[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 23, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H3017-H3024]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2062, PROTECTING OLDER WORKERS 
AGAINST DISCRIMINATION ACT OF 2021; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 
  239, EQUAL ACCESS TO CONTRACEPTION FOR VETERANS ACT; PROVIDING FOR 
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1443, LGBTQ BUSINESS EQUAL CREDIT ENFORCEMENT AND 
INVESTMENT ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S.J. RES. 13, PROVIDING 
   FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE EQUAL 
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION RELATING TO ``UPDATE OF COMMISSION'S 
CONCILIATION PROCEDURES''; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S.J. RES. 14, 
 PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE 
                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[[Page H3018]]

 RELATING TO ``OIL AND NATURAL GAS SECTOR: EMISSION STANDARDS FOR NEW, 
    RECONSTRUCTED, AND MODIFIED SOURCES REVIEW''; AND PROVIDING FOR 
CONSIDERATION OF S.J. RES. 15, PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL 
  OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF CURRENCY 
   RELATING TO ``NATIONAL BANKS AND FEDERAL SAVINGS ASSOCIATIONS AS 
                   LENDERS''; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 486 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 486

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2062) to 
     amend the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and 
     other laws to clarify appropriate standards for Federal 
     employment discrimination and retaliation claims, and for 
     other purposes. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and 
     Labor now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     117-6, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and 
     Labor or their respective designees; (2) the further 
     amendments described in section 2 of this resolution; (3) the 
     amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution; 
     and (4) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  After debate pursuant to the first section of this 
     resolution, each further amendment printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules not earlier considered as 
     part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 3 of this 
     resolution shall be considered only in the order printed in 
     the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn 
     by the proponent at any time before the question is put 
     thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time after debate 
     pursuant to the first section of this resolution for the 
     chair of the Committee on Education and Labor or his designee 
     to offer amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments 
     printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of. 
     Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and Labor or their 
     respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
     shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
     question.
       Sec. 4.  All points of order against the further amendments 
     printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules or 
     amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution 
     are waived.
       Sec. 5.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 239) to amend 
     title 38, United States Code, to provide for limitations on 
     copayments for contraception furnished by the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall 
     be considered as read. All points of order against provisions 
     in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs or their respective designees; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit.
       Sec. 6.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House 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. 
     All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
     waived. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services 
     now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     117-7 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial 
     Services or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit.
       Sec. 7.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the joint resolution (S.J. 
     Res. 13) providing for congressional disapproval under 
     chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule 
     submitted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
     relating to ``Update of Commission's Conciliation 
     Procedures''. All points of order against consideration of 
     the joint resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall 
     be considered as read. All points of order against provisions 
     in the joint resolution are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on 
     any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Education and Labor or their respective 
     designees; and (2) one motion to commit.
       Sec. 8.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the joint resolution (S.J. 
     Res. 14) providing for congressional disapproval under 
     chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule 
     submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to 
     ``Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, 
     Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Review''. All points of 
     order against consideration of the joint resolution are 
     waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against provisions in the joint resolution 
     are waived. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the joint resolution and on any amendment thereto 
     to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
     hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to 
     commit.
       Sec. 9.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House 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''. All points of order against consideration of 
     the joint resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall 
     be considered as read. All points of order against provisions 
     in the joint resolution are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on 
     any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Financial Services or their respective 
     designees; and (2) one motion to commit.
       Sec. 10.  House Resolution 485 is hereby adopted.
       Sec. 11. (a) At any time through the legislative day of 
     Friday, June 25, 2021, the Speaker may entertain motions 
     offered by the Majority Leader or a designee that the House 
     suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV with 
     respect to multiple measures described in subsection (b), and 
     the Chair shall put the question on any such motion without 
     debate or intervening motion.
       (b) A measure referred to in subsection (a) includes any 
     measure that was the object of a motion to suspend the rules 
     on the legislative day of June 22, 2021, or June 23, 2021, in 
     the form as so offered, on which the yeas and nays were 
     ordered and further proceedings postponed pursuant to clause 
     8 of rule XX.
       (c) Upon the offering of a motion pursuant to subsection 
     (a) concerning multiple measures, the ordering of the yeas 
     and nays on postponed motions to suspend the rules with 
     respect to such measures is vacated to the end that all such 
     motions are considered as withdrawn.

                              {time}  1220

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.

[[Page H3019]]

  

  Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 486, providing for consideration of 
H.R. 2062, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act, 
under a structured rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided 
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Education and Labor. It self-executes a manager's 
amendment from Chairman Scott and makes in order five amendments. The 
rule provides for en bloc authority to Chairman Scott or his designee 
and for one motion to recommit.
  The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 239, the Equal 
Access to Contraception for Veterans Act, under a closed rule. It 
provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and 
provides for one motion to recommit.
  The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1443, the LGBTQ 
Business Equal Credit Enforcement and Investment Act, under a closed 
rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by 
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial 
Services and provides for one motion to recommit.
  The rule further provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 13, S.J. 
Res. 14, and S.J. Res. 15 under closed rules. It provides the 
Committees on Education and Labor, Energy and Commerce, and Financial 
Services each 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by their 
respective chairs and ranking minority members. It also provides each 
joint resolution one motion to recommit.
  Finally, the rule deems passage of H. Res. 485 and provides the 
majority leader or his designee the ability to en bloc requested 
rollcall votes on suspension bills considered on June 22 or 23. This 
authority lasts through June 25.
  Madam Speaker, the House is set to take up a number of critical bills 
and resolutions in this rule, but I would like to begin by saying a few 
words about H.R. 2062, the Protecting Older Workers Against 
Discrimination Act.
  Instances of age discrimination at the workplace, including being 
passed up for a promotion or forced to retire early, are far too common 
across the country. A recent survey conducted by AARP found that nearly 
two out of three workers 45 years and older have seen or experienced 
age discrimination while on the job.
  Importantly, we can expect this problem to be exacerbated in the 
coming years by the continued growth of the number of older workers in 
America, which is outpacing the growth of the overall labor force.
  Discrimination against workers is not only unfair and morally wrong; 
it creates a major drag on the U.S. economy. According to a recent 
report, the economy missed out on an additional $850 billion in GDP in 
2018 all because older workers aged 50 years and older were not given 
the opportunity to remain in or re-enter the labor force, switch jobs, 
or be promoted within their existing company. Clearly, age 
discrimination not only harms older workers; it harms the country as a 
whole.
  Despite the enormity of this problem, the Supreme Court in 2009 made 
it much more difficult for age discrimination lawsuits to be 
successful. The Court's ruling in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. 
imposed a much higher burden of proof on plaintiffs alleging 
discrimination than previously required under the Age Discrimination in 
Employment Act passed by Congress in 1967.
  This new standard from Gross requires plaintiffs to prove that age 
discrimination was the decisive, determinative but-for cause for any 
adverse employment action taken by the employer. The new sole-factor 
test replaced decades of precedent allowing that employees need only 
show that their age was a key factor, potentially among other factors, 
in the employer's adverse employment action.
  The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act simply 
restores the pre-2009 evidentiary threshold, allowing individuals to 
show a discriminatory motive was merely a key factor for the adverse 
employment action, which is consistent with the standard for other 
workplace discrimination claims based on race, religion, sex, or 
national origin. This legislation ensures that older workers can pursue 
their livelihoods and hold employers accountable for age 
discrimination.
  This rule also sets up consideration of three Congressional Review 
Act resolutions, all of which overturn harmful rulemaking implemented 
by the Trump administration.
  S.J. Res. 13 overturns a rule finalized by the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission that provides employers with significant unfair 
advantages during the informal conciliation process, which allows 
parties to settle a charge of employer discrimination without going to 
court.
  S.J. Res. 14 overturns efforts by the Trump EPA to gut a 2016 rule 
finalized by the Obama administration, which placed critically 
important limits on methane emissions from the oil and gas industry 
sector.
  The last CRA resolution overturns the Office of the Comptroller of 
the Currency's true lender rule, which makes it easier for predatory 
lenders to launder loans through out-of-State banks that are not 
subject to State interest rate caps. Prior to this rule, the ``true 
lender'' in partnerships between banks and nonbank financial service 
companies was whichever entity had the primary economic interest in the 
loan. This harmful OCC action changed the test for the ``true lender'' 
to be simply whichever bank is listed on the loan origination 
documents, making it extraordinarily easy to create a rent-a-bank 
relationship between nationally chartered banks and nonbanks, allowing 
nonbanks to avoid State interest rate cap laws where they are actually 
doing business.

  Especially during the midst of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic and 
economic crisis, it is astounding that the Trump administration chose 
to focus on making it easier for predatory lenders to take advantage of 
Americans in need.
  Finally, the House is also set to consider two additional bills. The 
Equal Access to Contraception for Veterans Act, H.R. 239, prohibits the 
Department of Veterans Affairs from requiring copayments for 
contraception coverage, bringing the policy in line with the Department 
of Defense and the private sector. The second bill, LGBTQ Business 
Equal Credit Enforcement and Investment Act, H.R. 1443, requires 
financial institutions to collect the sexual orientation and gender 
identity of the principal owners of small businesses, in addition to 
existing requirements that institutions collect data on sex, race, and 
ethnicity.
  Both of these bills should be noncontroversial. Although Members of 
the House Republican Conference inexplicably blocked these bills from 
passing under suspension last week, I am pleased that we will not 
further delay passage of this critical legislation.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule, the Protecting 
Older Workers Against Discrimination Act, three CRAs to overturn 
harmful administration actions of the previous administration, and 
commonsense legislation to support women veterans and the LGBTQ 
business community.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Morelle for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes. I would parenthetically note that it took about 30 minutes to 
read the actual rule itself, so this is one of the longer rules that we 
have had under consideration.
  There are six measures included in this rule. First is a bill that 
seeks to protect older Americans from discrimination in the workplace, 
protection

[[Page H3020]]

which already exists. There are two bills that failed to pass on 
suspension last week, and three Congressional Review Act resolutions.
  The legislation considered in this rule will revoke commonsense 
regulations, expand the Federal Government, and create duplicative and 
unnecessary red tape for America's small businesses, employees, and 
consumers.

                              {time}  1230

  In 1967, Congress enacted the Age Discrimination in Employment Act to 
protect applicants and employees over 40 years old from discrimination 
on the basis of age in employment matters. This act is enforced by the 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
  In 2009, the Supreme Court held in the case of Gross v. FBL Financial 
Services that the standard of proof for a claim under the Age 
Discrimination in Employment Act requires that age stand alone as the 
cause of the adverse action rather than in conjunction with other 
evidentiary factors.
  In 2013, the Supreme Court also ruled, in the University of Texas 
Southwestern Medical Center v. Naiel Nassar, that the plaintiff must 
prove that a retaliatory motive was the decisive cause of an adverse 
employment action.
  H.R. 2062, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act, 
would reverse the Supreme Court decisions by allowing mixed-motive 
claims in Age Discrimination Employment Act cases where age would only 
need to be a motivating factor for discrimination, even though other 
factors also motivated discrimination. In other words, the bill shifts 
the burden of proof to allow plaintiffs in age discrimination cases to 
demonstrate that any practice by an employer for which age was a 
motivating factor is covered. Eliminating the decisive factor approach 
disregards two Supreme Court cases and existing law.
  Other provisions of H.R. 2062 prohibit a court from awarding damages 
or requiring any employment activity other than injunctive relief, 
making the only true beneficiaries of this legislation members of the 
plaintiffs' bar.
  The Supreme Court stated in the Nassar case that ``lessening the 
causation standard could also contribute to the filing of frivolous 
claims, which would siphon resources from efforts by employers, 
administrative agencies, and courts to combat workplace harassment.''
  Republicans are committed to eliminating discrimination in the 
workplace; that includes for older Americans. Discrimination of any 
kind is already against the law through the Age Discrimination in 
Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation 
Act, and the Civil Rights Act.
  Today's rule also contains two bills that were brought up on 
suspension last week but were unable to pass with the required two-
thirds vote: The Equal Access to Contraception for Veterans Act, and 
the LGBTQ Business Equal Credit Enforcement and Investment Act.
  The final three measures included in the rule utilize the 
Congressional Review Act to overturn three Trump-era rules that 
attempted to provide commonsense regulations, reduce red tape, and to 
promote transparency. But in the zeal to repeal all things Trump, 
commonsense reduction of red tape, and promoting transparency may just 
be regarded as collateral damage, as everything associated with the 
former President must be undone in the eyes of House Democrats.
  First, S.J. Res. 15 nullifies a rule submitted by the Office of the 
Comptroller of the Currency relating to National Banks and Federal 
Savings Associations as Lenders. This agency rule provides clarity by 
determining exactly when a national bank or a Federal savings 
association is, in fact, the ``true lender'' when partnering with a 
third party to provide loans.
  In today's markets, it is common for financial technology companies 
to partner with banks to meet the needs of their consumers. 
Unfortunately, Court rulings have created uncertainty when partnerships 
occur in determining who is the ``true lender'' in these circumstances.
  This Office of Comptroller of the Currency rule provides much-needed 
clarity for market participants and ensures consumers are, in fact, 
adequately protected. Federal law requires ``true lenders'' to comply 
with certain consumer protection laws, and clearly delineating the 
``true lender'' will eliminate this uncertainty.
  While the majority claims that this rule gives a green light to 
predatory relationships by allowing a ``rent-a-charter'' partnership, 
this could not be further from the truth. This rule provides greater 
transparency into such practices, allowing better protections for 
consumers. With more transparency comes more accountability; after all, 
sunlight is the best disinfectant.
  The next resolution, S.J. Res. 13, uses the Congressional Review Act 
to nullify the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's rule titled 
``Update of Commission's Conciliation Procedures.'' Conciliation is a 
process by which two parties may resolve disputes informally and 
confidentially without ever having to go to court.
  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission rule is designed to bring 
its conciliation procedures in line with the Supreme Court's decision 
in Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, and would update these procedures for the 
first time since 1977.
  By encouraging the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims to 
be resolved outside of court, this rule ensures that disputes can be 
resolved at less expense in a more timely basis and ensure 
accountability.
  Passing S.J. Res. 13 would not promote a better workplace for 
employees; it would only encourage more litigation. And by utilizing 
the Congressional Review Act, this resolution would prevent the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission from ever updating its conciliation 
procedures without additional Congressional action. Simply put, this 
resolution would only make it more difficult to settle workplace 
disputes.
  The final resolution in this rule is S.J. Res. 14, which would use 
the Congressional Review Act to nullify the Environmental Protection 
Agency's rule titled ``Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission standards 
for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Review.'' Should this be 
signed into law, it would have significant ramifications for America's 
energy industry but, in fact, it would have little impact on America's 
public health or America's environment.
  In 2020, the Environmental Protection Agency issued new regulations 
that right-sized New Source Performance Standards for the oil and gas 
industry. Despite the hyperbolic language in the media and from 
interest groups, the Environmental Protection Agency found that these 
methane rules had no real impact on emissions.
  Let's say that again, because it is so important: Despite the 
language in the media and from interest groups, the EPA found that 
these methane rules had no real impact on emissions. Simultaneously, 
barriers to entry were lifted and companies of all sizes were able to 
compete. This allowed America to regain its position as a global energy 
leader.
  Throughout the Trump administration, Americans benefited from 
historically clean air and cleaner water. Greenhouse gas emissions fell 
throughout the Trump Presidency. The lesson is quite simple: Promoting 
innovation and investment in the energy sector is a better way to 
promote economic and environmental success.
  I am very concerned about this resolution's impact, especially in my 
home State of Texas. In recent months, Americans have seen sharp 
increases, sharp increases in the price of gasoline, sharp increases in 
the price of electricity. Energy costs are rising, and this resolution 
only threatens to send them higher. History shows us that the most 
substantive changes that can be made occur faster through innovation 
and not greater regulation.
  Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I appreciate very much the comments from my friend and 
my colleague on the Committee on Rules, Mr. Burgess.
  I do want to just note that when it comes to discrimination, the 
standard that we use for discrimination in the workplace that relates 
to race, religion, sex or national origin, is that

[[Page H3021]]

those factors are a key motivating factor in an employment decision 
that allows a claimant to come forward. That is what we wish to make 
the standard for age discrimination for older Americans.
  What is being suggested by my friends on the other side of the aisle, 
however, are two different standards. In this case, when it comes to 
age discrimination, that it needs to be the sole factor. Prior to the 
2009 Supreme Court case, indeed these were on par. The same standards 
would apply, the same criteria that it be a key motivating factor.
  And frankly, when you think about it, if you are an older American 
and you are being denied a promotion, you are being denied a pay raise, 
and your employer suggests, well, you are a little older, and oh, by 
the way--and lists a couple other things. Well, because it is not the 
sole factor that they articulated, you don't have a cause for a claim. 
And we believe that there shouldn't be two different standards when it 
comes to discrimination. If it is a key motivating factor, which it was 
up until the 2009 opinion, that is how it should stand. And we should 
make certain that the law of the land when it relates to employment 
discrimination is the same, whether or not it is because of race, 
religion, sex, national origin, or age.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Brownley).
  Ms. BROWNLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule 
providing consideration for my bill, the Equal Access to Contraception 
for Veterans Act.
  As you know, this rule is necessary to bring critical veterans' 
healthcare legislation to the floor, because last week House 
Republicans failed to support the Equal Access to Contraception for 
Veterans Act when it was considered under the suspension of the rules.
  They voted ``no'' despite the bill having passed in the 116th 
Congress by voice vote with broad support.
  They voted ``no'' despite the fact that veterans' service 
organizations overwhelmingly support the bill.
  They voted ``no'' despite the fact that women veterans have put their 
lives on the line for our country and overwhelmingly want equal access 
to healthcare.
  They voted ``no'' despite 87 percent of the American people 
supporting women's access to contraception.
  While it is both disappointing and perplexing to me that anyone would 
vote to deny women veterans equal access to healthcare--the same 
healthcare we give women currently serving in the military--I am 
grateful the Speaker and the majority leader have given us--all of us--
a second chance to do what is right. I thank the Committee on Rules for 
its swift action.
  Contraception is a medication used by millions of Americans for a 
wide range of conditions, and it is estimated that 62 percent of our 
Nation's 2 million women veterans use contraception. In addition to 
family planning, contraception is used to treat or alleviate migraines, 
acne, endometriosis, and PCOS.
  In fact, the median number of contraception methods used by women in 
the U.S. is three, and nearly one-third of women in the U.S. have used 
five or more methods over their lifetime. Contraception is essential to 
a women's whole health and to her economic security. Yet women veterans 
who use VA healthcare are not treated the same as women in the military 
or civilian women.
  Addressing this inequality is long overdue. All veterans and former 
servicemembers deserve the very best healthcare without any unnecessary 
barriers. They earned it, and they deserve it.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to demonstrate their commitment 
to the patriotic women who make up 20 percent of our military and 10 
percent of our veteran communities and vote ``yes'' on the rule so we 
can bring the Equal Access to Contraception for Veterans back to the 
floor.
  Let's do the right thing, for equality, health, and economic security 
for our women who bravely served our country for all of us to have the 
same.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to immediately consider H.R. 18, the No Taxpayer 
Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 
2021.

  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, this bill, introduced by Representative 
Chris Smith, prohibits the use of Federal funds for abortions or for 
health coverage that includes abortions.
  The Hyde Amendment first passed Congress in 1976 to ban Federal 
funding for most abortions. President Biden's fiscal year 2022 budget 
request omits this ban for the first time in over 40 years, breaking 
longstanding precedent.
  H.R. 18 would make the ban on Federal funding for abortions 
permanent, with exceptions for rape, incest, or if the mother's life is 
in danger.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith), my good friend, and a true leader on this issue, to 
further explain the amendment.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, more than 20 peer-reviewed 
studies show that more than 2.4 million people are alive today in the 
United States because of the Hyde amendment, with about 60,000 babies 
spared death by abortion each and every year.
  Over 2.4 million girls and boys who would have been aborted instead 
survived because taxpayer funding was unavailable to effectuate their 
violent demise. Growing numbers of Americans, Madam Speaker, continue 
to be shocked to learn that the methods of abortion include 
dismemberment of a child's fragile body, including decapitation, and 
that drugs like RU-486 starve the baby to death before he or she is 
forcibly expelled from the womb. There is nothing benign or 
compassionate about abortion methods.
  The multibillion-dollar abortion industry cleverly markets the 
sophistry of choice while going to extraordinary lengths to ignore, 
trivialize, and cover up the battered baby victim. By reason of their 
age, dependency, immaturity, inconvenience, fragility, and 
unwantedness, unborn children have been denied justice and the most 
fundamental of all human rights, the right to life.
  The right to life, Madam Speaker, is for everyone, not just the 
planned, the privileged, and the perfect.
  Ultrasound has not only been an amazing diagnostic tool for treating 
disease and disability before birth, it has also made the unborn baby 
more visible. Today, for many expectant moms, first baby pictures 
aren't of their precious newborn baby, but of ultrasound imaging photos 
and videos chronicling the amazing miracle of their child's journey 
before birth.
  Madam Speaker, 166 Members of Congress have cosponsored my bill, H.R. 
18, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, to make the Hyde 
amendment and other current abortion funding prohibitions permanent.
  According to public opinion polls, most Americans, by a decisive 
margin of 58 percent to 38 percent in a recent Marist Poll, agree that 
taxpayers should not, I say again, should not be compelled against 
their conscience to fund abortion.
  Years ago, then-Senator Joe Biden wrote to constituents explaining 
his support for the Hyde amendment and said it would ``protect both the 
woman and her unborn child.''
  He said in another letter, ``I have consistently--on no fewer than 50 
occasions--voted against Federal funding of abortions. Those who are 
opposed to abortion should not be compelled to pay for them.''
  So says Joe Biden in the past.
  I wholeheartedly agree. Those of us opposed to abortion should not be 
compelled or forced to pay for them.
  Madam Speaker, someday future generations of Americans will look back 
and wonder how and why such a seemingly smart, enlightened, and 
compassionate society could have enabled and facilitated the 
extermination of over 62.5 million children, a number of child

[[Page H3022]]

deaths that equates with the entire population of Italy.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. So with deep respect for my colleagues, I 
believe unborn children need the President of the United States and 
Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to be their friends and 
advocates, not powerful adversaries.
  Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I want to just talk for a moment about H.R. 239, the 
Equal Access to Contraception for Veterans Act, which is actually 
before us today. Although some might want to make this debate about 
other issues, it is not.
  Comprehensive healthcare for women, including access to 
contraception, is critically important. Access to contraception is an 
economic issue. It helps people stay in the workforce, earn wages, 
support stronger families. It has even been shown to lift women out of 
poverty.
  Even relatively small copays have been found to be a barrier to 
accessing contraception. Costs associated with contraception result in 
women foregoing it completely, choosing less effective methods, or 
using it inconsistently.
  Congress eliminated copays for contraception as part of the 
Affordable Care Act. And, as I said, for members of the Defense 
Department, for people in military service, there is no copay. It is 
time we did the same for those brave women who entered armed services 
and now are veterans.
  We also want to make sure that we have equal access. Women represent 
the fastest growing subpopulation of veterans in the Nation, yet they 
lack access to the basic preventative healthcare needs like 
contraception.
  So I want to make sure that we focus on what is before us, the bills 
before the House, what this conversation is about, and not to be 
distracted by things not before us and part of an extreme agenda.
  This is a simple issue. It has passed by voice vote in the last 
Congress, and it is not clear to me what has changed. This is an 
important issue for women all across America, and we owe that to our 
veterans to make sure that they don't have additional barriers to 
contraception that no one else in American has.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Louisiana (Ms. Letlow), one of our newest Members, to speak again on 
defeating the previous question and considering the amendment.
  Ms. LETLOW. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the previous question so 
that we can amend the rule to allow the consideration of H.R. 18, the 
No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.
  This critical bill will finally codify the Hyde amendment and uphold 
the longstanding bipartisan agreement that prevents taxpayer dollars 
from funding abortions.
  While Republicans and Democrats have engaged in heated debates over 
abortion in the past 40 years, we were always able to agree on the 
simple principle that public funding should not be used for abortions. 
The Hyde amendment, which explicitly spelled this policy out, has been 
included in every single appropriations bill since 1976, including 
those passed under the Clinton and Obama administrations.

  This commonsense, lifesaving amendment has been supported by many 
Members of this body, including many of my colleagues across the aisle. 
It is incredibly disappointing to see that this administration and the 
Democratic majority have decided to ignore four decades of consensus 
and instead embrace a controversial new policy opposed by over 60 
percent of Americans.
  As both a Christian and a mother, I deeply understand the 
preciousness of an innocent child's life. When I arrived in Congress a 
few months ago, one of my first actions was to sign on to H.R. 18, the 
No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. But whether you are a strong pro-
life advocate like me, or hold an opposing view, we should all be able 
to get behind this bill.
  Taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund abortions. It is a 
simple, commonsense measure that should have as much bipartisan support 
this year as it has in the past.
  Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the ranking member of our Rules Committee.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the previous 
question, and I fully support the immediate consideration of H.R. 18, 
the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full 
Disclosure Act of 2021.
  The bill would codify protections for the unborn and would make them 
permanent. These protections are commonly carried as part of the Hyde 
amendment, which has been carried in the appropriations bills produced 
by the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related 
Agencies Subcommittee of Appropriations, where I am the ranking member, 
for the past 45 years.
  There is no cause greater for any Member of Congress than defending 
life, especially amongst the most vulnerable. When I was privileged to 
be chair of the subcommittee, every one of the annual appropriations 
bills passed out of the subcommittee carried this important protection.
  Yet the majority has once again begun the misguided assault on life; 
first, with President Biden's revocation of the Mexico City policy, 
followed by legislative efforts to dismantle the Hyde amendment, both 
of which protect life and prevent taxpayer-funded abortions.
  Since the Hyde amendment was first enacted in 1976, it is estimated 
that this provision has saved more than two million lives. It has been 
supported by lawmakers of both parties on both sides of the aisle, and 
signed into law by Presidents of both parties every single year since 
then. Indeed, every Democratic Member, other than freshmen, has voted 
for legislation containing the Hyde Amendment.
  When he was serving in the United States Senate, President Biden, at 
that time, expressed his support for the inclusion of this provision, a 
stance he has since abandoned. Eliminating this provision in the annual 
appropriations bills would be a terrible mistake and at odds with the 
beliefs of a strong majority of the American people.
  A recent Marist Poll found that 58 percent of Americans oppose the 
taxpayer funding for abortion, while only 38 percent support it. Hyde 
protects the conscience rights of the great majority of Americans who 
are opposed to publicly funded abortions for religious, moral, or 
fiscal reasons. It allows States to choose to fund elective abortions 
or not with State taxpayer dollars, and the people of 34 States have 
voluntarily chosen not to do so.
  As we look ahead to the annual appropriations process, I would remind 
my friends on the other side of the aisle that 200 Republicans, 
including every single Republican member of the Appropriations 
Committee, signed a letter to congressional leadership stating that 
they would oppose any spending bill that did not include Hyde 
protections.
  I see no better way for us to continue to celebrate life and ensure 
protections for the unborn than by making the Hyde amendment permanent, 
which we can do if we pass H.R. 18 into law.
  Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Cammack) on the motion against the previous question.
  Mrs. CAMMACK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge immediate 
consideration of H.R. 18, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and 
Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act.
  Our Nation has stood unified in our opposition to federally funded, 
on-demand abortion services for the past 40 years. The Hyde amendment 
has acted as a stopgap against publicly funded abortion and as a 
safeguard for our Nation's most vulnerable, the unborn.
  Before the Hyde amendment took effect in 1980, over 300,000 American 
children per year were denied their most basic right to life and were 
aborted using taxpayer-funded dollars. This fight is one that we must 
undertake in

[[Page H3023]]

Congress to protect our most fundamental rights and important tenets 
that make our country great.
  The Biden administration and congressional Democrats seem to have 
forgotten the bipartisan support the Hyde amendment has received from 
both Republican and Democrat administrations in the past, as well as 
the overwhelming support from the American public, for this important 
provision.
  It is a national shame for this administration and congressional 
Democrats to overlook and marginalize the right to life that we, as 
Americans, hold dear. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is 
not just a saying; it is a guiding principle by which we should all 
govern.
  Let's come together as Americans, leave party lines behind, and 
support the right to life because America's future depends on it.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question 
and provide for immediate consideration of H.R. 18 for the sake of 
America's future generations.
  Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I just note that we have in front of us 
two CRAs. We have two important bills: The LGBTQ Business Equal Credit 
Enforcement and Investment Act, as well as the Protecting Older Workers 
Against Discrimination Act of 2021.
  And we are not talking about any of those. So I am prepared to talk 
about those, which are actually before the House, whenever my friends 
choose to.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), a valuable member of the Rules Committee, 
to speak against the previous question.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, in 1994, then-Senator Joe Biden said: 
``Those of us who are opposed to abortion should not be compelled to 
pay for them.''
  Well, Mr. President, I certainly agree.
  For more than four decades, the Hyde amendment has ensured the 
American people are not forced to fund abortion on-demand, a procedure 
at great odds with so many of our personal and religious beliefs, and 
an injustice that leaves an irreversible mark on so many lives.
  Since 1976, the Hyde amendment has had bipartisan support from 
Congress, has been signed into law by both Republican and Democrat 
Presidents, and has been supported by the majority of the American 
people.

                              {time}  1300

  It has saved the lives of millions. But President Biden and the 
Democrats want to end those protections, forcing the American people to 
fund a procedure that is at such serious odds with our personal, 
religious, and moral beliefs.
  There is no more vulnerable person than a child in the womb. Do they 
not deserve our care and our protection? Does that life not also have 
value, just like the lives of you and me, Mr. Speaker?
  Mr. Speaker, I will say it again: We are treading in dangerous 
territory. Instead of working toward a government that builds all 
people up for the common good, we are choosing to subsidize the deaths 
of unborn babies.
  I believe that is appalling, and I urge my colleagues to reconsider 
their positions. We must pass H.R. 18 and respect the wishes of the 
American people: Tax dollars should not be used to fund abortions.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mfume). The gentleman from Texas has 
7\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York has 15\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I am prepared 
to close if that is in accordance with the wishes of the majority, so I 
yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the bills in this lengthy rule will not achieve the 
benefits for the American people that are being claimed.
  The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act lowers the 
threshold for age discrimination cases in the workplace. It is already 
illegal to discriminate against an employee because of age. Lowering 
the burden of proof to allow for mixed-motive claims will, in fact, 
only benefit the trial lawyers who actually bring the suits.
  I do want to direct attention to a letter that most Members received 
from the United States Chamber of Commerce. It is a very good letter 
opposing S.J. Res. 15. This is the Congressional Review Act repeal of 
the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's rule on national banks 
and Federal savings associations and lenders.
  The reason I bring this up is because I know many of my friends on 
the other side of the aisle do claim that their support from the United 
States Chamber of Commerce is what makes them bipartisan and, hence, 
they should be reelected. But here we have the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 
sending each of us a letter talking about how damaging excluding that 
rule from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency would be.
  If I may just read a portion of this letter: ``Partnerships between 
banks and third parties have become a critical avenue for making credit 
available to both consumers and small businesses. . . . Fintech 
partnerships provided funding for many of America's smallest businesses 
which, according to McKinsey & Company, are disproportionately 
minority-owned.''
  Mr. Speaker, by undoing this Trump-era rule, you are, in fact, going 
to be hurting some of the smallest businesses in the country, and I 
don't think that is what you would have intended.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the letter from the U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce.

                                        Chamber of Commerce of the


                                     United States of America,

                                    Washington, DC, June 18, 2021.
       To the Members of the House of Representatives: The U.S. 
     Chamber of Commerce strongly supports the Office of the 
     Comptroller of the Currency's (OCC) rule on ``National Banks 
     and Federal Savings Associations as Lenders,'' also known as 
     the ``True Lender'' Rule, and strongly opposes S.J.Res. 15, 
     which would effectively overturn it.
       The True Lender Rule provides important legal certainty for 
     national banks and federal savings associations regarding 
     loans they may issue in conjunction with third-parties. 
     Various judicial rulings have created legal uncertainty as to 
     who is the ``True Lender'' of a loan when a bank works with a 
     third party, thus calling into question the laws that apply 
     to these loans. This legal uncertainty discourages financial 
     institutions from partnering to provide credit to consumers 
     and small businesses.
       Partnerships between banks and third parties have become a 
     critical avenue for making credit available to both consumers 
     and small businesses. In fact, FinTech partnerships 
     represented 15% of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans to 
     small businesses last year. More importantly, the median 
     value of FinTech partnership-enabled PPP loans was $15,000. 
     That median value amount was the smallest of all lending 
     providers including Minority Development Institutions and 
     Nonprofits. That means FinTech partnerships provided funding 
     for many of America's smallest businesses which, according to 
     McKinsey & Company, are disproportionately minority-owned.
       The OCC's rule establishes a clear test for determining the 
     ``True Lender'' when a bank makes a loan, which clarifies 
     what legal frameworks are applicable to a loan. The rule 
     provides that a bank is the ``True Lender'' when it, as of 
     the date of origination, (1) is named as the lender in the 
     loan agreement or (2) funds the loan. This clarification is 
     critical for banks to partner with third parties and does not 
     undermine the myriad consumer protection laws enforced by 
     state and federal regulators.
       The Chamber opposes S.J.Res. 15.
           Sincerely.
                                                  Neil L. Bradley.

  Mr. BURGESS. The Congressional Review Act is a legitimate tool to 
review executive actions, but it should not be used as a political tool 
to overturn a previous administration's actions simply because, Mr. 
Speaker, you don't like the previous occupant of the White House.
  The CRAs in this rule are not based on sound policymaking. They are 
instead being used as an attempt to score political points by undoing 
Trump-era policies.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my fellow Members to reconsider these measures by 
simply focusing on the policy and not the policymaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no other conclusion than to urge a ``no'' vote on 
the previous question, a ``no'' vote on the rule, and a ``no'' vote on 
the underlying measures.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H3024]]

  

  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank the gentleman, Dr. Burgess, a 
colleague and friend on the Rules Committee. I always appreciate 
hearing from him.
  I think there are compelling issues here in this rule and the reasons 
that the House should adopt the rule.
  The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act is a critical 
tool for so many Americans who are discriminated against in the 
workplace. It deserves our support. I am confident that it will pass 
the House, but we should remember how important it is, not only to 
those workers, but to the U.S. economy.
  H.R. 239, the Equal Access to Contraception for Veterans Act, makes 
sure that women who have served and are veterans have the same rights 
that every other person in America has to not have to pay copays in 
order to receive contraception from their healthcare policy.
  We also take up critical legislation regarding LGBTQ businesses, to 
make sure they get equal access to credit and equal access to 
investments. H.R. 1443 would require lenders to start to gather 
information on those businesses that are owned by LGBTQ individuals.
  The CRAs, in my judgment, Mr. Speaker, are all well-informed, and 
they do focus on the policies, policies which, frankly, we don't agree 
with here in the House and which the Senate didn't agree with. The 
Senate has passed these on to us in bipartisan fashion, so these aren't 
simply questions of whether or not we approve of the previous 
President. This is about the policies themselves, and they have found 
themselves here to be voted on because our colleagues across the 
corridor in the Senate agree with us that these rules ought to be 
overturned using the CRA process.
  This is an important rule. It affects millions of Americans in so 
many ways.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous 
question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Burgess is as follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 486

  At the end of the resolution, add the following:

       Sec. 12. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     bill (H.R. 18) to prohibit taxpayer funded abortions. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on 
     any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit.
       Sec. 13. Clause l(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 18.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BURGESS. 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.

                          ____________________