Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, in honor of the 68th anniversary of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, I rise today.

Mr. Speaker, on December 5, 1955, the Montgomery Bus Boycott began. It was a landmark bus boycott that lasted for 381 days following the courageous and bold single act of the defiance from Rosa Parks who was arrested on December 1, 1955, for refusing to give up her seat to a White person on a Montgomery bus.

Rosa Parks epitomized the incredible power of one person to change the course of history. I, along with so many others in this Chamber, benefit from her indelible legacy.

Mr. Speaker, the action of Rosa Parks propelled the challenges of the civil rights movement to the forefront of national concern, deeply influencing public opinion and ultimately contributing to important legislative and societal shifts in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I was the house leader in the State of Ohio, the first Democrat female and Black woman to do such.

As a young girl growing up, I grew up hearing about Rosa Parks. When I was on the house floor then in the State legislature, I thought I could make a difference and do something.

On the day she died, I went to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and Democrats and Republicans came together to make Ohio the first State in the United States to have a Rosa Parks Day.

That was a proud moment for me, that I could stand in the well in the statehouse, and Republican colleague Priscilla Mead could stand in the well, and we could both declare how important this would be for the Nation.

Today, I stand in another well, asking us to take a look at H. Res. 308, the Rosa Parks Day Act, sponsored by Congresswoman Terri Sewell, Congressman Steven Horsford, and myself.

Mr. Speaker, we have well over 100 signatures just in the first week, and we are going to continue to try to get signatures for this important piece of legislation.

Just imagine: For 381 days, people did not get on a bus; they walked. If they rode in taxies or in cars, they were cars or taxies operated by Black Americans.

It was wrong because, you see, Rosa Parks was not tired that day. We want history to be correct. At that time in the 1950s, people of color had to sit back as far as the seventh row.

Rosa was sitting in the seat by the window in the row for people of color. When someone got on the bus who was a majority gentleman and had to stand, he went to Rosa and asked her to get up out of the seat in the section she was supposed to sit in.

Now, I can imagine that Rosa knew she was going to be arrested because she had been warned, and she was not the first to have been arrested.

She sat there so eloquently, and when they said to get up or you will be arrested, she got up. She was arrested, she was handcuffed, she was fingerprinted, and they took her mug shot.

That not only sparked her as the leader of the modern day civil rights movement, it also propelled a young minister by the name of Martin Luther King.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I would like to think this is a moment in history for us to be able to educate my colleagues and all those who are witnessing this this morning.

Lastly, it was on June 5 in 1956 that the Federal court made the decision that it was no longer constitutional to segregate the seats on public transit.

When I leave here on Thursday, Mr. Speaker, I will go back to the great Third Congressional District of Ohio. For the 18th year, I will sponsor the power of one, our Rosa Parks Day.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in fierce opposition to this resolution of disapproval.

For the record, I was a former small business owner for decades. Let me also thank Ranking Member Waters for clearly clarifying the language.

The CFPB rule seeks to increase transparency in small business lending to increase competition, to lower borrowing costs for small businesses, and to detect and deter lending discrimination and create new lending opportunities, particularly for small businesses owned by women, by people of color, LGBTQ individuals, and rural businessowners.

This rulemaking is long overdue, as we heard. By requiring lenders to provide information about loan applications, including whether they were approved or denied, as well as pricing data in applicant demographics, the rule will enhance accountability, which we talked about, and ensure financial institutions are meeting the needs of the entire community.

Wouldn't we want to know if we had a loan that was denied?

Madam Speaker, I think it is very important. I can't imagine any one of us applying for a loan and getting it denied that would not call that lender and say, tell me why my loan was denied. That is a part of this, Madam Speaker.

Lastly, this transparency will not only benefit small businesses but also family farms, financial institutions, and the economy overall. I strongly recommend that we support this and go back and re-read the language.

Mr. Speaker, I was late to the House floor on the day of November 15, 2023 due to time-sensitive commitments I had as the White House Liaison for the House Democratic Women's Caucus. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 673.

Mr. Speaker, I was late to the House floor on the day of November 15, 2023 due to time-sensitive commitments I had as the White House Liaison for the House Democratic Women's Caucus. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 675.

Mr. Speaker, I was late to the House floor on the day of November 15, 2023 due to time-sensitive commitments I had as the White House Liaison for the House Democratic Women's Caucus. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 674.

Mr. Speaker, I was late to the House floor on the day of November 15, 2023 due to time-sensitive commitments I had as the White House Liaison for the House Democratic Women's Caucus. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 672.

Mr. Speaker, I was late to the House floor on the day of November 15, 2023 due to time sensitive commitments I had as the White House Liaison for the House Democratic Women's Caucus. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 670.

Mr. Speaker, I was late to the House floor on the day of November 15, 2023 due to time-sensitive commitments I had as the White House Liaison for the House Democratic Women's Caucus. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on rollcall No. 669.

Mr. Speaker, I was late to the House floor on the day of November 15, 2023 due to time-sensitive commitments I had as the White House Liaison for the House Democratic Women's Caucus. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 662.

Mr. Speaker, I was late to the House floor on the day of November 15, 2023 due to time-sensitive commitments I had as the White House Liaison for the House Democratic Women's Caucus. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 668.

Mr. Speaker, I was late to the House floor on the day of November 15, 2023 due to time-sensitive commitments I had as the White House Liaison for the House Democratic Women's Caucus. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 667.

Mr. Speaker, I was late to the House floor on the day of November 15, 2023 due to time-sensitive commitments I had as the White House Liaison for the House Democratic Women's Caucus. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 666.

Mr. Speaker, I was late to the House floor on the day of November 15, 2023 due to time-sensitive commitments I had as the White House Liaison for the House Democratic Women's Caucus. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 665.

Mr. Speaker, I was late to the House floor on the day of November 15, 2023 due to time-sensitive commitments I had as the White House Liaison for the House Democratic Women's Caucus. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 664.

Mr. Speaker, I was late to the House floor on the day of November 15, 2023 due to time-sensitive commitments I had as the White House Liaison for the House Democratic Women's Caucus. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 663.