playing field is level, that there is transparency and fairness at the same time that we use the market to build up thriving communities.

This is a letter that comes from ranchers, farmers, cooperatives, our rural areas. It is signed by dozens of organizations, and they read that the section 1071 rule is profarmer. Young, beginning, and small farmers have consistently demanded more transparent and fair markets.

Having accurate and public data will help farmers and consumers make better-informed financial decisions.

For some reason, the Republicans don't want to make sure that we have access to this data. What are they hiding? If big banks aren't serving our rural farmers, let's find that out.

This isn't just about that. This is about promarket. They say section 1071 is promarket. The data required by section 1071 will help lenders identify unmet credit needs and expand new markets.

This is important if we are going to grow the middle class. Once again, I was a small business owner. I had a woman-owned business. I went and sought credit. I filled out those forms. It wasn't that hard. I wrote down that, yes, I am a woman-owned business, and, yes, I am a minority-owned business. I am a Latina. I am proud of it. I am from a State capital, by the way, the oldest State capital in the United States, which is very pro-immigrant because we know of the economic benefits it provides.

We know that having access to this information is good for our small businesses. It is good for rural America. Therefore, we are very much in support of this rule, despite the fact that, once again, Republicans want to hammer and beat up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau despite the great work it does for our consumers, the great work it does for our small businesses, the great work it does for Americans, which is why they support it the way they do.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a measure that clearly states that the people's House will keep its solemn promise to American seniors and workers. We will protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare and fight against any cuts to these crucial programs that so many of our constituents depend on.

Reaffirming our promise is more important than ever. Republicans on the Budget Committee today, as we speak, are holding a hearing about fiscal commissions that could slash Social Security and Medicare. We cannot allow that to happen.

The top candidates for President in the Republican Party are also calling for cuts to Social Security. The House must stand against that. Democrats in the House will stand against that.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Lee) to discuss our proposal.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, actually the debate around Social Security, similar to the debate about the Consumer Protection Bureau and its regulations, does highlight the policies that the Democrats and Republicans pursue and who are the beneficiaries of those policies.

Let's look at Social Security and what the Republican Budget Committee is looking at. They are looking at raising the retirement age. Who actually pays for that?

When you raise the retirement age, it is going to be the janitors, nurses, educators, and the people doing the hard work in our manufacturing plants that are going to be required to work longer. They are going to be the ones who are going to have a hard time because they don't have additional savings like the wealthy. Right?

The wealthy aren't going to care about whether you raise the age to 67, 68, or 72 because they have the assets and they are not relying on Social Security. It is our workers who have paid into Social Security who have earned it and deserve it. They deserve to receive the benefits that we promised them when they started working and paying into the system.

What can we do to make sure that Social Security is solvent in the future?

Well, Democrats have a bill that we introduced last year, and we supported it this year. You make sure everybody pays--no matter how much money you make--into the system. Right now we know that the wealthy stop paying into the system at about $147,000.

Why doesn't everybody pay Social Security taxes on all their earnings?

Why aren't the wealthy paying their fair share?

That is a policy difference. It is the policy distinctions that we are focused on.

Once again, Democrats are standing with working Americans who are not earning $200,000, $300,000, $400,000, or $1 million a year. We say you should pay your fair share of your Social Security taxes rather than doing what they want to do, which is gut benefits. When you raise the Social Security age, you are gutting the benefits.

That is an example of the distinction of when you are standing with working Americans and when your policies that you support are increasing the middle class instead of standing with the wealthy.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we need to remember why we faced inflation in the first place. We need to remember that this country and the world faced down a pandemic that threatened to destroy our economy.

Let's go back to those dark days when we moved from the Trump Presidency to the Biden Presidency. Our businesses were closed. Our Main Streets were going to fall apart. Our city, local, and State governments were worried about whether they would be able to keep people on the payroll.

The Democrats passed the American Rescue Plan, and we did rescue the economy indeed. I go to my working-class district because my entire district is like that. That is my family. I come from those roots. I speak to those people on a regular basis.

Every town I go into, I look at the number of loans, the PPP, the Restaurant Revitalization Fund, the Shuttered Venue Operators Grant, and they are open now. Those communities are thriving because of the work we did. That was not the reason we saw inflation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Economic Review.

Mr. Speaker, this is an article titled: ``How Much Have Record Corporate Profits Contributed to Recent Inflation?''

Firms raised markups to 2021 in anticipation of future cost pressures contributing to about 60 percent. Every American knows that record profits added to inflation. They just keep on trying to blame it on the fact that we kept our small businesses open. That is not the case. We made sure that people did not get thrown out of their homes.

It is the big corporations that they protect with their policies, and they want to make sure that they can cheat on their taxes. They bring that up every little while. He brought up issues with regard to Israel. Well, you know, they didn't allow a clean bill to come to the floor because they wanted to make sure that tax cheats could continue cheating on their taxes. They wanted to cut that funding.

We know that those kinds of things hurt America. We know that part of the reason for inflation was because of Putin's war, Putin's invasion of Ukraine, and what happened to the markets from that.

On that side of the aisle, we have the Putin protectors who are fighting back and do not want to provide any resources to Ukraine.

So, the majority should not start talking to me about inflation when the majority's policies are continuing to add to those problems.

You might know, Mr. Speaker, that neither this Congress nor this Presidency controls interest rates. That is the Federal Reserve. We do not control that. The President does not control that.

I would love to see interest rates come down because they do impact jobs. The fact that we had the lowest job growth of the Biden administration tells you--oh, my God, you had to compare it just to the Biden administration because the job growth has been phenomenal under this administration. It has been phenomenal based on the policies of what we did in the last Congress. We have added so many jobs.

We are seeing that the Inflation Reduction Act is bringing down inflation. Inflation is lower now than it was 1 year ago. Fact-check that. Yes, indeed, we have brought down inflation.

We are creating good manufacturing jobs. In New Mexico, we are creating manufacturing jobs. We are now manufacturing wind turbines. We are manufacturing solar facilities. We are manufacturing more now in New Mexico than we have done in the past.

Those are the kinds of things that are being created with the policies that Democrats supported and were signed into law last Congress.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the comment about not talking about interest rates. The gentleman talked about mortgage rates, and mortgage rates are tied to the Federal Reserve. So, once again, understanding how our economy works and which agency and entity has control over that is very important.

I also want to talk about the idea of who is trusted. He mentioned some polls with regard to who is trusted on the economy. The reality is that we are right now in the people's House. We are the Representatives who are closest to the people and who are out there meeting with them. This is what the Founders intended. When the Founders created the House of Representatives, they wanted to make sure that we were a miniature of America and that we were in constant communication.

I know that that is what we do. I know that is what my colleagues do and what I do. We go out and talk with them. We listen to their stories and bring them back. We decide, based on what we hear, what we are going to prioritize.

I like the fact that Democrats, that my party, those of us on this side of the aisle, go out to listen and come back and push for policies that are going to lower costs, like the Inflation Reduction Act did where we lowered the cost of prescription drugs and where we made sure that nobody is going to pay more than $35 a month for insulin. People have been asking for that.

For the first time, we are going to negotiate with Big Pharma to bring down those costs where there is going to be a $2,000 out-of- pocket limit for

prescription drugs. These are important ways in which we are lowering costs.

We are lowering costs by making sure that we are providing homeowners and renters with the ability to lower their energy costs, whether that is putting in renewable energy facilities and solar panels or insulating homes.

Those are the kinds of things that my colleagues across the aisle, my good friends, might not understand, like how important it is to insulate your house. I am from where it is cold, so getting those insulation credits is important. It lowers costs.

Because of this work that we have done, I know that there is an aggregated poll out that points to the fact that Democrat incumbents are trusted in the House at a rate that is so further beyond our Republicans. They are underwater by 14 points. Their own constituents know that they are not fighting for their economic benefit.

Nevertheless, what we have seen this year is chaos and dysfunction take over the House under Republican leadership. While Democrats have been ready to put people over politics and deliver for America through bipartisan legislation, our colleagues across the aisle continue to introduce bills like we are considering today that focus more on culture wars and nonsolutions.

Today, we have an immigration bill that does not address the root causes of migration, offer solutions for our broken systems, or provide any resources to help the U.S. citizenship or immigration system or Customs and Border Patrol address an increase in migrants.

In this bill, they might talk about a lot of things, but that is not what this bill does. This bill does not address any of those key issues. Instead, it restricts the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture's ability to manage their lands. These agencies are in charge of managing our public lands, and we need to let them do their job.

We have a bill that fails to help our small businesses even when we know that SBA low-interest loans have helped thousands of entrepreneurs grow their businesses and the economy. Instead, they would seek to make those Federal loans less transparent and would cripple the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's ability to address disparities in lending.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back on the House floor with the gentlewoman from Indiana. It is great to be with her, and so far, she is allowing me to actually speak and hasn't called for me to be silenced.

The last time we debated, I stated an uncomfortable fact about he who shall not be named and the gentlewoman had me silenced, had my words stricken from the Congressional Record.

You just have to love that, Mr. Speaker. The party of free speech that rails against woke this and cancel culture that, and calls us snowflakes, can't handle it when someone comes down here and tells the truth. They try to silence the people they disagree with. It is really quite stunning.

Here is more of the truth, and let's see if I am allowed to talk this time.

Mr. Speaker, under Republican control, the House of Representatives has become a place where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all. What we are dealing with today is a bunch of weird, whacky, poorly drafted culture war nonsense.

This is all just a waste of time. These bills aren't going anywhere. It is not even political theater. It is theater of the absurd.

The government shuts down in a few days, and instead of actually working with Democrats to keep the lights on, instead of actually doing something to fix the problems that the American people want us to fix, my Republican friends are doing nothing.

The roof is on fire, and instead of calling 911, they are sweeping the floors. I mean, it is beyond nuts.

Last night in the Rules Committee, during our hearing on this rule, I had some Republican Members telling me they didn't like my tone. They didn't like the fact that I said we don't share the same values.

I am sorry I hurt people's feelings, Mr. Speaker, but the truth is the truth. We don't all believe in the same things. When it comes to my friends on the other side of the aisle in this Chamber, we really don't share the same values. I know many of my friends on the Republican side are nice and good people, but their ideas are not nice and are not good.

Let me just give you a couple of examples.

Democrats want to make sure that our kids go to college and get a good education that prepares them for the workforce, and instead of working with us, Republicans go on and on about woke this and woke that in our schools.

Apparently, anyone who wants to teach facts is woke nowadays. They want colleges to stop being ``woke,'' even though they can't quite define what that even means. It is all political BS, Mr. Speaker.

Here is another example. Democrats actually want an economy that works for everyone, and thanks to the Biden-Harris administration, we are fighting to grow the economy from the bottom up and the middle out, but not Republicans. They are talking about woke economic policies.

I don't even know what they are talking about or what they mean, but do you want to know what people back home talk to me about? They are asking me: Why are Republicans trying to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires? Why are Republicans trying to go after Social Security and Medicare?

Another example, Mr. Speaker, is that Democrats actually care about strengthening and protecting the Violence Against Women Act, but not Republicans. A majority of their Conference voted against extending the Violence Against Women Act. Let me say that again: A majority of their Conference voted against extending the Violence Against Women Act.

Now, they have the nerve to come down here and talk about violence against women and use it as part of their sick ploy to go after immigrants. Give me a break. Their bill is so poorly written that it could hurt survivors of domestic violence.

I could go right down the list. It is obvious to me that, at some point, the RNC talking points went out to everybody, and those talking points said woke, woke, woke. Now, we have to waste time on this trash.

It is just another week of the GOP circus. As I have said before, calling this a clown show is an insult to actual working clowns.

Most of all, it is an insult to the American people for Republicans to use these hallowed Halls and to spend hours and hours of time this week on these absurd, awful bills. Again, none of them are going anywhere.

The reason to be in Congress is to help people. That means putting people over politics. It means not caving in to the most extreme members of your party. It means getting stuff done, which is a radical idea.

None of these bills, as I said, are going anywhere. Yet, here we are, playing these absurd, ridiculous games.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the chairman of the Rules Committee, but let me just state for the record that nothing he talked about will be at all impacted by any of the stuff that we are talking about here today. None of these bills are going anywhere.

If you want to pass legislation to address some of the issues that were raised, maybe we ought to work in a bipartisan way. Maybe it ought not to be ``my way or the highway.''

These aren't serious pieces of legislation. These are press releases. Let's all be honest with the American people about that. This is not serious legislating. We haven't done serious legislating here in a long time.

Mr. Speaker, I will zoom in a little bit on this Congress in general. I just mentioned that this is the most dysfunctional Congress in history. If anyone wants proof, look no further than this resolution: five more closed rules that allow zero amendments to come to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, for folks who don't know, a closed rule means no amendments. It means: Take it or leave it. If you have a good idea and want to improve a bill, too bad.

This is how they govern in Russia and China, and that is what the Republicans are turning this place into.

With these five closed rules they are bringing to the floor today, Republicans are breaking their own record for shutting down debate. With today's vote, there will be 106 closed rules in this Congress-- 106. This is now officially the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, what gets me is that my friends on the other side have been totally fooled. They were tricked by their own leadership, first by Speaker McCarthy and now Speaker Johnson.

The gentlewoman from Indiana and her colleagues on the Rules Committee were promised a more open process. They were told the Rules Committee was going to be different, more open, would have more regular order and more amendments, and more debate.

Speaker McCarthy was even blackmailed into putting members of the Freedom Caucus on the Rules Committee to guarantee a more open process, but apparently, it didn't matter because he totally broke his promise, and now Speaker Johnson is shredding it.

During the first 9 months under Speaker Johnson, we saw 64 closed rules, even more than the 42 closed rules we saw under Speaker McCarthy. They traded a bad Speaker for an even worse one. Republican leaders have blocked 5,799 amendments from even coming to the floor. Mr. Speaker, 5,799 amendments have been blocked from coming to the floor by the Republican majority.

By the way, they are not just Democratic amendments. They blocked Republican, bipartisan, and Democratic amendments. They blocked an amendment to disrupt the smuggling of U.S. firearms across the Mexican border. They blocked an amendment to combat fentanyl trafficking at ports of entry.

Holy hell, Mr. Speaker, they even blocked my amendment to protect food for seniors who participate in the Meals on Wheels program. They have even blocked over half of their own Republican Members' amendments.

Let me say that again. Most Republican amendments have been blocked by this Congress. These amendments have been prevented from even seeing the light of day or getting a debate on the House floor. There have been 98 amendments that Rules Committee Republicans had either authored or supported that have been blocked by their own majority.

When you are on the Rules Committee, you like to have a little juice, but 98 of your amendments, Republican amendments, have been blocked by your own party. That is almost 100 amendments, and that is just Rules Republicans.

I am sure they would have loved to have had the opportunity to debate their amendments on the floor. If Rules Committee Republicans can't get amendments, how the hell do you think the rest of us are doing?

Republicans said they wanted an open process in this Congress. They want an open process, my foot, Mr. Speaker.

Under this majority, the Rules Committee has become a place where democracy goes to die. Their Members should be outraged with the Speaker and this leadership just as much as Democrats should be. Again, 106 completely closed rules blocked all amendments--a shameful statistic, an all-time authoritarian high set under this Republican majority.

Let's look at the results. Look at what they have to show for it. Republicans had the most unproductive Congress in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, 26 days we went without a Speaker because they were fighting with each other. Weeks were wasted with failed rule votes while they argued among themselves instead of negotiating with Democrats.

There were broken promises on the appropriation process where they kicked the can down the road with another failed CR, bringing us to the brink of catastrophic debt default and then asking Democrats to bail them out. Mr. Speaker, 10 months of passing no legislation through the Rules Committee that ever became law.

I congratulate my friends. In addition to being the most incompetent, dysfunctional, unproductive Congress in American history, they now have also presided over the most closed Congress in American history. Well done, well done, and they are not done yet. We have to live through 3 more months of this. God help us.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I reiterate what the gentleman from South Carolina just said. We have different viewpoints and different values.

I am sorry that he feels he lives in a wrecked country. I don't believe that. I think the United States of America is the greatest country on this planet, and I am proud to serve in Congress to try to help the people of this country. I would never refer to this country as a ``wrecked country.''

Again, the gentleman who just spoke, I thought when he was appointed to the Rules Committee, he was appointed to make sure that we had a more open process.

I regret to inform the gentleman that 106 closed rules slipped by him this Congress. I appreciate him standing in the breach.

By the way, when he refers to all the amendments that were rejected as being dumb, 50 percent of them were Republican amendments.

I think 27 of your amendments were denied. I wouldn't classify them as dumb, even though I may disagree with the intent.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a list of the 106 closed rules issued by the Republican majority in the 118th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, beneath all these statistics about closed rules are actual ideas that are being blocked from being debated on the House floor.

These are thoughtful proposals that Members have worked hard to develop, ideas to help actual people, and they deserved a debate in an up-or-down vote.

They are proposals like this: An amendment to disrupt the smuggling of U.S. guns across the Mexico border to help cartels, an amendment authorizing funding for DHS to combat fentanyl trafficking at our ports of entry, and an amendment to prevent cuts to Meals on Wheels.

Those are home-delivered meals to seniors, Mr. Speaker, and that was my amendment, by the way, so I can assure you that it was a very, very good idea.

They even blocked an amendment to provide postpartum mental health information to pregnant students, and that was a Republican amendment.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans haven't just blocked amendments by reporting out closed rules. Their structured rules, the rules that allowed a few amendments, have also continually blocked thoughtful, rule-complied amendments.

They seem especially focused on blocking Democratic ideas from a debate in an up-or-down vote on the floor. A quarter of their structured rules--get this--blocked all Democratic amendments.

Now, let me quickly just list a few ideas that Republicans were either too afraid to debate or couldn't spare 10 minutes for consideration on the House floor: An amendment to protect children from getting asthma; amendments to ensure the regulation of dark money in politics, and to prevent corrupt pay-to-play political donation deals with Federal contractors; and an amendment to provide cancer screenings to Federal firefighters as part of their DOD annual physicals, when we know they are exposed to cancer-causing chemicals as part of their jobs. There is simply no excuse for this, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the gentlewoman from Minnesota, I was confused when she said, you don't offer alternatives. That is what amendments are. They are alternative ideas.

I just went through a list of some of the alternatives we wanted to offer dealing with firefighters and cancer screening, dealing with children with asthma, and dealing with making sure senior citizens have adequate access to nutrition. Those are alternatives. Those are ideas.

My friends, unfortunately, are in control of this place, so they get to bring the bills to the Rules Committee.

We try to present alternatives through the amendment process, but here is another alternative. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 16, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2023.

Mr. Speaker, the bigoted hatred that we are seeing directed at immigrants in Ohio and across the country is sickening. According to research done by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, there has been a rise in conspiracy theories that stigmatize minorities and promote hatred of ethnically diverse communities.

Get this. Politicians' use of bigoted rhetoric can also play a role in hate crime incidents. It is sad, but to be frank, we didn't need researchers to tell us this.

We can see and we can hear it from the Republican Party every single day, and it does a grave disservice to the Dreamers, to TPS holders, and to DACA recipients in this country who only know America as their home.

These are taxpayers, small business owners, educators, and critical parts of our communities. Dreamers were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own, and it is past time to grant them the pathway to citizenship that they rightly deserve.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. There is a lot of work that needs to be done to fix our broken immigration system and secure our border, but unlike the messaging bills before us this week, this is a bill that actually does something, and it is actually bipartisan. It sends the message that we are sick of the vitriol and hate crimes against this community and that we value their many contributions that make this country a better place.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar), a great leader, to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia), who will also speak on the importance of defeating the previous question.

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

You have got to love when Republicans try to talk tough about immigration reform. I just want to remind my colleagues that one of the most conservative Senators in the United States Senate is from Oklahoma. He wrote a comprehensive immigration reform bill that has some very tough provisions in it. Their standard-bearer, the man who I cannot name on the floor for fear that my words will be taken down, told Republicans to not allow it to come to the floor for debate or a vote.

They would rather have a campaign issue than to solve a problem. I mean, let that sink in. Let that sink in.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the National Institute of Justice titled: ``Undocumented Immigrant Offending Rate Lower Than U.S.-born Citizen Rate.''

Mr. Speaker, all day long, Republicans spout hateful rhetoric about undocumented immigration and crime because they want us to be scared and they want to divide us, but their claims are simply not rooted in truth. In fact, undocumented immigrants are less likely, not more, than U.S.-born citizens to commit crimes, including violent crime.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article by the CATO Institute titled: ``Sanctuary Jurisdictions in Florida Do Not Have Higher Crime Rates.''

Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence, none, either in Florida or in the rest of the country that sanctuary cities result in more crime. There is none, zero. However, that won't matter to Republicans because they are unmoved by the facts.

Mr. Speaker, earlier I listed some examples of ideas that Republicans blocked from even being considered on the floor. Here are a few more. I just want people to appreciate this.

An amendment that would protect access to IVF for Federal employees, they blocked it.

They blocked an amendment to require a study for Tribal consultations before enactment of an oil and gas bill that could affect their subsistence resources.

An amendment to make critical targeted investments in small-town police departments for the recruitment, retention, mental health support, and training they need to protect themselves and their communities, they blocked that, too.

They blocked an amendment to ensure continued access to emergency care for pregnant servicewomen at military treatment facilities.

Maybe Republicans don't believe in IVF or any of these other ideas, but they can just vote ``no.'' Why block these ideas from even being debated unless they are afraid they would pass?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to close yet. There may be someone else.

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

I want to get back to this extraordinary closed House. I just want everybody to appreciate how awful this process is.

Here are yet more examples of ideas that were too scary, too revolutionary, too controversial to even be debated on the House floor, according to this Republican majority:

An amendment to provide grants to organizations that are helping to transition servicemembers to civilian life, including job recruitment training, they blocked that. I mean, what are they thinking? Who does that?

They blocked an amendment to ensure that students with dietary restrictions like lactose intolerance can have an alternative to whole milk at lunch. Is lactose intolerance now woke? I mean, I don't get it. That was blocked.

They blocked an amendment to ensure that a bill wouldn't cause our domestic energy prices to increase.

I ask, again, what is the majority afraid of? I mean, we have our differences. We ought to have substantive debate on the floor and then have votes. I am willing to bet there are some thoughtful Republicans who would support some of these amendments that I mentioned here.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

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

We have heard a lot about wokeness here today, but I want to focus on the woke Democratic ideas that Republicans have blocked in this record- breaking closed Congress. I mean, ideas like protecting IVF, fighting fentanyl trafficking, and making sure lactose-intolerant students have something nutritious to drink at lunch. Wow. I mean, that those ideas are woke is crazy.

There have been 106 closed rules. That is a big number, a record- breaking number, but much more important is what that number represents. These ideas and all the other blocked amendments I highlighted would have helped everyday Americans. Is that woke? Is it woke to try and keep kids from getting asthma, to provide job training to veterans? To provide cancer screenings to firefighters, is that woke?

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what my Republican colleagues are afraid of. Maybe they are afraid to vote ``no.'' Maybe they are afraid to vote ``yes.'' This is Congress, Mr. Speaker. We are here to take hard votes. This record-breaking number of closed rules is a disservice to the people the Republicans represent.

Mr. Speaker, while Republicans want to talk about being woke, I wish instead that they would wake the hell up and do the people's business. For example, I don't know, maybe pass a bill to prevent a government shutdown. What we are doing today is merely a political exercise. Their obsession with trying to inject politics and culture wars into everything is getting really old, almost as old as the Presidential nominee.

Let me just say I love this place, and I love all the different things that we have been called on to do. I will just say this, Mr. Speaker: I want everybody to join with me and let's end this. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 891 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), 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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation.

House Resolution 891 provides for consideration of three measures: H.R. 5283, H.R. 5961, and S.J. Res. 32.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 5283, the Protecting our Communities from Failure to Secure the Border Act of 2023 under a structured rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule makes in order two amendments.

Further, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 5961, the No Funds for Iranian Terrorism Act under a structured rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule makes in order 12 amendments.

Finally, the rule provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 32, a resolution of Congressional disapproval related to a rule by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on small business lending under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, since President Joe Biden took office, there have been 7.8 million illegal immigrant encounters, 1.7 million known got-aways, and hundreds of individuals on the terrorist watch list have been stopped at our southern border.

Instead of fixing this issue, the Biden administration and far-left radical Democrats have placed illegal immigrants in our public schools, in our airports, our police stations, and now our Federal lands.

In New York City, the Biden administration and far-left New York Democrats are housing hundreds of illegal immigrants on National Park Service land.

H.R. 5283 revokes New York City's lease and prevents all national parks and Federal lands from becoming tent cities.

Additionally, H.R. 5861 blocks President Biden's $6 billion ransom gift to the Iranian regime.

As an Iraq war veteran, I have seen firsthand Iran's death and destruction in the Middle East. They are responsible for the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans in the Middle East.

Since Hamas' attack on October 7 against our number one ally, Israel, Iranian-backed proxies have attacked U.S. forces over 70 times in Iraq and Syria.

This is unthinkable. What is more unthinkable is that on the 22nd anniversary of 9/11, the Biden administration announced $6 billion in sanctions relief from the number one sponsor of terrorism, Iran.

These billions in sanctions relief will undoubtedly lead to more terrorist attacks, more attacks on Americans, and more attacks on innocent Israelis. That is why House Republicans will take action to freeze the funding that the Biden administration wants to send to the Ayatollah.

Lastly, the underlying legislation we will consider this week will address the Biden administration's CFPB guidance that places burdensome regulations on lenders and small business.

This new CFPB regulation will result in more compliance costs, it will create privacy concerns for small businesses, and adds to the bureaucratic regulatory environment that hinders hardworking Americans.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we are about to witness a real-time fact check here. My colleague from New Mexico is talking about the amount of closed rules. I would remind my friends across the aisle that in the 117th Congress-- and that is when they were deciding which rules were going to be run-- 58 of their rules out of 89 were closed rules; that is approximately 61 percent. Spare me the lecture on closed rules.

We also have one bill coming to the floor that has 12 separate amendments. It is kind of rich hearing that criticism. What is even richer is the criticism that we, as Republicans, have done nothing about the border. Absolutely laughable.

As the Biden administration and far-left radical Democrats have ignored the southern border crisis, we passed H.R. 2 twice. Twice we passed it. I would invite any Democrat that actually wants to do something about the southern border to just vote for this underlying legislation that we are running.

Again, House Republicans have passed the Secure the Border Act of 2023. I will remind my friends across the aisle that act restarts construction of the border wall. It deploys advanced technology to the southern border. It increases Border Patrol agents and their pay. It strengthens and protects those provisions for unaccompanied minor children. It protects them from human trafficking, and it ends the disastrous policy of catch and release. It ends the catch and release policies of the far-left Democrats.

We have passed the FY24 Homeland Security Act as well that provides-- wait for it--over $2 billion for the border wall. It provides almost a half million dollars for 22,000 Border Patrol agents and billions in funding to remove dangerous criminals who have entered the United States interior illegally.

Now, this week, House Republicans will block the Biden administration and far-left radical Democrats from turning our Federal lands into the illegal immigrant housing that the Biden administration and far-left Democrats in our cities have turned them into.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).

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

It is time for another real-time fact check, Mr. Speaker. Homeland FY 2024 increased funding for border agents, $496 million for 22,000 new Border Patrol agents. That is the highest ever funded.

It is rich when I hear my colleagues from across the aisle talk about bills that are named one thing and do another. This is from a party that hung their entire term on the Inflation Reduction Act, which neither reduced inflation nor helped the economy. They later said that it was about preventing global warming. Again, it is rich coming from a party that often misnames their key legislation.

Let's talk about sanctuary cities because there is one thing that we can do. We can end sanctuary city policies. For years, Democrats have criticized House Republicans and President Trump for wanting to secure our border and protect our communities. They criticize us when we say that. When the crisis comes to their own backyard instead of a small rural town on the southern border, when it comes to their sanctuary cities, Democrats are the first ones to declare an emergency.

Look at Martha's Vineyard. When Ron DeSantis sent a few illegal immigrants to Martha's Vineyard, it took those woke yuppies less than 12 hours to call the National Guard to remove the illegal immigrants. I am willing to bet there were more ``Hate has no home here'' signs in the pristine, well-manicured yards at Martha's Vineyard

than actual illegal immigrants, but they still called the National Guard to remove those immigrants from Martha's Vineyard.

Don't just take my word for it. Take New York City Mayor Eric Adams'. Over 110,000 migrants have reached New York City. Mayor Adams decried: ``The national government has turned its back on New York City.''

When illegal migrants showed up in Massachusetts, Governor Maura Healey declared a state of emergency and said the quiet part out loud: ``Massachusetts has stepped up to address what sadly has been a Federal crisis of inaction that is many years in the making.''

One thing is clear. Even Democrats now, in their sanctuary cities, are realizing that Biden has created this border crisis.

Democrats have ignored it for years. Republicans, thankfully, are finally stepping up and leading where they failed.

Any of my friends from across the aisle who want to help us, if they want to end this crisis, can vote for the rule today and vote for the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy), my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if my colleague from Pennsylvania was talking about the party as in 2003 or 2023 because the last time I checked, the Republicans are the party that supports the guys that shower after work not before.

The Chamber of Commerce has picked its side. It is with the Democrats. The billionaires that my friend from Pittsburgh was talking about--check how they are registered to vote. I am pretty sure--and I am willing to bet--that they all registered as Democrats, and far-left, extreme Democrats, by the way. All the Big Tech CEOs, Apple and Amazon, you name it, they are all far-left Democrats.

So this nostalgia for the day when Republicans supported big business and Democrats supported the little guy, it is just that, it is nostalgia. It is 2023, and we need to realize the new political realities.

When we are talking about numbers, I noticed that my friend from Pennsylvania didn't talk about the numbers relating to the destruction of Hamas during the over 3 minutes she had to address the Chamber. Let's talk about those numbers.

Hamas has killed over 1,500 Israelis since October 7, 2023. They have killed over 1,500 Israelis. They have injured over 6,900. Over 230 hostages were taken by Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Over 9,500 rockets have been fired from Gaza toward Israel. There were 32 Americans killed and several Americans are still missing.

While we are throwing out numbers, let's not forget to talk about the destruction Hamas has brought.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, here is another real-time fact-check for you. Obama under ObamaCare took $700 billion from Medicare. You tell me who is trying to protect Medicare and Medicaid. It certainly wasn't the Obama administration when they were taking billions of dollars from the fund.

It is amazing the amount of time that my colleagues across the aisle talk about working families. Have they actually talked to working families?

When I am in my district talking to working families, not the woke yuppies

that my friends across the aisle represent, but actually working Americans, they are talking about inflation. Let's look at the numbers.

When President Biden took office, President Trump had inflation where it was just 1.4 percent. Since then, prices have risen by 17 percent. By the way, real wages are going down, hurting working families and working Americans.

Prices have risen 17 percent and real wages are down. Credit card, auto loan, and consumer loan delinquencies are at the highest levels since the Great Recession. Just this morning, CBS News--the conservative news bash--reported that Americans need an extra $11,400 today just to afford the basics when compared to when President Trump was in office.

You tell me who is looking out for the working American. Something tells me it is not extreme, far-left Democrats that are looking out for their woke, affluent suburbs. All the while, the President has been misleading the American people.

Last week, our 81-year-old leader claimed Thanksgiving dinner was the fourth cheapest ever on record. Of course, that was false. Maybe it is his age showing, I don't know, but the truth is that it was the second most expensive Thanksgiving dinner ever.

If you want to talk about an all-time high, last year's inflation under the President's watch is an all-time high. It is clear, Bidenomics is broken economics. Democrats do not care about working Americans. Republicans do.

Let's talk about some more Bidenomics statistics. With the economy adding just 1,500 jobs in October, coming in below expectations, this is the second worst jobs report of the Biden Presidency.

The unemployment rate rose to 3.9 percent in October where the labor force participation rate actually declined. The average middle-class household has lost over $33,000 in real wealth in just this past year. That hurts people that are driving to work, driving to construction sites, and driving to work shifts at diners. It is not hurting the woke, yuppie base that the Democrats represent sitting at home on Zoom all day, having their EVs charging in their garage.

The average rate for a 30-year fixed mortgage is now at the highest level since 2000. This is bringing a disastrous effect to the housing market. Homeownership has been deemed unaffordable in 99 percent of the country. There are 73 percent of Americans that believe the economy is in bad shape, and more voters trust Republicans over Democrats to handle inflation, according to a recent AP-NORC poll.

Mr. Speaker, 58 percent of the Americans believe the economy is getting worse, and 69 percent believe the country is on the wrong track, according to an Economist/YouGov poll. That is not exactly a far-right polling outfit.

Half of Americans say their financial situation is worsening, according to a recent Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll. Biden's approval rating on the economy is at just 32 percent, the lowest of his Presidency, according to CNBC's All-American Economic Survey.

It is very clear that the American people know that Biden and far- left Democrats are hurting not only their job prospects, not only their ability to afford a home, but the entire economy and their ability just to afford the basics.

Mr. Speaker, I question any time a Democrat tells me they are watching out for the working American.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is time for another real-time fact check. By the way, let's not conflate interest rates with inflation. They are two totally separate things.

Let's talk about inflation. My friend from New Mexico said that inflation started during COVID. We know that when President Trump left office, inflation was at 1.4 percent. In June 2022, when Biden was in office, it was 9.1 percent. That is almost a record high. Yes, inflation is slightly less than it was, coming down from the all-time high.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, facts don't care about your feelings, and they don't care about your political persuasion. Try arguing the difference between 9.1 percent inflation and 1.4 percent inflation. Good luck with that.

We all know who is to blame: Biden and far-left, radical Democrats.

Also, to talk about how great the economy is and unemployment, the unemployment rate actually rose in October to 3.9 percent while the labor force participation rate declined. It is actually worse than 3.9 percent if you are reading into that statistic, Mr. Speaker.

Again, this is quite amazing. Not only has President Biden totally botched the economy and Bidenomics, but he has repeatedly botched foreign affairs. Obama's own Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, once said that Joe Biden has managed to get every single foreign policy decision wrong in his entire career.

One of the big mistakes that Biden made, when we talk about foreign affairs, was when he decided to delist the Houthis as a terrorist organization. Here is a quick history lesson. In 2021, due to pressure from the Iranian regime, and for whatever reason the Biden administration is fixated on appeasing the Iranian regime, the Iranian regime was putting pressure on the Biden administration to delist the Houthis as a foreign terrorist organization. For those who don't know, the Houthis are an Iranian-backed proxy group that wreaks havoc across the Middle East.

In recent weeks, the Houthis have carried out drone and missile attacks against Israel. They have attacked and seized commercial vessels in the Red Sea. They have fired rockets at the U.S. Navy, including the USS Mason, the USS Thomas Hudner, and the USS Kearny.

It is past time for the Biden administration to get tough with Iran and designate the Houthis as the foreign terrorist organization that they are.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I can't believe that, once again, I am here on the House floor explaining to my friends across the aisle that there is a difference between interest rates and inflation. They are two separate things. They shouldn't be conflated. I am shocked that I have to explain this to Members who are elected to Congress. It is quite amazing.

It is very clear, the difference between inflation and interest rates.

There is another thing that is very clear that Democrats don't seem to understand, and that is that President Biden's foreign policy agenda benefits our foreign adversaries and not the American people. From the failed withdrawal from Afghanistan to the $6 billion in sanctions relief to Iran, to the draining of our Strategic Petroleum Reserve and also the fast-tracking of Putin's Nord Stream 2 project, it has been disastrous.

Mr. Speaker, look at the invasion of Ukraine, a terrorist safe haven in Afghanistan, an emboldened China, and a destabilized Middle East. This legislation before us will protect our servicemembers in the Middle East. It will place additional pressure on the Iranian regime.

Additionally, we have another Biden-fueled disaster right here at home at our southern border. The White House now wants to exacerbate this crisis further by placing tent cities on Federal lands.

In Pennsylvania, our Commonwealth is home to several national parks, including the Flight 93 National Memorial, Fort Necessity National Battlefield, and Friendship Hill National Historic Site, all of which are in my congressional district. These are places for Americans and their families, not camps for those who broke our laws and are here illegally.

The underlying legislation will protect our national parks from the Biden administration's and the Democrats' radical, far-left immigration policies.

Finally, the Biden administration's attempt to burden our local lenders with extra costs would do irreparable harm to our Nation's 33 million small businesses. During a time when Bidenomics is failing the American people, it is critical we support efforts to make the American Dream more achievable, not insert partisan politics into small business lending. That is why the House will nullify this far-left, radical rulemaking by the Biden administration and Democrats.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 891 Offered by Ms. Leger Fernandez of New

Mexico

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

resolution (H. Res. 178) affirming the House of

Representatives' commitment to protect and strengthen Social

Security and Medicare. The resolution shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening

motion or demand for division of the question except one hour

of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or

their respective designees.

Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H. Res. 178.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, S.J. Res. 32 would repeal the CFPB's small business lending rule, which was required by Congress in section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The CFPB's rule would simply require lenders to collect and report data on small business lending. This data will help drive competition in the market, lowering small business costs, and help combat discrimination.

I worked closely with my colleague, Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, who is the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, to ensure that this provision was included in the Dodd-Frank Act because we both knew how critical this data would be to helping small businesses.

Access to capital is a key challenge that many small businesses face. For example, Goldman Sachs found that over 75 percent of small businesses they surveyed were concerned about access to capital. Research has also shown that minority-, women-, and LGBTQ+-owned businesses are more likely to be denied loans and pay steeper interest rates.

Access to capital is an issue for many family farms, which don't have the same access that larger agricultural corporations have. In addition, access to capital is an issue for our young people working in the gig economy seeking to start a business of their own but too often told ``no'' by banks.

Unfortunately, section 1071 of Dodd-Frank was not implemented for 13 years. In fact, small business owners had to sue the CFPB under the Trump administration to force implementation of this rule.

One of the small business owners who sued the CFPB was ReShonda Young, a Black woman who founded Popcorn Heaven, a small business selling gourmet popcorn in Waterloo, Iowa. Ms. Young explained that she was a victim of discriminatory lending practices, saying: ``In several instances, there was just blatant discrimination, and in other cases, I found out about it later on. And it wasn't just me.''

She further explained: ``I had a regular hourly income. My personal expenses were pretty low, so it wasn't like I couldn't cash infuse from my personal [income] if I needed to. My credit score was good, but I couldn't get what I needed. . . . Enough of the disrespect. Enough with the blatant disrespect. When a bank says, `We don't want your business for any good reason. Why don't you move your account elsewhere?' it was at that point, okay, something has to be done.''

The CFPB, under the leadership of a Trump appointee, settled the case and agreed to a court-supervised timeline, resulting in the final rule that the CFPB issued this year.

Now that the CFPB's rule has been finalized after all of these years, so many other small businesses in Iowa, North Carolina, Texas, California, and all across the country will be able to reap the benefits of a more transparent lending marketplace that Ms. Young should have had.

Specifically, the CFPB rule will allow small businesses to comparison shop between lenders and see how much other small businesses are being charged for their loans. This price transparency is essential to a competitive and fair marketplace.

In designing the rule, the CFPB was mindful of its impact on community financial institutions. For example, the rule completely exempts lenders that originated fewer than 100 small business loans in each of the 2 preceding years. This fully exempts more than 80 percent of depository institutions, including 98 percent of credit unions. For lenders that originated more than 100 loans, they would have more than 2 years before they would need to begin to comply with the rule in 2026.

Make no mistake, S.J. Res. 32 is just another part of Republicans' relentless attack on the CFPB. They have erroneously claimed that the CFPB is unconstitutional and unaccountable and have even gone so far as to attempt to eliminate the agency altogether.

Our constituents disagree. A recent bipartisan poll found that 82 percent of

Americans, including 77 percent of Republicans, support the CFPB and its mission.

I will highlight three main points about the CFPB small business lending rule that this resolution would repeal. First, the data collected under the rule is very similar to data collected under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act or HMDA.

This data collection under HMDA has been going on for decades, successfully bringing much needed transparency to the mortgage market. Despite misleading claims by Republicans, I want to be very clear that small businesses are not--are not--are not required to provide demographic information about their ownership under the rule. It is completely voluntary.

I have to repeat that because too many on the opposite side of the aisle are telling people that it is a mandate. It is not. It is voluntary.

Second, this rule will help all small businesses thrive by providing greater transparency that will drive competition in the small business lending market ultimately increasing access to credit and lowering interest rates for small businesses.

Third, as I mentioned earlier, we have seen how HMDA data from mortgages have been instrumental to identifying discriminatory trends like modern-day redlining. The CFPB's rule would similarly help prevent discrimination in the small business lending market, giving our regulators and the public another tool to identify discriminatory trends.

Many of us also recall the challenges that too many small businesses faced during the COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, when Congress stepped in to provide relief through the Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP, the big banks that were tasked with implementing the program chose to prioritize their concierge clients, including some Members of Congress, leaving small businesses, especially those owned by people of color, out in the cold.

It is perhaps not a coincidence that the same big banks who misused PPP to the detriment of small businesses during the early stages of the pandemic are now pushing for the passage of this Senate Joint Resolution 32 opposing the CFPB, which would help them continue to operate with a lack of transparency and avoid accountability.

However, the big banks are alone in their support for this misguided resolution. In fact, more than 230 organizations representing small businesses, family farmers, community leaders, and others strongly oppose S.J. Res. 32.

There is a lot of talk in Congress about how we love small businesses, how we support small businesses, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Therefore, I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to actually do something to help small businesses.

Stop talking about how you support small businesses when you know they need access to capital that they don't have. We want to do something real for small businesses. If you do, vote down this harmful resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Small Business Committee who has been working on the Small Business Committee for over 30 years and served as the chair before the last election and who has been fighting for small businesses all of her career.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty), who is also the ranking member of the Subcommittee on National Security, Illicit Finance, and International Financial Institutions.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Madam Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman, your arguments show that you are here to support the big banks who do not want small business in the banks. They don't want to be bothered. As a matter of fact, you try to be convincing that it is not voluntary, but it is voluntary.

They are asked: Do you want to give this information? It is voluntary, and you can't get away from that.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia), who is also the vice ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib), the vice ranking member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance, who has been working on this issue for a long time.

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

Madam Speaker, we have these Members on the opposite side of the aisle spending all of this time supporting the biggest, most profitable banks in the country, yet these Members won't stand up for small business lending. They don't want the data so that we can understand what is going on and why people in this country, minorities in particular, farmers, small farmers, family farmers, et cetera, can't get loans.

In the last decade, these megabanks made so much money: J.P. Morgan, $215 billion; Wells Fargo, $197 billion; Bank of America, $105 billion; Citigroup, $93 billion. They repeatedly broke the law, even though they were making all of this money. I want you to know they consider this just the cost of doing business.

We have even more here when we take a look at some of the other banks that paid fines instead of lending money. They would rather pay fines instead of lending to small businesses. What kind of fines are we talking about here? We fined them for all kinds of fraudulent activity.

In the last decade, megabanks made so much money, and then they repeatedly paid fines. For example, the Bank of America paid $66 billion in fines. They could have been lending this to small businesses. J.P. Morgan paid $43 billion in fines. They could have been lending this to small businesses. Citigroup paid $19 billion in fines. They could have been lending this to small businesses. Wells Fargo paid $12 billion in fines.

Some of our Members want to say that we just want to shame these big banks. Yes, I do because it is a shame that they are so profitable that they do not want to spend time with small businesses. It takes up too much time. Small businesses don't earn as much money for the bank, et cetera. They don't even want them in their banks, and we have to do something about that.

We are shining a light on the existing practices of lenders, and if those lenders are charging minorities and small family farmers, et cetera, exorbitant interest rates, there is no reason that we should not get the transparency that we need to stop this.

I will tell you, one of the reasons you hear us being so passionate over here is because the big banks don't need you to defend them. They don't need you to stand up for them. You should be putting your time and effort into what you can do about the small businesses.

I am not going to go into a lot of information. We have Members on the opposite side of the aisle who felt they needed capital. When we did PPP, they came to the government, competing with real small businesses that could not get capital. Not only did they take out the money, but they have been forgiven for it. They didn't have to pay it back.

I am not going to talk about everybody, but I am going to mention Marjorie Taylor Greene because she is everywhere talking about everybody, claiming she is for small business. She took out $180,000, and she has been forgiven.

I am not going to talk about the rest of them, some of my friends over there, but I have a whole list of Members on the opposite side of the aisle who took out PPP money and didn't need it, some of them as rich as cream. They took this money, and they are not paying it back. Then, they come in here and talk about why we should not have transparency and do everything that we can for these small businesses that are desperate for capital.

You can sing the song that you love small business all that you want. You can have the Small Business Saturday with a big, fake kind of operation on small business lending in your community, but it doesn't do any good if they don't get the capital. They need the money. They need to be treated fairly.

Yes, I want to shame the big banks. I want to shame them. You have one of these banks that even took out false accounts, made up accounts, and we had to stop them. We fined them, but do you know what? They are too big to fail, and they keep doing what we are fining them for.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Yes, I am a political activist. I am an activist for the people who send us here to represent them. I am an activist for the least of these. I am an activist for small business. I am an activist for veterans. I am an activist for children. I am an activist for education, for better healthcare, and I am very proud of it.

I tell you, it is shameful for us to continue to be dominated and controlled by the biggest banks in America, taking time on the floor of the people's House to defend them and to vote

against the very people who send you to this House to represent them. It is absolutely shameful.

It is time to get out from under the influence and control of the biggest banks in America and stand up for the people who really need to make these banks do what they should be doing rather than saying: No, we are not going to comply with the law, and yes, we will pay the fines because we are rich. We have so much money we can do that.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

When we started this debate, I mentioned ReShonda Young, who happens to be a young, Black woman from Waterloo who had many challenges getting a small business loan and sued the CFPB to complete the section 1071 rule. After CFPB settled the case with her, Ms. Young said: ``I am just humbled to be part of the process. Sometimes we feel so small, but this is one of those things that shows if we are willing to speak up, we actually can make a difference.''

Ms. Young has since sold her business and is now working with other investors to try to open up the first minority bank in Iowa, with the goal of being certified as a CDFI, offering the kind of small business loans to others that she had such a time obtaining.

Let me just tell you something. We support CDFIs, the community development financial institutions. Why do we support them? Because they could not get loans from the banks in America. Here we are, the taxpayers, further trying to help small businesses by supporting these community development financial institutions. They were developed because small businesses couldn't get loans.

Then, on the opposite side of the aisle, we have people who are opposing how we can support these small businesses by getting the transparency that we need to have done. They would rather support the biggest banks in America and have the taxpayers try to do something about small businesses with CDFIs than give their small businesses an opportunity.

I tell you, I don't know how they are going to vote on the other side, but this issue is not going to go away. I tell you that the constituents are going to learn in this country who is supporting small businesses. All of this talk and this rhetoric about ``I love small businesses,'' ``I support small businesses,'' will not continue to work.

The fact of the matter is, small businesses are shutting down, closing, because they don't have access to capital.

For all those Members on the opposite side of the aisle who took out PPP loans that have been forgiven, you ought to be ashamed and not oppose the CFPB from trying to protect these small banks, as the courts have told them to do.

Madam Speaker, there is a lot more that can be said. We are going to continue to unveil this information about who is simply spouting rhetoric and who is actually doing something for small businesses.

It is unfortunate that we have to fight this hard. We have to do everything that we possibly can because the banks don't want them in their banks. They don't want to be bothered with them. They are too small.

We have small businesses who only need $50,000 or $75,000 to improve their technology to take their businesses to a place where they can earn more money.

We can't even start to talk about startup capital. None of them get startup capital. If they are able to convince anybody for a little capital to expand their businesses, they will do that. Otherwise, small businesses do not have the support of the Republicans in the House of Representatives as it is seen here today.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to S.J. Res. 32. [the Provision on Congressional Disapproval of The Rule Submitted By The Bureau Of Consumer Financial Protection Relating To ``Small Business Lending Under The Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

Mr. Speaker, the beginning of so many great American stories is built around starting a small business in your family name, becoming a foundation in your local community--making it in America.

Small businesses are major drivers of wealth creation in our overall economy. They account for two-thirds of net new jobs and nearly half of our U.S. economic activity.

For many of them, that dream stalls with going to a bank and getting a small business loan. For many Americans, the sound of their name, the color of their skin, the language that they speak or who they love can doom that dream if a bank says that they are at risk.

This isn't hypothetical. I, too, was born and raised in south Texas, I can tell you that when I go home and I see some businesses that have closed, I ask my family whether it was due to the pandemic, or no demand for the

cost of services that they had. I am told that they just had trouble with finances, and they couldn't get a loan.

In some small rural areas, like where I grew up, there aren't credit unions everywhere like there are in the city of Houston where I live now.

Even in the city of Houston, many small businesses during the pandemic couldn't secure a PPP loan in round one. We [as Congress] had to go in and do a carve-out to literally force the banks to provide loans to small businesses.

I am glad that one of my colleagues was openhearted and gave people a lot of loans. I just hope that that included loans to minority small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, this is real. It is not hypothetical. We know that minority-owned small businesses were less likely to receive a loan during the pandemic compared to White firms. Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, racism and discrimination flourish in the darkness. We need to shine a light and allow the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to make lending more transparent.

Mr. Speaker, a transparent market will be a competitive market.

With transparency in lending, banks are driven to compete and offer better terms.

With this resolution, extreme MAGA Republicans are protecting the secret discriminatory practices of big banks and lenders. Repealing this rule would harm all those who stand to benefit from much-needed transparency.

Make no mistake, extreme MAGA Republicans continue to put the interests of the big bank CEOs and corporate lobbyists ahead of their constituents. It is they who, time and time again, put profits over people. House Democrats will continue protecting everyday consumers and small business owners, while holding corporations accountable.

We will always put people over corporate profits. We will always put light over darkness.

For additional information on an April 19, 2022 Report from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau titled ``Data Spotlight: Challenges in Rural Banking Access.'' Please see (https:// files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb data-spotlight challenges- in-rural-banking 2022-04.pdf).

I include in the Record an April 4, 2021 New York Times article by Stacy Cowley titled ``Minority Entrepreneurs Struggled to Get Small- Business Relief Loans.'' (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/04/business/ ppp-loans-minority-businesses.html).

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.

[From the New York Times, April 4, 2021]

Minority Entrepreneurs Struggled To Get Small-Business Relief Loans

(By Stacy Cowley)

A year after the Paycheck Protection Program started,

studies show how its design hurt Black- and other minority-

owned businesses.

Southern Bancorp is a lender serving the Arkansas and

Mississippi Delta, where poverty rates are among the highest

in America and decades of redlining shaped neighborhoods with

little generational wealth.

When the Paycheck Protection Program for small businesses

started last April, so many of Southern Bancorp's customers

didn't qualify for the relief money that the Arkansas bank's

chief executive, Darrin Williams, turned to donors to raise

money for $1,000 grants so it wouldn't have to turn

applicants away empty-handed.

The bank made 128 such grants, giving more than 100 of them

to businesses run by women or minority owners. One let a nail

salon owner buy plexiglass so she could reopen. Another

allowed a small cafe to buy safety gear for its staff. A day

care used the money for the new sanitizing equipment it

needed.

``So many companies will never come back, and

disproportionately more of those that will be lost are Black

and brown businesses,'' Mr. Williams said.

Congress created the Paycheck Protection Program in March

2020 as an emergency stopgap for what lawmakers expected to

be a few months of sharp economic disruption. But as the

pandemic raged on, the program--which made its first loans

one year ago this past week--has turned into the largest

small-business support program in American history, sending

$734 billion in forgivable loans to struggling companies.

The program helped nearly seven million businesses retain

workers. But it has also been plagued by complex, changing

rules at every stage of its existence. And one year in, it

has become clear that the program's hasty rollout and design

hurt some of the most vulnerable businesses.

A New York Times analysis of data from several sources--

including the Small Business Administration, which is

managing the loan program--and interviews with dozens of

small businesses and bankers show that Black- and other

minority-owned businesses were disproportionately underserved

by the relief effort, often because they lacked the

connections to get access to the aid or were rejected because

of the program's rules.

Rollout was speedy

After Congress created the program in last year's CARES

Act, President Donald J. Trump's administration--especially

his Treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin--put a priority on

getting money to needy businesses fast. Just seven days after

the law was signed, the earliest applicants received their

checks.

But the haste meant the rules were mostly written on the

fly. Reaching harder-to-serve businesses was an afterthought.

Lenders and advocacy groups warned that the relief effort had

structural challenges that were likely to inadvertently but

disproportionately harm women and minority business owners.

Reaching the most vulnerable businesses required

determination, they said, and the program gave lenders no

incentives to put in that effort.

The government relied on banks to make the loans, creating

an obstacle for borrowers who didn't have established banking

relationships. Some banks favored their larger and wealthier

clients, which pushed ordinary customers to the back of the

queue. ``Mystery shopper'' studies found that Black

applicants were consistently treated worse than white

counterparts.

The program also largely locked out sole proprietors and

independent contractors--two of the most popular structures

for minority-owned businesses. Those companies weren't

eligible to apply for the program's first week. When they got

access, a rule barring loans to unprofitable solo

businesses--a restriction that didn't apply to larger

companies--prevented many from getting help. Most nonbank

lenders, including those that specialize in underserved

communities, were shut out for weeks while they waited for

the Small Business Administration to approve them.

``The focus at the outset was on speed, and it came at the

expense of equity,'' said Ashley Harrington, the federal

advocacy director at the Center for Responsible Lending.

In the program's final weeks--it is scheduled to stop

taking applications on May 31--President Biden's

administration has tried to alter its trajectory with rule

changes intended to funnel more money toward women- and

minority-led businesses, especially those with only a handful

of employees.

Mr. Biden took a swipe at his predecessor's track record

last week as he signed a bill extending the program's

deadline. ``Many small businesses, as you know, particularly

Hispanic as well as African-American small businesses, are

just out of business because they got bypassed the first time

around,'' the president said.

But Mr. Biden's revisions--which, most prominently,

expanded lending to independent contractors and others who

work for themselves--have run into their own obstacles,

including the speed with which they were rushed through.

Lenders, caught off guard, struggled to carry them out, with

little time left before the deadline.

``The rules are complicated and constantly changing, and

that alone creates an access barrier,'' Randell Leach, the

chief executive of Beneficial State Bank in Oakland, Calif.

Black and minority businesses suffer

Because lenders are not required to collect demographic

details on their borrowers, data on the Paycheck Protection

Program's racial breakdown has been scarce, but economists

have consistently found signs of gaps.

An analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York noted

that some counties with large numbers of Black-owned

businesses--most notably the Bronx, Queens and Wayne County,

Mich., which includes Detroit--had strikingly low

concentrations of the relief loans. Majority-white ZIP codes

in several metropolitan areas had higher loan coverage than

ZIP codes with heavily minority populations, according to a

San Francisco Fed analysis released last month.

And data from the Small Business Administration shows the

relief effort's tilt. The vast majority of lenders did not

report demographic data on the 3.6 million loans they made

this year, but of the 996,000 that included information on

the borrower's race, 71 percent of the dollars went to white-

owned businesses.

Pilar Guzman Zavala founded Half Moon Empanadas, a small

chain of restaurants, in Florida 12 years ago. She employed

100 people before the pandemic and had established bank

accounts and years of detailed business records. But Ms.

Zavala's application stalled at the first two lenders she

tried, forcing her to spend a month hunting before she

finally found a local bank that would process her loan.

She's grateful for the aid, which helped her hold on to 50

workers, but found the process infuriating.

``The financial system doesn't get to truly small business,

Hispanic businesses, women-owned businesses. It just

doesn't,'' she said.

Of the 1,300 Paycheck Protection Program loans that

Southern Bancorp made last year, many went to customers who

had been turned away by larger banks, Mr. Williams said.

In a recent Federal Reserve survey, nearly 80 percent of

small-business owners who are Black or of Asian descent said

their companies were in weak financial shape, compared with

54 percent of white business owners. And Black owners face

unique challenges. While owners from all other demographics

told the Fed that their main problem at the moment was low

customer demand, Black respondents cited a different top

challenge: access to credit.

When Jenell Ross, who runs an auto dealership in Ohio,

sought a Paycheck Protection Program loan, her longtime bank

told

her to look elsewhere--a message that large banks like Bank

of America, Citi, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo delivered to

many of their customers in the program's frenzied early days.

Days later, she obtained a loan from Huntington Bank, a

regional lender, but the experience stung.

``Historically, access to capital has been the leading

concern of women- and minority-owned businesses to survive,

and during this pandemic it has been no different,'' Ms.

Ross, who is Black, told a House committee last year.

Community groups step in

Community lenders and aid organizations took a shoe-leather

approach to filling the gaps.

Last year, the American Business Immigration Coalition, an

advocacy group, worked with local nonprofits to create a

``community navigator'' program that sent outreach workers to

Black, minority and rural businesses in Florida, Illinois,

South Carolina and Texas. They plowed through roadblocks,

Whac-a-Mole-style.

Language barriers were common. Many business owners had

never sought a bank loan before. Several didn't have an email

address and needed help creating one. Some hadn't filed

taxes; the coalition hired two accountants to help people

sort out their financials.

``Our folks literally went door to door and walked people

through the process,'' said Rebecca Shi, the group's

executive director. ``It's time-consuming.''

The group's work netted $8 million in Paycheck Protection

Program loans for 219 businesses. For those companies, the

help made a profound difference.

TruFund Financial, a New York lender that focuses on

historically disadvantaged communities, spent two hours of

staff time, on average, on each of the 490 loans it made last

year--far more than larger lenders put in. Dozens of its

applications took 10 hours or more to complete, said James H.

Bason, TruFund's chief executive.

Many of TruFund's customers walked in the door after being

turned away by large banks, where ``not being able to speak

to anybody at the bank, sitting around waiting to hear, and

then not hearing anything for weeks--all of that created a

lot of anxiety for our small-business borrowers,'' Mr. Bason

said.

Shaundell Newsome, a Las Vegas business owner and a co-

chair of Small Business for America's Future, an advocacy

group, said improving outcomes for Black business owners

would require deliberate, sustained changes throughout the

banking industry.

``The solution is intentionality,'' he said. ``What I mean

by that is making sure bankers, regulators and policymakers

stay intentional on building Black businesses and helping us

get access to capital.''

That's a message Mr. Newsome passed on to Treasury

Secretary Janet L. Yellen in a recent meeting. Ms. Yellen has

pledged to increase support for minority-focused lenders and

make other changes to alter a financial system that, in her

words, still produces outcomes unacceptably similar to those

of the days when Jim Crow laws were in effect.

Economic crises like the one now gripping the country ``hit

people of color harder and longer'' and intensify economic

inequality, Ms. Yellen said at that meeting. ``I am worried

the current crisis will do this again. In fact, I know it

will, unless we act.''