No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2021

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.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 486 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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.

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

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).

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.

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. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 555 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), 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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 555. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4502, the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, Agriculture, Rural Development, Energy and Water Development, Financial Services and General Government, Interior, Environment, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2022, under a structured rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairwoman DeLauro, makes in order 229 amendments, provides en bloc authority for the chairwoman or her designee, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule provides the majority leader, or his designee, the ability through July 30 to en bloc requested roll call votes on suspension bills considered on July 26 or 27.

The rule also provides that requested roll call votes on suspension bills considered on July 26 or 27 may be postponed through September 22, 2021.

Finally, the rule amends H. Res. 188 to provide recess instructions, suspension authority, and same day authority through September 22, 2021.

Madam Speaker, if you care about protecting our seniors and taking care of our veterans and military families; if you care about fighting climate change and combating gun violence; if you care about closing health disparities and creating good paying jobs; and if you care about our economy not only rebounding from the COVID pandemic, but being strengthened for years to come, then the underlying measure is a lifeline. Because these seven appropriations measures provide landmark funding to deal with our Nation's most pressing issues.

It turns the page on an era where the prior administration demanded disinvestment in seemingly everything that helped all but the wealthiest of the wealthy. And now we are working with the Biden administration to stand up for our workers and to rebuild the middle class.

It is no secret that the appropriations process can seem a little arcane. But this measure is truly historic, Madam Speaker.

I want to make two points here in particular. First is what is not in here. Finally, after more than 40 years, the Hyde amendment is nowhere to be found. And let me say, it is about damn time. Because however we feel about abortion, we should not deny health coverage just because someone is working to make ends meet.

More than half of the women affected by the Hyde amendment are women of color. Nearly one-third are Black, 27 percent are Latina, and one- fifth are Asian American and Pacific Islanders, as well as indigenous women also covered by Medicaid.

That is what inequality looks like, Madam Speaker, and I am proud that we are confronting it. The decision about whether to get an abortion is a deeply personal one. We don't know the circumstances. But I do know this: we should not defer to the politicians and special interest groups who want to impose their values on others. We should trust women and families to make their own decisions about what is best for them.

It is about justice. It is about freedom. And it is about respecting women's personal autonomy.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro for leading the way on this, and I want to recognize the many Congresswomen, in particular, who have waged a sometimes lonely battle year after year after year to make this day a reality.

Second, Madam Speaker, I want to recognize language that is included here, which will help combat hunger across America. This measure expands access to healthy foods like fruits and vegetables to more than 6 million people through the WIC program. It ensures that more than 40 million people in SNAP-eligible families get benefits that they desperately need. And it also makes key investments in child nutrition programs, like school meals. This is incredibly important since we all saw the COVID crisis lay bare the truth about hunger in America.

The lines outside our food banks included some of the most affluent cars from the wealthiest neighborhoods, because no one is immune from food insecurity.

It is an epidemic in every State and every congressional district in this country. Even before the COVID pandemic hit, there were more than 35 million people who were going hungry in this country, including 10 million children.

The United States is the richest country on the face of the Earth. That anybody--anybody--goes without food is unconscionable, Madam Speaker.

I have often said that we have everything we need to end hunger in America. We have the food, the know-how, and, yes, the money. The only thing we lack is the political will. Hunger is a political condition.

I think that is finally beginning to change, Madam Speaker.

For the last several months, the Rules Committee has acted as a kind of select committee on hunger, holding hearings, roundtables, and site visits, all to develop a road map to eradicate hunger in this country by 2030, as the United Nations has called for.

I am more convinced than ever that, with a holistic approach and the full weight of the Federal Government, a hunger-free America is within our grasp.

This rule makes in order my bipartisan amendment to provide $2.5 million for a White House conference on food, nutrition, hunger, and health. The conference will bring together the heads of food banks, hospitals, government agencies, educators, farmers, the faith-based community, people with lived experiences, our business community, anybody who has anything to do

with finding a solution, not to hold an event that is essentially a press release, but to develop a real plan to tackle this, something with benchmarks that better connects the dots between all the different Federal programs and expands successful local and State initiatives.

The first and only time such a conference was held was the same year we put a man on the Moon, over 52 years ago. It developed and strengthened many programs we still rely on, like SNAP, WIC, and the National School Lunch Program.

A hunger conference for the 21st century can finish what was started so many decades ago by Senators George McGovern, Senator Bob Dole, and others.

Senator Dole wrote to Ranking Member Cole and me recently, saying: ``I remain proud of the work Senator McGovern and I did then, and I endorse your effort to secure a second White House conference to identify the next frontier of programs to finally end hunger in America.''

I believe we can do big things, and I hope that we can do them in a bipartisan way.

Madam Speaker, we can combat hunger; we can confront climate change; we can stand up for women's reproductive rights; and we can take care of the most vulnerable among us. This bill is proof of that.

I urge all of my colleagues to join with us in supporting this rule and the underlying measure so that we can build a more just and equitable future for every single American.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle), I want to point out, for the record, the last time we had a government shutdown was when we had a Republican Congress and a Republican President, so I am not so much worried about that.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a July 14 Media Matters article entitled, ``FOX News' Obsession with Critical Race Theory, by the Numbers.''

[From Media Matters, July 14, 2021]

Fox News' Obsession With Critical Race Theory, by the Numbers

(By Lis Power)

Update (7/14/21): Following the publication of this study,

Media Matters continued to track mentions of ``critical race

theory'' on Fox News. In June, there were 901 mentions on the

network, the highest number of any month and an increase from

537 mentions in May. In the past 3\1/2\ months there have

been over 1,900 mentions of critical race theory on the

network.

Original Study

Critical race theory, to those who can actually define it,

is an academic and legal framework that examines the impact

of systemic racism on American society. For conservatives

however, it's the latest boogeyman they can use to scare

people into thinking America's children are being

``indoctrinated'' by ``woke'' leftist teachers. And while

that is not even remotely the case, this idea is exploding on

Fox News and in Republican-run state legislatures, leading to

legislative bans in many states and skyrocketing mentions of

critical race theory on the network.

As Media Matters has previously noted, Fox News' current

obsession with ``critical race theory'' has been a year in

making. What once was a slow trickle of monthly mentions has

developed into a full blown assault. Since February, month

over month mentions of the theory have more than doubled on

Fox News as the network has begun to spin an illusion of what

it is and where it's being taught (in reality, critical race

theory is not generally taught in K-12). Coverage of the

theory sharply increased in March, with 107 mentions on the

network according to data from Kinetiq media monitoring

service. The following month, network figures and guests

mentioned it 226 times, and by May, the number had increased

to 537 mentions. Not even halfway through June, there's

already been 408 mentions on the network.

Just last week, Fox mentioned ``critical race theory'' a

record 244 times--an increase from the previous record high

of 170 mentions the week before.

Fox has admitted its reason for this souped-up coverage:

the 2022 midterm elections. And in order to drum up outrage,

the network has repeatedly amplified a lie that critical race

theory teaches that one race is ``inherently superior to

another.'' More recently, in its continued efforts to

demonize it, Fox News has promoted a pamphlet that echoes the

white nationalist ``Great Replacement'' conspiracy theory.

Fox's obsession with what it defines as ``critical race

theory'' has frequently crossed the threshold into the absurd

and overly dramatic. Fox host Tucker Carlson called it ``a

cult,'' while host Will Cain said it is ``modern-day Jim

Crow.'' Fox contributor Miranda Devine claimed that teaching

the theory would ``warp the minds of American children'' and

``is a recipe for social upheaval and mental illness.'' Fox's

Newt Gingrich said it was being driven by ``people who want

to brainwash your child.''

By labeling everything that has to do with race ``critical

race theory,'' Fox is attempting to shut down conversations

about race and racism--which is ironic given the network's

claims that it champions free speech. And even though many

conservatives who lambast it don't have a clue what the

theory actually is, their efforts are working as 21 states

are either introducing bans or have banned what they call

``critical race theory.'' Many educators in those states have

argued that the bills and laws would essentially ``whitewash

history'' and have criticized legislators for making it

difficult to have necessary conversations about race.

Methodology

Media Matters searched transcripts in the Kinetiq video

database for all original programming on Fox News Channel for

the key phrase ``critical race theory'' from June 2020

through June 13, 2021. We counted each instance of the phrase

as a single mention.

Methodology update (7/14/21): Data now includes midnight

episodes of Fox News @ Night (which recently shifted its time

slot) and all new programming from June 14 through July 11,

2021.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, what is the American businessman to do

when the American worker will not come into work?

For the past nearly 7 months, this President has held America's small business owners hostage and declared a de facto strike on the American economy.

Following the end of this COVID pandemic, the Biden administration has been granted the political gift of a lifetime: take a staggering American economy, still reeling from the economic collapse, and simply let it return to normal. If the Biden administration had done nothing, zero, if they had sat on their hands and twiddled their thumbs, if Joe Biden had taken more naps, then experts say our economy would be in a much better place than where it is right now.

Instead, the Biden administration's efforts place the American economy in a financial choke hold that threatens to obliterate hundreds of small businesses in my district.

It was John Adams that said: ``Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.''

Let's cast our eyes over the facts, shall we?

Back in April, economists predicted over 1 million new jobs to be added to our economy. Biden added just over 250,000. In May, economists adjusted their expectations, acknowledging this administration simply cannot deliver the type of job growth past administrations could.

Even with adjusted expectations, the Biden administration still fell short of the mark. There is no debate that the Biden administration of free handouts has dramatically undercut efforts to restart our economy. His massive increase of unemployment benefits has kept workers at home and left store owners scrambling to keep up with the growing consumer demand.

In my own district, business leaders in Asheville, Hendersonville, Franklin, and Macon County, have spoken with me about the difficulty in getting employees back to work. Who can blame them? Biden is literally paying American citizens to stay home instead of getting them back to work.

Who would fault an American husband or mother when they decide to stay home with their family and earn double their salary while doing it?

The Biden administration knows that their policy of handouts harms and is hurting business owners, but the game has always been about creating a welfare class, not empowering our economy. It is disgusting.

With those thoughts in mind, I now recognize one of my fellow North Carolina champions, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).

Thank you very much, Congressman Bishop, for those words. I echo the sentiments of both Jodey Arrington and Dan Bishop of wanting to jump-start this economy again.

With the fact that there are 9.3 million job openings in this country right now, we do need to change something to be able to actually fill the hire rate that has not increased at all. In fact, last quarter it only increased by 4.2 percent.

My friends, we will have artificial inflation if we do not do something to act quickly, and I believe the Jump-Start the Economy with Jobs Act is a great idea.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize another North Carolinian, a lion of our mountains, my dear friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).

Congressman, thank you for introducing that bill.

If you think about it, $387 is the amount the average American receives from their home State in weekly unemployment benefits. You add to that the $300 boost that the Federal Government is putting on, on top of that, and it is no wonder why people aren't going back to work. They get to stay at home with their families while making $17.17 an hour. That sounds like a good deal to me.

But I genuinely hope that we can find some way out of this, because there is a real spiritual poverty created when you don't actually work for your living.

It is now time for me to recognize a dear friend of mine from a Carolina that is not as good a North Carolina, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, Congressman Norman was elected to take care of the American people, but right now the Democrats in Congress-- although it is hard to call them Democrats because right now I believe that they have a socialist agenda, which is sabotaging America's jobs recovery with a crippling tax hike that targets our small businesses, the backbone of our economy.

Their plans raise small business taxes to the highest point in a generation, halt new projects and small business growth by doubling taxes on investments, and Democrats supercharge a second death tax, if you can believe that, where they want to tax you more. It would hit farms, machine shops, and other small businesses.

With all that in mind, I now yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Keller).

Mr. Speaker, I can see why Pennsylvania loves their Congressman so much.

When I think about what is going on in Congress and I see that Democrats are prioritizing wasteful spending over hardworking Americans' paychecks, I realize that the Democrats' socialist agenda won't produce long-term growth or greater economic security for American families.

A majority of Americans say they fear for an impending crash following the injection of Federal stimulus money during the pandemic. This is an unsettling thought for those who are trying to deal with dining room politics.

With all those thoughts in mind, I am very pleased to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Nehls), my dear friend and America's sheriff, who represents Texas' 22nd District.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes), a dear friend of mine who represents the Fourth District.

Mr. Speaker, I think Congressman Estes touches on a great point. Under Republican leadership, under the last administration, business applications were at record levels. The TCJA encouraged business creation, as the amount of business applications reached its highest level ever, of over 880,000.

Now, you contrast that with what is going on in America today. There are many people who own restaurants in my own district, who are having to literally pay people $50 just to turn an application in, and then they never show up for the interview or even for work.

Because of how bleak things are looking, I am very happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. McClain), the most loved and the most feared woman in all of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Mr. Speaker, I believe we are created to work, and I believe we are created to work hard, and the right to work and the determination to build with one's hands is as foundational to the American ethos as it can be.

We were not set in this universal orchard to stand still as trees. There is no substitute under the heavens for productive labor. It has been said that a firm work ethic is the process by which dreams become realities. It is the process by which idle visions become dynamic achievements.

This administration seeks, though, to strip employment from the men and

women of America, to replace work with welfare and service with subservience. I reject that notion.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), my dear friend.

Mr. Speaker, when we started looking at the American Families Plan, we realized the tax hikes it would increase would raise capital gains and dividends tax from 20 to 39.6 percent, almost two times the normal price. It would impose capital gains taxes at death, which creates a second death tax, although I can't believe that we would ever need to tax anyone more than we do now. It would expand the 3.8 percent Obamacare surtax to hit even more small businesses' income than it already does.

Lastly, it would increase the IRS' auditing power, including monitoring bank accounts, because the very first thing that we need to reopen our economy at a better pace is to give more power to three- letter agencies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck).

Mr. Speaker, when we start thinking about what is going on here in our country with unemployment, in the week ending May 1, 2021, about 16 million people collected unemployment. Now, that is a staggering statistic when you realize that over 6.6 million of those people would not have been eligible to receive unemployment benefits in a traditional environment. But because of the trumped-up and boosted-up unemployment benefits the Federal Government is sending out, we are basically incentivizing people by giving them $34,000 a year to not go to work, thus creating more and more inflation. There is no production so, therefore, there are too many dollars chasing too few goods.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, I am disheartened to know that with this Federal unemployment stimulus that we are sending out around the country, although it might solve some short-term financial woes, it is creating a spiritual poverty in the hearts of men and women across this country that I believe cannot be described.

When you start to think about how devastating it would be to one's morale and one's own honor and one's own self-esteem to think that you don't actually create anything, you don't actually build anything, you are not truly benefiting society, it makes me shudder to think about how I would feel about that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Mann).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her always incredibly accurate and fierce comments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), another similarly fierce Congressman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Congressman for his remarks.

Mr. Speaker, as I continue to consider that the Democrats' plan must be to destroy our economy by incentivizing laziness, by incentivizing people not going to work, I shake my head and say, No, that can't be true. That is just one mistake that they made.

But then when I start to look through all the points that I have outlined--of the ridiculous tax increases on dividends, the tax increases on capital gains, the tax increases on small businesses, the tax increases which will increase the cost of living for the middle class, I am sure that they are trying to destroy our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), the most powerful and the most humble man in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Brady for his leadership on the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I think with everything that has been said from all of these Representatives from all over the country, each of them representing nearly 730,000 people, I believe it is overly and abundantly clear that it is time to end the emergency spending. It is time to end the trumped-up unemployment checks, which are incentivizing laziness. It is time to end government-mandated joblessness in America.

There is a labor shortage in this country, and if we don't end it, we will see inflation, the likes of which our country has never seen before, and I don't know if we will be able to recover from that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, during our time tonight, my colleagues and I will address the major crises happening here at home and happening abroad. Our message tonight will all have a consistent theme: House Republicans are leading the fight, whether it is protecting the Hyde amendment, taking action to fix President Biden's economic crisis, or holding China accountable for the COVID-19 coverup once and for all.

On the last point, the time has come for Congress to take seriously its job to hold China accountable for their role in the proliferation of the COVID-19 pandemic. This pandemic has killed over 600,000 Americans, ruined the American economy, forced into closure many people's livelihoods, and destabilized our way of life.

Just as we did in the aftermath of 9/11 and in response to the Great Recession, Speaker Pelosi and her colleagues on her side of the aisle cannot abdicate Congress' constitutional responsibility to investigate the origins of COVID-19 and the roles both the Chinese Communist Party and the World Health Organization played in preventing an expeditious global response.

A March 2020 report by the University of Southampton found that if interventions in China could have been conducted 1, 2, or 3 weeks earlier, then cases could have been reduced by 66 percent, 86 percent, and 95 percent, respectively. That is inexcusable.

Luckily for the American people, Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy and House Republicans have a plan to hold China accountable and ensure an atrocity such as the CCP virus never happens again.

The American people deserve transparency. That is why Congress must declassify information related to the origins of COVID-19. Yes, that includes any report that comes from President Biden's recent requests.

For far too long, the government has allowed individuals with known ties to the CCP or Chinese state-owned enterprises to benefit from American research and innovation. That is why we must continue to pursue policies that curb any gains made by the Chinese Communist Party.

It is also time for Congress to prohibit the National Institutes of Health or any entity that receives grants and funding from NIH from conducting research or spending resources on research with malicious foreign actors. This includes China. Our taxpayer dollars should not be going into arming our adversaries.

Foreign policy is a crucial element in holding China accountable. Congress must compel the administration to flex its foreign policy posture and reform the World Health Organization. As more information comes forward, it is evident that the WHO was complicit in China's coverup of the exploding pandemic. Their negligence is directly responsible for the loss of millions of lives. We need trusted actors such as Taiwan to form part of the organization.

In keeping in line with a tough foreign policy stance, Congress must implement a new round of tough and deliberate sanctions on anyone-- whether they are Chinese nationals with ties to the CPP or high-level executives at the World Health Organization--who willfully participated in the coverup of the COVID-19 pandemic and helped prevent a robust global response. Millions of lives are on their hands.

Another tool at our disposal is for Congress to pass the resolution introduced by my Florida colleague, Congressman Michael Waltz, and Senator Rick Scott to prevent Beijing from hosting the Winter Olympics.

Finally, we need to allow them to sue the Chinese Communist Party and any CCP official who participated in the coverup that killed over half a million Americans. They deserve no sovereign immunity.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to do our jobs and join Leader McCarthy and the House Republicans in holding China accountable, holding our adversaries accountable, and ensuring an atrocity such as this never happens again.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to introduce the Congressman from Texas, Congressman Van Taylor. Congressman Van Taylor is a decorated Iraq

War veteran and an important member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague from Texas for his great words.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the 22nd District of Texas (Mr. Nehls), who is a veteran law enforcement officer.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to introduce the Congressman from California, Mike Garcia. Congressman Garcia flew over 30 combat missions during Operation Iraqi Freedom as a naval aviator. We thank him for his service.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garcia).

Mr. Speaker, Glenn Grothman from Wisconsin is an experienced legislator in Wisconsin and a United States Congressman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Mr. Speaker, I couldn't agree more with the gentleman about the Hyde amendment. I think the majority of Americans couldn't agree with the gentleman more about the Hyde amendment. We need to maintain that the majority of Americans do not want to fund taxpayer- funded abortions.

Mr. Speaker, Congressman John Rose from Tennessee is an eighth- generation farmer and a key member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Congressman Glenn Thompson from Pennsylvania is the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee. Mr. Thompson and I share a common experience as former firefighters.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), a Congressman and a former firefighter.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Thompson for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, Congressman Scott Perry from Pennsylvania retired as a brigadier general in the Army and now represents the people of Pennsylvania's 10th District. I thank the gentleman for his service.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Congressman for his comments. I couldn't agree with him more. My opening statements were about China and their complicity, and we do need to investigate China and the World Health Organization and find out what did they know and when did they know it. Again, as I said, if we had known about this 1, 2, or 3 weeks earlier, we could have saved an incredible number of lives.

Mr. Speaker, Congressman Michael Cloud represents the 13th District of Texas and is the only Texas Republican on the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cloud).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Cloud for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, Congressman John Joyce of Pennsylvania is part of the Doctors Caucus and has worked with the U.S. Navy at Naval Hospital Portsmouth in Virginia during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. I thank the gentleman for his service.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce).

Mr. Speaker, who would know better about protecting life and saving life than the good doctor from Pennsylvania and my colleague, Congressman John Joyce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), who has led a distinguished career in business and public service and serves as a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser), who comes from a family dedicated to public service. He serves as a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and the Education and Labor Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Pennsylvania's 13th District for those strong words and strong ideas on why we need to hold the people accountable who unleashed this horrific virus on the United States and the world at large.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller), who is a farmer, a business manager, and a member of the Agriculture Committee and Education and Labor Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I couldn't agree with the Congresswoman more. As a father and a grandfather, it is atrocious, the debt that we are going to be leaving our children and our grandchildren. We are stealing their future. They will not have the money that they need to provide for their programs and their infrastructure that they are going to need to fund in the future. That is one of the reasons why I wholeheartedly agree with her.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Mann), who is a fifth generation Kansan and proudly serves on the Agriculture Committee and Veterans' Affairs Committee. He represents Kansas' First District.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Carl), who is a successful small business owner and a valued member of the Armed Services Committee and Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin), who represents Texas' 36th District. He is a lifelong resident of east Texas and my colleague on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Franklin), my friend and colleague. He has served as a naval aviator in the U.S. Navy for 26 years. I thank him for his service.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Harshbarger). She has been a successful pharmacist and business owner for over three decades.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman). He is an experienced government official. We share a common background in local government, having both served as mayors.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa). He represents California's First District. He serves on the Agriculture Committee and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.