Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, let me start off by making one thing clear. The 15th amendment of the United States Constitution says, ``The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.''

And so, I challenge the Supreme Court's decision that gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court's interpretation does the exact opposite of the 15th Amendment to the Constitution. But since the 2020 election that broke voter participation records and gave us a democratic majority, Georgia has been ground-zero for voter suppression efforts in this country.

Because Black people came out to vote in record numbers, Republican lawmakers in Georgia moved with lightning speed and surgical precision to restrict voting rights. State lawmakers reached deep into their bag of tricks, including eliminating ballot drop box locations, limiting voting days and hours, instituting strict ID requirements, and even going as far as trying to make it a crime to distribute food and water to people waiting in long voting lines. It's clear that these laws aren't about protecting voters. It's about punishing voters for exercising their right to vote.

But it's not only Georgia. Since Election Day, we have been experiencing an all-out anti-democratic assault on our voting rights. Eighteen states, all led by Republican governors, have enacted voter suppression laws because they know that when we vote, they lose. They're playing scared, but we have got to play smart.

We have seen this type of backlash before. And just as we did in the 1960's, we must pass new civil rights legislation, including the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and the For the People Act, to protect and expand voting rights.

The legislation named after my dear friend and civil rights icon, the late Congressman John Lewis, would restore the Voting Rights Act to its full strength, and stem the tide against this flood of voter suppression laws.

The For The People Act establishes automatic voter registration. It prohibits the most common forms of voter roll purges. It increases access to the polls. It restores voting rights for the formerly incarcerated, among many other democracy saving provisions.

After an election filled with big lies and scare tactics, that culminated in the violent January 6 insurrection, the American people deserve hard assurances that their vote and their voice will continue to count. So, if the Senate needs to eliminate the filibuster to protect voting rights, then that is exactly what it must do.

This fight that we are in to protect our sacred right to vote is critical and urgent. Our democracy is on the line, and we are not without options to try and save it.

Madam Speaker, I'm here to point out just how interconnected the climate emergency is to America's housing crisis and how it impacts communities of color.

We are living in a climate emergency. Wildfires are raging, sea levels are rising, and severe weather events are getting stronger. Meanwhile homes are being destroyed, and not nearly enough is being done to address environmental racism and the ways in which communities of color across this country suffer disproportionately from a lack of action. We cannot stand by as corporations, big oil, and industry titans pollute the air we breathe and contaminate the water we drink without consequence.

The truth is that these negative environmental factors compound social and economic conditions, and lead to higher levels of chronic health problems such as asthma, diabetes, and hypertension in communities of color and low-income communities. It should surprise no one that on average, people of color comprise 56 percent of the population living in neighborhoods with facilities that release toxic substances into the air and water supply.

This is a fair housing issue and a direct result of systemic racism and historically racist policies, including redlining and exclusionary zoning, that segregate low-income people and people of color into areas that have suffered from decades of disinvestment. These segregated areas are often located closer to industrial districts and are therefore more likely to be deprived of green spaces, healthy homes, and clean drinking water. None of this is news. But, because of worsening residential segregation, the increasingly harmful effects of climate change and extreme weather events are exacerbating these conditions in low-income communities and communities of color.

Today, formerly redlined communities suffer from hotter temperatures, and their homes are 25 percent more likely to experience damage due to flooding compared to communities that were not redlined. In some cases, whether due to repeated flooding or because they are located at higher elevations, low-income communities of color, such as in Puerto Rico and Florida, are facing displacement, known as climate gentrification.

The real-life examples are far too plenty. Take for example, St. James Parish, Louisiana--a community that is often referred to as ``Cancer Alley.'' I traveled there in 2001 to bring international attention to corporate pollution and the human costs of that pollution on communities of color. St. James Parish has a long history of inequality. The parish is located along the lower Mississippi River where enslaved Africans were forced to labor. Today, it serves as an industrial hub, with nearly 150 oil refineries, plastics plants, and chemical facilities. Not only have these facilities polluted the surrounding water and air, but they have also subjected the mostly African American residents of St. James Parish to cancer, respiratory diseases, and other health problems.

In 2005, we saw how Hurricane Katrina impacted people of color in New Orleans. Lives

were taken, whole communities were absolutely ravaged, and homes were destroyed. Even after seeing that level of destruction, not enough action has been taken to make sure that homes are resilient and safe from extreme weather events, especially those located in the hardest hit communities.

And just last year, in the middle of the pandemic, Georgia and Tennessee experienced deadly tornados that damaged and demolished more than 2,000 homes. In the wake of California's 2018 wildfires--the deadliest in the state's history--82 percent of homes that were built to pre-2008 standards were damaged. The need to ensure our homes and communities are sited and built more equitably and resiliently is more critical than ever before.

And so, I want to make it clear that America's housing infrastructure is vulnerable to the growing costs of climate change and weather disasters, which will only accelerate the need for maintenance and repair, or it will make our housing infrastructure uninhabitable. Between 2016 and 2020, these disasters have cost nearly $616 billion in damages and have displaced tens of thousands of people from their homes. We cannot keep asking people to live like this. We must act now.

As Chairwoman of the House Committee on Financial Services, I recently introduced my historic Housing Is Infrastructure Act of 2021, which provides over $600 billion to increase our nation's green, inclusive, affordable housing infrastructure. I'm fighting for the type of investments that will bring our housing stock into the 21st century and beyond, including working to address environmental racism and the climate emergency, strengthening our nation's commitment to fair housing, and recognizing that housing IS infrastructure.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 486, I call up the bill (H.R. 1443) to amend the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to require the collection of small business loan data related to LGBTQ- owned businesses, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1443 and to insert extraneous material thereon.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1443, the LGBTQ Business Equal Credit Enforcement and Investment Act, for the second time this month.

As we discussed on the floor last week, this bill, led by Representative Ritchie Torres, would provide much-needed transparency in lending to LGBTQ-owned businesses by updating the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to ensure financial institutions report the sexual orientation and gender identity of applicants for business loans.

This legislation is needed because research shows that LGBTQ individuals have experienced discrimination when applying for a mortgage or other forms of credit. However, due to a lack of data collection, we do not know the extent of discrimination when it comes to business loans, who has been affected, and, more importantly, how it can be corrected.

According to one estimate, there are approximately 1.4 million LGBTQ- owned businesses across our country. These entrepreneurs should be treated fairly, and the data collected on small business owners by Mr. Torres' bill will help to identify and prevent discrimination and will enable communities, policymakers, and lenders to support the development and investment needs of LGBTQ-owned businesses.

I thank Representative Torres for his leadership on this important bill.

But I also want to express my disappointment that so many of our Republican colleagues decided to vote down this bill last week when it was considered under suspension of the rules. This bill passed the committee on a voice vote, and we worked with the ranking member, Mr. McHenry, to address concerns he had.

I thank Ranking Member McHenry for working with us and for his support.

I hope my colleagues who voted ``no'' will reconsider their position and vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1443. Whether or not they do, let me assure our friends, neighbors, constituents, and colleagues in the LGBTQ community that, one way or the other, this House will pass this bill. After all, this is the people's House, and we simply cannot let lending or other forms of discrimination against any of our people stand.

As we discussed last week, this is Pride Month and a time to celebrate all the wonderful contributions the LGBTQ community has given to our economy and our country.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

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

Madam Speaker, this bill takes necessary action to help ensure that LGBTQ-owned businesses are treated fairly by financial institutions and protected against lending discrimination. The bill passed unanimously out of the House Financial Services Committee with a voice vote. So I am pleased that the majority leader has worked with me to bring this bill back up for a vote quickly.

This bill is supported by the Human Rights Campaign, the National Center for Transgender Equality, Out Leadership, the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, and many others.

Although some of my colleagues did not support this bill last week, I urge them to reconsider, to support all small businesses this week, and vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1443.

I would like to thank the ranking member for his consideration, his support. In closing, I would just like to add that, as Mr. Green identified, I, too, am a victim of discrimination for most of my life, and all of my family and my dear friends and sometimes the entire neighborhood that I have lived in.

So we know what it feels like, and we know that there is, for example, today, a huge wealth gap because of discrimination, a lack of being able to borrow from the banks that were making credit available to so many others. It was not made to us. So oftentimes we were not able to buy a home. We were not able to get a loan for the basic kind of things that any family would need.

So we cannot, and I cannot be a part of public policy and systems and protocols that would exclude the LGBTQ community from being able to get loans in the ways that others are doing. It is pure discrimination. It must stop.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yea'' on H.R. 1443, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 486, I call up the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 15) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by

the Office of the Comptroller of Currency relating to ``National Banks and Federal Savings Associations as Lenders'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on S.J. Res. 15 and to insert extraneous material thereon.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 15, a resolution to invalidate the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's so-called True Lender Rule under the Congressional Review Act.

This resolution would end a dangerous Trump-era rule that would allow predatory lenders to evade State usury laws and target consumers with high interest rate loans of 150 percent or higher through sham partnerships with banks.

I would like to thank Representative Garcia from Illinois for introducing the House companion to this measure and for his leadership in fighting to protect consumers from predatory lending schemes.

My committee has held several hearings that have exposed the consumer harm that results from these rent-a-bank schemes and explored how the Trump administration's harmful rule erodes the consumer protections.

The OCC's rule undoes centuries of case law that ensured that nonbank financial institutions were subject to State interest rate caps when they partnered with banks, so long as they held the primary economic interest in a consumer loan.

Trump's OCC allowed nonbanks to launder their loans through OCC- chartered banks, as long as the bank is listed on the loan origination documents, effectively allowing nonbanks to ignore State usury laws.

Simply put, before this Trump-era rule was finalized, if a nonbank in California, which has an interest rate cap of, for example, 36 percent, wanted to make a loan to a customer in California, the nonbank can't charge more than 36 percent. OCC's True Lender Rule turns this commonsense legal doctrine on its head.

What the Trump-era rule says is that this nonbank can now partner with a national bank that is based in, for example, Utah, which doesn't have an interest rate cap, to now legally charge virtually any interest rate to the consumers in California.

This is true even if the bank in Utah has done nothing but put its name on the loan paperwork and intends to immediately transfer the loan to the nonbank in California. We have seen interest rates of more than 150 percent charged to consumers in this way.

The committee's work has shone a spotlight on heartbreaking stories of the harm that this rule has caused to consumers and small business owners. Let me give you a real-world example of a Black-owned small business that was harmed by one of these rent-a-bank schemes authorized by Trump's OCC.

A recent news report detailed the case of Carlos and Markisha Swepson, who were the owners of Boulevard Bistro, a restaurant in Harlem, New York. As they told NBC News, they took out several business loans for $67,000 and were charged a whopping 268 percent APR.

For all intents and purposes, their lender was World Business Lenders, a nonbank lender that has a partnership with Axos Bank. This is a bank in New York State. Even though the loan was made by World Business Lenders, because Axos Bank's name was on the loan documents, the nonbank could bypass the New York usury limit of 25 percent APR.

Due to the pandemic, the Swepsons are now behind on their loan payments. They are now facing foreclosure proceedings filed by World Business Lenders on a home they own that acts as collateral for the high interest rate loans. If not for Trump's rule, the Swepsons would have only been charged a 25 percent interest rate and would probably not be facing financial ruin.

If Congress lets this Trump-era rule stand, these kinds of predatory, triple-digit interest rate loans will continue to be made through these kinds of rent-a-bank schemes, and lenders will continue to take advantage of small business owners and other consumers desperate to stay afloat.

Additionally, let's not forget that during the last election, Nebraska joined 45 States and the District of Columbia that have already passed legislation to limit usury rates for small-dollar installment loans.

The Trump-era True Lender Rule is a backdoor way for nonbanks to charge triple-digit interest rates on loans at the expense of consumers in States where voters turned out to pass interest rate cap laws.

No wonder some called this the ``fake lender'' rule.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. And for those who did not understand what we were talking about when we talked about the True Lender Rule, I think I have laid it out in such a way that you understand this is predatory. This is a rip-off. And for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia), who is also the sponsor of the House companion to this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), who is also the chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Porter).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

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

Madam Speaker, this resolution would take the necessary action to reverse the harmful Trump-era true lender rule that preys on small business owners and individuals when they need assistance the most. This rule is a back door for nonbanks to charge triple digit interest rates that trap consumers.

Last month, the Senate passed this resolution on a bipartisan vote with all Democrats voting in support. They were joined by Republican Senators Lummis, Rubio, and Collins. This resolution is also supported by more than 400 consumer, civil rights, veterans, small businesses, and other organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans for Financial Reform, the Center for Responsible Lending, Faith for Just Lending, the NAACP, National Association of Federally- Insured Credit Unions, the National Consumer Law Center, Conference of State Bank Supervisors, and 25 State attorneys general from both red and blue States, among many others.

Madam Speaker, and Members, small businesses and underbanked consumers do not benefit from the rule. Instead, the rule allows nonbank lenders to launder loans through banks in order to charge those with limited access to credit triple digit interest rates and trap these consumers in devastating cycles of debt. These predatory rent-a- bank schemes disproportionately prey on communities of color, draining wealth from these communities and, in turn, perpetuating the racial wealth gap.

A disproportionate share of payday borrowers come from communities of color even after controlling for income. Communities of color have historically been left out of the banking system. Black and Latinx consumers are much less likely to have a checking account than White consumers, which is typically a requirement for a payday loan. About 17 percent of Black and 14 percent of Latinx households are unbanked compared to 3 percent of White households.

Payday lenders target communities of color. The communities most affected by redlining are the same who are saturated by payday lenders today, which are more likely to locate in more affluent communities of color than in less affluent White communities.

One borrower, a single mother living below the poverty line from California, submitted a complaint to the CFPB about Elevate's RISE.

``I was misled by RISE Credit to believe that they were unlike other predatory loan companies. By the time,'' she says, ``I understood what I had signed, I had paid them thousands of dollars in interest.

``I have recently become temporarily unemployed and called them to ask for help during my time of financial hardship. They refused any solution and my account is headed to collections now.

``The total paid is far over the amount initially borrowed from RISE. This is robbery, and all of the necessities I have for myself and my children are suffering because of it.

``How is it that they can do this? I am asking for help for not only my family, but for all of the families targeted by these predatory loans meant to target those living in poverty and struggling to live paycheck to paycheck.''

The fake lender rule protects lenders that not only destroy small businesses but also threaten to take business owners' homes.

In New York, Jacob Adoni, a realtor, has been facing foreclosure threats on a $90,000 loan with an interest rate of 138 percent APR.

In a court case--that is Adoni et al. v. World Business Lenders, LLC, Axos Bank and Circadian Funding filed in New York in October 2019-- Adoni said he received threats that the lender would foreclose on his home after receiving a $90,000 loan at 138 percent APR, secured by his personal residence.

``Adoni was contacted by Circadian Funding with an offer of a personal loan that would be funded by WLB and Axos Bank. He was told that the loan documents would be provided to him at 12 p.m. and he must execute them by 6 p.m. or the offer would no longer be valid.

``Adoni was told by Circadian that the loan was meant to be a personal loan to him, but it was necessary for the loan documents to make reference to his business.''

He has received multiple threats to foreclose on his home and the mortgage.

Madam Speaker, let me just respond to some of what I have heard from the opposite side of the aisle. I am absolutely overcome by the great interest that my Republican colleagues have in helping minorities. I am so moved about the fact that all this is about helping minorities who have been put into trouble because they are subprime lenders. Now if they are, it is because they were the victim of predatory lenders who put them in a subprime position.

But I hardly think that this is all about taking care of minorities and these small businesses. This is about protecting the big banks. This is about protecting the national banks. You heard what the ranking member said. The big national banks have been in business for years, and we ought to let them operate the way that they have historically operated and not interfere with them.

I don't know where they get away with protecting these big national banks. And the constituents in their own district who are being misused because they happen to get money, money that was lent to them by a nonbank, and that nonbank partnered with a national bank, they are now having to pay the interest rates of another State, perhaps--like it was explained in California, why we have usury laws and there is a cap on those interest rates.

When they do this kind of partnering, it is all about getting to a State where they are made to pay whatever that big bank is allowed to collect from them.

Madam Speaker, this is a rip-off. This is about hurting the people who most need our help. This is about allowing this partnering to go on. And many of those people who are borrowing from these payday lenders and other nonbanks don't even know that they are going to be the victims of the big banks and the interest rates that they charge. This is absolutely ridiculous, and there is not a credible argument from the other side of the aisle about why they should disadvantage these minorities and small businesses that they claim that they are protecting. This is outrageous.

Madam Speaker, I am so pleased that the Senate passed this bill. And I am so pleased that the Republicans on the other side of the aisle-- not on the other side of the aisle, on the other side of Congress-- decided to join with the Democrats in order to do the right thing on behalf of our constituents.

Madam Speaker, when they talk about, Oh, this is just because they didn't like Trump and they want to undo whatever he has done, that is their talking point for the day. This is not about that.

This committee, the Committee on Financial Services, is a new and different kind of committee. We are not owned by the banks. We are not here to protect the big banks and the national banks. We are here because we are here to take care of what is right and what is fair. And this committee is not going to be about the business of ripping off the least of these.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York, Chairman

Gregory Meeks, for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Congresswoman Barbara Lee's resolution to repeal the outdated 2002 AUMF, which was used to start the Iraq war, which killed more than 4,500 American soldiers and approximately 200,000 Iraqi civilians.

As the chair of the Out of Iraq Caucus, I worked with Congresswoman Lee and our former colleague, Lynn Woolsey, to end the Iraq war and bring our troops home.

The Iraq war finally ended in December 2011. We cannot allow this outdated AUMF to be used as a blank check for future wars. It is long past time for Congress to reassert its constitutional role in authorizing and providing oversight over United States military action.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 473, I call up the bill (H.R. 1187) to provide for disclosure of additional material information about public companies and establish a Sustainable Finance Advisory Committee, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Member may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1187 and to insert extraneous material thereon.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1187, the Corporate Governance Improvement and Investor Protection Act.

H.R. 1187 is a package of bills designed to strengthen investor protections and require companies to provide environmental, social, and governance disclosures, known as ESG. I thank my colleague, Representative Juan Vargas, for his leadership on this package.

This bill provides investors with critical information on ESG matters by requiring public companies to disclose key information to shareholders regarding corporate political spending, worker pay, CEO compensation, climate risk, and country-by-country tax reporting; and provides issuers with clear, consistent standards to disclose this information.

This is key information that investors have been demanding in order to make the best decisions on the short- and long-term viability of the companies they are investing in.

It is surprising that, to this day, there are no explicit ESG requirements and investors are left to piece together the story of a company's material risk with insufficient information. This is unacceptable.

So I am pleased that this package of bills will improve investor protections by holding public companies accountable and providing greater transparency.

This package includes a number of bills authored by several hardworking members of the Financial Services Committee, specifically: Representative Juan Vargas, Representative Bill Foster, Representative Nydia Velazquez, Representative Sean Casten, and Representative Cindy Axne.

Specifically, Mr. Vargas' bill, the ESG Disclosure Simplification Act, requires public companies to disclose certain ESG information to shareholders, as well as the impact of the ESG policies on their strategies.

Mr. Foster's bill, the Shareholder Political Transparency Act, requires public companies to submit quarterly reports to the SEC on any and all political expenditures, including dark money.

Ms. Velazquez's bill, the Greater Accountability in Pay Act, sheds light on pay disparities, helping to close the gender and racial pay gap.

Ms. Axne's bill, the Disclosure of Tax Havens and Offshoring Act, requires disclosures that discourage companies'

use of tax havens and encourages repatriation of taxes to the United States.

Mr. Casten's bill, the Climate Risk Disclosure Act, requires disclosures that encourages companies to plan for the impact of climate change on their company.

Each of these bills passed the Financial Services Committee with unanimous Democratic support. I thank all these Members for their work on these bills, their contributions to the legislative package, and their leadership on these important reforms to protect investors and hold corporations accountable.

This package is the right thing to do for investors and our markets. It is past time that Congress make ESG requirements explicit. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Vargas), our leader and the real sponsor on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Axne).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Underwood).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters from California Public Employees' Retirement System, Public Citizen, the North American Securities Administrators Association, and Principles for Responsible Investment.

California Public Employees' Retirement System, Executive

Office,

June 14, 2021.

Subject: H.R. 1187, The Corporate Governance Improvement and

Investor Protection Act.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Kevin McCarthy,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader McCarthy: On behalf

of the California Public Employees' Retirement System, I

write to express support for the overall direction of H.R.

1187, the ``Corporate Governance Improvement and Investor

Protection Act,'' which would require public companies to

disclose material information on the link between

environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics and their

long-term business strategy, as well as political

expenditures, compensation practices, climate-related risk

and tax expenditures, among other issues. This bill will

improve and enhance corporate disclosures essential to

maintaining the competitiveness of U.S. financial markets.

As the largest public defined benefit pension fund in the

United States, we manage approximately $465 billion in global

assets on behalf of more than two million members. Our

fiduciary duty requires that we take a long-term view in

assessing whether the companies that we hold in our portfolio

are effectively managed and able to provide the sustainable,

risk-adjusted returns that allow us to meet our commitments

to pay benefits earned by these dedicated active and retired

public servants for decades to come.

We fundamentally depend on the integrity and efficiency of

financial markets to meet these commitments and rely upon

financial reporting to provide transparent and relevant

information about the economic performance, conditions, and

operations of the

companies in which we invest. We believe corporate disclosure

of material financial information is a precondition to

maintaining effective and consistent corporate accountability

and sustainable economic growth. As the Securities and

Exchange Commission (``SEC'') has said in the past:

``Only through the steady flow of timely, comprehensive,

and accurate information can people make sound investment

decisions. The result of this information flow is a far more

active, efficient, and transparent capital market that

facilitates the capital formation so important to our

nation's economy.''

Critically, CalPERS and other pension funds are inhibited

from adequately exercising their fiduciary duty without such

disclosures. Disclosure of material financial information is

necessary to close the information gap that occurs when

management of a company is aware or should be aware of

certain risks, yet such information is not available to

shareowners. We believe H.R. 1187 will address critical areas

in which more high-quality, consistent, and comparable

disclosures by public issuers are necessary, and build a more

robust reporting regime that enhances shareowner value over

the long-term. We are pleased that the following measures,

which CalPERS has been on the record in supporting, are

included in the Corporate Governance Improvement and Investor

Protection Act:

H.R. 1187, the ESG Disclosure Simplification Act, which

would, among other things, require issuers to disclose

certain ESG metrics to shareholders, the connection between

those metrics and the issuer's long-term business strategy,

and the method by which the issuer determines how ESG metrics

impact its long-term strategy. We believe the current quality

and quantity of relevant ESG reporting does not meet

investors' needs and support the SEC playing a prominent role

in standardizing and assuring the accuracy of ESG data

reporting, and that it is reflected in company financials.

H.R. 1087, the Shareholder Political Transparency Act,

which would require public companies to disclose detailed

information about their political spending to the SEC and

shareholders in specified quarterly and annual reports. The

CalPERS Governance & Sustainability Principles call for

responsible board oversight, including disclosures of

corporate charitable and political activity to ensure

alignment with business strategy and to protect assets on

behalf of shareowners. As fiduciaries, we need to know how

our capital is being used, including if and when political

expenditures are made. SEC rulemaking would bring clarity and

consistency in the format and scope of disclosures and

provide a cost-effective alternative to private ordering.

Furthermore, political expenditure disclosure is consistent

with the SEC's requirement for public companies to disclose

meaningful financial information and would encourage prudent

use of corporate shareowner resources for political

activities.

H.R. 2570, the Climate Risk Disclosure Act, which would

require public companies to report financial risks posed to

them by climate change, the processes they use to identify

those risks, and the actions they take to mitigate those

risks. Our investment strategy is to make sure our portfolio

is resilient to short-term and long-term risks, both of which

include some dimension of climate change. We seek to find the

investment opportunities that the energy transition brings,

and to bring down emissions that contribute to global

warming. We believe it is vital that companies identify,

manage, and disclose material environmental risks and

opportunities relevant to their short-term and long-term

success. We support the establishment of a uniform reporting

regime for climate change risk disclosures that would address

key issues that impact shareowner value, including minimizing

risk, maximizing returns, and ensuring accountability from

all those involved.

H.R. 3007, the Disclosure of Tax Havens and Offshoring Act,

which would require public companies to annually disclose

information on their subsidiaries and specified country-by-

country financial information including total pre-tax

profits, total amounts paid in State, Federal, and foreign

taxes, employees, and tangible assets. As an investor in many

of the largest public companies in the world, we are acutely

aware of the complexities of international taxes, and the

increasingly important role that taxes play in corporate

profitability. However, current tax disclosures in the United

States do not provide investors with sufficient tax-related

information to adequately assess companies' valuations and

risks. We believe increasing transparency and requiring the

disclosure of overly aggressive international tax planning

arrangements helps to reduce systemic risk that threatens

global markets and ensure stronger long-term outcomes.

In addition, we are supportive of including additional

provisions in the Corporate Governance Improvement and

Investor Protection Act, such as the following disclosures

related to human capital management, board diversity, and

cybersecurity:

H.R. 3471, the Workforce Investment Disclosure Act, which

would require public companies to disclose information about

their Human Capital Management (HCM) policies, practices, and

performance in their annual reports. CalPERS expects fair,

accurate, and timely reporting on how companies identify and

manage risks related to the three forms of capital:

financial, physical, and human. The fact that there are few

standards for measuring and reporting on human capital topics

makes it difficult for investors to truly understand related

risks and opportunities when assessing individual companies.

We believe that rules-based disclosures with numeric metrics

provide crucial information to long-term investors, like

CalPERS, who are concerned about sustainability over time. We

have made recommendations in our comment letter on the SEC's

proposed rulemaking under Regulation S-K for metrics that

should be disclosed by all registrants, including the number

of full-time, part-time, and contingent workers; employee

turnover rates; health and safety, employee engagement and

diversity statistics.

H.R. 1277, the Improving Corporate Governance Through

Diversity Act, which would require public companies to

annually disclose the voluntary, self-identified racial,

ethnic, gender, and veteran status of their board of

directors, nominees, and senior executives, and establishes

an advisory group to recommend strategies to increase

diversity in these leadership positions. We support

initiatives that promote talent diversity--including a broad

range of education, experience, thoughts, perspectives, and

competencies--to help enable effective board leadership. We

view board diversity in terms of skill sets, sex, age,

nationality, race, sexual orientation, gender identity,

disability, and historically underrepresented groups, and

believe requiring public companies to annually disclose the

self-identified racial, ethnic, gender, and veteran status of

their board of directors, nominees, and senior executives is

an important step toward challenging ``group think'' in

corporate boardrooms and C-suites, which can severely limit

companies' ability to innovate and effectively engage with

shareowners and other stakeholders.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman from Michigan yields back.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

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

Madam Speaker, this bill provides urgently needed investor protections by requiring the Securities and Exchange Commission to adopt clear, consistent standards for ESG metrics. Without the information requirements in this bill, investors are left with inconsistent information across companies and are ultimately unable to fully assess their investment decisions.

Investors deserve to know the risks they are exposed to with relation to climate change, political expenditures, and other important factors. We must make this right and take action to bring accountability to public companies.

Some or all of the provisions of this package have been supported by Public Citizen, AFL-CIO, SEIU, California Public Employees' Retirement System, Americans for Financial Reform, Council of Institutional Investors, United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment, Americans for Tax Fairness, North American Securities Administrators Association, FACT Coalition, Oxfam America, Ceres, and Sierra Club, among others.

For years, investors and market participants have been demanding more and better disclosures regarding ESG matters, which research shows can have significant impacts on the short- and long-term values of companies.

For example, a report issued by the BlackRock Investment Institute found that companies that score high on ESG measures are better able to adapt to environmental and societal changes, use resources more efficiently, have more productive employees, and tend to face lower risk of reputational damage and regulatory action.

Matters related to climate risk, the ways companies invest in their workers and further diversity, spend their cash on political expenditures, their global human rights records, their tax avoidance strategies, and how they invest in crucial corporate infrastructure such as cybersecurity are all significant and material factors in companies' short- and long-term viability.

Investors, who are the true owners of our Nation's public companies, recognize the importance of this information to their decisionmaking and have been demanding this information for years.

For example, in 2018, a coalition of public pension funds asset managers and others representing over $5 trillion in assets petitioned the SEC for rulemaking on mandatory ESG disclosures. Over 2,300 investment managers, asset managers, and service providers representing over $80 trillion in assets under management have become signatories to the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment, which commits to incorporating ESG factors into their investment decisions.

A group of 35 institutional investors representing over $6.6 trillion in assets form the Human Capital Management Coalition has petitioned the SEC to adopt rules to require issuers to disclose information related to their human capital management policies, practices, and performance.

When the SEC solicited comments on political spending disclosures in 2011, it received over one million comments; by far more comments than any other SEC rulemaking petition, and the vast majority of which were overwhelmingly favorable. Yet the SEC's efforts were stymied because the Senate minority leader has personally insisted on statutorily prohibiting the SEC from even studying the issue.

However, we are currently without clear, consistent standards for this information to be disclosed. Investors will continue to be left in the dark. It is time we give investors and markets the information they have been demanding for so long.

And let me be absolutely clear about who we are fighting for. The other side has taken up the issue, as it tends to want to protect these big public corporations from disclosures.

It is for the American workers, the retirees, who worked their whole lives to save for retirement, for the public pension funds investing on behalf of our Nation's teachers and our firefighters, and other frontliners. We are fighting to ensure they have been given the tools they need to protect what they have worked so hard for, to achieve the American Dream.

So I would urge all of my colleagues who are concerned about not only the retail investors, but concerned about the institutional investors who are responsible for these teachers and these firefighters and these others that I have alluded to, and their ability to feel safe and comfortable that decisions are being made that are in the best interest of the people who are invested in them.

So I would ask for an ``aye'' vote on this very, very comprehensive and serious legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I strongly oppose Mr. Burgess' amendment. This amendment is interesting to me because Republicans have, without fail, consistently cited the materiality standard both here on the House floor and in the Financial Services Committee as a basis to oppose very important disclosures.

Republicans have argued over and over again that we do not need to enact any new disclosures because companies are already required to disclose any and all material information. But, with this amendment, it seems their purported commitment to materiality has gone out the window so that they can bring attention to their massive tax cuts for the rich.

In 2018, when the United States Government should have been focused on growing the real economy for American workers, the former President pushed forward the largest tax giveaway to our country's largest corporations and executives in history. This government handout provided corporations and executives with $2 trillion in tax cuts and giveaways, saddling the United States Government with debt.

Make no mistake, these tax cuts did not go primarily to workers, but, instead, they went overwhelmingly to the top 1 percent. The year after the Trump tax cuts were implemented, public companies spent nearly $1 trillion in stock buybacks, rather than investing in research and development, increasing worker wages, or shoring up their bottom lines to make sure they could weather times of crisis.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Trump's tax plan gave the top 400 highest income taxpayers an additional $15 million per year. Compare this to the $2.8 million the average college graduate will earn in their lifetime.

This amendment absolutely and completely ignores the harm done to hardworking Americans and focuses on alleged harm to the large corporations. This amendment suggests our Nation's largest companies should not be paying their fair share, while American workers are forced to pay for Republicans' corporate handouts.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Burgess' amendment is a gimmick intended to distract from the important goals of this package. It insinuates that corporations should not be paying their fair share, while hardworking taxpayers foot the bill. So I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting Mr. Burgess' amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 4 of House Resolution 473, I offer amendments en bloc.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this en bloc package of Democratic amendments to H.R. 1187, the Corporate Governance Improvement and Investor Protection Act.

These amendments include critical provisions offered by my colleagues, Representative Himes, Representative Axne, Representative Phillips, Representative Wexton, Representative Frankel, and Representative Meeks.

These provisions strengthen H.R. 1187 by requiring public companies to disclose key information related to cybersecurity, corporate board diversity, human rights abuses, human capital management, and the ways companies are investing in and protecting their workforce.

Investors, the true owners of public companies, need this information because of the significant effects they can have on the bottom lines and operations of the companies they are investing their hard-earned money in. Investors need this information to hold companies accountable.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these important measures, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Axne).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel).

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

I urge my colleagues to join me in standing up for our Nation's investors and workers to vote ``yes'' for these Democratic amendments.

I do believe that Mr. Huizenga correctly described who they are working for. He just talked about how big these corporations are and how much they have to manage.

Of course, prior to him, Mr. Burgess talked about, yes, the tax breaks that they receive, and they should receive more tax breaks. However, they are worried about these corporations and their ability to comply, despite the fact they have all of the accountants they need, they have all of the personnel they need, they have all of the management they need. They have everything that they need to be in compliance.

We are simply saying it is time for them to disclose information that the investors have been asking and begging for.

And, of course, they often refer to the retail investors. But the institutional investors must be included in this decision because they are the ones that are in control of the teachers and the firefighters and the workers on the front lines and all of that money that they are investing for them, and they have got to protect them. The way that you protect them is making sure that the investors understand how to make good decisions based on information.

If the big corporations, with all that they have to be able to operate, do not give them this information, do not have this information, do not share this information, they are at a great disadvantage.

And so I would simply ask my colleagues to understand whose side we are on. We are on the side of the retail investors and the institutional investors who are handling all of the money of our frontline workers who are investing for their retirement.

I would ask for a ``yea'' vote on these en bloc amendments.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the amendment offered by Mr. Hill. This amendment would gut the entirety of H.R. 1187. Bizarrely, this amendment offered by my colleague has an odd focus on climate change, suggesting that we need more study about the financial risk of climate change. Let me be very clear: climate change is real. We cannot alter the Earth's orbit or the Moon's orbit or click our heels three times and wish for climate change to magically disappear.

In fact, the impacts of climate change are already apparent and are affecting global financial markets. Unfortunately, studies show that market prices currently fail to factor in the risks of climate change to the tune of trillions of dollars.

Mr. Hill's amendment would also allow companies to continue to engage in legally risky tax-avoidance schemes to funnel limitless amounts of corporate dark money into politics and to enrich CEOs while worker wages remain stagnant. This is precisely the information that investors want to know about the companies that they own.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Hill's amendment would completely gut H.R. 1187 and would prevent investors from accessing critical environmental, social, and governance information that they need to make the best investment decisions possible and hold the companies they own accountable.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on Mr. Hill's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment offered by Representative Schrier requires the SEC to work with the Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation and the Office of the Investor Advocate to study the issues smaller public companies may face in reporting ESG disclosures, and to make recommendations for the SEC to consider.

Disclosures of ESG-related matters are critical to investors in markets, and it is imperative that public companies provide investors, the true owners of these companies, with this important information. However, it is just as important for us to ensure that public companies of all sizes are able to comply with these disclosure requirements.

To address this, my colleague, Representative Schrier, has introduced an amendment that requires the SEC to work with the Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation and the Office of the Investor Advocate to study the issues that smaller public companies face in disclosing ESG matters, and to make recommendations for the SEC to tailor these disclosure requirements to assist smaller public companies.

Ms. Schrier's amendment, along with Mr. Vargas' provision in H.R. 1187, will help smaller public companies by ensuring that the SEC is factoring in the unique issues that smaller public companies face while also creating clear, consistent regulatory standards that reduce regulatory uncertainty, all while providing investors and markets with this critical information.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered.

Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question are postponed.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Ms. Plaskett.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that my friend and colleague, Ms. Plaskett, has raised some concerns about the treatment of territories in this bill, and I want to assure her that the staff has done everything possible in the bill text to ensure that territories are included in this bill and not treated disparately.

The language in this bill is consistent with regulations promulgated under the Obama administration regarding country-by-country tax reporting, which were carefully written to ensure territories were not excluded.

I want to make clear that nothing in this bill should be intended to suggest that territories are tax havens. In fact, I have worked with my colleague, Mr. San Nicolas, on this bill text. We believe that the enhanced disclosures in this bill, which will include territories, should help encourage investment in the territories and hold corporations accountable for lack of investment in territories.

I want to ensure Ms. Plaskett that I take her concerns seriously, and I intend to work with her to make sure that what she is identifying as perhaps incorrectly being defined as tax havens is an issue that I will deal with.

Madam Speaker, I rushed to the floor to be a part of absolutely indicating my support for this important legislation, the Juneteenth National Independence Day. I am so pleased that we take this step today to honor the day and the month that the information of the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation reached enslaved people in Texas. It took more than 2 years before the news reached them.

Juneteenth is a State holiday in the State of Texas. It was authored by my friend, Al Edwards, who is since deceased. I wish he was alive today to witness this debate that is taking place on the floor of the Congress of the United States that will lead to the passage of the legislation that will make Juneteenth a national holiday.

I was a little bit concerned when I heard some of the Members be opposed to the way that the bill is titled. They didn't like the word ``independence'' that is in there because these are patriots and they want to protect Independence Day and not have it mistaken in any way.

But where were these patriots when the Capitol was being violated?

Where were these patriots when the noose was hung, in plain view, for everybody to see, where slaves and people of color had lost their lives because they were hung, et cetera, et cetera?

I want you to know that patriotism should be demonstrated all of the time. If you cannot demonstrate your patriotism when your Capitol is invaded, when the insurrection took place, then I question your patriotism.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3642) to award a Congressional gold medal to the 369th Infantry Regiment, commonly known as the ``Harlem Hellfighters'', in recognition of their bravery and outstanding service during World War I, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.

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

Madam Speaker, the soldiers of the 369th Infantry Regiment were known to both their enemies and allies alike for their fierceness in battle and dedication to their country. They were called the Black Rattlers, the Men of Bronze, and Hollenkampfer, but they were best known as the Harlem Hellfighters.

The Harlem Hellfighters were one of the first African-American regiments

to serve with the American Expeditionary Forces in World War I. Over the course of the war, the Harlem Hellfighters spent more time than any other American unit in the frontline trenches and suffered 1,500 casualties--the most losses of any American unit.

In addition to facing the dangers of frontline trench warfare, the men of the Harlem Hellfighters endured racist, derogatory attacks from their White compatriots, many of whom refused to perform combat duty with African-American soldiers. This resulted in the Harlem Hellfighters being transferred to a French Army where, despite racist warnings from American Expeditionary Forces headquarters of the alleged inferior nature of African-American troops, the Harlem Hellfighters were treated as welcome reinforcements and equals.

Despite the racism and derogatory attacks from their fellow countrymen, the Harlem Hellfighters were steadfast in their devotion to their country. Some members considered their service to be a way to prove they deserved respect from their White compatriots. Even German propaganda targeting the Harlem Hellfighters highlighting the racism of a segregated U.S. military failed to diminish their resolve.

Yet, despite their considerable sacrifices and being awarded the Croix de Guerre by the French Army for their efforts, the Harlem Hellfighters continued to face considerable racism when they returned home after World War I. Their bravery and accomplishments were similarly ignored by the broader American public. But their legacy and memory has been kept alive in their hometown. The annual Harlem Hellfighters Parade in Harlem, New York, became a marker of African- American service to their Nation, and their service was frequently referenced as part of the civil rights campaign.

This bill directs the U.S. Mint to strike a Congressional Gold Medal honoring the Harlem Hellfighters for their service during World War I. The gold medal will be displayed at the Smithsonian Institution so that others may learn of the patriotism and courage displayed by the men of the 369th Infantry Regiment.

So, Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Suozzi for introducing this bill. I urge Members to vote ``yes,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Suozzi) who is also the sponsor of this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New York an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers and I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

In closing, I certainly want to thank Mr. Suozzi for bringing forward this legislation. I want to thank Mr. Espaillat and Congresswoman Beatty for joining with him to bring this legislation forward. I want to thank Mr. McHenry and the members of the Financial Services Committee for joining together in support of this legislation.

The Harlem Hellfighters braved long deployments, treacherous conditions, and the scorn of their fellow patriots. So we find ourselves, I guess, 100 years later or so, understanding the important role that they played and the sacrifices that they made.

We also understand how important it is for all of us to not only give recognition to their sacrifice, but also recognize that this country has gone through some very difficult times, faced with the question of race.

Despite the fact that we have seen times in this country when we were moving forward and we thought we were erasing the kind of racism that had been present for too long, we find ourselves today fighting some of the same battles.

There are many in the history of this country who have made sacrifices in so many different ways that perhaps will never be recognized. But I am hopeful, with the cooperation, the cosponsorship, and the work for both sides of the aisle on a recognition such as this, that this will help us to continue to fight to rid this country of racism and discrimination and hatred.

I am hopeful that the word will go forward today about this recognition that we are giving to the Harlem Hellfighters and will inspire others to want to praise and honor those who are certainly ones who are so committed to

justice and equality, and who love this country will be treated better, will be recognized, and certainly will be given their correct place in history.

So I urge Members to celebrate the memory of these brave men of the 369th Infantry Regiment, who, through their service, sought to realize a more equal and a more perfect union, by voting ``yes'' on H.R. 3642.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2332) to prohibit consumer reporting agencies from furnishing a consumer report containing any adverse item of information about a consumer if such consumer is a victim of trafficking, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Committee on Financial Services ranking member, Mr. McHenry, for introducing H.R. 2332, the Debt Bondage Repair Act.

Over the last year, working in a bipartisan manner, the Financial Services Committee has been engaged in an examination of trafficking issues of all types. As we heard at a recent hearing that delved into issues of human trafficking, which includes forced labor, sex trafficking and organ trafficking, victims of trafficking are not only abused physically and emotionally, but financially also.

The moving testimony of Reverend Dr. Martin Hatcher, an advocate for sex trafficking survivors and a survivor himself, demonstrated how traffickers steal their victims' identities, open accounts in their names, run up credit card debt, purchase large ticket items like automobiles, and take out loans while pretending to be their victims.

This financial exploitation is not only designed as a stream of finance, allowing the traffickers' operation to thrive, but it also inflicts long-term harm and asserts control over the victim.

This bill, which aims to help survivors of human trafficking restore their credit and gain access to the consumer financial products and services that most of us take for granted, is an important step in restoring survivors' dignity and financial stability and in preventing revictimization.

Specifically, the bill prohibits credit bureaus from including adverse information that resulted from human or sex trafficking in a victim's credit report. It directs the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to develop a process to ensure that adverse information caused by their traffickers is not included in a victim's credit report. Such a process does not exist now and, given the importance that credit reports play in our economy, it makes it difficult for survivors in our communities to get a loan or even secure a job.

As noted by the Survivor Inclusion Initiative of the Human Trafficking Focus Liechtenstein Initiative, we must ``facilitate survivor access to basic banking services, such as checking and savings accounts, and help survivors' financial recovery to become full financial participants in their communities.''

Madam Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this important bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time until Mr. McHenry yields back.

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

Survivors of human trafficking face many obstacles to recovering from the physical, emotional, and financial abuse inflicted by their traffickers. The Debt Bondage Repair Act makes strides in assisting them to restore their credit and achieve financial reintegration into their communities.

Congress can play a leading role in helping trafficking survivors to take back control. For that reason, I certainly urge both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this important bill.

I do want to take a moment to thank my ranking member, Mr. McHenry, for the leadership that he has provided on trafficking in general and on financial trafficking specifically. This is important legislation, and I am so pleased to be able to work with him, and I am so pleased that this bill has bipartisan support. I want to thank him for the work that he has done and will continue to do.

I would also briefly note that survivors of trafficking are not the only individuals who are harmed by our broken credit reporting system. The system serves as a major barrier to economic opportunity for so many others. So we are going to continue working with Mr. McHenry, and I have scheduled a full committee hearing on June 29 to further explore these credit reporting challenges. I believe that our Republican colleagues will join with us to advance bold solutions to make the system fair for all of our constituents.

Again, I am so pleased that the members of the committee have worked together. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2332, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1443) to amend the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to require the collection of small business loan data related to LGBTQ-owned businesses, as amended.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York, Representative Torres, for his leadership on H.R. 1443, the LGBTQ Business Equal Credit Enforcement and Investment Act.

We know transparency is critical in helping identify discriminatory lending practices in the financial marketplace. This bill would enhance a provision of Dodd-Frank requiring data collection on lending to small and minority-owned businesses to include data on lending to LGBTQ-owned businesses as well, including self-reported gender identity and sexual orientation.

This bill will also define an LGBTQ-owned business in the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the ECOA, which would allow more businesses to gain access to capital and investment.

Of course, June is Pride Month, a time to recognize and celebrate the

LGBTQ community's significant contributions to our country, including to the economy, and to also stand as allies.

We know there is more work to be done to ensure equal opportunities. For example, according to a study of mortgage lending data from 2019, loan applicants in neighborhoods with a higher density of LGBTQ people received higher interest and fees, regardless of the applicant's sexuality or identity.

In addition, LGBTQ individuals face employment discrimination, which has contributed to high rates of poverty, especially for LGBTQ people of color. The Williams Institute found that nearly 31 percent of Black LGBTQ people live in poverty compared with nearly 25 percent of Black cisgender, straight people.

These factors further support the urgency of supporting LGBTQ businesses as they create job opportunities and build community wealth.

As of 2016, there were an estimated 1.4 million LGBTQ-owned businesses in the United States. The CFPB needs to begin collecting this data and help us as policymakers and the public identify and understand the community development needs of LGBTQ-owned businesses.

I am pleased we were able to report this bill unanimously out of committee with a voice vote. I hope we can build on that bipartisan effort, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have remaining in this debate?

Madam Speaker, I yield all 17\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Torres), who is also the sponsor of this legislation.

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

The LGBTQ Business Equal Credit Enforcement and Investment Act led by Representative Torres would help ensure that LGBTQ business owners have access to opportunities to grow and invest through government and other private procurement contracts as well as have equal access to credit opportunities.

This bill is supported by the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, the Center for American Progress, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the National Center for Transgender Equality, Center for LGBTQ Economic Advancement & Research, Human Rights Campaign, Out Leadership, and many others.

The Financial Services Committee passed this bill unanimously by voice vote in May 2021, and I would like to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, again, to join me in supporting this important legislation.

I would like to thank the ranking member, Mr. McHenry, for joining with me and others to pass this important legislation and particularly this Pride Month that we are all celebrating the progress that has been made in the LGBTQ community.

I thank Mr. McHenry for his cosponsorship, his support, and his cooperation, for all that we are able to get done these days working together.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3325) to award four congressional gold medals to the United States Capitol Police and those who protected the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, every day the men and women of the United States Capitol Police protect the U.S. Capitol. They protect us, they protect our staff, they protect journalists and other visitors who come into the people's House.

In March of this year, the House passed H.R. 1085 to award three Congressional Gold Medals honoring the courage, patriotism, and commitment to service exemplified by the men and women of the Capitol Police, Metropolitan Police, and other law enforcement agencies who risked their lives and sustained injuries as they sought to protect those trapped in the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

This bill builds upon H.R. 1085 to include minting of a fourth Congressional Gold Medal to be displayed by the Architect of the Capitol so that we may continue to honor those officers who sustained injuries in the line of duty and the sacrifices of heroes, including Capitol Police Officers Brian Sicknick and Howard Liebengood and Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department Officer Jeffrey Smith. We also honor Capitol Police Officer Eugene Goodman; whose quick thinking and selfless action undoubtedly saved the lives of many.

Additionally, this bill honors the memory of Capitol Police Officer William ``Billy'' Evans, who was killed while protecting the north barricade of the Capitol against a vehicular assault on April 2, 2021. It also honors the bravery displayed by Capitol Police Officer Kenneth Shaver, who was also injured in that assault.

I thank Speaker Pelosi for introducing this bill this Congress and urge Members to vote ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) the Speaker, who is also the sponsor of this legislation.

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

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

In closing, I commend Speaker Pelosi for bringing forward this legislation.

Every day, the brave men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police put their lives on the line in service to our Nation.

On January 6, we all witnessed this bravery firsthand as they fought against those who would seek to end this democracy. It is true that the leadership and decisive action on that day saved many lives, including my own. We honor their sacrifices on that day, and every day we thank them for their service.

Madam Speaker and Members, I cannot help but say at this time where this bill is being discussed on the floor of the House of Representatives, I saw Capitol Police in hand-to-hand combat with these insurrectionists. I saw them being attacked by QAnon, by the proud boys, by the oath keepers, by the KKK, by white supremacists. I thought I would never see such in my lifetime.

I watched Capitol Police being attacked with the American flag jabbed into their bodies. I never thought those who considered themselves conservative would attack uniformed police officers of the Capitol or any place, but we saw it.

So we can't say enough about these Capitol Police, whose lives were endangered and some who lost their lives and some who are still trying to recuperate from the injuries that they received.

I am absolutely saddened by the fact that too many do not want to know what really happened that day, who oppose investigation, oppose a commission to delve into exactly what took place, who was responsible, who organized it, who paid for it, et cetera.

I could go on all day and night talking about that experience, as many Members of Congress perhaps would like to do, but I know that, despite the fact, there is opposition to delving into what happened. We are going to find out what happened. We are going to find out who supported all of the resources that were put together to bring people here in buses and put them on airplanes to come and attack us in the Capitol of the United States of America.

So I urge all Members to honor the sacrifices and courage displayed by the members of the Capitol Police, the Metropolitan Police, and other law enforcement agencies by voting ``yes'' on H.R. 3325.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 380, I call up the bill (H.R. 2547) to expand and enhance consumer, student, servicemember, and small business protections with respect to debt collection practices, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a1l Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2547 and to include extraneous material thereon.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of my legislation, H.R. 2547, the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act.

H.R. 2547 is a package of bills designed to bring new protections, fairness, accuracy, and transparency to the debt collection industry.

Individuals and families across this country have long struggled with debt, including medical debt, student loan debt, and other debts. They often face difficult decisions regarding how to pay off their debts.

During the pandemic crisis, which has harmed all of our communities, debt collectors have earned record profits. Their tactics are often divisive and predatory. Many debt collectors harass consumers with frequent phone calls, make threats, and provide misleading information to consumers. The debt collection industry is also plagued

by poor recordkeeping, resulting in many consumers being harassed for debts they do not owe.

Debt collection is among the top issues that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau receives the most complaints about from consumers, and those complaints have risen since 2019.

This bill, H.R. 2547, brings new accountability to the debt collection industry and stronger protections for consumers from harassment and abuse, including by banning abusive confessions of judgment that have hurt small businesses, prohibiting debt collectors from harassing and threatening servicemembers, barring collection of medical debts from 2 years after the debt is incurred, prohibiting debt collectors from contacting consumers by email or text message without a consumer's affirmative consent, limiting egregious debt collection fees that have disproportionately hurt low-income and minority borrowers, and protecting consumers during a nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding.

Taken together, these protections will help the most vulnerable consumers, including servicemembers, student borrowers, people of color, and those struggling under the weight of medical debt during this unprecedented pandemic.

None of this is to say that people who owe lawful debts shouldn't pay them, but all Americans deserve to be free from harassment, undue pressure tactics, bullying, false information, threats, coercion, and other bad practices that debt collectors have used with relative impunity.

The last time Congress made major updates to Federal laws on debt collection was 1978, over 40 years ago. It is long overdue for Congress to act to provide stronger protections from abusive debt collection for consumers.

This comprehensive package includes a number of bills authored by several hardworking members of the Financial Services Committee, specifically bills sponsored by Representative Velazquez, Representative Dean, Representative Tlaib, Representative Pressley, Representative Cleaver, Representative Meeks, and Representative Auchincloss.

I would like to thank all of them for their work on these bills, their contributions to this legislative package, and their leadership on these important reforms that will provide desperately needed relief and protection to consumers.

I would urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Auchincloss).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill provides urgently needed protections to individuals and families from unfair and abusive debt collection practices.

Consumers should not have to face harassment or threats from abusive debt collectors, especially in the midst of this unprecedented pandemic. It is long overdue for Congress to bring new accountability to the debt collection industry.

Because of the strong protections the bill creates for consumers, the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act is supported by more than 85 consumer, civil rights, and small business organizations, including Americans for Financial Reform, Center for

Responsible Lending, Color of Change, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, National Consumer Law Center, New York Taxi Workers Alliance, Public Citizen, Small Business Majority, and Student Borrower Protection Center.

Mr. Speaker, you have heard the debate and the discussion on this bill today. My colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle have tried in their presentation to have the people listening to this debate believe that the bill would hurt consumers. That is absolutely not true. My friends on the opposite side of the aisle seem more interested in protecting the debt collectors.

As I mentioned, we are still in the midst of a pandemic. Many of our consumers have been laid off from their jobs. Some businesses have closed down.

Americans like to pay their bills. They want to pay their bills. If they cannot pay their bills, we should not have debt collectors who are harassing them, calling the commanders of servicemembers and threatening to have them penalized in some way, using all the different platforms to harass.

One of the Members on the opposite side of the aisle tried to make us believe that somehow we are saying you can't use any of the platforms on the internet. We are not saying that. We are saying don't misuse them, don't abuse them. We are saying that this is about the Members of Congress who are sent here to represent their constituents being able to represent them at one of the most important times in this economy.

I would ask all Members, despite what you have heard from the opposite side of the aisle, to rise to this occasion and show our consumers we care about them and do not want them to be harassed and abused.

These predatory debt collectors must stop the way that they are harassing our consumers and work with them. They should be doing workouts. If you can't pay $50 a month, you can have a workout that says you can pay $10 a month or $15 a month on your debt. Of course, the predatory debt collectors can do this if they wish.

One of the things you must understand is they have earned more in profits during this pandemic than any other time in recent years, so they are gouging, and they are harassing needlessly so.

I would ask the Members of Congress to please join us and vote ``aye'' on this very important legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 380, I offer amendments en bloc No. 1.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this set of amendments that will strengthen the protections in my bill, H.R. 2547, the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act.

I thank Representatives Adams, Bonamici, Bowman, Bush, Cohen, Craig, Newman, Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, Payne, Ross, and Williams for their work on their amendments to improve the bill and provide additional protections for consumers.

These amendments would create a Consumer Bill of Rights Against Abusive Debt Collection Practices, putting in plain language what debt collection protections and remedies a consumer has; require CFPB strategy to use their enforcement and other tools to combat abusive debt collection during the pandemic; study racial disparities in debt collection and develop solutions to address these disparities.

Several amendments would also help students by providing private student loan borrowers with the same credit reporting protections that Federal student loan borrowers have during the pandemic; releasing cosigners in the event of the death of a private student loan borrower, regardless of when that debt occurred; studying practices and additional reforms to better protect private student loan borrowers.

Finally, these amendments address new forms of communication specifically prohibiting debt collectors from harassing a consumer on social media, and studying electronic communications and developing recommendations to further protect consumers from harassment.

Together, these amendments will protect our constituents from abusive debt collectors. So I urge Members to vote ``yes.''

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Bush).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bowman).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Craig).

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

Mr. Speaker, these amendments offered by our colleagues make H.R. 2547 even stronger for our constituents who deserve to be treated fairly. I would like to again thank Representatives Adams, Bonamici, Bowman, Bush, Cohen, Craig, Newman, Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, Payne, Ross, and Williams for their work on these amendments to H.R. 2547.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these amendments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 380, I offer amendments en bloc No. 2.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendments offered by Representatives Luetkemeyer and Burgess. Representative Burgess' amendment does not provide any new protections for low-income consumers or consumers with no credit or poor credit history.

Instead, this is an attempt to prevent my bill, H.R. 2547, from being implemented at all. Under the guise of a certification standard, Mr. Burgess' amendment would create a legal loophole for unscrupulous debt collectors to challenge and potentially block not just some, but all of the protections included in this bill for servicemembers, student borrowers, borrowers with a medical debt, and so many more.

This is not a serious attempt to have low-income borrowers, it is an attempt to protect debt collectors who are making record profits during this pandemic.

I do not support this poison pill amendment. Representative Luetkemeyer's amendment to study and delay misses the mark on what is needed to protect consumers from the harm of ongoing, unfair debt collection practices.

Copious research has been shown that debt collection harassment and mistreatment have created undue stress and financial burdens on consumers, especially for low-income people, and in communities of color.

My bill does not restrict debt collection, but rather ensures consumer protection for those who are facing harassment or other abusive tactics used by debt collectors.

Millions of consumers are still struggling to make ends meet during this tragic public health pandemic. Instead of considering the amount of stress consumers feel when they get sick, need medical care, and face harassment from a debt collector, Mr. Luetkemeyer's amendment would commission a study and delay implementation of my bill by a full year.

H.R. 2547 would already provide the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with a sensible 6-month implementation period, during which the Bureau can give all stakeholders guidance on how to comply.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose both of these amendments, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Representatives Burgess and Luetkemeyer' proposed amendments would not provide stronger protections for consumers who are saddled with debt, while navigating the various challenges they have faced, through no fault of their own, by this terrible pandemic.

Instead, these amendments would needlessly delay or prevent my bill, H.R. 2547, the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act, from being implemented.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject these amendments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the substitute amendment offered by our committee's ranking member, Mr. McHenry.

Mr. McHenry's partisan proposal is a nonstarter and not a serious attempt to find common ground with bipartisan support. The Republican substitute amendment does not include several important elements of my bill, H.R. 2547, and fundamentally weakens many essential protections in the few provisions he included.

For example, Mr. McHenry included a prohibition on confessions of judgment based on title I. However, he included a harmful provision related to written affidavits, effectively undermining the prohibition on confessions of judgment, and severely reducing protections for small businesses struggling during this pandemic.

The Federal Trade Commission banned confessions of judgment more than 35 years ago in 1985 for consumer loans. Our committee learned that small business owners, like taxicab drivers, have unwittingly waived their typical due process rights when it comes to debt collection because these harmful confessions of judgment terms were tucked into their small business loan.

Representative Velazquez has been leading the effort on this in the House, working in a bipartisan fashion with Senators Brown and Rubio. However, if we take the approach proposed by Mr. McHenry, small businesses will continue to be ripped off.

Moreover, I would add H.R. 2547 includes several other bipartisan provisions, including title II, which is based on a bill by Representative Dean to protect servicemembers from harassment and threats from debt collectors. The House has unanimously passed title II as a standalone bill twice, both last year and this year.

Additionally, title VI would enhance protections related to Federal agency debts based on a bill by Representative Cleaver that has been bipartisan for a number of years, but when we tried to move it on the suspension calendar last year, Republicans changed their mind.

Unfortunately, at a time when consumers are suffering while debt collectors make record profits during the pandemic, the House Republican alternative is not a serious effort to reform and modernize our debt collection laws.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the McHenry substitute amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Auchincloss).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1085) to award three congressional gold medals to the United States Capitol Police and those who protected the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House, who is also the sponsor of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, every day the men and women of the United States Capitol Police protect the United States Capitol. They protect us; they protect our staff; and they protect journalists and other visitors who come into the people's House.

On January 6, 2021, the United States Capitol building was attacked by armed insurrectionists who attacked Capitol Police Officers and engaged in acts of looting and vandalism.

On that day, we witnessed the courage, patriotism, and commitment to service exemplified by Members of the Capitol Police, Metropolitan Police, and other law enforcement agencies, who risked their lives and sustained injuries as they sought to protect those trapped in the Capitol.

We honor these officers who sustained injuries in the line of duty, and we honor the sacrifices of heroes, including Capitol Police Officers Brian Sicknick and Howard Liebengood and Metropolitan Police Department Officer Jeffrey Smith. And, finally, we honor Capitol Police Officer Eugene Goodman, whose quick thinking and selfless action undoubtedly saved the lives of many.

This legislation authorizes the Department of Treasury to mint three Congressional Gold Medals to be given to the United States Capitol Police, Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, and the Smithsonian Institution, so that we may never forget the valor and courage displayed by the brave men and women who protected the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

I thank Speaker Pelosi for introducing this bill. This is one of the most important bills that we could ever put before the Congress of the United States, and I urge Members to vote ``yes.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire, through the Chair, if my colleague has any remaining speakers on his side?

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

In closing, I commend Speaker Pelosi for bringing forward this bipartisan legislation, acknowledging the bravery displayed by the men and women who protected the Capitol on January 6. It is through their leadership and decisive action on that day that many lives, including my own, were saved.

I urge all Members to honor the sacrifices and courage displayed by members of the Capitol Police, Metropolitan Police, and other law enforcement agencies on January 6 by voting ``yes'' on H.R. 1085.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank President Biden and all of the Democratic leadership for this wonderful, historic piece of legislation that we are voting on here today. This indeed responds to the needs of the American people during this pandemic. This is why I came to Congress to do this kind of work, and I am so proud to be a Democratic Member of Congress at this time.

This bill not only supports education; it gives stimulus checks to put food on the table and unemployment assistance. Small businesses will be able to reopen and stay open. Then everybody will have access to the vaccines that will be made available because of this bill.

It has been said more than once that this bill will take children out of poverty. They will be able to depend on regular assistance to them and their families every month.

I am so pleased that as the chair of the Committee on Financial Services, I have, in my jurisdiction, $77 billion to deal with some very critical issues.

This bill includes critical funding for emergency rental assistance, providing $22.5 billion to pay the back rent and future rent payments owed by millions of struggling families. That is in urban communities, rural communities, Black, White, and Asian. All folks will have access to this rental assistance.

Mr. Speaker, combined with the funding for emergency rental assistance I negotiated in the December stimulus package and the $5 billion for 70,000 new housing vouchers that are included in this package, this bill is truly historic and will help people across the Nation to remain safely housed.

Mr. Speaker, since March 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic plunged this country into a public health emergency and wreaked havoc on the U.S. economy, House Democrats have worked around the clock to advance robust legislation to address our public health needs and to provide real assistance to those who have been affected by this deadly pandemic.

That day has finally arrived. The American Rescue Plan Act is the culmination of a year-long effort by Democrats to tackle the pandemic crisis and provide assistance to struggling individuals, families, small businesses and communities. Under the leadership of President Biden, Democrats in the House and Senate are taking action to deliver robust relief across the country.

With millions out of work, facing eviction, experiencing hunger, and struggling to make ends meet, this legislation is urgently needed.

The Committee on Financial Services drafted key recommendations that are contained in the legislation under consideration today, and as Chairwoman I am providing an explanatory statement of these provisions to guide the Administration's implementation of these provisions.

Section 3101. COVID-19 Emergency Medical Supplies Enhancement.

Subsection (a) of section 3101 provides $10,000,000,000 to carry out titles I, III, and VII of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 4501 et seq)(DPA) to boost the production of essential medical equipment and supplies related to combating the COVID-19 Pandemic. The Committee expects that in implementing this section, the President will seek to make investments in both urban and rural areas to the extent this is consistent with the country's health needs.

Subsection (b) sets out the purposes for which the $10 billion provided by this section may be used. Paragraph (1) provides that the funds may be used for the purchase, production or distribution of medical equipment and supplies related to combating the COVID-19 Pandemic, including funding for all types of COVID-19 tests, personal protection equipment, including N95 masks, and vaccines and drugs for preventing or treating COVID-19 or its symptoms. Subsection (b) also provides for using such funds for acquisition of material, including raw materials, equipment and technology needed for such purposes. The Committee notes that testing is critical to ensure that we can stamp out the pandemic, and the provision includes in-vitro diagnostic testing, intended to be interpreted as that term is defined in section 809.3(a) of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations), for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 or the diagnosis of the virus that causes Covid-19. The Committee expects that such tests will include inexpensive rapid at- home antigen tests that will allow individuals to identify new infections quickly and safely. This subsection also provides for vaccines, which are described in this section as biological products, intended to be interpreted as that term is defined by section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262). The Committee also notes that ``drugs'' and ``medical devices'' as used in subsection (b)(1)(C) are intended to be interpreted as those terms are defined in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.))

Subsection (b) also provides that after September 30, 2022, funds appropriated by subsection (a) may be used to combat future pathogens that the President determines have the potential for creating a public health emergency. This additional flexibility can be used to address the current or future pathogens. Given this flexibility, the Committee expects that if the President exercises this authority, the President will consult with the relevant committees, including providing information on the amounts the President anticipates the administration would spend to combat such a pathogen prior to exercising this authority. Because of the wide ranging interests in these matters, in addition to the Committee on Financial Services, information should be provided to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

The Committee also expects that the President will provide timely information regarding the use of these funds, whether for the COVID-19 Pandemic or for future pathogens. In particular, the Committee expects that the President will provide information on any commitment of more than $50 million, whether in the forms of expenditures or loans under the Defense Production Act of 1950, prior to making such commitment. Because of the wide interest in these matters, the Committee expects that all such information, shall be provided not only to the Committee but also to the Committees described above.

The Committee also expects that the funds provided by this section will primarily be used by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). The DPA allows the President to delegate his authority under the DPA to various agencies, and he has delegated DPA authority under Title III of the Act to HHS. While the DPA has been administered by the Department of Defense, the funds made available by this section are not for support of the Defense Industrial Base, but are for medical supplies and equipment related to the COVID-19 Pandemic. However, the Committee recognizes that the President may determine that it is important that other agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security, have a role in either producing or distributing key supplies with respect to the Pandemic or a future pathogen that has the potential to cause a public health emergency. If the President delegates this authority to any agency other than HHS because it is important to do so, the Committee expects the President to consult with the relevant Committees prior to take such action, and notify the relevant Committees of which agency would exercise such authority, the amount and the purpose for which the funds would be used.

Finally, the Committee notes that the Senate Amendment removed references to section 304(e) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (relating to limits on carryover funds remaining in the Defense Production Act Fund established by section 304 of the Act). The Committee believes by eliminating this reference, the $10 billion provided by section 3101 is no longer intended to be deposited into the DPA Fund. The statutory framework established by section 3101 clearly provides that the funds provided by this section are for any purpose in titles I, III and VII (including paying for critical infrastructure under section 107 of the Act and for experts and other personnel under Title VII of the Act). By its terms, amounts in the DPA Fund are available only for purposes of Title III, so funds from section 3101 should not be deposited into this Fund. This is also consistent with the provision free standing nature, as opposed to referencing the existing ``DPA Purchases'' account, which is a proxy for deposits into the Fund. Moreover, the fact that the funds have a specific duration until September 30, 2025 demonstrates that these funds have a special status that is not consistent with the statutory frame of DPA Fund. Thus, in agreeing to the Senate Amendment, the Committee intends that the President establish a new account to allow these funds to be used for the purposes of titles I, III, and VII of the Act and to available until September 30, 2025, without reference to section 304 of the Act. In order to ease execution of these funds, the President may use existing delegations and structures to carry out this provision, including current mechanisms for execution of the DPA Fund.

The Committee notes that this section draws from H.R. 1720, introduced by Representative Juan Vargas of California.

With millions of individuals and families struggling to pay their rent, action is urgently needed to prevent an eviction crisis. According to the latest U.S. Census data, nearly 1 in 5 renters are behind on paying rent, with renters of color disproportionally struggling, while Moody's Analytics recently estimated that renters collectively owe over $57 billion in unpaid rent, utilities, and additional fees. Section 3201 provides $21.6 billion for states, localities, and territories to provide emergency assistance to renters. This funding supplements the $25 billion in emergency rental assistance funding provided by Congress in December (Section 501 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-260) (Section 501)) but includes additional flexibilities to ensure grantees can better stabilize renters. The Biden administration should again extend the federal eviction moratorium that expires on March 31, 2021 so that grantees have time to distribute assistance to renters in need.

Renters would be able to receive up to 18 months of financial assistance, including future rent and utility payments (including pad rents in manufactured housing communities), and unpaid rent or utility bills that have accumulated. Renters can also receive assistance for other housing-related expenses necessary to promote housing stability, such as, but not limited to:, security deposits; relocation and rental fees for displaced households; late fees related to a former or current rental unit; and internet service provided to the rental unit. Section 3201 does not preclude grantees from continuing payment processes provided in Section 501. These processes are the provisions that govern payments of rent and utility assistance either to property owners and utilities or directly to tenants, and the application for assistance by landlords and owners under subsection (f). Additionally, funds can be used to provide housing stability services, such as, but not limited to: case management; tenant-landlord mediation; legal services related to eviction and housing stability; housing counseling; fair housing counseling; and specialized services for people with disabilities, people with chronic health conditions, seniors, or survivors of domestic violence or human trafficking. Similar to Section 501, Section 3201 permits grantees to use a certain percentage of their funds on administrative costs to support eligible program activities, including the provision of financial assistance and housing stability services. Grantees may also use up to 10 percent of their funds on providing housing stability services. As in Section 501, funds are provided to states to assist renters throughout the state, including in rural communities, as

well as cities and counties that receive a direct allocation.

The Committee expects the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) (the agency implementing the program) and grantees to implement Section 3201 swiftly and not create any artificial barriers to assistance. In particular, we have seen with some benefits provided by the CARES Act, that documentation requirements to prove eligibility have erected artificial barriers that have cut people off from the benefits Congress intended them to receive. Indeed, diverse stakeholders, including tenant advocates, landlords, and state and local government agencies have raised concerns that such requirements that have been applied in existing emergency rental assistance programs have prevented renters from completing applications and are overly burdensome for program staff. It is critical that any renters who are struggling to pay their rent during the pandemic are not barred from accessing this assistance due to cumbersome documentation requirements or other barriers. An applicant's simple attestation should be the only documentation required to meet program eligibility requirements. Additionally, grantees may continue the income assessment procedures pursuant to Section 501 to determine eligibility. It is also the intent of the Committee that Treasury and grantees broadly read the requirement regarding the connection between a renter's hardship and the coronavirus pandemic when determining the eligibility of the renter. As the language states, the hardship must have occurred ``during or due, directly or indirectly, to the coronavirus pandemic.'' The economic effects of the pandemic will be felt long after the virus is contained. Certain industries and communities have been particularly hard-hit from the pandemic and will likely take years to recover. Treasury should issue guidance that makes this point clear to ensure renters are not cut off from needed assistance as they try to recover from economic downturns caused by the pandemic.

Section 3201 also provides that after October 1, 2022, certain grantees may expend funds on ``other affordable rental housing and eviction prevention activities'' that benefit any very low-income renter household. Such activities can include affordable housing development, preservation, or acquisition, and other forms of rental assistance and eviction prevention activities targeted to very low- income renters.

To ensure continuity in monitoring funds provided by Section 3201 and Section 501 and ease of grantee implementation, Treasury should maintain the same reporting requirements that were included in Section 501.

The Committee encourages the Administration to create and maintain a central public repository of information on state and local rental assistance programs, which at a minimum identifies the program's administering agency and contact information, so that renters and landlords can more easily identify available assistance.

Finally, to the extent there is any confusion with regard to the taxability of assistance, Treasury, in consultation with the Internal Revenue Service, should provide guidance to clarify this for grantees and program participants.

During this public health emergency and financial crisis, millions of homes are threatened by foreclosure, with over 8 million homeowners behind on their mortgage payments, and an estimated $90 billion in missed mortgage payments. Targeted, direct assistance to homeowners through the Homeowner Assistance Fund (HAF or Fund) is an essential tool that will help avoid a repeat of the 2008 foreclosure crisis, which upended the lives of millions of Americans and eviscerated the generational wealth for many communities, namely for families and communities of color.

Although the CARES Act provided a foreclosure moratorium and forbearance for federally-backed mortgages, many homeowners will lose their homes to foreclosure in the absence of additional assistance. Approximately 30 percent of the mortgage market is not federally-backed and, therefore, ineligible for CARES Act forbearance relief provided in March of 2020. Elderly borrowers with reverse mortgages (known as Home Equity Conversion Mortgages or HECMs) will need assistance paying their taxes, insurance, and utilities on time to avoid foreclosure. Low-to- moderate income homeowners may need more payment assistance after forbearance than is possible through loss mitigation programs. Single- family rental property owners and other homeowners without a mortgage will also need assistance to avoid losing their homes due to foreclosures. The HAF would be able to help with other housing costs beyond mortgage payments, and can be used for things like principal reduction that are not offered through loss mitigation for federal mortgage programs but can provide deeper payment reductions for homeowners who need it.

Administered through the Department of the Treasury (Treasury), the HAF would provide nearly $10 billion for states, territories, and tribal governments to address the ongoing needs of homeowners struggling to afford their housing because they have experienced a financial hardship associated with the coronavirus pandemic. Designed to work alongside CARES Act mortgage forbearance relief and federal loss mitigation programs, the HAF will prevent foreclosures by providing homeowners direct assistance with their mortgage payments, property taxes, property insurance, utilities, and other housing related costs. The funding would be administered similar to the Hardest Hit Fund (HHF), which was a homeowner relief program created in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis that was administered primarily through State Housing Finance Agencies. While HHF funding was available to select states, the HAF has been calibrated to be available to all states, territories, and tribes, and to account for significantly higher rates of unemployment today as compared to 2008.

Of the nearly $10 billion dollars provided through the HAF, 60 percent of funds are required to serve homeowners making at or below 100 percent of the area median income or the national median income, whichever is higher. The flexibility in income determination between AMI and national median income is intended to ensure resources reach localities where the area median income may be too low to adequately serve struggling tribal homeowners and other homeowners living in rural areas. The remaining 40 percent of funds are not income limited and must be targeted to socially disadvantaged individuals, which the Committee expects will capture homeowners of color, including Black, Latinx, Asian, and Native American homeowners across the income spectrum who have been shown to be at disproportionate risk of being delinquent on their mortgages and at risk of foreclosure due to having lower savings and less wealth on average compared to White homeowners. According to the U.S. Census Bureau's weekly Pulse Survey data, Black, Latinx, and Asian homeowners have consistently been more than twice as likely as White homeowners, despite age, sex, income, and geography, to be behind on their mortgage payments. Similarly, a survey conducted by Fannie Mae found that 51 percent of Black homeowners and 65 percent of Latinx homeowners were not familiar with forbearance relief options provided through the CARES Act, despite being the populations with the greatest need.

The Committee expects that Treasury's implementation and administration of the Fund will include proper oversight and reporting requirements to monitor and ensure HAF funding properly reaches and serves the populations that have been documented to be experiencing disproportionate need during the current crisis. Adequate reporting should be made publicly available on a quarterly basis and include the types and amount of assistance provided, the terms of such assistance, with the data disaggregated by locality, race, ethnicity, sex, and other factors that provide transparency and oversight in accordance with the law. Such reporting will also be essential in Treasury's ability to implement the HAF Reallocation provision.

While the Department of Housing and Urban Development, in coordination with the Department of Justice, is responsible for the enforcement of the Fair Housing Act (FHAct), the FHAct requires that all federal housing programs and funds be administered in ways that affirmatively further fair housing and do not perpetuate historically inequitable distribution of housing funds. Therefore, both Treasury and eligible entities have a legal responsibility to affirmatively further fair housing through HAF, and to ensure that the administration of housing relief funds do not have a disparate impact on protected classes under the FHAct. The federal government must avoid its mistakes of the past that have resulted in the lopsided, inequitable provision of housing relief that fails to meet the needs of hardest hit communities that are often the lowest income communities and communities of color. In support of these efforts, Section 3208 provides $20 million for HUD's Fair Housing Initiatives Program to support housing discrimination complaint intake and on-the-ground fair housing investigations.

Additionally, Treasury must provide eligible entities with clear and standard guidance early on in its administration of HAF to facilitate proper and expeditious implementation. The Committee expects Treasury to clarify that assistance provided through HAF should not be considered income for a homeowner receiving relief. Additionally, Treasury should make sure it is made clear as early on as possible that eligible entities can utilize a portion of their HAF funds to establish and administer their programs, similar to what was allowed through HHF. The Committee also expects that the Treasury will allow eligible entities that overestimate funding needs for administrative purposes to transfer and use such funds in the provision of assistance to homeowners.

Following the 2008 financial crisis and Great Recession, Congress established the State Small Business Credit Initiative (SSBCI) that provided $1.5 billion to the Department of the

Treasury (Treasury) to fund various state, territory, and local small business loan and investment programs. This program was leveraged to support $10.7 billion in new financing to small businesses, helping to create or save more than 240,000 jobs. The median small business size supported by SSBCI had 3 full time employees, and the median loan or investment amount was $33,000. Approximately 41 percent of SSBCI supported transactions went to women or minority-owned businesses. This successful program expired in 2017.

In light of the widespread challenges small businesses, especially minority-owned businesses, have faced during the COVID-19 pandemic, Section 3301 would effectively reauthorize the SSBCI, providing $10 billion in federal funds to support up to $100 billion in new loans and investments for small businesses through state, territory, tribal, and local small business programs. This amount includes up to $2.5 billion in federal funds to support business enterprises owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, including minority-owned businesses. This amount also includes up to $500 million for tribal government programs, and $500 million to provide technical assistance to small businesses that need legal, accounting, financial and other kinds of advice in applying for small business support programs.

As the renewed SSBCI is stood up, the Treasury should provide adequate support to small businesses, especially very small businesses and those owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. Socially and economically disadvantaged individuals may include racial and ethnic minorities, women, indigenous people, veterans, or others who have been marginalized by their social or economic conditions. Additionally, through the program requirements Treasury is authorized to establish and through other means, the Committee expects Treasury to closely oversee states' expenditure of $2.5 billion funds that are to directly support businesses owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, including establishing a minimum level of support states and other jurisdictions receiving funds provide to these businesses.

In addition, the Treasury should require states to provide a specific plan to engage minority depository institutions (MDIs), community development financial institutions (CDFIs) and other mission-driven lenders who have a strong track record of supporting small and minority-owned businesses. Treasury should also require states to a COVID-19 pandemic response plan with their application, describing how the state will expeditiously utilize funds to support small businesses, including business enterprises owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, in responding to and recovering from the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, Treasury should also require states to agree that no lending activity supported by SSBCI funds would result in predatory lending, including charging interest rates in excess of 36 percent annual percentage rate under the Military Lending Act.

With respect to the technical assistance funds made available under Section 3301, Treasury should maximize the ability to deploy these funds to the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) at the Department of Commerce, which could expedite support to a network of business counselors, minority chambers of commerce and non-profit organizations that are already providing such services in their communities. Further, given research demonstrating that increasing employee ownership is one way to help narrow gender and racial wealth gaps, the Committee encourages Treasury to provide funds to states that use the funds to support state employee ownership centers that provide technical assistance to businesses, including providing resources on how small businesses can offer workers employee stock ownership plans.

Furthermore, the Committee expects that the Treasury will provide timely information regarding the use of these funds. The Treasury should require the gathering of data on program implementation, including but not limited to, demographics on program participants and interest rates assessed by lenders and investors. This data should be reported to the public and the appropriate congressional committees of jurisdiction, as well as shared with appropriate federal audit agencies, such as the Inspector General's office and the Government Accountability Office, for review.

The CARES Act, signed into law on March 27, 2020, established the Payroll Support Program (PSP), which provided $32 billion in payroll support for workers employed by airlines, cargo air carriers, and contractors servicing air carriers at airports. Through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, Congress approved the Payroll Support Program Extension (PSP2), which provided short-term relief to the same class of workers as PSP until March 31, 2021. According to some estimates, major U.S. airlines lost over $35 billion in 2020, and require additional assistance to support their workforce. Therefore, Section 7301 would provide $15 billion to further extend the Payroll Support Program (PSP3) through at least September 30, 2021, to provide payroll support for airline workers and related contract workers. Specifically, PSP3 would provide $14 billion to support workers of eligible air carriers, and $1 billion would be available to support workers of eligible contractors. Given the budget reconciliation process and the need to rely on the PSP2 distribution framework, the Committee urges Treasury to implement this program in a robust and fair manner so that all entities eligible for PSP2 and PSP3 are able to access the program and provide ongoing support for its workforce.

Like other businesses, airports and airport concessions have been hit hard during the pandemic. To help ensure those businesses and their workers get the support they need until the public health emergency is over and normal activity resumes, Section 7102 provides $8 billion in relief for airports, including at least $800 million to support airport concessions. In administering the program, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) should implement this program along with the relief program Congress enacted into law through the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriation Act on December 27, 2020, holistically and prioritize support for minority-owned businesses, including Airport Concession Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (ACDBEs). Moreover, Section 7102 recognizes the interconnected ecosystem that many airport concessions operate in, including through joint ventures and other partnerships with large airport concessions they receive indirect support from. As such, the FAA should support the full ecosystem while taking all necessary steps to ensure small and minority-owned concessions, regardless of the contractual arrangements those entities are a party to as an airport concession (e.g. joint venture, sub-tenant under a master lease or master developer, etc.), receive robust rent and fee abatement as expeditiously as possible. While Section 7102 provides airports with critical funding to support airport concessionaires, the amount appropriated is less than what stakeholders have indicated is necessary to support workers and promote stability during this difficult time. Given the key role concessionaires of all types provide to the traveling public and to airport finances, I encourage the FAA and other federal agencies to find ways to provide additional financial and other support to the airport concessions ecosystem during this challenging time.

Mr. Speaker, individuals, families and small businesses are in urgent need of assistance. This legislation delivers robust relief to communities across the country during this pandemic crisis. Colleagues, please join me and vote yes for H.R. 1319.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably delayed by a constituent on the phone. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 73.