HR-9309-119
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Sponsored by Nikema Williams (D-GA)
What it does
This bill would amend Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to expand the existing Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI) at federal financial regulators to also cover LGBTQI+ individuals. It would require those offices to consider sexual orientation and gender identity in their diversity and inclusion efforts, extend outreach and contracting opportunities to LGBTQI+-owned businesses (defined as more than 50% owned and controlled by LGBTQI+ individuals), and make conforming changes to the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992.
Who benefits
LGBTQI+ individuals employed at or seeking employment with federal financial regulatory agencies. LGBTQI+-owned businesses seeking federal financial sector contracts or subcontracts. Advocacy organizations focused on LGBTQI+ economic inclusion. Minority- and women-owned businesses that may benefit from a broader, more robust diversity infrastructure. Financial regulators whose diversity offices would receive an expanded mandate.
Who is hurt
Businesses competing for federal financial sector contracts that currently qualify under minority- or women-owned designations, who would face a broader pool of preferred contractors. Regulated financial institutions that may face expanded compliance expectations related to LGBTQI+ workforce diversity reporting. Taxpayers who may bear any incremental administrative costs of expanding the OMWI offices. Individuals who object on religious or conscience grounds to participating in LGBTQI+-inclusive workplace programs.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that LGBTQI+ individuals face documented economic disparities — including workplace discrimination and reduced access to capital — that the existing OMWI framework was designed to address for other groups, and that extending the same infrastructure is a logical, consistent step. They contend that federal financial regulators already have the institutional capacity to implement this expansion at minimal cost, and that including LGBTQI+-owned businesses in contracting outreach broadens economic opportunity in a sector that manages trillions of dollars in public-facing activity.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that sexual orientation and gender identity are fundamentally different from race and sex — the original bases for OMWI — because they are not always observable or verifiable, raising concerns about the integrity and enforceability of the LGBTQI+-owned business definition. They contend that expanding diversity mandates to federal financial regulators could impose compliance burdens on regulated institutions and divert agency resources from core financial stability and consumer protection missions, without clear evidence that the OMWI model has produced measurable economic outcomes for the groups it already covers.