[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.
____________________