[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THERE'S NO PRIDE IN PREJUDICE: ELIMINATING
BARRIERS TO FULL ECONOMIC INCLUSION
FOR THE LGBTQ+ COMMUNITY
=======================================================================
VIRTUAL HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DIVERSITY
AND INCLUSION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 9, 2021
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services
Serial No. 117-61
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
46-300 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
MAXINE WATERS, California, Chairwoman
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York PATRICK McHENRY, North Carolina,
NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York Ranking Member
BRAD SHERMAN, California FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York BILL POSEY, Florida
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
AL GREEN, Texas BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan
EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri ANN WAGNER, Missouri
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado ANDY BARR, Kentucky
JIM A. HIMES, Connecticut ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas
BILL FOSTER, Illinois FRENCH HILL, Arkansas
JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio TOM EMMER, Minnesota
JUAN VARGAS, California LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
JOSH GOTTHEIMER, New Jersey BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas ALEXANDER X. MOONEY, West Virginia
AL LAWSON, Florida WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio
MICHAEL SAN NICOLAS, Guam TED BUDD, North Carolina
CINDY AXNE, Iowa DAVID KUSTOFF, Tennessee
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois TREY HOLLINGSWORTH, Indiana
AYANNA PRESSLEY, Massachusetts ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
RITCHIE TORRES, New York JOHN ROSE, Tennessee
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin
ALMA ADAMS, North Carolina LANCE GOODEN, Texas
RASHIDA TLAIB, Michigan WILLIAM TIMMONS, South Carolina
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania VAN TAYLOR, Texas
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York PETE SESSIONS, Texas
JESUS ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
SYLVIA GARCIA, Texas
NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia
JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
Charla Ouertatani, Staff Director
Subcommittee on Diversity and Inclusion
JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio, Chairwoman
AYANNA PRESSLEY, Massachusetts ANN WAGNER, Missouri, Ranking
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts Member
RASHIDA TLAIB, Michigan FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania TED BUDD, North Carolina
SYLVIA GARCIA, Texas ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio, Vice
NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia Ranking Member
JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts JOHN ROSE, Tennessee
LANCE GOODEN, Texas
WILLIAM TIMMONS, South Carolina
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on:
November 9, 2021............................................. 1
Appendix:
November 9, 2021............................................. 23
WITNESSES
Tuesday, November 9, 2021
Johns, David J., Executive Director, National Black Justice
Coalition (NBJC)............................................... 4
Sears, Todd G., Founder & CEO, Out Leadership.................... 9
Walker, Tanya Asapansa-Johnson, Co-Founder, New York Transgender
Advocacy Group (NYTAG), and Group Facilitator, Transgender
Women's Support Group, SAGE.................................... 8
Watson, Spencer, President and Executive Director, Center for
LGBTQ Economic Advancement & Research (CLEAR).................. 6
APPENDIX
Prepared statements:
Johns, David J............................................... 24
Sears, Todd G................................................ 36
Walker, Tanya Asapansa-Johnson............................... 45
Watson, Spencer.............................................. 50
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Beatty, Hon. Joyce:
Written statement of the ACLU................................ 54
Written statement of the Human Rights Campaign............... 56
THERE'S NO PRIDE IN PREJUDICE:
ELIMINATING BARRIERS TO FULL
ECONOMIC INCLUSION FOR
THE LGBTQ+ COMMUNITY
----------
Tuesday, November 9, 2021
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Diversity
and Inclusion,
Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:05 p.m.,
via Webex, Hon. Joyce Beatty [chairwoman of the subcommittee]
presiding.
Members present: Representatives Beatty, Tlaib, Dean,
Garcia of Texas, Williams of Georgia, Auchincloss; Wagner, and
Gonzalez of Ohio.
Ex officio present: Representatives Waters and McHenry.
Chairwoman Beatty. The Subcommittee on Diversity and
Inclusion will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the subcommittee at any time. Also, without
objection, members of the full Financial Services Committee who
are not members of this subcommittee are authorized to
participate in this hearing.
Today's hearing is entitled, ``There's No Pride in
Prejudice: Eliminating Barriers to Full Economic Inclusion for
the LGBTQ+ Community.''
I now recognize myself for 4 minutes to give an opening
statement.
Good afternoon. I am pleased to convene the Subcommittee on
Diversity and Inclusion for this hearing entitled, ``There's No
Pride in Prejudice: Eliminating Barriers to Full Economic
Inclusion for the LGBTQ+ Community.''
In 27 States, there are no explicit Statewide laws
protecting people from discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation or gender identity in employment, housing, and
public accommodations.
And at the Federal level, there are no fair housing or
credit protections based on expressly sexual orientation or
gender identity. This puts many LGBTQ+ individuals at risk, and
youth at risk of experiencing chronic homelessness,
unemployment, or being unbanked.
We are a nation of many colors, a rainbow, if you will, and
today, we will explore the LGBTQ+ community and what it faces:
Systemic barriers to financial inclusion and employment simply
because of who they are.
Just the other day, I was at Metro High School, where young
students in a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) program had one of their categories as LGBTQ+, because
they understood the value of diversity. What a great preview
for today, for this hearing, and to have so many experts.
Today, we know it has been documented by a recent Gallup
poll of 2021 that 18 million adults are self-identified as
LGBTQ+ individuals. These are our family members, our
colleagues, and our friends. And every day, these individuals
face bigotry and discrimination, especially when it comes to
securing safe and stable housing.
I joined with my colleagues to pass H.R. 5, the Equality
Act, that would prohibit discrimination based on sex, sexual
orientation, and gender identity in any area, including
employment and housing. This bill is currently pending in the
Senate, but the founding principles in our community are clear:
All men and women are created equal and with inalienable rights
that one does not forfeit due to their sexual orientation or
identity.
Yesterday, there was also a young individual there who had
written an article on racism and diversity, and he stood so
proudly as he escorted adults to talk about the value of that.
You will hear more about this young man, as I talk to our
expert witnesses, and I will give you a quote by him as we talk
to our witnesses. But let me just say that we have a lot to
learn about this agenda, and I certainly look forward to the
testimony of our witnesses, who will not only enumerate the
depth of the challenges, but also share comprehensive solutions
to help our country live up to its values.
Now, I yield back the rest of my time, and it is my honor
as the Chair to recognize the ranking member of the
subcommittee, my friend and my colleague, Congresswoman Ann
Wagner, for 4 minutes for an opening statement.
Mrs. Wagner. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I want to
thank all of our witnesses for joining us today as we examine
policies that promote economic success for all Americans,
Federal protections against discrimination, the benefits of a
diverse workforce, and the ways in which corporate culture
shifts that create a more inclusive environment are proving
effective throughout the private sector, including the
financial services sector.
Research shows that companies with more diverse workforces
outperform their less-diverse competitors. Specifically,
companies that implement inclusive workplace practices saw an
average of a 6.5-percent increase in stock performance,
compared to industry peers. Additionally, inclusive companies
are able to better attract talented candidates and to retain
their workforce. A 2017 study by Deloitte found that 80 percent
of respondents said that workplace inclusion was an important
factor when choosing an employer, and the business community
has taken notice.
In this subcommittee, we have discussed ways that a
business can improve retention and develop a more inclusive
workplace. Those best practices include transparency regarding
salaries and promotion opportunities, mentoring and sponsorship
programs, employee resource groups, and flexible work hours for
working mothers and families, to name just a few. I believe
that every American should have equal access to economic
opportunities, and I look forward to hearing from today's
witnesses.
I would now like to take this opportunity to yield 1 minute
to my friend and colleague from North Carolina, the ranking
member of the full Financial Services Committee, Mr. Patrick
McHenry.
Mr. McHenry. Thank you, Ranking Member Wagner. I certainly
appreciate your leadership on these very important issues and
how we, more importantly, drive inclusion across our economy.
The promise of the American Dream is that if you work hard
and you play by the rules, you can achieve success.
Unfortunately, we know that dream is not a reality for
everyone. And where we find barriers to economic inclusion, we
must knock them down. Where we find discrimination, we must
eliminate it. Every American deserves access to the
opportunities, tools, and services that can make the American
Dream a reality.
I want to thank our witnesses for being here, and I thank
the ranking member for yielding.
And I want to thank the Chair for holding the hearing.
I yield back.
Mrs. Wagner. Thank you. I thank the ranking member, and I
yield back the balance of my time to the Chair. Thank you.
Chairwoman Beatty. Thank you so much. I now have the great
honor of recognizing the Chair of the Full Committee, the
gentlewoman from California, the Honorable Chairwoman Maxine
Waters, for 1 minute.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you so very much for holding this
important hearing, Chairwoman Beatty.
The fight for LGBTQ+ rights is far from over. While same-
sex marriage and other milestones of LGBTQ+ equality have
become a reality within the last 10 years, this community still
faces discriminatory barriers and financial burdens.
For example, data shows that individuals within the LGBTQ+
community often have more trouble finding affordable, safe, and
equitable housing. Across America, an estimated 20 to 40
percent of homeless youth identify as LGBTQ+. Additionally, the
LGBTQ+ community faces difficulties in accessing employment
opportunities and being positively included in workplace
environments compared to other heterosexual and cisgender
counterparts. I am proud that this committee is ensuring that
these kinds of disparate impacts are not tolerated.
Thank you again, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Beatty. I thank our chairwoman.
Now, we will welcome the testimony of our distinguished
witnesses: David Johns, the executive director of the National
Black Justice Coalition; Spencer Watson, the president and
executive director of the Center for LGBTQ Economic Advancement
and Research; Tanya Asapansa-Johnson Walker, the co-founder of
the New York Transgender Advocacy Group, and the facilitator of
the Transgender Women's Support Group, SAGE; and Todd Sears,
the founder and CEO of Out Leadership.
The witnesses are reminded that their oral testimony will
be limited to 5 minutes. You should be able to see a timer on
your screen that will indicate how much time you have left.
When you have 1 minute remaining, a yellow light will appear. I
would ask that you be mindful of the timer, and when the red
light appears, to quickly wrap up your testimony so we can be
respectful of both the other witnesses' and the subcommittee
members' time.
And without objection, your written statements will be made
a part of the record.
Mr. Johns, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to give an
oral presentation of your testimony.
STATEMENT OF DAVID J. JOHNS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL BLACK
JUSTICE COALITION (NBJC)
Mr. Johns. Thank you, Chairwoman Beatty, Ranking Member
Wagner, and members of the subcommittee, for allowing me this
opportunity.
My name, as has been said, is David Johns, and it is my
honor to serve as the executive director of the National Black
Justice Coalition (NBJC), the nation's most preeminent civil
rights organization focused on empowering Black LGBTQ+ and
same-gender-loving people, families, and communities.
If there is one thing I want the subcommittee to hear me
say, it is that while the beautifully-diverse Black community
is burdened by the problems caused by racism, Black people with
intersectional identities are often confronted with additional
nuanced challenges, too often neglected and ignored. I will not
read my written testimony, but I think it is important to
highlight three things.
First, students who are or who are assumed to be LGBTQ+
lack the protections afforded to their peers, and the
challenges they face in schools make it difficult for them to
be happy, healthy, and successful later in life. My doctoral
dissertation entitled, ``By Any Means Necessary: Supporting the
Learning & Development of Black LGBTQ+/SGL Public School
Students in the United States,'' calls for increased
investments in school- and community-based support for LGBTQ+
youth, and national, interoperable data sets which acknowledge
that many of us have intersectional identities that shape how
we experience public institutions like schools in powerful
ways.
When I think about this, I often think about Hope, an Afro-
Latinx trans student who describes her middle- and high-school
years as, ``treacherous.'' When Hope was beaten in a school
hallway by three unidentified classmates, surrounded by peers
who laughed at the sight of blood painting her face and the
floor, she was suspended until she could prevent the abuse by
changing her identity. As a former classroom teacher, I know
that students cannot demonstrate what they know and have
learned if they do not feel safe. And we know, based on data
collected with our colleagues at the Gay, Lesbian, & Straight
Education Network (GLSEN), that Black LGBTQ+ students find
schools to be hostile and unwelcoming spaces, which often
results in them failing to develop the skills, experiences, and
relationships needed to be successful later in life.
Second, as you know, what happens to students in schools
has a profound impact upon life opportunities and outcomes,
especially Black lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer,
intersex, asexual (LGBTQIA+) and same-gender-loving youth, who
are often forced to begin their journey into adulthood early.
As a result of familial and social rejection, LGBTQ+ young
people are overrepresented amongst homeless and foster youth,
and Black LGBTQ+ are significantly overrepresented in both of
these spaces. Young people experiencing housing instability are
less likely to complete school, making it difficult to find
success as an entrepreneur or to obtain a good job.
At the Black Institute 2021, an event that NBJC hosts
annually, members of our community described being denied
interviews, being let go or laid off, and being denied
promotion opportunities.
And when discrimination occurs only due to race, gender, or
sexual orientation or gender identity, thanks to the recent
U.S. Supreme Court Bostock decision, filing an EEOC claim is an
option. However, when one experiences employment discrimination
or other forms of discrimination based on race and sexual
orientation or more, the pathway to Federal legal remedy for
harm is more complicated and not plausible at all. It is
imperative that we close this legal loophole created by not
protecting people discriminated against due to marginalized
intersectional identities.
And I thank those of you who voted for the Equality Act.
Once codified, the Equality Act will aid in addressing this
legal loophole. The Equality Act is also important when
considering how home ownership and housing stability facilitate
economic stability in the United States. More than half of the
States throughout our country still lack laws explicitly
banning housing discrimination against LGBTQ+ Americans. We
often face discrimination when working with real estate agents,
requesting loans for housing, and when seeking shelter.
NBJC's Deputy Executive Director for Programs and Policy,
Victoria Kirby York, experienced housing discrimination when
moving from Florida to Maryland. After meeting with a REALTOR
to tour a condo in Maryland, she and her wife were assured that
an apartment was available and that they possessed the
qualifying credit score. And it was only during a post-tour
conversation when the two women referenced each other as
spouses, which made it clear that they were not simply friends
splitting the rent, that the REALTOR then ceased all
conversation between the property owner and the couple.
After that painful experience, Victoria and her wife, who
is a homelessness prevention social worker, decided to purchase
a home. And, during their housing search, they received
dramatically different home mortgage interest rates from banks.
As many of you know, an APR of 4.25 percent, compared to 3.25
percent, makes a significant difference in how much an FHA loan
will cost after 30 years. Their credit score or financial
situations did not change during this process, only the
institution and the persons processing their applications.
To be clear, the Equality Act would provide a Federal
remedy for couples like the Yorks, and single members of our
community seeking housing security and stability. And, while
protections based on race exist, Federal law does not
explicitly protect same-gender-loving couples or spouses from
housing discrimination. Poverty and toxic stress caused by
housing, food, and employment instability and insecurity
increases the likelihood of significant physical, mental, and
emotional challenges, and collectively, we have witnessed this
sequence of actions cripple communities for generations.
Leveling the playing field to ensure that every American
has economic opportunities is essential to preserving our
democracy, and it is especially important for Black LGBTQ+ and
same-gender-loving people and communities, who
disproportionately struggle economically, often through no
fault of our own.
I hope that somewhere in between these words, I have made
clear the need to eliminate barriers for full economic
inclusion for Black and LGBTQ--
Chairwoman Beatty. Thank you. The gentleman's time has
expired. Thank you so much, Mr. Johns.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johns can be found on page
24 of the appendix.]
Chairwoman Beatty. Mx. Watson, you are now recognized for 5
minutes to give an oral presentation of your testimony.
STATEMENT OF SPENCER WATSON, PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
CENTER FOR LGBTQ ECONOMIC ADVANCEMENT & RESEARCH (CLEAR)
Mx. Watson. Thank you, Chairwoman Beatty, Ranking Member
Wagner, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify at today's hearing. My name is Spencer
Watson, and I am the founder, president, and executive director
of the Center for LGBTQ Economic Advancement and Research, or
CLEAR. In my testimony today, I will be sharing some of the
most current knowledge about financial well-being and economic
opportunities for LGBTQ people and the current state of the
LGBTQ wealth gap.
Like other underserved communities, the LGBTQ people
experience a wealth gap as compared to heterosexual and
cisgendered peers. LGBTQ people report smaller incomes than
non-LGBTQ people do and are more likely to live in poverty than
non-LGBTQ people. One in five LGBTQ adults in the United States
in 2019 reported earning less than $25,000 a year, which is 1.5
times more often than for non-LGBTQ people. And 1 in 20
reported earning less than $5,000 a year, which was 2.5 times
more often than for non-LGBTQ adults. Transgender people are 4
times more likely to make less than $10,000 a year than the
general population.
To bridge the gap between their income and their expenses,
LGBTQ people are more likely to make use of government benefits
and other sources of financial support than are non-LGBTQ
people. LGBTQ people are 1.8 times more likely to make use of
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, than
non-LGBTQ adults, and are 2 times more likely to make use of
government housing assistance programs.
LGBTQ people are more likely to be unemployed or
underemployed than are non-LGBTQ people. In 2019, LGBTQ adults
were 1.8 times more likely to report that they were unemployed
and looking for work than non-LGBTQ adults. And one-third of
LGBTQ adults who were employed said that they had wanted to
work more in the previous month. Employment gaps particularly
affect younger LGBTQ adults. One in 10 LGBTQ adults aged 18- to
29-years-old were unemployed and looking for work, which was
much more often than for non-LGBTQ peers.
LGBTQ people are also less likely to have adequate
insurance coverage than are non-LGBTQ people. One in 10 LGBTQ
adults did not have health insurance in 2019, 1.5 times more
often than non-LGBTQ adults, and more than one in six Black and
Hispanic LGBTQ adults did not have health insurance coverage.
Insurers are also less likely to offer inclusive plans that
cover LGBTQ people's unique health needs, including gender-
affirming care, and family formation costs such as in vitro
fertilization and surrogacy. And the lack of adequate insurance
coverage forces many LGBTQ people to forego needed healthcare
and to also pay more out-of-pocket for the healthcare that they
do receive. One in five LGBTQ adults without insurance who paid
out of pocket for their health care paid more than $5,000,
which was 1.8 times more often than for non-LGBTQ adults.
Although home ownership is frequently regarded as a
principal way for U.S. households to build their wealth and
financial security, LGBTQ people are less likely to obtain the
benefits of home ownership because they are less likely to own
their homes. Less than half of LGBTQ adults owned their home in
2019, as compared to around two-thirds of non-LGBTQ adults. And
those who do own their homes are more likely to be repaying
their mortgage instead of owning their home in full. LGBTQ
renters were more likely to report that they did not own a home
because they could not afford a down payment or they did not
think that they would qualify for a mortgage. And LGBTQ women
and people of color are even less likely to own their homes. In
2019, only 43 percent of LGBTQ women owned their home, and less
than a third of Black LGBTQ adults owned their home.
LGBTQ households are also more likely to be unbanked and
underbanked than non-LGBTQ households. In 2019, LGBTQ
households were 1.6 times more likely to be unbanked and were
also more likely to be underbanked. Overall, more than one in
five LGBTQ adults were unbanked or underbanked in 2019.
Inadequate access to traditional financial services means that
LGBTQ people are more likely to make use of alternative
financial services such as check cashers, payday loans, pawn
shops, and title lenders. In 2019, one in five LGBTQ households
had used one or more alternative financial services in the
previous year, which is 1.25 times more often than non-LGBTQ
adults.
LGBTQ people are also more likely to apply for credit, but
they are also more likely, when they do apply, to have their
applications for credit rejected. Over a third of the LGBTQ
people who applied for credit in 2019 had their applications
rejected, and they were also 1.25 times more likely to be
offered less credit than they had wanted. Transgender and
gender-nonconforming people are also likely to experience
difficulties with their credit reports when they change their
names.
And so, I want to highlight the fact that the LGBTQ
community is not a monolith, and LGBTQ people come from
different racial, social, economic, and cultural backgrounds
that affect their economic--
Chairwoman Beatty. Thank you. Your time has expired, but
thank you very much for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mx. Watson can be found on page
50 of the appendix.]
Chairwoman Beatty. Ms. Walker, you are now recognized for 5
minutes to give an oral presentation of your testimony.
STATEMENT OF TANYA ASAPANSA-JOHNSON WALKER, CO-FOUNDER, NEW
YORK TRANSGENDER ADVOCACY GROUP (NYTAG), AND GROUP FACILITATOR,
TRANSGENDER WOMEN'S SUPPORT GROUP, SAGE
Ms. Walker. Thank you. Hello, members of the subcommittee,
and thank you for holding this hearing on an issue that I
believe impacts the entire LGBTQ community, or lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning community, but it
especially affects those who are transgender, gender-
nonconforming, and nonbinary, or TGNCNB.
I am a proud Black transgender woman. I am a combat
engineer Army veteran, and my past has not been an easy one.
Despite suffering harassment and abuse verbally, physically,
and sexually in the Army, I received an honorable discharge in
1984.
I went on to study social work at the College of Staten
Island (CSI), where I was constantly misgendered by my
professors and was eventually run off the campus for protesting
for an out lesbian judge, Judge Karen Bernstein, in 1994,
against remarks by the borough president, Guy V. Molinari, that
because she was an out lesbian, she wasn't fit to serve as
attorney general of New York State. I was forced to leave
college, and I wasn't able to finish my education. I was forced
to leave school abruptly. I was the leader of the lesbian and
gay group at CSI. I protested for the judge and was then called
all kinds of names. A couple of carloads of students rode up to
me and called me all kinds of gay epithets, and so I wasn't
able to complete my education as a social worker.
In 1988, I was severely injured in a car accident, which
served as a catalyst for me to come to terms with my identity
as a woman, and I decided that life is too short for me to live
unauthentically. I tried to find medical care to assist with my
transition but was turned away, laughed at, and, at times,
declared mentally ill. One of my doctors called me
schizophrenic and prescribed me pills for a condition I didn't
have. From 1990 through 2010, it was virtually impossible to
find doctors or other medical providers who did not overtly
reject or minimize my issues. They even ridiculed and mocked me
for my gender identity. I have been laughed at, misgendered,
and dead-named, which is calling me by the name that was given
to me at birth. So, that was often a problem in my life.
This impacted my life greatly, not only with healthcare,
but with my ability to find work and safe housing. Many of my
friends and I were unable to find employment because people
would not hire transgender folks. Despite being a combat
engineer veteran, I was forced to rely on food pantries and
kitchens throughout my adult life. I had a lot of problems
finding hormones and had to resort to the streets to find them.
Today, I am here to advocate for adequate housing for trans
folks, who are often misgendered and not able to live
authentically and not self-actualized in society, as in Abraham
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. I am here to advocate for the
Equality Act and full inclusion of transgender folks into this
arena.
Health and finances also impact one's ability to find
affordable, safe housing. I, myself, have been turned away
several times and discriminated against when seeking housing.
And I have heard horror stories from my friends, both through
my work at Housing Works, but also through TGNC folks all
around New York State.
Transgender women either get physically and verbally abused
when in female shelters, being told they are men and do not
belong, or they get physically assaulted, verbally assaulted,
or sexually assaulted. I am here to help get safer spaces
created for TGNC people, demanding that there be cultural
sensitivity training for all staff, and even folks doing
business with the shelters.
Chairwoman Beatty. I'm sorry, your time has expired, Ms.
Walker, and thank you for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Walker can be found on page
45 of the appendix.]
Chairwoman Beatty. And Mr. Sears, you are now recognized
for 5 minutes to give an oral presentation of your testimony.
STATEMENT OF TODD G. SEARS, FOUNDER & CEO, OUT LEADERSHIP
Mr. Sears. Thank you very much. Chairwoman Beatty, Ranking
Member Wagner, Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member McHenry, and
distinguished members of this subcommittee, I want to really
thank you for holding this important hearing today.
I sit before you today as a proud, openly gay American, a
former investment and private banker, a former chief diversity
offer, and now the founding CEO of Out Leadership, a B
corporation, and the very first company in the history of the
United States whose sole product is equality. Our 88 member
companies are predominantly American and employ over 7 million
Americans in every State in this country.
Distinguished members of this committee, my work with over
1,000 CEOs and hundreds of businesses in the last 20 years has
shown me that LGBTQ equality and inclusion should not be
political. It is neither a Democrat nor a Republican issue.
Equality is a business issue, and it impacts every American,
gay or straight, and it reaches every corner of the economy of
our great nation.
Since 2008, every study has shown that stock prices of
LGBTQ-friendly companies outperform their peers from 6.5 to
almost 9 percent. Additionally, LGBTQ-inclusive U.S. companies
have higher income for employees, more patents, more
trademarks, and more copyrights, as well as much higher overall
engagement and retention than their less-inclusive companies
and counterparts.
Unfortunately, due to the absence of Federal protections
for LGBTQ people, the positive benefits of inclusion are not
felt universally in the United States, leaving the costly
burden to individual companies to navigate a patchwork of State
laws. Recent Out Leadership research revealed that almost one-
third of LGBTQ people will take a pay cut to move from one
State to another State that has more favorable treatment of
LGBTQ workers.
Diversity efforts have to be inclusive. Time and again,
countless Federal and State bills are introduced to promote
diversity, inclusion, and disclosure that completely omit and
exclude the LGBTQ community. LGBTQ people are still not a
federally-protected category, as was mentioned earlier today,
and that is something most Americans actually don't know.
Importantly, as my fellow witnesses have noted today,
racial justice and gender equality must continue to be a core
and inseparable part of the fight for LGBTQ equality. The most
vulnerable LGBTQ households in America hold multiple
intersectional identities, and that compounds the burden of
discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity
that they experience.
Post-pandemic data shows that LGBTQ households report
economic outcomes that are 2 times worse than heterosexual and
cisgender peers, including food insecurity, unemployment,
eviction, and difficulty paying for household expenses, with
LGBTQ Americans of color suffering the greatest impact.
This past year, Out Leadership has championed 3 bills at
the Federal level: H.R. 1187 on inclusive governance; H.R. 1443
on LGBTQ access to credit; and, of course, the Equality Act,
which passed the House of Representatives earlier this year.
And I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the
leadership of this committee and thank you for your work on
this important bill.
But, on behalf of the members of Out Leadership and the
entire business community, we advocate specifically for the
following: First and foremost, the passage of the Equality Act.
Without it, LGBTQ people will continue to be subject to State-
level discrimination and the constant chipping away of Federal
protections, even as we saw just last week from a Federal judge
around Title IX.
Second, the expansion of diversity definitions for board
diversity and disclosure mandates to be LGBTQ-exclusive and
intersectional for all regulated entities and businesses in the
United States. Currently, just 19 of the Fortune 500 companies
include LGBTQ leaders in the definition of board diversity, and
that has resulted in just 29 out board members, or half a
percent of the entire Fortune 500.
Third, we advocate for the inclusion of data collection on
the LGBTQ community and all Federal Government data collection
surveys as we have just recently seen with the U.S. Census. If
we count, we matter.
Fourth, a commitment to the freedom of religion, that does
not include a religious right to discriminate.
And finally, the promotion of economic security and
financial stability of LGBTQ people by fostering inclusive
labor practices and workplace policies that include access to
credit and capital.
Distinguished committee members, LGBTQ-inclusive diversity
is just simply good for business: 25 years of research has
shown us that companies with LGBTQ inclusive policies
outperform their peers on every measure of success from
increased engagement to decreased turnover to innovation to
stock price. In a market economy, businesses must invest in
activities that are in their economic best interests, and
LGBTQ-inclusive diversity fits that bill.
There are clear economic consequences to discrimination as
well, which is why 92 percent of the Fortune 500 already
protect their LGBTQ employees, and thousands of U.S. companies
have invested in equality, diversity, and inclusion.
But individual companies can only do so much. Structural
challenges that remain must be addressed by the Federal
Government and, importantly, this very committee. The patchwork
of State laws across 29 States where LGBTQ Americans are not
protected stands in the way of progress. I ask this committee
to undertake this important work, and Out Leadership and our
company stands ready to support you in it.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear today, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sears can be found on page
36 of the appendix.]
Chairwoman Beatty. Thank you so much, Mr. Sears, and all of
the expert witnesses today. I cannot tell you how informative,
how needed, and how impressive you all were in providing
information to us.
And, with that said, I now recognize myself for 5 minutes
for questions.
We have heard a lot about the exclusion and the impact as
it relates to employment, as it relates to housing, as it
relates to finances and a whole host of things. Earlier in my
opening statement, I talked about being at the Metro High
School. There was a young Black man who came up to me, whom I
had mentored, and he shared his experiences over the last few
years. And I want to thank him for his work, and thank him for
his paper, and writing about how we are still dealing with
racism and how we are still evaluating the efficacy of
initiatives.
And let me share with everyone this quote. He said, ``For
example, financial support of the initiatives is not always
present in the amount that is needed.'' And we heard that from
you.
One of the most frequently-reported suggestions for better
efficacy and equity is better and more commitment to financial
support of the initiatives over a long period of time. We need
to give more support to our topic today. And, hopefully, this
is just opening the door.
With that, let me ask Mx. Watson, there are individuals in
the LGBTQ+ community who feel alienated from accessing
traditional financial services due to implicit and explicit
biases from bank employees. Could you recommend some
suggestions or practices that financial institutions can employ
or create to be more inclusive?
Mx. Watson. As you have mentioned, LGBTQ people, and
particularly transgender and gender-nonconforming people, do
experience harassing and insensitive treatment frequently from
customer service representatives and from financial
professionals when they seek financial services. And, in order
to address that, I do think that it would behoove many
financial firms and other professionals to engage in cultural
competency training in order to increase their understanding
and awareness of LGBTQ people's identities and how to provide
sensitive and affirming services for them.
Chairwoman Beatty. Thank you.
Ms. Walker, at the Federal level, there are no fair housing
or credit protections based on sexual orientation or gender
identity. Can you share with us if you have had any experiences
with LGBTQ+ individuals [inaudible] due to the absence of these
protections?
Ms. Walker. Yes. Many trans people are denied because their
name might not match their documents, and they can be refused
housing for that. And most staff do not have cultural
sensitivity training and are not prepared to meet with the
transgender person. Some of the ignorance against transgender
people is willful ignorance, and they misgender trans people,
which I would consider hate speech. I think more ongoing
cultural sensitivity training to handle TGNC customers would be
appropriate. And also to change the documentation, change it in
the computer. And it is very important to start collecting data
on us. Currently, data is not being collected on the TGNCNB
community.
Chairwoman Beatty. Thank you, Ms. Walker.
Mr. Johns, there is a poll from the Human Rights Campaign
which revealed that the COVID-19 pandemic positioned many
LGBTQ+ individuals at a greater risk of being unemployed. Any
comments on that?
Mr. Johns. Yes. We should be clear that Black people
generally, and Black LGBTQIA people are most likely to be
unemployed or underemployed or show up in spaces where we are
exposed to the greatest level of risk. So, providing resources,
including loan forgiveness and other forms of reparation and
support, is incredibly important while we continue to work
through the pandemic.
Chairwoman Beatty. Thank you so much, and my time is up.
At this time, I would like to go to the gentlewoman from
Missouri, Mrs. Wagner, who is now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Wagner. I thank the Chair.
Mr. Sears, could you elaborate and tell me why access to
credit is important in achieving economic freedom and
prosperity? Just in general, before we set the table here.
Mr. Sears. Sure. Thank you for the question, and thank you
for your support of this work. I don't think 5 minutes is going
to give us nearly enough time to adequately answer that
question, unfortunately.
As my colleagues have noted, access to capital in our
country is the underpinning of literally everything that moves
our economy. If LGBTQ people can't have access to mortgages, we
can't own homes. If we end up paying more on APR, as my
colleague Spencer mentioned, we are literally being taken
advantage of by the system.
And so, if we look at even the bill that is under
discussion, it is about reporting. It is about making sure
LGBTQ people are listed in that definition of diversity so that
we can measure access to credit and housing, and how that
impacts our economic outcomes.
Mrs. Wagner. And, Mr. Sears, how can our financial
institutions build relationships to foster financial literacy,
for instance?
Mr. Sears. Interestingly, they have been for many, many
years. One of my favorite programs was at Merrill Lynch many
years ago, called Investing Pays Off (IPO). That was started
almost 25 years ago on the idea, actually, that Charlie
Merrill, who was the founder of Merrill Lynch, started when he
would write to widows of World War II veterans and offer advice
for how they could invest in their pensions. And so, the
opportunity for these financial institutions to expand what
they have been doing for many years, I think is significant,
and they actually are doing it.
If you look at Investing Pays Off for Merrill, or 10,000
Small Businesses from Goldman Sachs, there are significant
investments these companies are making, but the challenge is
that we don't have the numbers. We don't have the ability for
these institutions to provide the access because we are not
counted as an LGBTQ community. If Goldman wants to expand their
10,000 Small Businesses to focus on LGBTQ small businesses, the
National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce is the only place
they can go for that data. The Federal Government does not have
that data. So, once we can actually count, then we can start to
be a part of it, yes.
Mrs. Wagner. I thank you for that statement, and that,
then, kind of tees things up for Mx. Watson, because you talk,
Mx. Watson, about data collection. And can you elaborate on
that a little bit more, as Mr. Sears has just kind of teed up
here?
Mx. Watson. Yes. There is a significant information gap
about LGBTQ people because there is inadequate data collection
of sexual orientation and gender identity in Federal surveys.
So, it is important for all of the data collections where we
are examining economic well-being, but really just our
communities overall, that we include questions that ask people
about their gender identity and their sex as assigned at birth
and their sexual orientation. And that would vastly improve our
understanding of the unique circumstances that LGBTQ people
experience.
And, also, it is important to include these in enforcement
data collections, such as the Mortgage Disclosure Act or the
forthcoming 1071 data collection for small businesses.
Mrs. Wagner. Thank you.
And, Mr. Sears, what steps can financial institutions take
to support the unbanked and underbanked communities? What are
some of your thoughts in that arena?
Mr. Sears. At the very least, looking at the policies. One
of my colleagues mentioned that LGBTQ people are still excluded
from so many policies. I would use HSBC Life as a great
example. They rewrote the definition of insurable interest to
expand that definition to include LGBTQ families, including in
places like Asia where gay couples sill have no relationship
recognition.
And, if you look at the policies through every single of
these financial institutions, there are significant
opportunities to identify those exact same areas. If we are not
counted in how these companies approach, then they are not
going to be able to actually include us across-the-board.
Mrs. Wagner. Right. Thank you very much. And thank you all
for your testimony here today.
Madam Chairwoman, I will yield back the brief time that I
have left. Thank you.
Chairwoman Beatty. And thank you so much.
That was our Ranking Member, Congresswoman Ann Waters--
Congresswoman Ann Wagner.
And I am saying, ``Waters,'' because I now see that our
Chair of the full Financial Services Committee is in the room.
And so, at this time, it gives me great pleasure to yield to
Chairwoman Waters.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much, Mrs. Beatty. I
appreciate the opportunity.
And I just wanted to make clear that, in March of 2021, the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued an
interpretive rule which clarified that the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act (ECOA), which outlaws discrimination in lending
and credit decisions, absolutely includes protections against
sexual orientation discrimination and gender identity
discrimination.
I just want to go further with a question about housing
barriers. A large body of research, as I think has been
indicated, demonstrates that discrimination threatens access to
housing and the stability of individuals in the LGBTQ+
community. Members of the LGBTQ+ community are more likely to
experience homelessness while enduring discrimination and
harassment that extends their length of homelessness.
There are approximately 8,900 homeless youth in Los Angeles
County identifying as LGBTQ. Transgender individuals in
particular are at an increased risk for violence and
discrimination, which keeps them from accessing necessary
shelter and services. In April, HUD issued program guidance on
supporting inclusive housing and shelters for transgender
people, which includes using transgender-inclusive language,
intervening in conflicts to promote safety, and holding staff
and residents accountable for behavior within shelters.
I just want to go to a point of discussion that was not
necessarily included in this discussion. And I don't think
that, when our witnesses came today, they were asked to include
any information about something that is happening in our
society today as it relates to transgender. There is a
discussion going on right now, a big discussion, and it is
about, ``The Closer,'' and it is about David Chappelle, and it
is about a woman that we learned about who committed suicide
after identifying and working with and opening a show that she
had been invited to participate in by David Chappelle. And I
have really sad thoughts about her. I think her name is Daphne,
and it is Dorman, and I tear up when I think about her.
And, of course, David Chappelle is a brilliant comedian,
and there is this discussion going on, and I am trying to
listen to everything that has been said from the transgender
community or from David Chappelle, on and on and on. I don't
want to get into that today, but I don't want us to pretend
that this is not going on and that we are only concerned about
the housing and the homelessness and all of that. We are
concerned about all of that, but we are also concerned about
another kind of discussion that is going on.
And, while I am not going to ask any particular questions
about it today, I would ask Ms. Tanya Asapansa-Johnson Walker
to please give me a call, and I will arrange a meeting with
myself and Mrs. Beatty, because I want to talk to you, and I
want you to share with me what is going on, what you think,
what you feel, and in what way we can show our concern.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Beatty. Thank you so much to Chairwoman Waters
for extending that invitation. Again, thank you.
The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Gonzalez, is now recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gonzalez of Ohio. Thank you, Chairwoman Beatty and
Ranking Member Wagner, for holding this hearing today, and
thank you to our witnesses for joining us today. Thank you for
sharing your stories, and how they have impacted not only your
lives, but also the lives of the communities for whom you so
passionately advocate. The work you continue to do to advocate
for those in similar situations is admirable.
I think it is fair to say, I certainly hope so, that no one
on this committee or subcommittee condones any sort of racism,
hate, or discrimination. I believe that. I believe that people
should not have to live in fear of any kind of violence being
perpetrated toward them because of who they are.
Additionally, I want to extend my thanks to Ms. Walker.
Veterans Day is coming up, and you served our country quite
admirably. And I have always believed we owe our deepest
[inaudible] big sacrifice and one for which we are grateful.
So, I want to thank you for that.
In the United States, I think that all people should have
access to economic opportunities to create a better future for
themselves and their loved ones. That is one of my top
priorities here in Congress and on this committee, is how do we
empower more families, no matter what background you come from,
to make sure that everybody has an opportunity for the American
Dream.
I am the son of immigrants. My family, my father immigrated
here from Cuba in the 1960s and certainly had to overcome
barriers throughout his life, and we want to make sure on this
committee that we eliminate as many of those barriers as
humanly possible for everybody.
And, with that, I have proudly supported home ownership
legislation as one of those initiatives. I have been supportive
of legislation that would extend protections to people who are
discriminated against based on sex or sexual orientation. No
one should be denied housing access because of their sexual
orientation or gender identity. I simply don't believe that is
right. It is my hope that we can hear more on that topic and
find effective bipartisan solutions where problems may exist.
Ms. Walker, I want to start with you. I think you mentioned
as well in your testimony--you provided a list of ideas that
HUD could implement to best benefit the LGBTQ+ community,
particularly elders. One way was to provide guidance to
community partners and share best practices. Could you detail
for our committee just what some of that guidance could look
like? And what are the best practices that you think would have
the biggest impact for these communities?
Ms. Walker. First of all, definitely, we need cultural
sensitivity training for all staff and folks doing business
with shelters. We need fully-staffed supportive housing with
social workers, mental health professionals, and medical care
on staff. We also need transitional and permanent housing to
help address the needs of our community. So, we need wraparound
services, I would say, in these shelters and in this
transitional housing to adequately provide for the TGNCNB
community at this point.
Mr. Gonzalez of Ohio. Just as a follow-up, on the
sensitivity training side, I think that makes a lot of sense.
My question is, when confronted with some of the challenges in
the shelters with folks who may not be--they may not be making
folks feel as welcome as they otherwise should--is it your
belief that it is what I would call sort of accidental
ignorance, like, ``Hey, I just don't know exactly what to say
and do in this situation; I don't want to be offensive, but I
don't really know?'' Or do you think it is more willful
discrimination or sort of a combo of both?
Ms. Walker. I believe it is a combo of both, and a lack of
cultural sensitivity training. I think, during COVID, trans
people who were in the shelter were allowed to stay in their
own room. I thought that was wonderful, and I like that model,
and I think we should keep that model. Transgender people are
not safe in single-sex shelters. I believe that if trans people
are housed in their own rooms, it is safer for them.
And I think that they should have wraparound services in
these shelters to help transgender folks succeed in society and
not have to return to the shelter, but also to have life skills
training available so they will learn how to balance a
checkbook, how to do credit, how to do--
Chairwoman Beatty. The gentleman's time has expired, but
thank you.
And I have a feeling we are going to be coming back and
asking you a lot of questions again. Thank you.
And, with that, the gentlewoman from Michigan, Ms. Tlaib,
is now recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Tlaib. [Inaudible] pathway to bring many of your lived
experiences to Congress. It is very much missing here, and so I
appreciate all of you so much for speaking this truth, again,
that is missing in Congress.
I want to--give me some time to kind of go down some facts
that I think are important. One fact is that an average of only
about 49 percent of LGBTQ+ Americans own a home, which is far
less than the overall average, which I think is 64 percent.
These stats are even lower for LGBTQ+ people of color: 35
percent for LGBTQ Latino Americans; and 30 percent for LGBTQ
Black Americans.
Another fact which I think is really dramatic is that
LGBTQ+ couples are 73 percent more likely to be denied
residential mortgages compared to their peers, which I know
Chairwoman Waters wants to hear about.
The other fact is the National Transgender Discrimination
Survey found that among transgender individuals of color, 56
percent of Native Americans, 52 percent of Black folks, and 51
percent of Latinx respondents moved into a less desirable home
or apartment because of anti-transgender bias forced on them
again, even though they could have had, and wanted, better
housing.
These are just a few of countless statistics that I think
are really important. I hate [inaudible] statistics, but this
is lived experiences, real lives. But, as you can all see, and
for many of my colleagues, housing discrimination against our
LGBTQ Americans is a major crisis in our country. Three years
ago, in Michigan, a person could actually be fired from their
job simply because of whom they love. Fortunately, Governor
Whitmer eliminated that gross civil rights violation, but it
shows just how prevalent these discriminatory laws remain in
modern times.
Ms. Walker, first of all, I cannot stress to you how much
you are inspiring so many who are incredibly excited that you
are testifying before our subcommittee. And so, I wanted to
leave some time for you, as well as others on the panel, to
really talk about things that we didn't ask you about, really,
the trauma that comes with living as you are in our country,
and how do you think we should be addressing it in Congress?
Mr. Johns. If I may, I want to lift up two things.
I thank you for those comments, Representative Tlaib. One
is, to my Congresswoman Maxine Waters, thank you for your
leadership. I want to include a section in our testimony
describing the silent epidemic of violence that our trans
siblings are facing, which is often hidden in the shadows of
the violence that Black people are facing more generally. I
have already reached out to Chastity, but I welcome the
opportunity to further that discussion as well.
And then, very much related to the previous conversation
about the challenges with shelters, I want to offer up two
things that are potential remedies that would prevent people
from needing shelter, and one is decriminalizing sex work. It
is often the case that Black trans folks, in particular Black
trans women, are forced into sex work as a result of not being
able to show up or be offered job interviews or promotion
opportunities or support in more traditional economies, and so
we should have more meaningful conversations at the Federal
level about decriminalizing that work.
And very much related to that, there are a number of Black
LGBTQIA+ folks who also face economic hardship as a result of
cannabis use or distribution. So, decriminalizing cannabis is
also something that should be considered as we have these
holistic conversations.
Ms. Tlaib. If no one else on the panel has more to share, I
will yield back to the Chair.
Chairwoman Beatty. Thank you so much for your comments, and
thank you to the witnesses for responding.
Ranking Member Wagner, do you have any more Republican
Members in the queue?
Mrs. Wagner. Not on yet, but I will let you proceed through
your ranks, and we will see who joins.
Chairwoman Beatty. Okay. Thank you so much.
The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, Ms. Dean, is now
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Dean. Thank you, Chairwoman Beatty. Thank you very
much, and thank you to those who have come today to offer your
powerful testimony.
I have been thinking a lot about small businesses. I
represent suburban Philadelphia, Montgomery and Berks Counties
right outside of Philadelphia. Building a small business is the
dream of many Americans, and I am particularly interested in,
what are the obstacles that LGBTQ+ small business owners and
entrepreneurs face in engaging the financial system?
Maybe, Mr. Sears, I could start with you and then maybe go
to Mr. Johns?
Mr. Sears. Sure. Thank you for that question, and thank you
for the work that you are doing in Philadelphia. I know my
friend and colleague, Brian Sims, is doing a lot of great work
in the State as well. So, I want to thank you for that support.
Ms. Dean. Yes, in the Pennsylvania House of
Representatives.
Mr. Sears. He is quite a tremendous leader in our community
and in your State.
So, to your question, I would say several things. I think
if you look at the number of--I will take it out of LGBTQ for a
second--minorities in the United States start more businesses
at a rate that is almost double that of the average population,
and why is that? Because of discrimination that still exists in
the corporate America structure, despite the fact that 92
percent of Fortune 500 companies have nondiscrimination
policies, we all live and work in States that don't actually
have that as a trickle down. So, even the trailing spouses of
people who are protected by the Fortune 500 do not experience
that same protection in the State in which they live. So, the
reason for the small businesses, I think, is based on that.
Then, when they get into the marketplace, you look at the
access to discrimination that still exists from religious-based
discrimination all the way through to refusal-of-service laws
that still allow people to deny service and to deny credit and
access to people based on, ``sincerely held religious
beliefs.'' And that is something that we have not talked about
in this committee yet, but I do think the religious right to
discriminate has to be addressed by this committee. It is not
directly related as a financial services, ``issue,'' but it is
the single-largest reason LGBTQ people experience
discrimination in our country, and it is a false choice that we
have created.
Over half of LGBTQ Americans consider themselves religious.
It is not pitting religion against LGBTQ people, but it has an
impact on small businesses. It has an impact on discrimination.
It has an impact on the laws that Chairwoman Waters mentioned
and the transgender community. There were 131 anti-trans bills
in 31 State legislatures in our United States in the last 12
months. They were driven by religious animus, marginalizing and
demonizing the most-vulnerable of our communities primarily
because these young people want to play a sport. So, the
opportunity for us at the small-business level all the way
through the Fortune 500 to eradicate this discrimination, I
think is significant.
Ms. Dean. I appreciate that.
Mr. Johns, did you want to add to that? And I am interested
if you could address, maybe, the problem of accessing capital.
Mr. Johns. Yes, ma'am. I will say three things related to
that, and I want to just underscore everything that my
colleague said. One, I mentioned a little bit about it in the
testimony, but when I think about the experience that our
deputy director had with regard to accessing capital for a home
loan, often the discrimination and the ability for the
financial services provider or the institution to make
decisions about capital are--it is the challenge, right? It is
about a person sitting across the desk from another person or,
virtually, when we think about COVID, making a determination
based on things outside of their financial portfolio, the
things that they can otherwise control. And the one thing that
I think is most important in this context, acknowledging the
point that Chairwoman Waters made about the March CFPB
guidance, is that there is no private right of action. And what
we know is that often, members of our community are
discriminated against. We are denied access to capital. We are
seldom given actual meaningful reasons for that, and there is
no private recourse or private right of action once that
happens to members of our community.
And so, passing the Equality Act, as it has been passed in
the House, would address that, and ensuring that future civil
rights legislation includes a private right of action would
also help to address moments when financial services providers
and institutions fail to do the thing that they otherwise
should be doing.
Ms. Dean. Thank you for all of that important information.
And, finally, Ms. Walker, I will address this to you. I read a
very shameful statistic. According to our Philadelphia
Inquirer, 40 percent or more of people ages 18 to 26 in
Philadelphia--which is my neighboring district, and it is my
home City--who experience homelessness identify as LGBTQ. Think
about that: 40 percent of homeless youth are LGBTQ. What a
shameful statistic for our country.
Ms. Walker, what are the best practices for assisting
LGBTQ+ youth to become connected to permanent housing?
Ms. Walker. First of all, we need to meet the youth where
they are. I have worked with Housing Works here in New York
City, and we used a harm reduction approach to meeting with the
youth. And, also, we need shelters and transitional and
permanent housing with wraparound services in these shelters
and in this transitional housing to support these youth to make
sure they are getting their nutrition, and they are getting
their education--
Ms. Dean. I apologize. My time has expired, so I yield
back, but I would love to get more information from you
offline.
Ms. Walker. Thank you.
Chairwoman Beatty. Again, to the witness, thank you. You
are going to be very popular, as well as the other witnesses
with us today, but the gentlelady's time has expired.
And now, the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Garcia, who is
also the Vice Chair of our Subcommittee on Diversity and
Inclusion, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Garcia of Texas. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank
you for bringing our attention to this very important hearing.
And I first want to start by also congratulating and thanking
Ms. Walker for her years of service. I know Veterans Day is not
until later this week, but Happy Veterans Day, and thank you
for your service. And I hope that you completed that social
work school, because my first degree was in social work, so I
hope that you finished. But if not, there is still time. We are
really LGBTQ-friendly in Houston. So, come on down.
This has been a very interesting discussion this morning
because we know that the difficulties the LGBTQ community faces
are not discussed often enough. So thank you, again, Madam
Chairwoman, for underscoring and highlighting this very
important issue. Their struggles and how they are treated are
legitimate. We need to focus on them and make sure that they
truly do have the economic freedom to build their wealth, to
build their homes, and, as stated by the ranking member, to
have the economic freedom that we should have for all
Americans.
Of course, all of this is compounded when they coincide
with other barriers like race, ethnicity, and age, to name a
few. LGBTQ+ people are more likely to be underbanked and thus
are more likely to experience barriers to credit access. I have
said before that access to credit is access to building wealth,
and, in turn, this lack of access is deeply concerning.
I want to start with Mr. Sears. Mr. Sears, a 2020 report by
Equality Texas found that nondiscrimination protections would
result in the addition of hundreds of thousands of new jobs and
millions of dollars added to the GDP and tax receipts. I think
you kind of alluded to that when you mentioned it, and I was
really surprised. You said that one-third of LGBTQ+ workers
will take a one-third pay cut to go to a friendlier State. Is
the reverse true? With Texas passing a really horrible anti-
trans bill this last session, can we expect people to leave the
State because we are now becoming more and more unfriendly?
Mr. Sears. The short answer is yes, absolutely. I have just
spent this last week in California meeting with leaders in the
tech community, and the Texas bill, in particular--and there
are eight other States that have passed anti-trans bills
specifically around youth--those bills specifically came up in
the tech community in terms of expansion into Texas.
As we saw in North Carolina, when HB2 passed, so many,
whether it is PayPal or Salesforce, so many companies decided
not to invest in North Carolina. Our leadership actually
convened an investor statement at that time that was replicated
in Texas. We had almost $4 billion worth of assets that were
invested in North Carolina, and $6 billion that were invested
in Texas, which said that discriminatory policies of both North
Carolina and Texas around trans people increased the risk in
the marketplace and decreased the return on the assets invested
in those States. So, there is a direct return on investment for
equality, and there is a direct economic consequence to
discrimination.
So the short answer is yes, absolutely. Companies pay
attention to this significantly, because their youth,
especially Gen Z and Gen Y, won't stand for it. They will not
come to companies that are not LGBTQ-inclusive. And, if those
companies are based in States that are LGBTQ-unfriendly, which
so many States increasingly are, it is an economic problem.
Ms. Garcia of Texas. So there is a benefit, but there is
also, I don't want to say a penalty, but I guess it is. I think
that is why it is so important to highlight these issues.
My next question now is for Mx. Watson. You do important
work on addressing the barriers that your community faces every
day. Can you speak to the issues that are created where the
financial services industry is not actively measuring,
quantifying, and targeting relief to the LGBTQ community?
Mx. Watson. Thank you. I do think that the lack of
attention that financial firms are paying to the LGBTQ
community and the unique issues that they experience, are
largely because the financial services industry, as we know, is
very traditional and is frequently relying on systems that were
designed with heterosexual, cisgender, and heteronormative
assumptions in mind. And so, those systems are less able to
process the unique needs of LGBTQ people and to accommodate
things such as name changes or to recognize people who are of
nonnormative genders.
Chairwoman Beatty. I'm sorry, the gentlelady's time is up.
But thank you very much to the witness, and thank you to
our Vice Chair Garcia.
The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Auchincloss, who is
also the Vice Chair of the Full Committee on Financial
Services, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mr. Johns, my question is for you, on housing. A study by
HUD in 2013 measured the treatment of same-sex couples that
they received from rental agents when inquiring about
apartments advertised online as compared to how otherwise
similar heterosexual couples are treated. And the study, which
was the first time that HUD had ever studied things like
housing discrimination, found that same-sex couples received a
lower response rate when searching for an apartment than
heterosexual couples using identical emails, trying to keep all
variables the same except for the sexual orientation of the
couple.
The Financial Services Committee has had several hearings
regarding the importance of housing for employment, health, and
education for young people. This has been an issue on which
both the chairwoman of the subcommittee and, of course, the
chairwoman of the overall committee have been really outspoken
leaders. How has HUD worked to remedy the discrimination
unveiled by this 2013 study, and has the agency continued to
track any rental housing bias for same-sex couples?
Mr. Johns. I appreciate that. To your first question, what
has been done, there are two things. One is the provision of
housing vouchers and otherwise subsidies for housing programs
for homeless and low-income people. They have not been targeted
with regard to LGBTQIA+ folks. That is a particular issue when
we think about the comment that Chairwoman Maxine Waters
offered acknowledging that a disproportionate share of youth
were homeless, and the child welfare agency identify as are
assumed to be LGBTQIA+. And so, I think that is the first part
of your question.
The second part of your question, if I understood it
correctly, is has there been accountability around those
actions? Was that it?
Mr. Auchincloss. Well, accountability, but also, has HUD,
to your knowledge, continued to track any type of bias either
in rental or actually really in homeowner sales to same-sex
couples?
Mr. Johns. I do not have the answer to that question, but I
will work with our deputy director to circle back and make sure
that we provide you with one. What we do know is that--and I
think this comment was made earlier by Mx. Watson--there are
very few, if any, Federal data collection enterprises that
account for intersexual identities. And most surveys--and I
make this point in my formal testimony--will ask about race or
ethnicity with regard to engaging with public institutions like
banks or schools but will not then ask questions about sexual
identity, gender orientation, or expression.
And then, the converse is true when you think about the CDC
or the NIH. They might ask questions that include sexual health
and wellness, but they will not ask questions that also account
for race and ethnicity. The point here is that we should think
more meaningfully about Federal data collection and reporting
efforts that are not only centering on intersectionality but
that are also interoperable.
Mr. Auchincloss. I appreciate that response.
And I want to give anybody else on the panel an opportunity
to weigh in on housing discrimination against the LGBTQIA
community.
Madam Chairwoman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Beatty. Thank you so much to our Vice Chair.
And let me say thank you to all of our witnesses today, and
also to the Chair of the full Financial Services Committee for
joining us for this hearing.
Ranking Member Wagner, we have exhausted all of our
Members, so if you have no other Members coming, in accordance
with our rules, I can thank our witnesses and adjourn the
hearing.
Mrs. Wagner. I thank all of our witnesses. It has been most
informative. I look forward to things as we move forward, and I
know that we will continue the dialogues that we have begun
here today.
So, I thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Beatty. Thank you.
And, again, we thank the witnesses. And I can tell you, by
the questions from both sides of the aisle, we have a lot more
that we want to hear from you. And, again, for this first-ever
Diversity and Inclusion Subcommittee, we are thankful for you
in helping us grow.
The Chair notes that some Members may have additional
questions for these witnesses, which they may wish to submit in
writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open
for 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions
to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record.
Also, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days
to submit extraneous materials to the Chair for inclusion in
the record.
Also, without objection, I would like to enter statements
from the Credit Union National Association and the Human Rights
Campaign into the record.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:22 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
November 9, 2021
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]