Providing for Consideration of H.R. Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act of Providing for Consideration of H.R. Equal Access to Contraception for Veterans Act; Providing for Consideration of H.R. Lgbtq Business Equal Credit Enforcement and Investment Act; Providing for Consideration of S.J. Res. 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. Providing for Congressional Disapproval 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''; and Providing for Consideration of S.J. Res. 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

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

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 deaths that equates with the entire population of Italy.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the ranking member of our Rules Committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack) on the motion against the previous question.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source